(Luận án) hành động ngôn từ xin lỗi và hồi đáp trong hội thoại tiếng anh và tiếng việt

RATIONALE

In daily communication, individuals engage in speech acts that encompass both verbal expressions and actions, such as requesting, complaining, and inviting Among these, apologizing is a crucial speech act that significantly contributes to the maintenance of social relationships.

When we make mistakes or unintentionally hurt others, it is essential to express our remorse through apologetic actions and take responsibility for our actions Successful communication hinges on the listener's understanding and appropriate response to the speaker's message; without this interaction, communication remains incomplete Conversations involve exchanges between speakers and listeners, highlighting the importance of interpersonal relationships, which is where the concept of pragmatic acts plays a crucial role in enhancing understanding and resolution.

(1.1) Employee: I’m sorry I’m late but my alarm clock didn’t go off this morning

Boss: OK We’ve only just started the meeting.”

In a meeting room, an employee sincerely apologizes for being late, stating, "I'm sorry," and explains that their alarm clock failed to go off The boss acknowledges the apology with a reassuring "OK" and alleviates the situation by noting, "We've only just started the meeting."

(1.2) Student: I apologize for being late, teacher!

Teacher: No problem Take your seat.”

In Example 1.2, a student explicitly apologizes for arriving late to class, using the performative verb "apologize," to which the teacher positively responds with "No problem." This interaction highlights the effectiveness of clear apologies and supportive responses in classroom settings Similarly, Example 1.3 illustrates explicit apologies and affirmative replies in Vietnamese, reinforcing the importance of respectful communication in educational environments.

(1.3) Con bà Tư: Mẹ, con xin lỗi ạ Con hứa lần sau sẽ cẩn thận hơn ạ

Bà Tư: Không sao đâu con”

(Bà Tư’s daughter: Mom, I’m sorry I promise I will be more careful

Bà Tư: It’s OK Don’t worry!)

In a conversation between a mother, Bà Tư, and her daughter, the daughter apologizes by saying, "Mẹ, con xin lỗi ạ," and vows not to repeat her mistake The mother responds kindly, reassuring her daughter with, "Không sao đâu con," indicating her acceptance of the apology.

In certain contexts, speakers may convey their apologies implicitly, omitting performative verbs This allows listeners to respond negatively to these unspoken apologies.

(1.4) Patrick: What should I do to compensate you for your CD that I have just broken up?

Laya: Oh, really It’s my mom’s CD Why don’t you talk to her?

In this scenario, the speaker, having broken a CD, attempts to initiate a conversation with Patrick by suggesting compensation for the damage The speaker's intention is to address the potential unhappiness caused to the hearer, even though the apology is implicit and lacks performative verbs Despite this effort, the hearer, Laya, does not accept the apology, as the CD does not belong to her, resulting in a negative response.

Even when speakers do not directly harm the feelings of the hearers, they often express apologies, recognizing the hearers' struggles or sadness related to their work, family, or other relationships.

Speakers frequently express apologies for past actions affecting their listeners, while also using apologies when requesting information or directions.

(1.5) Tourist: Excuse me! Can you show me the way to the post office please?

A local resident: OK, you just go along this street until the end, and it is on your left

(No.5, Appendix 1) (1.6) Student: I'm sorry, can you say that again?

Teacher: You are always talking in my class

(1.7) Anh Đào: Xin lỗi, bác có thể chỉ cháu đường đến sân bay được không ạ?

Người đi đường: Được chứ, cháu nghe kỹ nhé

(Anh Đào: Excuse me! Can you show me the way to the airport?

A passer-by: It’s OK Listen carefully.)

(1.8) Khách hàng: Xin lỗi, chị có thể nói cụ thể hơn được không? m

Người bán hàng: Tất nhiên rồi ạ

(A customer: I’m sorry, but can you please give me further information?

In examples (1.5), (1.6), (1.7), and (1.8), speakers utilize explicit apologies featuring performative verbs such as "excuse" and "be sorry" in English, along with "xin lỗi" in Vietnamese These utterances clearly demonstrate the use of explicit expressions of apology in both languages.

This thesis was motivated by the lack of previous research examining response strategies in isolation, particularly the pragmatic acts of apology and their sociopragmatic implications It also aimed to explore how gender and social power influence the apology and response strategies depicted in film dialogues Unlike most prior studies that relied on Discourse Completion Tests (DCT), this research utilized film transcripts as a primary data source and employed a qualitative approach complemented by quantitative data.

Effective communication is essential for interpersonal interaction, yet it becomes challenging across different cultures and languages Language learners often struggle to grasp the intended meaning of pragmatic acts, particularly in the context of apologies, due to the cultural nuances involved This research provides an overview of pragmatic act theory, focusing on the sociopragmatic aspects of apologies and their responses It emphasizes that factors such as age, gender, social status, power dynamics, and educational background significantly influence how individuals apologize and respond to apologies Notably, gender and social power emerge as critical variables shaping these communicative practices.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Aims

This study investigates the pragmatic acts of apology and response strategies in English and Vietnamese film dialogues, focusing on the impacts of gender and power dynamics It aims to identify the similarities and differences in apology and response strategies between the two languages.

Objectives

To achieve the above aims of the research, the following objectives are set:

- to discover apology and response strategies in English film conversations, especially those under the influences of gender and power;

- to identify apology and response strategies in Vietnamese film conversations, especially those under the influences of gender and power;

- to analyze similarities and differences in apology and response strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations, especially those under the influences of gender and power.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

In order to achieve the above aims and objectives, the research seeks to answer the following research questions:

1 What are apology and response strategies in English film conversations, especially those under the influences of gender and power?

2 What are apology and response strategies in Vietnamese film conversations, especially those under the influences of gender and power?

3 What are similarities and differences in apology and response strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations, especially those under the influences of gender and power?

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This thesis is grounded in the theoretical foundations of sociopragmatics, drawing on key concepts such as Mey's pragmatic acts, Schegloff's adjacency pairs, Searle's speech acts, and various cultural dimensions The focus is specifically on verbal apologies and responses in film conversations, analyzing both direct and indirect strategies in English and Vietnamese contexts It considers social variables like gender and power, categorizing interactions among pairs of different genders and power dynamics The research employs a descriptive contrastive study design, utilizing qualitative methods supported by quantitative data, and analyzes dialogues from socio-psychological films produced since 2015, with a sample of 46 English films and 43 Vietnamese films This approach aims to reflect contemporary practices of apology and response strategies in communication.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY

This study contributes to the fields of linguistics by integrating the speech acts of apologizing and responding into a cohesive framework of pragmatic acts While previous research by Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) has extensively examined these speech acts in isolation across various languages, this doctoral thesis offers a novel perspective by connecting them, thereby enhancing our understanding of their interaction and application in communication.

The act of apologizing, as noted by Searle (1969), typically occurs after speakers have violated or offended hearers, while the response to an apology is determined by the hearer's acceptance or rejection However, in everyday communication, an apology does not always indicate that the speaker has committed a wrongdoing; for example, individuals in positions of power may apologize to fulfill their responsibilities, or men may apologize to placate their female partners in romantic contexts This shift from single speech acts to paired speech acts highlights the importance of sociopragmatics in understanding interpersonal relationships during the act of apologizing and responding Context plays a crucial role in the choice of apology and response strategies, and this investigation aims to enhance the field of linguistics by exploring the pragmatic acts of apology and response in English and Vietnamese, particularly concerning gender and power dynamics A thorough analysis of the similarities and differences in these strategies across both languages will provide a deeper understanding of the pragmatic nature of apologies and their responses.

This study explores the significance of apologies in daily communication, highlighting that speakers expect responses from hearers, regardless of acceptance or rejection It examines how context, gender, and power influence the strategies used in responding to apologies in both English and Vietnamese By analyzing these dynamics, the research aims to enhance intercultural understanding and equip learners with the skills to effectively navigate apologies in both languages Furthermore, it offers insights for teachers to improve their approach in teaching apologies, fostering better relationships between educators and students Ultimately, the findings contribute to more effective social interactions through the appropriate use of apologies in English and Vietnamese.

DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS

In this thesis, specific key terms are defined by the researcher to ensure consistency with its aims and context, acknowledging that definitions may vary among different scholars.

An apologizer is the individual who expresses regret and initiates the act of apologizing, while the apologizee is the recipient of this apology, directly linked to the process of reconciliation.

(iii) Apologizing is a speech act to remedize the social relationship among the apologizers and the apologizees verbally

(iv) Apology responding as a speech act of reacting to the act of apologizing verbally m

(v) Apologizing and responding in conversations are considered to a pair of speech acts or a pragmatic act where there is an interpersonal relationship among apologizers and apologizees

(vi) Strategies are the techniques which are chosen for interpersonal communication by the apologizers and apologizees depending on two social variables namely gender and power

Performative verbs in acts of apologizing are found exclusively in direct apology strategies, including terms like "afraid," "apologize," "forgive," and "sorry" in English, as well as "xin lỗi," "tiếc," and "tha thứ" in Vietnamese.

Performative verbs in apology responses are found exclusively in utterances that directly accept apologies, such as "OK," "it’s OK," and "not at all" in English, or "được rồi," "đồng ý," and "không sao" in Vietnamese Additionally, these verbs appear in phrases that refuse an apology, including "no," "never," and "do not forgive" in English, as well as "không," "không bao giờ," and "không thể tha thứ" in Vietnamese.

High power apologizers are individuals who not only express apologies but also influence the act of apologizing itself, typically holding greater social power than those they apologize to In interactions involving high power apologizers, the apologizees invariably possess lower social status compared to the apologizers.

Low power apologizers are individuals who apologize and, in doing so, diminish their own social standing In interactions involving these lower power apologizers, the recipients of the apologies, or apologizees, hold a higher social status than the apologizers themselves.

(xi) equal power apologizers are those who apologize and cause the act of apologizing, and they have the same power as their apologizees.

ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY

The doctoral thesis is structured in seven chapters, including introduction, m literature review and theoretical background, research methodology, four chapters of results, and conclusion and implications

Chapter One - Introduction - includes the rationale, aims and objectives, research questions, scope, contributions, and the organization of the study

Chapter Two of the article presents a comprehensive literature review and theoretical background, highlighting previous studies relevant to the research topic It emphasizes the importance of sociopragmatics, including conversation analysis, speech act theory, and pragmatic acts Additionally, it explores various taxonomies of apology and response strategies, providing a foundational framework for understanding these concepts in context.

Chapter Three - Research Methodology - demonstrates the research method, data collection and analysis, analytical framework, the research procedures, and the reliability and validity of the data

Chapter Four - Apology and Response Strategies in English Film Conversations – analyzes the apology and response strategies in terms of gender and power in film conversations in English

Chapter Five - Apology and Response Strategies in Vietnamese Film

Conversations – identifies the apology and response strategies in terms of gender and power in film conversations in Vietnamese

Chapter Six explores the similarities and differences in apology and response strategies within English and Vietnamese film conversations, focusing on the influences of gender and power dynamics It highlights how cultural contexts shape the way apologies are expressed and received, revealing distinct patterns in communication styles between the two languages The analysis emphasizes the role of social hierarchies and gender norms in determining the appropriateness and effectiveness of these strategies in cinematic dialogues By examining these elements, the chapter provides insights into the nuanced interplay of language, culture, and interpersonal relationships in film.

Chapter Seven - Conclusion and Implications summarizes the research findings and explores the impact of apology and response strategies on improving language communication in both English and Vietnamese It highlights the significance of these strategies in teaching and learning contexts and offers recommendations for future research to further investigate their effectiveness.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Chapter One outlines the motivations behind this thesis, detailing the aims, objectives, and three key research questions It establishes the scope necessary for the implementation and orientation of the research Additionally, the chapter highlights the theoretical and practical significance of the thesis, emphasizing its contributions to language learning, teaching, and research Finally, it provides readers with a clear organization of the study, facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the thesis structure.

Figure 1.1 Map of the thesis

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

CHAPTER SIX SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES OF APOLOGY AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE FILM CONVERSATIONS APOLOGY AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES IN

• Previous Studies Related to Apologies and Responses +Socio-pragmatic Studies +Contrastive or -Cross-cultural Pragmatic Studies +Interlanguage Pragmatic Studies

• Theoretical Background +Sociopragmatics in Speech Acts

+Conversation and Film Conversation + Exchange in Adjacency Pair of Speech Acts +Speech Act and Pragmatic Act Theory

+ Language and Culture +Conceptual Framework of the Study

• Research Design +Research Types +Research Plans

• Research Methods +Qualitative Method +Descriptive Method +Contrastive Method

• Data collection +Sources of Data +Population, Samples, and Sampling

+Data Collection +Instruments +Data Collection +Procedure

• Data Analysis +Statistical Analysis Tool +Matrix of Collected Data +Data Analysis +Procedure +Analytical Framework of the Study

• Gender Influences on Apology and Response Strategies

• Power Influences on Apology and Response Strategies

• Similarities in Apology and Response Strategies in English and Vietnamese Film Conversations

• Differences in Apology and Responses in English and Vietnamese Film Conversations

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This chapter provides an overview of prior research on apologies and their responses, emphasizing the theoretical framework surrounding the topic It explores studies in cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics, focusing on apology and response strategies influenced by social variables such as gender and social power Additionally, it highlights the integration of multiple theories, including sociopragmatics, pragmatic acts, speech acts, conversation analysis, and classifications of apologies and responses, as discussed in Chapter Two.

PREVIOUS STUDIES RELATED TO APOLOGIES AND RESPONSES

Socio-pragmatic Studies

This thesis explores the socio-pragmatic aspects of apologies, focusing on the variables of gender and power in both apology strategies and responses to apologies.

Research on apologies has highlighted significant differences between men and women in how they express remorse after committing offenses Extensive studies on gendered speech within the realm of linguistic etiquette have yielded intriguing scientific insights, revealing distinct patterns in apology production among genders.

Research by Gonzales et al (1990), Holmes (1995), and Brown and Attardo (2005) indicates that women apologize more frequently than men and make greater efforts to mend relationships after an offense Women tend to beg more often, provide more detailed and complex apologies, and strive to mitigate the harm caused by their actions These behaviors align with Politeness Theory (Brown and Levinson, 1987), suggesting that individuals in lower status positions, such as women, are more inclined to invest in maintaining positive interpersonal relationships.

Research indicates that women are generally viewed as more polite and less critical than men, often employing softening tactics in their communication (Lakoff, 1973; Tannen, 1994) They tend to express themselves more in apologies, making their remorse appear more genuine and predictable Gonzales et al (1990) suggest that women prioritize relationship maintenance more than men, which contributes to their higher frequency of apologies Additionally, Majeed and Janjua (2014) found that while men use a variety of tactics in apologizing in Urdu, women favor explicit strategies and are more likely to offer reparative actions.

Research indicates that categorizing speech by gender overlooks the diversity within male and female groups and fails to account for cultural and social factors such as class, age, and ethnicity (Cameron, 1995, 1997; Bergvall et al., 1996) Freed (1995) suggests that this oversight perpetuates stereotypes about male and female communication styles Additionally, Holmes (1995) found that men tend to apologize to women without regard for their status, while women often use more excuses, particularly towards those in similar authority positions These findings highlight the significant impact of gender on speech behaviors, especially in the context of apologies (Lukasik, 2000) Ultimately, the research demonstrates that the ways in which men and women apologize are influenced by their cultural upbringing.

Through an examination of gender and pragmalinguistic preferences within a modified version of Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness framework, Filimonova

A study conducted in 2015 compared Russian and Spanish apologies, revealing that speakers of both languages employed similar apologetic tactics due to a shared cultural emphasis on politeness Notably, the Russian participants exhibited a more positive orientation compared to their Mexican Spanish counterparts, indicating a spectrum of positive politeness within these cultures However, the Russian data showed higher levels of directness and acceptance of responsibility Gender-specific behaviors were also highlighted, with Russian men intensifying explanations while women enhanced explicit forgiveness strategies The research utilized a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) to analyze language and social components, showing significant pragma-linguistic similarities alongside notable gender differences Additionally, a study by Holmes (1995) on New Zealand English found that acceptance was the most common response technique among women and men, followed by evasion and rejection, illustrating varied strategies in apology discourse across cultures.

Power dynamics play a crucial role in the context of apologies, as highlighted by various studies (Aquino et al., 2006; Chun & Yun, 2010; Gonzalez et al., 1990; Hill, 2013; Holmes, 1990; Kiger, 2004; Schumann & Ross, 2010) The disparity in power between the offender and the offended significantly impacts their relationship and influences the effectiveness of the apology Research by Gonzalez et al (1990) demonstrated that individuals with lower status tend to issue more apologies than those in higher positions, supporting Brown and Levinson's politeness theory Additionally, Kiger (2004) noted that individuals in high social roles, such as managers, often struggle to apologize due to concerns about their image and the fear of appearing inadequate when acknowledging mistakes.

Research indicates that the social status of individuals involved in a conflict significantly influences their willingness to apologize or forgive Higher status offenders are less likely to offer apologies, while more powerful apologizers tend to employ a greater variety of apology strategies To enhance the effectiveness of an apology, especially in high social distance relationships, it is advisable to include a verbal expression of remorse and an offer of compensation, while avoiding acknowledgment of the violated norm, as this may hinder forgiveness Conversely, in low social distance relationships, a sincere verbal expression of remorse is essential for seeking forgiveness.

Apologies issued by individuals of higher status tend to be more effective than those from lower-status individuals, as the latter may face rejection when seeking forgiveness Research by Olshtain (1989) examined cross-cultural apology practices across Hebrew, Australian English, Canadian French, and German, focusing on social factors like power dynamics and contextual elements such as the severity of the offense The study found that speakers from these languages commonly employed similar Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs), like “I’m sorry,” and emphasized taking responsibility Ultimately, the research indicated that while languages may differ, the fundamental approach to apologies remains consistent globally, with the choice of strategies influenced by social and situational factors.

Research on how English speakers manage apologies is limited, particularly regarding their responses and expressions A study by Jones (2013) examined reactions to apologies among Australian English speakers and compared them to Bahasa Indonesia speakers using an oral Discourse Completion Task (DCT) The findings revealed that while rejections of apologies were more common than expected, a significant number of participants in both language groups employed acceptance techniques This suggests that individuals may feel more comfortable rejecting apologies in hypothetical scenarios than in real-life situations, where such rejections could negatively impact relationships.

This study addresses a notable gap in pragmatics research by examining apology reactions (ARs) in Australian English and Bahasa Indonesia, focusing on gender and cultural differences Analyzing 360 responses to three apology scenarios through oral discourse completion tasks, the findings reveal that ARs in both languages are complex and multifaceted, often characterized by indirectness and avoidance of direct eye contact Contrary to common beliefs, the study found no significant gender differences in AR approaches, challenging stereotypes that women are inherently more accommodating Additionally, it was observed that Indonesians could be more direct and face-threatening in their responses compared to Australians, contradicting the notion that Asian speakers are generally less direct than their Western counterparts.

Contrastive or Cross-cultural Pragmatic Studies

Pragmatics explores the rules governing language use within specific contexts, while cross-cultural pragmatics focuses on comparing the pragmatic strategies and utterances of native speakers across different languages It can be defined as the study of language usage similarities and differences in various cultural contexts Numerous studies have investigated speech acts, particularly apologies, across languages, including works by Thomas (1983), Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), and others In Vietnam, research has also been conducted on greetings, compliments, and requests using traditional contrastive pragmatics Notably, Dang (2000) found that the directness and indirectness of apologies in English and Vietnamese vary based on communication circumstances, with English favoring lexical markers and Vietnamese emphasizing politeness markers These studies utilize diverse data collection methods, such as questionnaires, role plays, and the Discourse Completion Task (DCT).

Numerous studies have employed Discourse Completion Tasks (DCT) for data collection, revealing insights into cross-cultural communication House (1988) analyzed the apologetic expressions of German students learning English, discovering that they often translated their native communicative styles into English, using less common terms like "sorry." Nguyen (2010) examined the apology production process through a written DCT, highlighting sociocultural influences and aligning with the comprehensive strategies proposed by Cohen and Olshtain (1989) and Trosborg (1987) This study indicated that Vietnamese participants exhibited a heightened awareness of power dynamics and social distance in their apologetic strategies compared to American counterparts Similarly, Salehi (2014) investigated the apology techniques of Iranian EFL students and native English speakers, finding notable similarities and few significant differences in their use of apologies Qari (2017) further utilized DCT to analyze requests and apologies among native British speakers, native Saudi Arabic speakers, and Saudi EFL students, applying the CCSARP coding systems grounded in Brown and Levinson's politeness theory The findings revealed that Saudi individuals preferred direct approaches in their requests, while EFL and British participants tended to be more indirect, with Saudis often softening their requests through semantic qualifiers, in contrast to the British, who employed syntactic and linguistic devices for politeness.

Some research utilized the role play technique as their data collection methodology, in contrast to other cross-cultural studies on apology that used DCTs

In a study on the nature of apologies among Danish English language learners, Trosborg (1987) found no significant evidence of negative first language (L1) pragmalinguistic transfer Garcia (1989) revealed that Venezuelan non-native speakers employed more positive politeness strategies, such as kind remarks, in contrast to native English speakers who favored negative strategies like self-effacement Brown and Gullberg (2008) examined differences in speech and gesture between monolingual Japanese and English speakers regarding motion methods, and also conducted a cross-cultural pragmatics study on request refusals among Australian native English speakers Frescura (1993) explored apologies through role plays between native Italian and native English speakers, finding that English speakers preferred hearer-supportive formulas, while Italians leaned towards self-supportive strategies Canadian Italians showed a preference for various native Italian formulas, whereas native English speakers learning Italian did not express any specific preferences.

In addition to using roleplay and DCT to examine the spoken act of apologizing, many researchers also use a set of questionnaires to gather information Sugimoto

A study by 1997 compared the apologetic behaviors of Japanese and American college students, revealing that Japanese students placed greater emphasis on atonement, utilizing strategies such as statements of regret, accounting, and descriptions of damage more frequently than their American counterparts Japanese apologies tended to be more elaborate, while Americans often used intensifiers and repeated phrases Similarly, Hussein and Hammouri (1998) found that Jordanian English speakers apologized more often than Americans, employing unique strategies like praising Allah and downplaying offenses, alongside common techniques such as acknowledging responsibility and offering repair The researchers noted that cultural, cognitive, and religious factors influenced these differences Brubaker's 2016 meta-analysis highlighted that organizational leaders typically apologize on behalf of their entities, further illustrating the complexities of apology across different contexts.

Corpora, which encompass varied data sizes in different languages, have been utilized to analyze conversational routines, particularly focusing on apologies and appreciation Intachakra (2004) explored the pragmatic differences in apologies between Thai and British English speakers, revealing that Thais might apologize non-verbally, while the British occasionally express verbal apologies Kartika and Aditiawarman (2019) conducted a contrastive analysis of apologies in Japanese and English, highlighting the context-dependent nature of apologies in both languages, with Japanese apologies often tailored to the severity of the offense and the relationship dynamics House and Kádár (2021) examined WWII apologies from German and Japanese speakers, finding that German apologies tend to be more conservative Research indicates that the impact of an apology can enhance the offender's image, making them appear more likable and less blameworthy, as demonstrated by Darby and Schelenker (1989) However, Bennett and Dewberry (1994) noted that recipients often feel pressured to forgive, leading to more favorable perceptions of the offender when an apology is accepted Their follow-up study suggested that the effectiveness of an apology remains consistent, regardless of its perceived sincerity.

Apologies are generally accepted across cultures, reflecting relief and appreciation, as evidenced by research from Bennett and Earwaker (1994) and Robinson (2004) Bennett and Earwaker found that the acceptance of apologies is influenced by the offender's responsibility and the severity of the outcome, based on role-play data from Scottish respondents Robinson noted that common responses to apologies in American and British English often include phrases like "That's alright" or "That's okay," which implicitly convey the speaker's judgment of the offense Additionally, Nguyen (2018) explored speech acts related to asking for permission in English and Vietnamese, providing insights relevant to the analysis of apology-response dynamics in this doctoral thesis.

Intercultural pragmatics significantly enhances second language studies and curriculum development by elucidating the connections between language and culture (Shardakova, 2005) It addresses pragmatic misconceptions, highlighting how intercultural misunderstandings arise from non-shared information that affects the retrieval of intended meanings (Moeschler, 2004) This growing field of study has gained traction due to its focus on bridging communication gaps and understanding the complexities of intercultural interactions (Chen et al., 1998; Deutschmann, 2003; Kotthoff & Spencer-Oatey, 2007; Murphy, 2014; Murray et al., 1987; Rocci, 2006; Wannaruk, 2008; Wierzbicka, 2003; Wolf & Polzenhagen).

In addition to the DCT, role play, and questionnaires mentioned in Section 2.1.2, intercultural pragmatic research utilized various data collection techniques, including corpus analysis, natural-setting recordings, and interviews.

Deutschmann (2003) explored the structure, function, and sociolinguistic distribution of explicit apologies within the spoken component of the British National Corpus, utilizing the corpus for data collection The study assessed apologies based on the nature of the preceding offense and examined their distribution concerning conversational environment and speaker social identification, including gender, social class, and age The prototype apology was identified as a verbal act aimed at atoning for actual or perceived offenses, with age and power being the most influential social characteristics affecting apologetic behavior Findings revealed that young and middle-class speakers were more inclined to use the apology form, while no significant gender differences in apologizing were noted The research concluded that formulaic politeness serves as a crucial linguistic marker of social class, often involving an element of controlling the addressee.

Fehr and Gelfand (2010) discovered that the effectiveness of an apology hinges on individual differences, particularly in what offended parties need to hear Their research indicates that forgiveness is more probable when the components of an apology align with the offended individuals' self-construal Consequently, it can be anticipated that variations among judges, influenced by personal, cultural, and gender differences, will shape the specific apology elements they seek for forgiveness.

Murphy (2014) analyzes British political apologies, highlighting their nature and purpose through various data genres, including Commons debates, the Leveson Inquiry, and news interviews This study reveals that political apologies are more frequent and overt than those in casual conversations, with politicians emphasizing clarity regarding historical wrongs Unlike parliamentary apologies, which are often one-sided, the Leveson Inquiry and news interviews feature dialogic and co-constructed apologies Additionally, in interactive contexts, political apologies can be viewed as action chains, where responses from interlocutors are not always required.

Interlanguage Pragmatic Studies

The study of interlanguage pragmatics has developed as a flourishing new field precisely because of such communication breakdowns (Demester, 2006; Kecskes & Romero-Trillo, 2013; Le, 2011; Qadoury, 2011; Shardakova, 2005; Shariati & Chamani, 2010; Wannaruk, 2008)

Demester (2006) focused on explicit apologies, which involve clear expressions of regret like "I'm sorry" or "excuse me," acknowledging that many apologies lack such explicitness His research was limited by the nature of corpus analysis, which cannot encompass all types of apologies In contrast, studies by Shariati and Chamani (2010) and Shariati and Sharikova (2005) explored how exposure to a second culture affects first language (L1) apologies, leading to similarities with native speakers' apologies Their findings emphasized the culture-specific nature of apology strategies, underscoring the role of cultural context in shaping these choices Furthermore, recent investigations into "learners' refusals," including studies on Thai (Wannaruk, 2008) and Iraqi EFL learners (Qadoury, 2011), illustrate the concept of pragmatic transference in language learning.

Le (2011) examined the linguistic etiquette of Vietnamese L1 learners in Australia and Vietnam, highlighting the pragmatic influence of Australian culture on Vietnamese speakers in Australia By analyzing naturalistic speech recordings from everyday interactions, such as shopping, she found that Australian Vietnamese exhibited greater linguistic politeness compared to their counterparts in Vietnam This increase in politeness was attributed to sociocultural changes in Vietnam and cross-cultural interactions experienced in Australia.

In the twenty-first century, communication across languages and cultures presents a significant challenge for pragmatics research, as highlighted by Kecskes and Romero-Trillo (2013) They define intercultural pragmatics as the study of how language functions in social interactions among speakers of diverse native languages from different cultures, striving to connect through a common language Additionally, L2 learners and speakers often draw on pragmatic practices from their first language when attempting to communicate in their second language.

Al Ali (2018) highlighted the significance of apologies in interpersonal interactions, examining how Saudi and Australian women navigate the act of apologizing within their distinct cultural contexts This research focused on the social and cultural influences on the expression of apologies, utilizing positioning theory as outlined by Harré and Van Langenhove (2001), along with discourse completion tasks (DCT) and role plays common in cross-cultural pragmatics studies The findings revealed both similarities and differences in the contexts and positions of apologies between the two groups, with notable individual variations even among participants from the same cultural background This study is pioneering in its exploration of apology behavior among Saudi and Australian women through positioning theory, addressing a gap in the existing literature on cross-cultural pragmatics Furthermore, it suggests that second language (L2) learners often transfer their native socio-pragmatic strategies to their apologies in L2, leading to differences in how apologies are expressed compared to their first language (L1).

Regarding the intercultural pragmatics of response to apologies, the researcher has not identified any studies, which may be due to a lack of search methodology on their part.

Research Gaps from the Previous Studies

Recent research on apologies has evolved significantly, with numerous studies conducted across various languages over the past few decades These investigations analyze apology strategies through diverse theoretical frameworks, including politeness theory, speech act theory, implicature, discourse analysis, pragmatic failures in communication, and sociolinguistics Additionally, they explore these strategies in the context of cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics.

Previous studies indicate that various tactics can be employed for apologetic speech acts, which differ across languages and depend on factors such as the severity of the offense, the relationship between the parties, and social dynamics The flexible nature of apology methods enables the exploration of apologies as a cultural and pragmatic phenomenon (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989; Cohen & Olshtain, 1989; Fraser, 1981) Despite extensive research, a definitive set of strategies has not been established, allowing researchers to innovate or reclassify existing techniques Data collection methods include discourse completion tasks, role plays, questionnaires, audio-taped dialogues, and corpora, with discourse completion being the most prevalent Most studies focus on qualitative analysis of explicit apologetic techniques, while implicit methods remain underexplored Additionally, limited research exists on appropriate responses to apologies.

These earlier investigations provided a greater understanding of research trends, theoretical frameworks, data collection techniques, and limits that served as a foundation for this PhD thesis

Study trends in apologies are analyzed through cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics, primarily based on the speech act theories of Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) These studies incorporate theories of politeness, implicatures, discourse, pragmatic failures, and sociolinguistics, with Olshtain and Cohen's (1983) taxonomy of apologetic tactics serving as a common framework However, the research findings were limited by the methodologies employed, restricting the exploration of additional strategies Factors such as the nature of the offense and the social dynamics between the offender and the offended significantly influenced the choice of apologetic techniques The upcoming section will delve deeper into various apologetic tactics and the social characteristics that affect them, including age, gender, and social status.

Data collection methods in research primarily include DCTs, role play, questionnaires, and audio-taped discussions, with DCTs being the most frequently utilized However, there is a limited number of studies that leverage corpus analysis for quantitative data evaluation.

Looking into apology and response strategies, these studies have some gaps as follows:

1 These previous studies focused more on direct apology strategies This thesis investigated both direct and indirect apology strategies

2 There have been studies related to response strategies to other speech acts; however, there seemed few research studies on response strategies to apologies recorded This thesis examined response strategies to apologies

3 Regarding research of a pair of speech acts, there was one study in Vietnamese which investigated the pragmatic act of asking for permissions and responses by Nguyen (2016) Not many research studies on the pragmatic acts of apology and response strategies were found due to the time limit and the incompleteness of the researcher’s research competence This thesis, hence, focused on the apology and response strategies as a pair of speech act or pragmati c acts

4 Most previous studies depended on a DCT This thesis collected data from socio-psychological film conversations in both languages

5 Many previous studies on pragmatics, cross-cultural, intercultural, and interlanguage have been conducted; however, very few studies under the umbrella of sociopragmatics on the apology and response strategies were found This research examined how gender and power impacted the apology and response strategies used by the characters in film conversations m

Due to the gaps of those previous studies, the researcher decided to carry out this research with aims and objectives as stated in Section 1.2 in Chapter One.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Sociopragmatics in Speech Acts

Successful speech acts rely on two key foundations: sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic aspects (Thomas, 1995) The sociopragmatic foundation encompasses contextual factors like social distance, power dynamics, rights, social imposition, obligations, and the objectives of the speech act Extensive literature explores the interplay between language and social variables in speech acts, with Trosborg (2011) highlighting the importance of sociopragmatic competence, which involves understanding when to appropriately use language forms in various social contexts Essential parameters to consider include social status, age, and the nature of social relationships.

Brown and Levinson (1987) identify three key factors that influence the face-threatening nature of an interaction: (1) social distance (D), which refers to the level of familiarity between individuals; (2) relative power and status (P), indicating the hierarchical dynamics at play; and (3) the cultural ranking of the specific imposition (R) These elements are crucial for assessing the severity of a face-threatening act (FTA) The overall weightiness of the FTA reflects the extent of the face threat involved and is determined through a specific formula.

In the context of social interactions, Wx quantifies the significance of the Face Threatening Act (FTA) x, while D(S, H) assesses the social distance between the speaker (S) and the hearer (H) Additionally, P(H, S) evaluates the power dynamic that H holds over S, and Rx indicates how much the FTA x is perceived as an imposition within a particular culture, according to Brown and Levinson (1987, p 76).

Social power plays a crucial role in communication by influencing the recognition of individuals' social positions within society (Holmes, 1995; Leech, 1983) Social status can be classified into two categories: achieved status, which is earned through personal accomplishments, and ascribed status, which is assigned based on inherited traits Additionally, embodied status arises from physical characteristics, including beauty, disability, and overall physique.

The speaker's choice of apology strategies is influenced by various factors, with a particular focus on two social variables: gender and social power This research aims to explore how these variables affect the way individuals apologize and respond to apologies.

This research defines gender biologically, encompassing male and female, and highlights the characteristics that differentiate masculinity and femininity Gender encompasses biological sex, social structures based on sex, and individual gender identity Numerous studies have explored the impact of gender on language and intersex communication within a single culture.

In this thesis, how three types of interaction between men and women, men and men, women and women influenced the exchanges of apology and response strategies was studied

According to Trosborg (2011), dominance and social distance significantly influence acts of apology, reflecting the relationship dynamics between participants Dominance pertains to the authority one participant holds over another, which can affect the politeness required in apologizing (Trosborg, 1987) The interplay of these two parameters leads to varying situations that necessitate different types of politeness strategies, which are categorized into three distinct role constellations.

Table 2.1 Trosborg’s classification of social power

Power Dominance and Social Distance

+ dominance + social distance Status equals, non-intimates

The social power of interlocutors, alongside gender, significantly impacts the dynamics of apologies and their responses This influence raises questions about how the apologizer's social power affects the reactions to their apologies Holmes (2008) identifies three essential criteria for assessing the relative standing of apologizers in these interactions.

1) U – upwards, that is, apology to a person with more P

2) E – equal, that is, apology to a person of equal P

3) D – downwards, that is, apology to a person with less P

This thesis examines the dynamics of apology exchanges and response strategies, highlighting the impact of power dynamics among different types of apologizers, including those with high, low, and equal power.

High power apologizers are individuals who not only issue apologies but also influence the act of apologizing itself, possessing greater social power than those they apologize to In situations involving high power apologizers, the recipients of the apology consistently hold a lower social status compared to the apologizers.

Low power apologizers are individuals who express apologies, often resulting in a dynamic where their social status is inferior to that of the recipients of their apologies In interactions involving low power apologizers, it is evident that the apologizees possess greater social power than the apologizers themselves.

(iii) equal power apologizers are those who apologize and cause the act of m apologizing, and they have the same power as their apologizees.

Conversation and Film Conversation

Linguists have proposed various definitions of conversation, describing it as an exchange of language or a friendly dialogue where individuals share information, ideas, and emotions Typically, conversations involve two or more participants who freely alternate speaking and occur outside formal settings such as religious services, law courts, and classrooms.

According to Finegan et al (1994), conversation is defined as a sequence of speech acts, which encompass greetings, questions, congratulations, remarks, invitations, requests, and apologies This structure allows participants to alternate speaking turns, respond to inquiries, signal the beginning and end of discussions, and correct any mistakes that arise.

Conversational analysis focuses on the context of speech acts, highlighting that they occur within larger sequences rather than in isolation, contrasting with speech act theory, which emphasizes speaker intentions This thesis investigates the speech acts of apologizing and responding in English and Vietnamese film conversations, integrating both speech act theory and conversation analysis By utilizing conversation analysis, the research identifies the initiation, sequencing, and closure of pragmatic acts of apologizing and responding through turn-taking, exchanges, and adjacency pairs, allowing for a comprehensive examination of conversational sequences.

Conversation analysis, as noted by Geis (1995) and Heritage (2010), primarily focuses on spoken discourse, viewing social interaction as a process realized through verbal communication Hutchby and Wooffitt further emphasize this perspective.

Conversation analysis (CA) is a sociological approach that examines the sequential organization of talk to understand participants' interpretations and collaborative methods in natural social interactions (Hutchby, 2017) This method is applicable not only to everyday conversations but also to various forms of institutional interactions across disciplines such as sociology, linguistics, business administration, and psychology A key advantage of CA is its reliance on real-time data from naturally occurring interactions, captured through video or audio recordings, rather than retrospective accounts from participants By analyzing these interactions, CA reveals the structural properties of talk, utilizing descriptive units like turn-taking, adjacency pairs, and sequences to enhance our understanding of conversational dynamics.

Context is regarded as a relational construct in sociopragmatics (Fetzer 2004,

Context plays a crucial role in communication, influencing both the exchange and its interpretation (Gumperz, 1992a) Huang (2017) identifies three types of context: linguistic, cognitive, and social/sociocultural, with this thesis focusing on the social context Social context encompasses the environment in which communication occurs, shaping the interactions between individuals.

This doctoral thesis analyzes conversational exchanges from film scripts and subtitles, focusing on socio-psychological contexts involving romantic relationships, family dynamics, friendships, and workplace interactions It presents a descriptive contrastive qualitative study, supplemented by quantitative data, that examines the strategies of apology and response within dialogues extracted from romance and family films.

Schegloff (1974) defines conversation as a sequence of at least two turns by different speakers that are interconnected, forming what are known as adjacency pairs In everyday dialogue, these pairs typically consist of a statement followed by a corresponding response, where the first utterance creates an expectation for the second The preference structure within these pairs categorizes responses into preferred and dispreferred types; for instance, an invitation generally anticipates an acceptance (preferred response) or a refusal (dispreferred response) The preferred response aligns with the expected next action, while the dispreferred response deviates from this expectation.

Table 2.2 Correlation of content and format in an adjacency pair

Question Expected answer Unexpected answer or non-answer

An adjacency pair is a conversational exchange consisting of two parts, where the second utterance relies on the first Common forms of adjacency pairs include question-answer, greeting-greeting, and offer acceptance or declination Additionally, Levinson (1983) identifies apology-minimization as another example of an adjacency pair.

In an adjacency pair, the first part, such as a question, prompts a relevant second part, like an answer If the answer is missing, it will be noticeable, leading the questioner (S1) to seek a response The absence of a response can also impact S1 in various ways.

A: Good morning! (Greeting) B: Hello! (Greeting) A: What time is it? (Questioning) B: About eighty-thirty (Expected answer)

A: It’s your fault (Blaming) B: I’m terribly sorry I promise it won’t happen again (Admission)

In conversation analysis, speakers often initiate dialogue through greetings, questions, and even blame, as seen in example (2.6) This prompts responses from listeners, including greetings, expected answers, and admissions, forming what is known as an adjacency pair According to Schegloff (2007), apologies frequently serve as the initial components of these adjacency pairs, especially when the act of seeking forgiveness is the primary focus of the interaction.

Exchange in Adjacency Pair of Speech Acts

In conversation analysis, every speech act requires a response, specifically focusing on response utterances where the hearer (H) replies to the speaker (S) According to Nguyen (1998, 2001, 2002, 2008), responding speech acts are classified as illocutionary acts These responses can be categorized into two distinct groups.

A positive response is essential for fulfilling the purpose of an apology, as it addresses the needs of the speaker The introductory dialogue, coupled with its affirmative reply, creates a preferred exchange or adjacency pair, reinforcing the effectiveness of the apologizing speech act.

(2.1) Peter: I’m terribly sorry to hurt you I didn’t mean that

Mary: It’s OK, by accident, I know

In example (2.7), Peter wants to apologize for hurting Mary and gives an explanation Mary has a positive response to Peter since it satisfies the purpose of Peter of being sorry

A negative response undermines the purpose of the introductory dialogue, failing to satisfy the speaker's apology When paired with the apology, this negative response results in dispreferred exchanges, disrupting effective communication.

(2.2) Peter: I’m terribly sorry to hurt you I didn’t mean that

Mary: You didn’t mean to hurt me, really?

In example (2.8), Peter attempts to apologize to Mary for causing her pain and offers an explanation for his actions However, Mary reacts negatively, expressing doubt about Peter's intentions and whether he hurt her intentionally Consequently, Peter's apology fails to achieve its intended purpose of conveying remorse.

Based on the analysis of the researchers' findings, we can identify key characteristics of application and response behavior, notably that the act of apologizing and responding is referred to as an "adjacency pair" within the fundamental structure of conversation.

This thesis defines apology responding as a verbal reaction to an apology, highlighting the importance of the apologizee's response to the apologizer's act It emphasizes that both apologizing and apology responding are pragmatic acts, warranting investigation into their sociopragmatic features in conversations The interaction between apologizers and apologizees is characterized as a sequence of verbal exchanges that shape the dynamics of the apology process.

(i) Apology responding as a speech act of reacting to the act of apologizing verbally

(ii) Apologizing and responding in conversations are considered to a pair of speech acts or a pragmatic act where there is an interpersonal relationship among apologizers and apologizees.

Speech Act and Pragmatic Act Theory

This section explores the speech act of apologizing and the corresponding responses, which are integral to speech act theory However, it's important to note that this theory primarily emphasizes the speaker's actions The thesis seeks to examine the sociopragmatic aspects of apologies and response strategies in both English and other languages.

Vietnamese conversations often involve significant interaction and interpersonal relationships between speakers and listeners To explore this dynamic, the research utilized pragmatic act theory as a key theoretical framework.

Since its introduction by Austin (1962) and further elaboration by Searle

Since its inception in 1969, the theory of speech acts has evolved significantly, influenced by various scholars including Brown & Yule (1983), Grice (1957, 1975), Hymes (1972), Levinson (1983), Thomas (1995), and Yule (1996) Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) both argue that speech acts are utterances that serve specific linguistic functions in communication, such as praise, forgiveness, invitations, explanations, thanks, admonitions, requests, apologies, and greetings They emphasize that language is not merely about grammar and vocabulary; rather, it is a means through which individuals perform actions.

Speech act theory explores how language functions as a means of action, particularly in the context of apologies This paper outlines fundamental concepts of speech acts, focusing on three key dimensions and the classification of these acts Understanding these dimensions enhances our comprehension of the nature and function of apologizing within communication.

Austin (1962) classifies linguistic acts into three categories: Locutionary acts,

Perlocutionary acts, and Illocutionary acts which are all performed simultaneously in their production

A locutionary act refers to the fundamental act of utterance that involves producing a meaningful linguistic expression through sounds, words, and grammatical rules If an individual struggles with these elements, they may fail to execute a locutionary act effectively This encompasses the physical aspects of spoken or written language, the construction of the utterance, and the clarification of meaning within a given discourse.

An illocutionary act refers to the communicative function behind an utterance, reflecting the speaker's intent or purpose, such as apologizing, joking, refusing, or promising This concept highlights the illocutionary force of utterances, which encapsulates the intended meaning and effect of what is being said Understanding illocutionary acts is essential for grasping the nuances of communication.

A perlocutionary act refers to the impact an utterance has on a listener, emphasizing the effect created by the speaker's words This concept highlights that the outcome of an utterance can occur whether or not the speaker intended for it to happen.

Among the three types of speech acts, illocutionary acts have garnered significant interest from researchers Austin (1962) emphasizes that his primary focus lies on these acts, while Yule (1996) notes that the definition of a speech act is often narrowly defined, specifically relating to the illocutionary force of an utterance This highlights the importance of understanding the classification of speech acts in linguistic studies.

Classified as his main strand, Austin (1962) identifies five more general classes of illocutionary acts: commissives, exercitives, behabitives, verdictives, and expositives

Table 2.3 Austin’s classification of speech acts

Commisives to commit the speaker to do something promising, guaranteeing, betting, vowing, offering

Executives to get the hearer to do something requesting, permitting, ordering, forbidding, warning, advising

Behabitives to express feelings and attitudes of the speaker thanking, apologizing, greeting, objecting, congratulating, welcoming

Verdictives to tell the hearer how things are swearing, insisting, suggesting

Expositives to change the status of some entity baptizing, surrendering, resigning, appointing, naming, arresting

Austin (1962), recognized as the founder of speech act theory, faced criticism for the ambiguity and overlapping categories in his classification of illocutionary acts He acknowledged the potential for overlaps and marginal scenarios within his framework Searle (1969) later introduced a revised taxonomy, highlighting the limitations of Austin's approach, particularly the lack of clear criteria for classifying speech acts Nguyen (1998) echoed this sentiment, pointing out the ambiguity and overlap in Austin's classifications Additionally, Mills (2011) criticized speech act theory for overlooking how linguistic expressions can convey requests, compliments, and apologies, which was a concern for Austin, who focused on the relationship between verbs and their performative functions.

Searle's approach, building on Austin's work, emphasizes the importance of felicity conditions over linguistic form, thereby mitigating criticism of speech acts He identifies five primary categories of illocutionary speech acts: representatives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declarations, offering a distinct perspective from Austin's classification.

Table 2.4 Searle’s classification of speech acts

Directives attempt to get the hearer (H) to do something ordering, requesting, begging

Assertives attempt to represent actual states of affairs informing, predicting, stating, claiming, reporting, announcing

Commissives attempt to get the speaker (S) to commit to a course of action promising, threatening, swearing to do something m

Declaratives attempt to bring about change in an official state of affairs naming a ship, resigning, sentencing, dismissing, declaring war, performing a marriage

Expressives attempt to express one’s psychological state thanking, complaining, apologizing, and congratulating

The theory of speech acts has garnered significant interest among Vietnamese linguists, such as Cao (1991), Nguyen (1998), Do and Bui (2001), Nguyen (2001), and Do (2005) Building on the foundational works of Austin (1962) and Searle (1969), these scholars have provided definitions and classifications of speech acts, as well as addressed various related issues, establishing a theoretical framework for researching speech acts within the Vietnamese language.

Speech act research, as noted by Bilmes (1986) and Kasper (2006), often prioritizes the intentions of speakers, overlooking the negotiation of meaning between speaker and hearer In contrast, this thesis centers on the dynamics of apology and response in conversations, analyzing the contributions of both parties The researcher integrates conversation analysis with speech act theory to address this gap Additionally, Grainger (2013) highlights the limitations of using decontextualized examples, a concern less prominent for philosophers like Austin and Searle However, this study specifically examines the sociolinguistics of apologizing, considering factors such as gender, age, and social distance.

Apologizing is a universal speech act that transcends language and culture, drawing significant interest from researchers in sociolinguistics According to Goffman (1981), apologies serve as "remedial interchanges" aimed at restoring social harmony following an offense He categorizes apologies into two types: those addressing virtual offenses, typically resolved with an apologetic formula, and those addressing real damage to the addressee, which may require both an apologetic formula and material compensation.

Apologies serve to mend the disruption caused by a speaker's offense against the hearer, as noted by Leech (1983) Simply offering an apology is insufficient; it must be effective for the hearer to grant forgiveness and restore the equilibrium in their relationship.

According to Olshtain (1989), apologies serve to restore the imbalance created by a speaker's offense against the hearer When a speaker offers an apology, they demonstrate a willingness to endure some level of humiliation, making the act face-saving for the hearer while simultaneously being face-threatening for the speaker, as noted by Brown and his colleagues.

Language and Culture

Studying speech acts through a cultural lens reveals that certain speech acts are unique to specific cultures, as noted by Do (2000) Cultural factors significantly influence the motivations and strategies behind these speech acts, highlighting the deep connection between language and culture Language serves as a vital tool for cultural expression, facilitating the organization of cultural activities Furthermore, culture shapes societal behaviors, including speech acts, making language a product and a crucial element of culture Wierzbicka (1987) emphasizes that diverse cultures result in distinct languages and speech acts.

This thesis explores the interplay between English and Vietnamese cultures, focusing on the analysis of speech acts related to apologies and their responses The findings are contextualized within Hall's (1976) high and low context cultures, and Hofstede's (2011) dimensions of individualism versus collectivism and masculinity versus femininity.

High and low context cultures, as described by Hall (1976), highlight how the level of contextual information in a society influences verbal communication In high context cultures, meaning is often conveyed indirectly and relies heavily on relationships, whereas low context cultures prioritize direct and explicit communication The distinction affects cross-cultural interactions, as low context cultures require speakers to provide clear contextual information for understanding In contrast, high context environments emphasize group dynamics and implicit meaning Understanding these differences is crucial for effective communication across cultures.

The first dimension is the relationship among individualism and collectivism which is the degree to which persons in a society are integrated into groups Hofstede

According to a 2011 study, individualist societies are characterized by weaker interpersonal bonds, where individuals are expected to care for themselves and their immediate families In contrast, collectivist societies emphasize strong, cohesive in-groups, often comprising extended families that include grandparents, uncles, and aunts, who provide support in exchange for loyalty This dimension of individualism versus collectivism is crucial for understanding the dynamics of all societies globally.

Hofstede (2011) introduces an important dimension for discussion: the relationship between masculinity and femininity, examined through the lens of sociopragmatics, which considers gender and power in the context of apologies and responses as speech acts Masculinity and femininity are societal characteristics that reflect the distribution of values between genders, playing a crucial role in shaping civilizations and societies These values provide diverse solutions to social dynamics, highlighting their significance in understanding gender interactions.

Research indicates that women's values show less variation across different societies and nations compared to men's values, which differ significantly Men often embody assertive and competitive traits, contrasting sharply with women's values Conversely, they can also display modesty and care, aligning more closely with feminine values This duality in men's values is categorized into two poles: the assertive pole, referred to as "masculine," and the modest and caring pole, which reflects a more nurturing aspect.

Hofstede (2011) highlighted that in feminine cultures, both men and women embrace similar values of modesty and compassion, whereas in patriarchal societies, women exhibit assertiveness and competitiveness, albeit to a lesser extent than men, showcasing a distinct divergence in values between genders.

Vietnamese culture emphasizes the importance of collectivity and context in communication, as noted by Nguyen (1998) People in Vietnam often engage in subtle interactions filled with implicit meanings, prioritizing harmony and the satisfaction of others within their community.

In high-context cultures such as Vietnam, communication tends to be implicit, requiring individuals to read between the lines as not all information is conveyed directly According to Nguyen (1998), Vietnamese people approach social issues with emotional sensitivity rather than purely rationality, highlighting the importance of gratitude and harmony in their interpersonal relationships This cultural trait emphasizes prioritizing the collective face and communal interests over individual needs, as noted by Hofstede (2011).

In traditional Vietnamese culture, mistakes made by individuals often implicate family members, including parents and siblings (1998) Tran (1997) highlights that communication is heavily influenced by power dynamics, where those in higher positions tend to attribute their errors to subordinates Furthermore, Tran (2008) notes that the context of conversations is essential, as established hierarchies among speakers in the Vietnamese language add depth to their communication.

In contrast, in low-context cultures like American cultures, according to Hall

In American culture, which values individuality and equality, social interactions are characterized by rationality rather than emotional connections According to Nguyen (2006), this cultural framework leads to social behaviors that adhere closely to ethical standards and legal norms, minimizing the impact of social power dynamics in communication.

This thesis also had a discussion on findings based on the two dimensions m proposed by Hofstede (2011) which were the relationships among individualism and collectivism, and among masculinity and femininity.

Conceptual Framework of the Study

This chapter outlines the conceptual framework of the thesis, situated within the realm of sociopragmatics It draws upon Schegloff's (2007) conversation analysis and Mey's (2006) pragmatic act theory to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.

2013), the apology strategy taxonomy by Trosborg (2011), response strategy taxonomy by Homes (1990, 1995), and direct and indirect theory speech act by Searle

Figure 2.2 Conceptual framework of the thesis m

CHAPTER SUMMARY

This thesis addresses gaps identified in previous studies by utilizing a comprehensive literature review to understand the research problems surrounding the pragmatic act of apologizing and responding It incorporates various theories, including sociopragmatics, conversation analysis, and pragmatic act theory, to examine the relationship between the acts of apologizing and responding in relation to social variables such as gender and social power By employing conversation analysis, the research identifies minimal adjacency pairs of apology and response strategies, which are crucial for the analyses presented in Chapters Four and Five The application of pragmatic act theory further facilitates the examination of these strategies based on established taxonomies, enabling a detailed exploration of conversational patterns Ultimately, Chapter Two lays the groundwork for the subsequent analysis, guiding the researcher’s focus in the following chapters.

This chapter revisits the three research questions and outlines the research design, primary methods, and instruments utilized in the study It details the data collection process, including sample descriptions and selection criteria, as well as the data analysis procedures, analytical framework, and considerations for reliability and validity.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This thesis employs a descriptive contrastive research approach, utilizing qualitative methods alongside quantitative data to examine apology and response strategies in English and Vietnamese film dialogues through the lens of sociopragmatics The study aims to uncover the similarities and differences in these strategies based on gender and power dynamics The careful formulation of research objectives and question types significantly guided the selection of the research design, aligning with Creswell's principles.

(2017) As stated in Chapter One, this thesis had three objectives to be achieved:

- to discover apology and response strategies in English film conversations, especially those under the influences of gender and power;

- to identify apology and response strategies in Vietnamese film conversations, especially those under the influences of gender and power;

- to analyze similarities and differences in apology and response strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations, especially those under the influences of gender and power

After the research objectives were identified, this thesis was based on the two taxonomies which were used to identify the apology strategies developed by Trosborg

In the realm of apology response strategies, Trosborg (2011) identified five key categories: direct strategies, indirect strategies, evasive strategies, opting out, and remedial support This classification builds upon the foundational theories of direct and indirect speech acts proposed by Searle (1990, 1995) Understanding these strategies enhances our grasp of effective communication in apologetic contexts.

In 1975, an apology taxonomy was established, categorizing apologies into two main groups: direct and indirect strategies Direct apology strategies encompass expressions of regret, offers of apology, and requests for forgiveness In contrast, indirect apology strategies include evasive tactics, opting-out methods, and providing remedial support.

The researcher investigated whether Trosborg (2011) developed a taxonomy of apology responses but found that he did not Consequently, the researcher sought another linguist's taxonomy, despite the limited previous studies on this topic Holmes (1990, 1995) provided a taxonomy of apology response strategies that includes four categories: acceptance, acknowledgement, evasion, and rejection These categories are further divided into direct response strategies (acceptance and rejection) and indirect response strategies (acknowledgement and evasion).

To achieve the outlined objectives, a correlation was established between the objectives and research questions restated in this chapter This thesis aimed to gather both qualitative and quantitative information to address the three primary research questions.

1 What are apology and response strategies in English film conversations, especially those under the influences of gender and power?

2 What are apology and response strategies in Vietnamese film conversations, especially those under the influences of gender and power?

3 What are similarities and differences in apology and response strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations, especially those under the influences of gender and power?

This study investigates apology and response strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations, focusing on the social variables of gender and power The descriptive method was employed for the first two research questions, while a contrastive method was utilized for the third question to compare these strategies across both languages Consequently, the thesis is structured as descriptive contrastive research, integrating qualitative methods alongside quantitative data for a comprehensive analysis.

RESEARCH PLANS

After the research design was determined, this thesis was carried out with steps as follows

Step 1: Identifying problems about the apology and response strategies as a pair of speech acts in daily life conversations

Step 2: Criticizing the previous studies to determine the research gaps related to apology and response strategies

Step 3: Setting aims, objectives, and their corresponding research questions of this thesis

In Step 4, we utilize a theoretical framework encompassing sociopragmatics, conversation analysis, speech act theory, and pragmatic act theory to examine apology and response strategies This investigation focuses on how gender and power dynamics influence these strategies, providing a comprehensive understanding of the nuances in apologies and their responses.

Step 5: Designing this thesis as a descriptive contrastive qualitative research with the support of quantitative information

Step 6: Choosing sources of data

Step 7: Sampling the data based on the sample design and description of apology and response strategies which were extracted from exchanges in socio- psychological film conversations

Step 8: Determining the three data collection instruments namely checklists for observation, film scripts as existing data, and researcher analysis

Step 9: Collecting exchanges including pairs of apology and response m strategies in socio-psychological film conversations

In Step 10, we conduct a qualitative analysis of apology and response strategies, focusing on gender and power dynamics in both English and Vietnamese contexts This involves a detailed description and comparison of these strategies, while also incorporating quantitative data, which is presented through numerical representations, charts, and tables for clarity and insight.

Step 11: Discussing the data in the relation among languages and gender, power, and culture

Step 12: Summarizing the results and findings for conclusions

Step 13: Giving implications for language research, practical social communication, and language learning and teaching

Step 14: Suggesting some further research based on the limitations of this doctoral thesis.

RESEARCH METHODS

Qualitative Method

This thesis employed a qualitative methodology complemented by quantitative data As noted by Rasinger (2013), the qualitative approach is grounded in inductive methods, facilitating discovery and exploration.

Qualitative research, as confirmed in 2018, effectively identifies and describes the characteristics of language usage while providing real examples of specific phenomena This thesis employed several qualitative methods to achieve its objectives.

(i) Providing in-depth data of apology strategies, apology response strategies, and minimal adjacency pairs in English and Vietnamese conversations

(ii) Examining the patterns and socio-pragmatic features of utterances in conversations which included apology and response strategies

(iii) Describing characteristics of utterances which included apology strategies, apology response strategies, adjacency pairs, and patterns in terms of m gender and social power in each language

The study quantitatively analyzed the frequency and occurrence of apology and response strategies, focusing on gender and power dynamics This data was presented through numerical representations, charts, and tables, allowing for a more detailed examination of the underlying essence of these strategies.

(i) Giving information about the number of apology strategies, apology response strategies, and minimal adjacency pairs in English and Vietnamese conversations

(ii) Finding out how many patterns of utterances in conversations which included apology and response strategies

(iii) Quantifying the more or less numbers of apology strategies, apology response strategies, adjacency pairs, and patterns in terms of gender and social power in each language

(iv) Investigating the number of similarities and differences of apology strategies, apology response strategies, adjacency pairs, and patterns in each language

This research was approached by using qualitative method with the help of quantitative information; therefore, the final results of this research were reliable.

Descriptive Method

The descriptive method seems to be the most popular tool in doing any linguistic research since linguistics is by nature a descriptive science (Litosseliti,

The descriptive method, as outlined by Knupfer and McLellan (1996), involves the collection, organization, tabulation, depiction, and description of data This thesis primarily focuses on analyzing patterns of apology and response strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations, as well as examining the influences of gender and power on these strategies.

Contrastive Method

In this thesis, the parallel contrastive method was applied to English and Vietnamese conversations and the steps were carried out to compare and contrast as follows:

This study compares and contrasts patterns of apology and response strategies across two languages, examining the influence of gender and power dynamics on these communicative behaviors It identifies commonalities shared between the languages as well as unique elements that distinguish one language from the other.

(ii) If they were the same, the researcher mentioned the common ones and gave explanations for such similarities via two variable factors of gender and power

(iii) When a particular apology and response strategy was unique to a language, the researcher explained the differences via two variable factors of gender and social power

The contrastive analysis method, a key aspect of contrastive linguistics, employs an inductive approach to examine the similarities and differences in morphosyntactic systems and semantics across languages (Tajareh, 2015) As a fundamental component of the descriptive method, this approach enhances our understanding of linguistic contrasts and parallels, thereby playing a crucial role in concept formation and description (Collier, 1993).

This thesis utilized the parallel contrastive method to analyze and compare the apology and response strategies in English and Vietnamese conversations, aiming to identify the similarities and differences between these two languages Both English and Vietnamese served as the source languages for this study.

DATA COLLECTION

Sources of Data

Socio-psychological films were selected for their portrayal of everyday conversations among family members, friends, lovers, and colleagues, highlighting various strategies of apology and response in diverse contexts.

This thesis utilizes two primary data sources for a comprehensive analysis of socio-psychological films The first source consists of films viewed on platforms such as YouTube, Netflix, and FPT Play The second source includes film scripts and subtitles in both English and Vietnamese, which were obtained from various film websites.

The selection of data sources for this thesis was guided by four key criteria: objectivity, coverage, currency, and availability The doctoral candidate first assessed the objectives of various websites to ensure they provided information aimed at entertainment and education Next, the coverage of these sources was evaluated to confirm their inclusion of socio-psychological films relevant to the study The currency of the films was also crucial, as access to socio-psychological films was limited in 2021 and 2022; thus, the selected films were produced between 2015 and 2020, reflecting the latest strategies for apologizing and responding to apologies Finally, the availability of films was prioritized, focusing on free download websites to alleviate the financial burden on the doctoral candidate.

A list of websites together with links in English and Vietnamese was illustrated in details in Table 3.1

Table 3.1 List of film scripts’ free download websites in English and Vietnamese

No Websites in English Websites in

1 Simply Scripts http://www.simplyscripts.com/movie.html

2 Internet Movie Script Database https://imsdb.com/

3 The Weekly Script http://www.weeklyscript.com/

4 Screenplays for You http://sfy.ru/

5 John August https://johnaugust.com/

6 The Daily Script https://www.dailyscript.com/

7 Movie Scripts and Screenplays http://www.moviescriptsandscreenplays.com/

9 Internet Movie Screenplay Database (IMDB) http://www.imsdb.com/

10 Go Into the Story http://gointothestory.blcklst.com/free-script- downloads/

11 Drew’s Script-o-Rama http://www.script-o- rama.com/snazzy/table.html

12 AwesomeFilm http://www.awesomefilm.com/

13 The Daily Script http://www.dailyscript.com/movie.html

14 The Screenplay Database http://www.screenplaydb.com/film/all

15 The Script Lab https://thescriptlab.com/

16 Movie Scripts and Screenplays http://www.moviescriptsandscreenplays.com/

Population, Samples, and Sampling

In the United States, where English is the primary language, a total of 46 socio-psychological films were produced and released A comprehensive list of these English-language films is provided in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 List of socio-psychological films in English

1 The end of the tour

The other side of the wind

The boss baby family business

Orange is the new black 5

4 Carol Westworld The sinner The terror Little women

5 Spotlight The people Crashing 1 Barry The wife The father

6 Tangerine Baskets Godless 1 Killing Eve Honey boy Let him go

Table 3.3 includes 43 Vietnamese films which were produced in Vietnam There were 7 films in 2015, 5 in 2016, 7 in 2017, 6 in 2018, 7 in 2019, and 11 in

Table 3.3 List of socio-psychological films in Vietnamese

1 Khép mắt chờ ngày mai

Zippo, mù tạt, và em

Người phán xử Đánh tráo số phận

Mê cung Chạy trốn thanh xuân

3 Đập cánh giữa không trung

Bao giờ có yêu nhau

Chiều ngang qua phố cũ

Cả một đời ân oán 2

Hoa hồng trên ngực trái

4 Tôi thấy hoa vàng trên cỏ xanh

Những ngọn nến trong đêm

Sống chung với mẹ chồng

Ngày ấy mình đã yêu

Những cô gái trong thành phố Đừng bắt em phải quên

5 Hôn nhân trong ngõ hẹp

Mối tình đầu của tôi

Cả một đời ân oán 1

Bán chồng Tình yêu và tham vọng

10 Gia đình là số 1 (phần 3)

This thesis analyzes samples of exchanges involving apologies and response strategies, specifically drawn from film scripts and subtitles of socio-psychological films in both languages.

This research analyzes conversations that consist of multiple exchanges, specifically focusing on the apology strategy taxonomy by Trosborg (2011) and the apology response strategy taxonomy by Holmes (1990, 1995) The study collects exchanges that include pairs of speech acts involving apologies and their corresponding response strategies It emphasizes both direct and indirect apology strategies, as well as direct and indirect response strategies, drawn from English and Vietnamese conversations A typical sample is described to illustrate these dynamics.

In conversations involving apologies, various performative markers are utilized to convey the act of apologizing In English, these markers include words such as "afraid," "apologize," "sorry," and "forgive," while in Vietnamese, expressions like "xin lỗi," "hối hận," and "tha thứ" serve a similar purpose Responses to these apologies can also feature explicit performative markers, such as "OK," "it’s OK," and "not at all" in English, or "được rồi," "không sao," and "chuyện nhỏ" in Vietnamese Additionally, some responses may outright refuse the apology, using terms like "no" or "do not forgive." This highlights the nuanced interplay of language in expressing and responding to apologies across different cultures.

English or không, không bao giờ, không bỏ qua, không quên được, không đời nào, không được, không thể tha thứ in Vietnamese

The instance (3.1) illustrated the exchange of [direct apology strategies- direct positive response strategy] while (3.2) described the exchange [direct apology strategies- direct negative response strategy]

(3.1) Laura: It’s nothing Sorry Sorry It’s just the whisky

(No.1, appendix 3) (3.2) Anh công nhân: Tôi rất xin lỗi, thưa ông! Ông Bình: Không được, cậu phải đền bù cho tôi, không nói suông vậy được

(No.2, appendix 3) (Male employee: I’m so sorry, sir!

In the interactions between Mr Bình and the apologizees, explicit apologies are conveyed through phrases like "Sorry" and "Tôi rất xin lỗi." In the first example, the apologizee responds positively by accepting the apology with "It’s OK," showcasing a direct positive response strategy Conversely, in the second example, the apologizee employs a direct negative response strategy, rejecting the apology by stating "Không được." These contrasting responses highlight the dynamics of apology acceptance and rejection in communication.

Utterances in an exchange might not include direct apology markers and response markers but still performed the act of apologizing and responding indirectly were also collected

Anthony: I forgot all about it

In a conversation between two lovers, Anne expresses an indirect apology by acknowledging her overreaction, stating, "I know that I overacted." In response, Anthony indirectly accepts her apology with the remark, "I forgot all about it." This exchange highlights the use of indirect apology strategies in their communication.

(3.4) Ông Bình: Đừng có giận nữa mà, bà giận dai thế không biết!

Vợ: Tôi mệt lắm, ông đừng nói gì cả

(Mr Bình: Don’t be angry, you are always getting mad at me.)

His wife: I’m tired of you, don’t say anything.)

The instance (3.4) is a conversation among a husband and wife which reveals the exchange of [indirect apology strategies- indirect negative response strategy]

Mr Bình indirectly apologizes when saying Đừng có giận nữa mà while his wife indirectly rejected his apology when saying I’m tired of you

A total of 1,207 exchanges featuring apology and response strategies were analyzed, with 557 exchanges from English films and 650 from Vietnamese films These exchanges were randomly collected from a selection of 46 English and 43 Vietnamese socio-psychological films released between 2015 and 2020 The focus on socio-psychological films was intentional, as the study aimed to explore the dynamics of apology and response strategies among family members, lovers, friends, and colleagues The random sampling of these exchanges allows for a comprehensive examination of the variations in apology and response strategies across different cultural contexts.

Table 3.4 The description of collected data

3 Contexts From socio-psychological films

4 Apology strategies Direct and indirect apology strategies

Direct and indirect apology response strategies

6 Population 46 English and 43 Vietnamese socio- psychological films

7 Samples 557 English and 650 Vietnamese exchanges

Data Collection Instruments

To achieve the research objectives and address the research questions, three data collection instruments were utilized: observation using checklists in observation sheets, analysis of existing data through the reading of film scripts and subtitles, and the incorporation of human instruments.

This thesis presents a comprehensive checklist of apology and response strategies, supported by a data analysis matrix in Table 3.9 The researcher utilized this matrix to create four observation sheets (Tables 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8), which detail patterns, sub-patterns, exchanges, and contextual factors such as gender and power These tables facilitate the collection of data on apology and response strategies within English and Vietnamese socio-psychological film conversations.

The researcher utilized observation as a method to measure the content viewed during the screening of socio-psychological films in English and Vietnamese on YouTube To collect comprehensive data, the films were played multiple times, as detailed in the four tables presented below Additionally, a checklist was employed while analyzing the film scripts and subtitles downloaded from various film websites.

Shown in Table 3.5 was the observation sheet pattern of [Direct apology strategies - direct response strategies]

Table 3.5 An observation sheet for the pattern of [Direct apology strategies - direct response strategies]

Patterns Sub-patterns Exch- anges

Table 3.6 reveals an observation sheet for the pattern of [Indirect apology strategies - direct response strategies] m

Table 3.6 An observation sheet for the pattern of [Indirect apology strategies - direct response strategies]

Patterns Sub-patterns Exch- anges

Opting out – Rejection Lower power apologizer

What stands out from Table 3.7 is an observation sheet for the pattern of

[Direct apology strategies - indirect response strategies] m

Table 3.7 An observation sheet for the pattern of [Direct apology strategies - indirect response strategies]

Patterns Sub-patterns Exch- anges

Offer of Apology – Evasion Female - female

Table 3.8 demonstrates an observation sheet for the pattern of [Indirect apology strategies - indirect response strategies] m

Table 3.8 An observation sheet for the pattern of [Indirect apology strategies - indirect response strategies]

Patterns Sub-patterns Exch- anges

3.4.3.2 Document Reading of Existing Data

This thesis utilized film scripts and subtitles as valuable data collection tools To organize the gathered exchanges, tables were created to systematically present the information extracted from the film scripts and subtitle texts.

Film scripts from socio-psychological films were sourced from various websites, as detailed in Table 3.1 The researcher meticulously reviewed these scripts to identify exchanges that aligned with the criteria outlined in section 3.3.2.

Data Collection Procedures

This thesis analyzes socio-psychological films in English and Vietnamese produced between 2015 and 2021, focusing on the exchanges of apology and response strategies found in their scripts and subtitles The data collection aimed to identify specific instances of apologies and their corresponding responses, selecting only those exchanges that feature this dynamic After counting the total number of relevant exchanges, the study categorizes the types of apology strategies and response strategies utilized Detailed steps for the data collection process are outlined below.

Step 1: Watching and observing socio-psychological films several times on YouTube, using checklists in four observation sheets as demonstrated in Tables 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8 in Section 3.4.3.1 to collect exchanges

Step 2: Downloading film scripts from the Internet free download websites as shown in Table 3.1

Step 3: Reading intensively the film scripts to collect exchanges

Step 4: Copying and pasting exchanges into tables for data analysis

Step 5: Classifying exchanges with the initiation acts of direct apology strategies

In analyzing direct apology strategies and their corresponding response tactics, Microsoft Word 2019 was utilized to identify performative markers within film scripts and subtitles across two languages The study involved gathering direct apology strategies and matching them with relevant apology response strategies This approach facilitated the collection of exchanges between direct apology strategies and both indirect and direct response strategies, providing a comprehensive overview of the dynamics in apology interactions.

Step 6: Classifying exchanges with the closing acts of direct apology response strategies

In the study, Microsoft Word 2019 was utilized to analyze the performative expressions associated with direct response strategies of acceptance and rejection Subsequently, the researcher gathered various preceding apology strategies, effectively compiling exchanges of direct apology strategies in conjunction with direct response strategies, as well as indirect apology strategies paired with direct response strategies.

DATA ANALYSIS

Statistical Analysis Tool

Statistical analysis is a crucial component of data analysis, as it aids in describing data, illustrating its distribution, and summarizing it in relation to the study's objectives (Almela, 2020) This analysis also uncovers trends within the data, enabling researchers to compare and contrast similarities and differences among various data sources Furthermore, utilizing software can significantly decrease the time required for conducting statistical analyses (Hinton, McMurray, and Brownlow, 2014).

This thesis utilizes Microsoft Excel 2019, the latest version of the software, to analyze data effectively The advanced features of Excel 2019 facilitate easy, accurate, and time-efficient data statistics, enhancing the overall analysis process.

Matrix of Collected Data

This thesis utilizes Trosborg's (2011) apology strategy taxonomy and Holmes' (1990, 1995) response strategy taxonomy, alongside Searle's (1975) theory of direct and indirect speech acts To facilitate data collection, a matrix of exchanges incorporating both apology and response strategies was developed.

Table 3.9 Matrix of exchanges including apology and response strategies in terms of gender and power

No Patterns Pragmatic acts of apology and response strategies

Expression of Regret – Acceptance Expression of Regret – Rejection Male –

Offer of Apology – Acceptance Offer of Apology – Rejection Request for Forgiveness – Acceptance Request for Forgiveness – Rejection

Explanation or account– Acceptance Explanation or account – Rejection Evasive Strategy – Acceptance Evasive Strategy – Rejection Opting-out Strategy – Acceptance Opting-out Strategy – Rejection Remedial Support – Acceptance Remedial Support – Rejection

Expression of Regret – Acknowledgement Expression of Regret – Evasion

Offer of Apology – Acknowledgement Offer of Apology – Evasion

Evasive Strategy – Acknowledgement Evasive Strategy – Evasion

Opting-out Strategy – Acknowledgement Opting-out Strategy – Evasion

Remedial Support – Acknowledgement Remedial Support – Evasion m

Data Analysis Procedure

Data analysis, as described by Creswell et al (2007) and Rossman and Rallis (2011), is a comprehensive process that transforms raw texts into meaningful insights This process includes preparing the data, conducting various analyses, and progressively deepening the understanding of the information It culminates in representing the data and interpreting its broader significance An overview of this multi-level analysis process is illustrated in Figure 3.1, highlighting the transition from specific details to general conclusions.

Figure 3.1 Data analysis in qualitative research proposed by Creswell

This thesis employs data analysis procedures adapted from Creswell (2017), incorporating both descriptive and contrast analysis The methodology is structured around the matrix presented in Table 3.9, ensuring a comprehensive examination of the data.

In the first step, it is essential to identify and classify four distinct types of exchanges: direct apology strategies paired with direct response strategies, indirect apology strategies combined with direct response strategies, direct apology strategies alongside indirect response strategies, and finally, indirect apology strategies in conjunction with indirect response strategies, all within relevant contexts.

Step 2: Identifying and classifying subcategories of each type of four exchanges in contexts

The adoption of Trosborg's (2011) apology strategy taxonomy and Holmes's (1990, 1995) response strategy taxonomy has illuminated the identification and description of apology and response strategies in conversational exchanges The researcher established that each specific apology strategy corresponds to a particular response strategy, with each exchange analyzed within the context of the conversation in which it occurs.

Step 3: Analyzing the exchanges in terms of gender which were divided into

4 groups: male – male, male – female, female – female, and female – male

Step 4: Analyzing the exchanges in terms of power which were divided into 3 groups: higher power apologizer, lower power apologizer, and equal power apologizer

Step 5: Counting and calculating the occurrence of 4 exchange types and subtypes in terms of gender and power with the application of MCE2019 to present information of these types Reliability checks for the internal consistency of the information were conducted in this step The information was then illustrated in tables, and percentages with the help of MCE2019.The calculation was shown as follows:

F: frequency of each exchange n: total number of samples m

Step 6: Presenting the calculation results into tables and figures to interpret the findings

Step 7: Describing the results for research question 1 and 2

Step 8: Comparing and contrasting to find out the similarities and differences in exchanges of apology and response strategies in terms of gender and power in both languages where English and Vietnamese were source languages

Step 9: Drawing the conclusions and suggesting implications for language research, and language teaching and learning.

Analytical Framework of the Study

This thesis employs a theoretical framework outlined in Chapter Two, guiding the analytical process depicted in Figure 3.2 Initially, exchanges from scripts and subtitles of socio-psychological films were extracted Following this, specific apology and apology response strategies from each conversation were identified Each exchange was categorized into apology strategies and their corresponding response strategies to analyze the usage in both languages Finally, the combinations of these strategies within the exchanges were examined.

Figure 3.2 Analytical framework of the thesis m

RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY

Noticeably, reliability and validity are the two most important criteria to guarantee the quality of the data collection procedures

This research emphasizes the importance of carefully selecting and analyzing socio-psychological films in English and Vietnamese to ensure the reliability of findings related to apology and response strategies Data triangulation, incorporating methodological, researcher, and theoretical perspectives, was employed to enhance reliability, with consistent comparisons made against theoretical frameworks established in Chapter One The study meticulously organized information on speech acts, apologies, and related strategies, drawing from various educators and linguists to support its theoretical foundation A step-by-step approach was utilized for data collection and analysis, as detailed in Chapter 3, employing various instruments such as observation checklists, film script reviews, and human analysis Following Gibbs (2007), statistical tools were applied to assess the consistency of the data, with Miles and Huberman (1994) suggesting that a minimum of 80% agreement is necessary for robust qualitative reliability.

Validity is a key strength of qualitative research, focusing on the accuracy of findings as perceived by the researcher (Creswell, 2007) To ensure this accuracy, researchers often employ various strategies for verification The study in question demonstrated both reliability and validity, with the data collection process designed to support these attributes through a descriptive contrastive qualitative approach complemented by quantitative data Qualitative validity involves the researcher verifying the accuracy of findings through specific procedures, while qualitative reliability ensures a consistent research approach across different researchers and projects (Gibbs, 2007).

CHAPTER SUMMARY

This thesis explores socio-psychological film conversations, focusing on apology and response exchanges in English and Vietnamese, using data from films produced between 2015 and 2020 Employing a descriptive contrastive qualitative research design complemented by quantitative analysis, the study was guided by a clear research framework that aligned with its objectives The data analysis utilized Microsoft Excel 2019 for statistical evaluation, ensuring a thorough examination of adjacency pairs in both languages The findings, detailed in Chapters Four, Five, and Six, present well-categorized sociopragmatic features, contributing valuable insights to the field.

Figure 3.3 Overview of the research methodology m

CHAPTER FOUR APOLOGY AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES

Chapter Four investigates the dynamics of apology exchanges and response strategies in English film conversations, focusing on three key areas: the nature of these exchanges, the impact of gender on apology strategies, and the influence of power dynamics on how apologies are expressed and received.

EXCHANGES OF APOLOGY AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES

Direct and Indirect Apology Strategies

This thesis utilizes Trosborg's (2011) AS taxonomy to analyze the types of Apology Strategies (ASs) employed by characters in socio-psychological films during their English conversations The taxonomy identifies five categories: direct strategies, indirect strategies, evasive strategies, opting out, and remedial support Building on Searle's (1975) direct and indirect speech act theory, the study focuses on two primary categories of apology strategies: direct and indirect Within the direct strategies, three sub-categories are highlighted: expression of regret, offer of apology, and request for forgiveness.

Meanwhile, the latter covers acknowledgment of responsibility, explanation or account, evasive strategies, opting out, and remedial support

Recent analysis of English conversations from film scripts and subtitles revealed two additional strategies for expressing apologies The first, termed "no apology," indicated that while the apologizers remained silent, the apologizees recognized their intent to apologize Consequently, this strategy was excluded from the findings, as the focus of the research is on verbal apologies The second strategy identified was the "mixed apology strategy," which involves the integration of multiple apology strategies This new category was included in the study's findings to enhance the understanding of the frequency of apology strategies in English conversations derived from film extracts.

Table 4.1 Frequency of apology strategies in English Apology

Expression of lack of intent Expression of self-deficiency Expression of Embarrassment Explicit acceptance of the blame

Querying precondition Blaming someone else

4 Opting out Explicit denial of responsibility 20 3.59

Implicit denial of responsibility Justification

5 Remedial support Expressing concern for hearer 85 15.26

Offer of repair Promise of forbearance

According to Table 4.1, indirect strategies emerged as the most prevalent apology strategy, constituting 56.55% (n=15) of the total, significantly surpassing the newly identified mixed apology strategies, which accounted for only 2.69% (n) Direct strategies ranked second, making up 40.75% (n=7), with indirect strategies being nearly 1.4 times more common than direct ones The widespread use of direct strategies aligns with findings from numerous prior studies.

(Altayari, 2017; Bataineh, 2008; Deutschmann, 2003; Holmes, 1990, 1995; Hussein and Hammouri, 1998; Qari, 2017; Shardakova, 2005)

Direct apology strategies in English involve specific performative expressions, known as apology markers or Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs), as identified by Olshtain and Cohen (1983) These expressions include terms such as "be afraid," "apologize," "excuse," "forgive," "pardon," "regret," and "be sorry."

The three primary types of Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs) are expressions of regret, requests for forgiveness, and offers of apology, accounting for 24.06%, 11.67%, and 5.02% respectively Notably, expressions of regret dominate the data, being more than twice as prevalent as requests for forgiveness and nearly five times more common than offers of apology.

The findings support the universality of direct strategies, aligning with previous studies by Holmes (1990, 1995), Hussein and Hammouri (1998), Deutschmann (2003), Shardakova (2005), Bataineh (2008), Altayari (2017), and Qari (2017), which identified the expression of regret as the most commonly used direct strategy in English.

(1990, 1995), Hussein and Hammouri (1998), Deutschmann (2003), Shardakova

Research by Bataineh (2008), Abdi and Biri (2014), Altayari (2017), and Qari (2017) indicates that the most commonly employed direct strategy in English communication is the expression of regret This strategy's high prevalence in the corpus is attributed to its practicality and effectiveness, along with its relatively low demand on speakers (Holmes, 1990).

It is desirable because it allows offenders to make amends and restore the relationships that they have shattered for the least amount of money feasible (Nikmah,

In alignment with Sari (2009), who highlighted the prevalence of regret expression in his analysis of the film "Pretty Woman," Nikmah (2012) found that both expressions of regret and offers of apology were the most common methods in her study of the "Twilight" film Notably, expressing regret serves as a direct apologetic strategy, where the offender openly acknowledges their remorse for their actions.

However, Shariati and Chamani (2010) found that request forgiveness and expression of regret were the most and least common apology strategies, respectively, in their research of apology expressions in Persian

Figure 4.1 Frequency of direct strategies in English

The analysis of examples in the next three subsections provides a clear understanding about direct strategies a Expression of Regret

In conversations, the apologizer conveys regret through performative expressions and verbs like "regret," "afraid," and "sorry," effectively communicating their remorse to the apologizees.

His mother: It’s okay, my dear

The son sincerely apologized to his mother for leaving the lights on after exiting his bedroom, expressing genuine regret for his oversight.

This micro level of direct strategies appeared when the apologizers wanted the forgiveness from the apologizees and was uttered through performative

Direct Strategies m expressions or verbs namely forgive, pardon, and excuse

(4.2) Olivia : Well, I think I will go to the bookstore in the next two days

Lilly : Pardon me, I didn’t hear what you said

In the conversation, Lilly did not hear the information of what Olivia had uttered before; therefore, she subsequently requested Olivia for forgiveness by using

“Pardon me” to express her regret c Offer of Apology

The last type of direct strategies was used when the apologizers offered an apology to the apologizees for the mistakes or offends they made

(4.3) Staff : I apologize for my late submission of the project

In a recent discussion, the company staff failed to meet the project deadline and subsequently apologized to the manager, stating, "I apologize for my late submission of the project." This expression of regret highlights the importance of timely project delivery in a professional setting.

In this study, we focused on explicit apology strategies and their corresponding response strategies in English and Vietnamese conversations For the sake of convenience and the thesis's scope, only explicit apologies and responses were analyzed The research specifically examined the performative markers involved in these utterances, highlighting their patterns and linguistic expressions.

Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2 illustrate the various forms and linguistic realizations of apologies in communication The analysis reveals 227 instances of direct strategies employing performative expressions such as "sorry," "apology," "apologize," "fault," "excuse," "pardon," "regret," "forgive," and "afraid." Additionally, five mixed apology strategies were identified, resulting in a total of 232 utterances derived from 557 pragmatic exchanges related to apologizing and responses While Table 4.2 provides a detailed breakdown of 21 patterns and their linguistic realizations, Figure 4.2 offers a visual overview of the frequency of these patterns.

Table 4.2 Distribution of patterns and linguistic realizations of apology utterances in

Forgive me this but Clause

5 Apologizing + Apologizee Sorry, proper name 15 6.47

6 Apologizing + Explanation Forgive my NP 1 0.43

Sorry for NP/ gerund 17 7.33 Sorry to VP

My apology to pronoun/proper name

I apologize for NP/ that Clause/ Gerund

I’m sorry about/ for NP/ that Clause/ Gerund

I’m truly sorry for what happened

I’m afraid that Clause 12 5.18 I’m sorry that Clause

I want to apologize to proper name/ pronoun

You can forgive me 3 1.29 Would you excuse me?

I Modal verb apologize for NP/Gerund

As can be seen from Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2, Pattern 14 [Apologizer + Verb

+ Apologizing] reached its peak at 18.98% (nD) which was slightly higher than the second highest of Pattern 1 [Apologizing] at 16.81% (n9) Pattern 2 [Apologizing

Patterns 12 and 15, which include combinations of apologizers and various forms of apologizing, both experienced similar occurrences, with rates around 11%—specifically, 10.78%, 11.2%, and 10.34% for their respective variations Meanwhile, seven patterns ranked at the bottom of the list, each at a mere 0.43%, including Pattern 4, which combines apologizing with the apologizer.

This article explores various patterns of apologizing, including demonstrative conjunctions to provide explanations, and different structures for expressing apologies Key patterns include apologizing with an explanation, using prepositions to specify the recipient of the apology, and incorporating conditional sentences to convey the context of the apology Additionally, the article highlights the use of intensifiers to emphasize the apology and the role of emphatic forms to strengthen the expression of regret Each pattern serves to enhance communication and convey sincerity in apologies.

Figure 4.2 Pattern distribution of apology utterances in English

Direct and Indirect Response Strategies

Regarding the response strategies, the ARS taxonomy proposed by Homes

The integration of Searle's direct and indirect speech act theory (1975) with research from 1990 and 1995 provides insight into the Assertive Response Strategies (ARS) used by characters in socio-psychological films while communicating in English This ARS taxonomy categorizes strategies into two main groups: direct response strategies, which include acceptance and acknowledgment, and indirect response strategies, encompassing evasion and rejection.

In analyzing English film scripts and subtitles, it was observed that some apologizees chose not to respond to apologizers, a phenomenon termed "no response." Conversely, other apologizees utilized various Apology Response Strategies (ARSs) to engage with the apologizers, categorized as "mixed apology response strategy." Notably, "no response" was excluded from Table 4.4, which focuses solely on verbal responses, while the mixed apology response strategy was introduced as a new ARS type in the same table Table 4.4 presents data on the frequency of ARSs within socio-psychological film contexts, highlighting the dynamics of conversational exchanges in these narratives.

Table 4.4 Frequency of apology response strategies in English

Mixed apology response strategy Subtotal 9 1.61

In a study of apology response strategies, direct response strategies were utilized more frequently than indirect ones, with a prevalence of 59.25% (n=30) compared to 39.14% (n=18) Characters predominantly accepted apologies directly, making acceptance the most common apology response at 39.14% (n=18) Conversely, the mixed apology response strategy was the least employed, accounting for only 1.61% (n=9) This indicates a significant disparity, with direct acceptance being over 24 times more common than mixed responses Acknowledgment followed as the second most frequent strategy at 29.45% (n=4).

Evasion accounted for 9.69% (nT), marking it as the second lowest among the apology strategies Notably, the macro-level analysis revealed a lack of emotional expression in acceptance The subsequent examples illustrate how apologizees employed response strategies in English within specific contexts, aligning with the thesis's framework.

Acceptance, as defined by Margaret, Jennifer, and Joanna (2015, p.87), is the act of agreeing with and approving something In English conversations, the acceptance of apologies encompasses seven distinct sub-categories: absolution, thanking, advice/suggestion, requests, expressing empathy, expressing emotion, and formal acceptance, each utilized at varying frequencies.

Figure 4.10 Frequency of acceptance in English

Figure 4.10 illustrates that absolution leads with a significant 17.06% (n), more than double the second highest category, request, which stands at 8.08% (nE) Notably, the ARS taxonomy by Homes (1990, 1995) identifies expressing emotion as a sub-category of acceptance; however, no instances of this type were recorded.

Apparently, formal acceptance was at the bottom with the least frequently use at

According to Margaret, Jennifer, and Joanna (2015, p.45), an apology is defined as a formal statement expressing forgiveness for wrongdoing Typically, those receiving the apology, known as apologizees, are inclined to forgive the offenses committed by the apologizers This act can be signified through performative expressions such as "OK" or "Alright."

(4.26) Professor: Sorry I can’t give it back to you today

Student: Well, well, okay, Sir Then, I will come back to you Umm when should

By saying “okay”, the student as the apologizee tended to understand why the professor could not give his writing assignment back to him a2 Thanking

It may seem strange for those receiving an apology to express gratitude towards the apologizers; however, this act of thanking can be interpreted as a sign of appreciation for the sincerity behind the apology.

(4.27) Freddie: I don’t believe that I did that to you I’m terribly sorry

Julie: Thanks At least, you say sorry, not like the other ones

In the conversation above, Julie said thanks to Freddie when he apoligized to her to show that she appreciates the willingness of saying sorry from Freddie a3 Advice or Suggestion

When offering advice to those who apologize, the goal is to improve the situation and address any harm caused For instance, a horse rider might say, "Oh, sorry, man I didn’t mean it at all," highlighting the importance of sincere apologies in mending relationships.

The audience: Be careful! It could be dangerous for the others

In this conversation, the audience got hurt when the horse rider passed by, then the apologizee advised the horse rider to be more careful next time m a4 Request

The apologizees implied to accept the apologies when asking the apologizers not to repeat the offensive actions

(4.29) Kya: Hey, I had to admit that I forgot your book

Ava: Please return it as soon as possible

(No.29, Appendix 4) Kya regretted that he forgot to bring Ava’s book; therefore, Ava asked him to return it a5 Expressing Empathy

The apologizees showed their empathy to the offense made by the apologizers as illustrated in the example below

(4.30) Thomas: It is my fault

Julie: I understand that you didn’t mean to do so

Such expressions “I accept your apology”, “I forgive you” were used more frequently in formal contexts.

(4.31) Student: Please forgive me for my cheating in the exam

Rejection is identified as the fourth category of apology response strategies, which also encompasses complaining, asking for compensation, and refusal Among these, asking for compensation emerged as the most frequently utilized strategy, accounting for 14.36% of responses This figure is significantly higher, nearly eight times greater, than the 1.8% associated with complaining Additionally, refusal, at 8.8%, was almost five times more prevalent than complaining.

Figure 4.11 Frequency of rejection in English b1 Complaining

The apologizees made comment on the personalities of the apologizers which could be the reason for the offense

(4.32) Thomas: I did it again So sorry

Julie: How careless of you!

(No.32, Appendix 4) b2 Asking for Compensation

The apologizees asked the apologizers to compensate for what they had done to the apologizees which may cause serious damage

(4.33) Thomas: I apologize for the damage

Julie: Yeah, you have to buy me another one

In this strategy, the apologizees explicitly rejected the apology by uttering markers of refusal such as no, nah, nope, or I don’t think so

(4.34) Thomas: Can you forgive me for what I have done?

(No.34, Appendix 4) There were 557 response utterances extracted from 557 exchanges of the

Rejection in the context of apologizing involves pragmatic acts that can be analyzed through Searle's (1969) theory of positive and negative speech acts The study identifies four patterns of response utterances: direct positive responses, indirect positive responses, indirect negative responses, and direct negative responses Direct positive responses, such as "yes," "OK," and "alright," indicate explicit acceptance of apologies, while indirect positive responses, including phrases like "never mind" and "it's nothing," convey implicit acceptance Conversely, negative responses are utilized by apologizees to refuse apologies, with direct negative responses like "no" and "I can't forgive you," and indirect negative responses such as "sorry." Additionally, mixed responses, which combine both positive and negative elements, were also observed, demonstrating the complexity of interpersonal communication in the context of apologies.

Table 4.5 Distribution of patterns and linguistic realizations of response utterances in

Yes, please/ sure Yes, you can/ could OK/ Okay/ Okey It’s OK/ Okay/ Okey Alright

No, not at all It’s nothing

No, I’m sorry, I can’t/ couldn’t 34 9.42 I’m sorry that I can’t forgive you

Oh, yeah It doesn’t matter, you know

A study on English response preferences revealed that direct positive responses were favored the most, accounting for 31.02% Indirect positive responses followed closely at 22.99% In contrast, negative responses showed a higher tendency for indirect forms at 18.56%, while direct negative responses were slightly lower at 18.01% Both types of negative responses were nearly equal, each around 18% Mixed responses were the least common, comprising only 9.42% of the total.

(n4) which was more than 3 times lower than the top of direct positive responses at 31.02% (n2)

In the analysis, only four out of seven types were recorded, with Absolution plus leading at 13.29%, while Formal plus was the lowest at 2.69% Additionally, Warning/Threatening ranked second lowest at 4.31%, and Evaluating was the second highest at 9.16%.

Figure 4.12 Frequency of acknowledgement in English a1 Absolution Plus

In this strategy, together with the use of markers OK, okay, or alright, the apologizees also asked the apologizers to do something to repair the offense

(4.35) Erik: Sorry, I didn’t tell you about this

Julie: It’s OK, but remember to tell me later I’m kind of busy right now

Incorporating reminders for apologizers to refrain from repeating their offenses, alongside formal expressions of forgiveness such as "I accept your apology" or "I forgive you," has been identified in the collected data as a combination of formal acknowledgment and strategic response.

(4.36) Joanna: Please, accept my apology

Teacher: I accept your apology, but don’t ever do that again

(No.36, Appendix 4) a3 Warning or Threatening

This strategy emerged when those seeking apologies insisted that the apologizers rectify their mistakes, warning that failure to do so could result in consequences that were less favorable than anticipated.

(4.37) Mye: I am sorry that I didn’t submit the assignments on time

Teacher: Submit your assignments right now If not, you will get bad marks

This response strategy is “the act of forming an opinion of the amount, value or quality of something after thinking about it carefully” as stated by Margaret,

Jennifer, and Joanna (2015, p.248) The apologizees evaluated the act of apologizing conducted by the apologizers or the offense caused by the apologizers

(4.38) Friend A: Hey, can you give me a treat? I forgot my purse, so sorry

Friend B: It’s ridiculous of you

(No.38, Appendix 4) This is a conversation among close friends where friend B evaluated that friend

A kept asking him or her to pay for the meal b Evasion

Apology and Response Strategies

Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 analyzed apology strategies and response strategies as distinct speech acts, utilizing Trosborg's (2011) taxonomy for apologies and Holmes' (1990, 1995) taxonomy for responses within Searle's (1975) framework of direct and indirect speech acts These strategies exemplify pragmatic acts, where apologizing and responding are interconnected In contrast, section 4.1.3 focused on the pragmatic exchanges between apologies and responses, examining which apology strategies corresponded with specific response strategies and their frequency in English conversations This analysis revealed the patterns of pragmatic acts in the context of apology and response interactions.

In English conversations, three distinct types of apology strategies are utilized: direct, indirect, and mixed strategies Correspondingly, there are three types of apology response strategies: direct, indirect, and mixed These strategies often occur in minimal adjacency pairs with varying exchange patterns Apologizers can initiate exchanges using any of the three apology strategies, which can then be followed by a matching response strategy Overall, there are nine combinations of pragmatic acts involving apologies and their corresponding response strategies.

Table 4.6 reveals that the most common exchanges of pragmatic acts of apologizing and responding were characterized by indirect strategies paired with direct response strategies, accounting for 33.21% of the instances This was followed by direct strategies combined with direct response strategies at 24.06%, and indirect strategies with indirect response strategies at 22.26%.

Table 4.6 Exchanges of pragmatic acts in English conversations

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in

Direct strategies - direct response strategies

Direct strategies - indirect response strategies

Direct strategies - mixed response strategies

Indirect strategies - direct response strategies

Indirect strategies - indirect response strategies

Indirect strategies - mixed response strategies

Mixed strategies - direct response strategies

Mixed strategies - indirect response strategies

Mixed strategies - mixed response strategies

In contrast, the exchanges of [direct strategies - mixed response strategies] at 0.54% (n=3), [mixed strategies - indirect response strategies] at 0.72% (n=4), and

[indirect strategies - mixed response strategies] at 1.08% (n=6) were at the bottom three The pattern of [mixed apology strategies - mixed response strategies] was not recorded

4.1.3.1 Direct Apology Strategies - Direct Response Strategies

The analysis revealed six sub-exchanges initiated with direct strategies, concluding with two types of direct response strategies Notably, the direct m strategies that focused on acceptance had a success rate of 15.8%, nearly double that of the other exchanges.

[direct strategies – rejection] at 8.26% (nF)

Table 4.7 Exchanges of direct apology strategies and direct response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in English

Expression of Regret Acceptance 88 15.8 Offer of Apology Acceptance

Request for Forgiveness Acceptance Expression of Regret Rejection 46 8.26 Offer of Apology Rejection

The exchange [direct strategies (expression of regret)– acceptance

(thanking)] in Example 4.44 is illustrated

(4.44) Doctor: I’m sorry for the delay, Elizabeth

Patient: Thank you for seeing me on such short notice

In a doctor's office, a patient expressed gratitude despite having to wait, as the doctor entered with her file and apologized for the delay.

4.1.3.2 Direct Apology Strategies - Indirect Response Strategies

The pragmatic act of exchanging information included six smaller exchanges, initiated through direct strategies and concluded with either evasion or acknowledgment via indirect response strategies These exchanges exemplified the use of direct strategies followed by acknowledgment.

12.21% (nh) was more than 3 times higher than the exchange [direct strategies – evasion] at 3.95% (n") m

Table 4.8 Exchanges of direct apology strategies and indirect response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in English

Offer of Apology Evasion Request for Forgiveness Evasion Expression of Regret Acknowledgement 68 12.21 Offer of Apology Acknowledgement

The exchange [direct strategies (expression of Regret)– acknowledgement

(deflecting or explaining)] in Example 4.44 is illustrated

(4.45) Ted: Sorry sweetie, I can’t do Christmas on the twenty-fifth.

Tabitha: But Uncle Ted, I missed you so much!

Ted, Tabitha’s uncle, expressed his regrets for not being able to join her for Christmas Tabitha, feeling his absence deeply, attempted to convince him of her longing for his presence, subtly indicating that she was not ready to accept his apology.

4.1.3.3 Direct Apology Strategies – Mixed Response Strategies

The exchange [direct strategies – mixed response strategies] made up 0.54% (n=3)

Table 4.9 Exchanges of direct apology strategies and mixed response strategies in

English conversations Exchanges of pragmatic acts in English

Expression of Regret Mixed response strategies

Offer of Apology Mixed response strategies Request for Forgiveness Mixed response strategies

The exchange [direct strategies (request for forgiveness)– mixed response strategies (rejection + acknowledgement)] in Example 4.44 is illustrated

(4.46) Baby Tina: Excuse me, I hate to interrupt, but may I make a suggestion? Why don’t you both suck it?

Tim: Nope, I don’t think that It’s ridiculous

In a playful exchange, baby Tina offers Tim a suggestion on how to use her pacifier, but Tim, unsure and resistant, declines to follow her advice He ultimately acknowledges her apology, finding the situation amusingly absurd.

4.1.3.4 Indirect Apology Strategies - Direct Response Strategies

Regarding indirect strategies as the first act, the exchange [indirect strategies

– acceptance] also ranked the top at 21.9% (n2)

Table 4.10 Exchanges of indirect apology strategies and direct response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in English

Explanation or account Acceptance Evasive strategies Acceptance

Explanation or account Rejection Evasive strategies Rejection

The exchange [indirect strategies (acknowledgment of responsibility) – acceptance (expressing empathy)] is presented in Example 4.45 as follow

(4.47) Patrick: I knew I shouldn’t have drunk so much last night Car keys Car keys

Anna: You hardly drank anything

In a heartfelt exchange after a night of intimacy, Anna sat dressed on the bed while Patrick frantically moved around the room, clearly distressed He offered an implicit apology, attributing his lack of self-control to his drunken state, lamenting, "I shouldn’t have drunk so much last night." Anna responded with empathy, reassuring him, "You hardly drank anything," demonstrating her understanding of his situation.

4.1.3.5 Indirect Apology Strategies - Indirect Response Strategies

The exchange [indirect strategies – evasion] stood at 16.7% (n) was more than 3 times higher than that of [indirect strategies – acknowledgement] at 5.56% (n1)

Table 4.11 Exchanges of indirect apology strategies and indirect response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in English

Explanation or account Acknowledgement Evasive strategies Acknowledgement Opting out Acknowledgement Remedial support Acknowledgement Acknowledgement of responsibility

Explanation or account Evasion Evasive strategies Evasion

Example 4.47 shows the exchange [indirect strategies (opting out)– m acknowledgement (evaluating)]

(4.48) Husband: I didn’t cheat on you She is a liar

Wife: No smoke without fire

After hearing from a friend that her husband was seen with another woman, the wife confronted him about the situation Despite his denial of any infidelity, stating, "I didn’t cheat on you," she remained skeptical Trusting her instincts, she reflected on the saying, "There's no smoke without fire," leading her to doubt his honesty.

4.1.3.6 Indirect Apology Strategies - Mixed Response Strategies

The least used exchange was [indirect strategies – mixed response strategies] at 1.08% (n=6)

Table 4.12 Exchanges of indirect apology strategies and mixed response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in English

Explanation or account Mixed response strategies

Evasive strategies Mixed response strategies

Opting out Mixed response strategies

Remedial support Mixed response strategies

The exchange [direct strategies (expression of Regret)– acceptance

(thanking)] in Example 4.44 is illustrated

(4.49) Doctor: I’m sorry for the delay, Elizabeth

Patient: Thank you for seeing me on such short notice

In a doctor's office, a doctor apologizes for the delay as she enters the room with the patient's file The patient, sitting on the couch, expresses gratitude to the doctor despite having to wait.

4.1.3.7 Mixed Apology Strategies - Direct Response Strategies

Eventually, initiating the adjacency pairs with mixed apology strategies, the exchange [mixed apology strategies – acceptance] also peaked at 1.43% (n=8), followed by [mixed apology strategies – rejection] at 0.54% (n=3)

Table 4.13 Exchanges of mixed apology strategies and direct response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in English

Below is an example of the pragmatic act with the use of the exchange [mixed apology strategies – acceptance (expressing empathy)]

(4.50) Priscilla: Bobby, I love you Every since I met you, you’ve made me laugh

Your crazy ideas, your schemes, your dreams, your scams You fill any room you walk into God, I miss that But I need a husband, sweetheart, someone steady, a man m

It's essential to embrace your true self, and while that authenticity is commendable, our paths no longer align I can no longer be the person you need me to be, and for that, I apologize.

In a heartfelt conversation, Priscilla expressed her desire to break up with Bobby while attempting to soften the blow through a mixed apology strategy She conveyed her love for him, stating, "Bobby, I love you," and explained her need for a stable partner by saying, "But I need a husband, sweetheart, someone steady, a man I can rely on." Ultimately, she explicitly apologized, saying, "I’m sorry." Bobby, in turn, accepted her apologies and demonstrated understanding by replying, "I understand Goodbye, Priscilla."

4.1.3.8 Mixed Apology Strategies - Indirect Response Strategies

Standing at the bottom was [mixed apology strategies – acknowledgement] at 0.18% (n=1) The exchange [mixed apology strategies - evasion] at 0.54% (n=3) was 3-fold compared to the former

Table 4.14 Exchanges of mixed apology strategies and indirect response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in English

GENDER INFLUENCES ON APOLOGY AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES

Gender Influences on Apology Strategies in English Film Conversations

In the study of apology strategies, distinct differences were observed between male and female usage across three major categories: direct, indirect, and mixed strategies Table 4.15 illustrates the varying proportions of these strategies employed by each gender, highlighting the nuanced approaches to apologies in communication.

Table 4.15 Apology strategies in terms of gender in English

Research indicates that men are more likely to apologize directly compared to women, who often employ indirect methods Specifically, men utilized direct apology strategies 26.39% of the time, nearly double the 14.36% observed in women Conversely, women favored indirect strategies for apologies, highlighting a significant difference in communication styles between the genders.

In the study, the prevalence of mixed apology strategies was notably higher among females at 2.16% (n) compared to males at 0.54% (n=3), indicating a significant gender difference While both genders utilized mixed apology strategies the least, females demonstrated a greater preference for this approach than their male counterparts, with males showing a usage rate of 19.21% (n=7) compared to 37.34% (n=8) for females.

4.2.2 Gender Influences on Response Strategies in English Film Conversations

A glance at Table 4.16 depicts the distribution of both genders in apology response strategies m

Table 4.16 Apology response strategies in terms of gender in English

Gender Influences on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in

In a study on apology responses, women were more likely to respond indirectly at 22.08% compared to men at 17.06% However, women responded directly to apologies less frequently than men, with rates of 28.73% for women versus 30.52% for men Despite these differences, the variation between genders was minimal Additionally, the use of mixed apology response strategies was observed, with females utilizing this approach at a rate of 1.07% (n=6), which was double that of males at 0.54% (n=3).

4.2.3 Gender Influences on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in English Film Conversations

Section 4.2.3 investigated the gender influences on exchanges of apology and response strategies in English film conversations There were four categories to look into including a male apologizer addressing a male apologizee (M–M), a male apologizer addressing a female apologizee (M–F), a female apologizer addressing a female apologizee (F–F), and a female apologizer addressing a male apologizee (F–M)

Table 4.17 indicates that the most common method of exchanging apologies and responses was through indirect strategies combined with direct response strategies, accounting for 33.21% (n=5) The second most prevalent method was direct strategies paired with direct response strategies, comprising 24.06% (n=4) In contrast, the exchanges involving direct strategies with mixed response strategies were recorded at a mere 0.54% (n=3), while mixed strategies with indirect response strategies stood at 0.72% (n=4), and indirect strategies with mixed response strategies at 1.08% (n=6) Notably, there were no recorded instances of mixed apology strategies with mixed response strategies.

Table 4.17 Gender influences on exchanges of apology and response strategies in

1 Direct strategies - direct response strategies n 134 54 38 24 18

2 Direct strategies - indirect response strategies n 90 20 34 21 15

3 Direct strategies - mixed response strategies n 3 0 1 1 1

4 Indirect strategies - direct response strategies n 185 27 34 60 64

5 Indirect strategies - indirect response strategies n 124 17 26 40 41

6 Indirect strategies - mixed response strategies n 6 1 2 2 1

7 Mixed strategies - direct response strategies n 11 0 1 3 7

8 Mixed strategies - indirect response strategies n 4 1 1 1 1

9 Mixed strategies - mixed response strategies n 0 0 0 0 0

Gender disparities in communication and behavior have been noted, with significant differences observed in same-sex interactions compared to mixed-sex ones (Aries, 2006; Dindia & Allen, 1992) Research indicates that males tend to apologize to females more often than to other males (Holmes, 2013) Sections 4.2.3.1 and 4.2.3.2 will explore the similarities and differences in apology displays and response strategies in English film conversations, providing a detailed analysis of exchanges to highlight the distinctions in how each gender apologizes and responds.

4.2.3.1 Same Gender Interactions on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in English Film Conversations

Figure 4.15 highlights the similarities in gender interactions during exchanges of apologies and response strategies in English film conversations Both genders demonstrated a preference for Exchange 1, which involves direct strategies and direct response strategies, as well as Exchange 2, characterized by direct strategies and indirect response strategies.

In the analysis of communication strategies, Exchange 5 was utilized most frequently, employing indirect strategies and indirect response strategies Exchange 4 featured a combination of indirect and direct response strategies, while Exchange 6 incorporated mixed response strategies Conversely, Exchange 8 focused on mixed strategies with indirect response strategies but was used the least Notably, there was no recorded use of Exchange 9 among either gender.

Figure 4.15 Same gender interactions on exchanges in English

The M-M interaction ranked the top on exchange 1 at 9.69% (nT); whereas, the F-F interaction experienced the peak on exchange 4 at 10.77% (n`) Exchange

3 and 7 saw no record in the interactions among males

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6 Ex7 Ex8

Same gender interactions on exchanges

4.2.3.2 Mixed Gender Interactions on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in English Film Conversations

As seen in Figure 4.16, the mixed gender interactions on exchanges of apology and response strategies in English film conversations were presented Exchanges 1,

2, 4, and 5 were also on top 4 most frequently used exchanges No record in exchange

9 was reported The least used belonged to exchanges 3, 6, 7, and 8

Figure 4.16 Mixed gender interactions on exchanges in English

Figure 4.16 highlights that the F-M interaction in exchange 4 achieved the highest ranking at 11.49%, while M-F interactions across exchanges 1, 2, and 4 showed minimal variation, remaining around 6%.

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6 Ex7 Ex8

Mixed gender interactions on exchanges

POWER INFLUENCES ON APOLOGY AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES137 1 Power Influences on Apology Strategies in English Film Conversations

Power Influences on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in

Table 4.19 describes the power influences among gender interactions on exchanges of apology and response strategies in English film conversations m

Table 4.19 Power influences among gender interactions on exchanges of apology and response strategies in English film conversation

Power Higher power apologizer – lower power apologizee

Lower power apologizer – higher power apologizee

1 Direct strategies - direct response strategies n 134 12 10 6 4 22 15 9 7 20 13 9 7

2 Direct strategies - indirect response strategies n 90 5 8 5 3 8 14 8 6 7 12 8 6

3 Direct strategies - mixed response strategies n 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

4 Indirect strategies - direct response strategies n 185 10 12 21 23 8 10 18 20 9 12 21 21

5 Indirect strategies - indirect response strategies n 124 6 9 14 15 6 9 12 13 5 8 14 13

6 Indirect strategies - mixed response strategies n 6 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1

7 Mixed strategies - direct response strategies n 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 0 0 1 2

8 Mixed strategies - indirect response strategies n 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1

9 Mixed strategies - mixed response strategies n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

4.3.2.1 Higher Power Apologizer – Lower Power Apologizee Interactions on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in English Film Conversations

Figure 4.18 represents the H-L interactions among same genders on exchanges of apology and response strategies in English film conversations

Figure 4.18 Higher power apologizer – lower power apologizee interactions of same genders on exchanges in English

In the study of apology strategies, females exhibited a preference for indirect approaches, utilizing exchange 4 (3.77%) to apologize indirectly to lower power individuals, while employing exchange 5 (2.51%) for indirect responses In contrast, lower power females responded to higher power female apologizers using both direct and indirect methods Males, on the other hand, predominantly used exchange 1 (2.15%) to deliver direct apologies to lower power male apologizees.

Figure 4.19 illustrates the H-L interactions in mixed-gender exchanges of apologies and response strategies in English film conversations Notably, the proportion of H-L interactions among female-male pairs highlights significant dynamics in communication patterns Understanding these interactions can provide insights into gender-specific communication styles and their impact on social exchanges in cinematic contexts.

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6

Higher power apologizer – lower power apologizee interactions of same genders on exchanges

M - M F- F m was the top on exchange 4 and 5 at 4.13% (n#) and at 2.69% (n), respectively

Figure 4.19 Higher power apologizer – lower power apologizee interactions of mixed genders on exchanges in English

Whereas, H-L interaction among M-F experienced exchange 4 at 2.15% (n) the most often

An example of the pragmatic act below illustrates the use of the pattern

[indirect strategies (remedial support) – direct response strategies (acceptance- thanking)]

(4.51).Older sister: What’s about a box of more crayons than the old ones I borrowed

Younger brother: Thank you, sis

In a recent conversation, an older sister lent her younger sibling a box of crayons, but some were accidentally dropped at school To make amends, she offered to purchase a larger box containing more crayons, demonstrating her willingness to compensate for the loss.

What’s about a box of more crayons than the old ones I borrowed The younger brother absolutely liked the offer and said Thank you, sis to accept the apologies

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6

Higher power apologizer – lower power apologizee interactions of mixed genders on exchanges

4.3.2.2 Lower Power Apologizer – Higher Power Apologizee Interactions on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in English Film Conversations

Figure 4.20 compares the L-H interactions among same genders on exchanges of apology and response strategies in English film conversations

Figure 4.20 Lower power apologizer – higher power apologizee interactions of same genders on exchanges in English

M-M witnessed the peak of exchange 1 at 3.95% (n") while exchange 4 at 3.23% (n) ranked the top among F-F Male with lower power still apologized directly to those who had higher power By contrast, female tended to apologize indirectly to those with higher power in the same gender

Figure 4.21 represents the L-H interactions among mixed genders on exchanges of apology and response strategies in English film conversations

Ex1 Ex2 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6 Ex7 Exchange 8

Lower power apologizer – higher power apologizee interactions of same genders on exchanges

Figure 4.21 Lower power apologizer – higher power apologizee interactions of mixed genders on exchanges in English

In the analysis of L-H interactions, M-F exchanges 1 and 2 were notably higher than F-M exchanges Specifically, M-F interactions peaked at 2.69% for exchange 1 and 2.51% for exchange 2, indicating a tendency for males to apologize directly to females, who then responded either directly or indirectly Conversely, F-M interactions peaked with exchange 4 at 3.59% and exchange 5 at 2.33% Notably, there was no recorded data for M-F in exchange 3 and for F-M in exchanges 6 and 8, with both gender combinations showing no occurrences of exchange 9.

4.3.2.3 Equal Power Apologizer – Apologizee Interactions on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in English Film Conversations

Figure 4.22 represents the E-E interactions among same genders on exchanges of apology and response strategies in English film conversations

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6 Ex7 Ex8

Lower power apologizer – higher power apologizee interactions of same genders on exchanges

Figure 4.22 Equal power apologizer – apologizee interactions of same genders on exchanges in English

M-M with equal powers exploited exchange 1 the most at 3.59% (n ) while F-F was still loyal with exchange 4 at 1.62% (n=9)

The example below was the demonstration of the pattern [indirect strategies

(evasive strategies) – direct response strategies (rejection-complaining)]

(4.52).Mark: It is not that hurt

Mark’s friend: It is ridiculous of you

In a recent conversation, Mark intentionally hit his friend's back and later attempted to apologize by downplaying the incident, claiming it wasn't that painful However, his friend dismissed Mark's apology, expressing frustration and labeling the situation as ridiculous.

Figure 4.23 represents the E-E interactions among mixed genders on exchanges of apology and response strategies in English film conversations

Ex1 Ex2 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6 Ex7

Equal power apologizer – apologizee interactions of same genders on exchanges

Figure 4.23 Equal power apologizer – apologizee interactions of mixed genders on exchanges in English

It seems that male used exchange 1, 2, and 4 relatively the same at around 2%, ranging from 2.15% (n) to 2.33% (n)

The impact of gender on apology strategies is influenced by the power dynamics in conversations, with lower power apologizers more likely to apologize to those in higher positions Aries (2006) suggests that gender inequalities can diminish when men and women hold equal power relative to the apologizees Additionally, the power of the apologizees plays a mediating role in this dynamic, as the effects of gender become more pronounced in situations where power disparities are significant.

E interaction, there were fewer variations between male and female responses.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

This chapter explores the sociopragmatic aspects of apologies and response strategies in English film dialogues, focusing on gender and social power dynamics It analyzes the exchanges of apologies and their responses, examines how gender influences these interactions, and considers the impact of power on apology exchanges Additionally, Chapter Four provides a framework for the forthcoming analysis of Vietnamese conversations in Chapter Five.

Ex1 Ex2 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6 Ex7 Ex8

Equal power apologizer – apologizee interactions of same genders on exchanges

CHAPTER FIVE APOLOGY AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES

Chapter Five investigates the dynamics of apology exchanges and the corresponding response strategies, focusing on the impact of gender and power within the context of Vietnamese socio-psychological film dialogues It explores how these factors shape the way apologies are communicated and received in various social interactions.

EXCHANGES OF APOLOGY AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES

Direct and Indirect Apology Strategies

The study utilized Trosborg's (2011) AS taxonomy and Searle's (1975) direct and indirect speech act theory to analyze the frequent application of various ASs by characters in socio-psychological film scenarios during their Vietnamese conversations This AS taxonomy included direct strategies such as expressions of regret, offers of apology, and requests for forgiveness, alongside indirect strategies like acknowledgment of responsibility, explanations or accounts, evasive tactics, opting out, and providing remedial support.

Recent research identified two additional methods for expressing apologies in Vietnamese film dialogues The first method, termed "no apology," highlights instances where the apologizer remains silent, yet the recipient acknowledges their intent to apologize This approach was not included in the main analysis due to the thesis's focus on verbal expressions of apology The second method, referred to as "mixed apology strategy," combines various apology strategies and is documented in Table 5.1, which details the frequency of these strategies in Vietnamese socio-psychological film scripts and subtitles.

Table 5.1 Frequency of apology strategies in Vietnamese

Expression of lack of intent Expression of self-deficiency Expression of Embarrassment Explicit acceptance of the blame

Querying precondition Blaming someone else

4 Opting out Explicit denial of responsibility 58 8.92

Implicit denial of responsibility Justification

5 Remedial support Expressing concern for hearer 118 18.15

Offer of repair Promise of forbearance

The analysis revealed that characters predominantly employed direct strategies, accounting for 50% of the total instances (n=25) In contrast, mixed apology strategies were rarely utilized, comprising only 4.62% (n=0) This indicates a substantial disparity, with direct strategies being nearly 11 times more frequent than mixed ones Indirect strategies followed closely, representing 45.38% of the total.

(n)5), which was slightly lower than the top-used strategy of direct strategies The examples in the next section demonstrated the employment of Vietnamese apology strategies by apologizers to apologizees

In Vietnamese, direct apology strategies are clearly conveyed through performative expressions and apology markers like "xin lỗi," "tha lỗi," "tha thứ," "thứ lỗi," "thứ tha," and "lỗi." These strategies primarily encompass expressions of regret, offers of apology, and requests for forgiveness, collectively representing 29.85% of the direct apology methods used in the language.

The analysis revealed that the highest value was nearly six times greater than the lowest and more than three times higher than the second highest This finding supports the universality of direct strategies, aligning with previous research conducted by Holmes (1990, 1995), Hussein and Hammouri (1998), Deutschmann (2003), Shardakova (2005), Bataineh (2008), Altayari (2017), and Qari (2017).

Al Ali (2018) identified that the predominant IFID sub-strategy among female participants from Saudi Arabia and Australia was the expression of regret Interestingly, the request for forgiveness was the least common IFID sub-strategy among Saudi speakers, contrasting with Shariati and Chamani's (2010) findings that Persian speakers frequently utilized this approach This suggests that Vietnamese individuals may not view the request for forgiveness as a viable apology strategy, preferring expressions of regret and offers of apology instead.

Figure 5.1 Frequency of direct strategies in Vietnamese

The next three subsections analyzed examples to provide clear knowledge of direct strategies in Vietnamese a Expression of Regret

Apologizers utilize performative expressions and verbs such as "tiếc," "lấy làm tiếc," and "hối hận" to convey their feelings of regret to those they are apologizing to This article explores the various ways in which regret is articulated during conversations.

(5.1) Hân: Con hối hận lắm rồi mẹ ơi Mẹ có đau lắm không?

Hân’s mother: Mọi thứ rồi sẽ ổn, con gái của mẹ

(No.1, Appendix 5) (Hân: I’m terribly sorry, mom Do you feel painful?

Hân’s mother: Everything will be OK, my little girl.)

In a recent incident, Hân, the daughter, recklessly rode her bike, resulting in a serious accident that left her mother injured Overcome with remorse, Hân expressed her deep regret, saying, "I feel so sorry." She is now seeking her mother's forgiveness for the unfortunate event.

The apologizer employed performative expressions such as tha lỗi, tha thứ, thứ lỗi, thứ tha to request the apologizees to forgive them

(5.2) Quân: Tha lỗi cho anh đi mà Hôm qua anh về rất sớm nhưng gọi điện cho em không được

Hiền: Tránh cho tôi vào thay quần áo

(Quân: Please forgive me Yesterday, I came home early, I kept calling you but you didn’t pick up your phone

Hiền: Go away! I have to change my clothes.)

Quân and Hiền, a married couple, faced a moment of tension when Quân sought Hiền's forgiveness He explicitly expressed his remorse by saying, "Tha lỗi cho anh," which translates to "Please forgive me." This heartfelt apology highlighted his desire to mend their relationship and restore harmony between them.

The final category of direct strategies involves apologizers extending an apology to apologizees for their mistakes or offenses Key performative expressions, such as "xin lỗi" and "lỗi," effectively convey the act of apologizing.

(5.3) Kỉnh: Anh xin lỗi vì đã về trễ

Dương: Anh cảm thấy ngột ngạt, khó sống lắm hả?

(No.3, Appendix 5) (Kỉnh: I apologize for being late

Dương: Do you feel suffocated and difficult to live in this house?)

In this conversation, Kỉnh as a husband apologized for coming home late by offering an apology of Anh xin lỗi vì đã về trễ

Table 5.2 presents data on the various forms of apologies and their linguistic realizations in apologetic utterances A total of 335 direct strategies were identified, featuring performative expressions such as "xin lỗi," "tiếc," "lấy làm tiếc," "hối hận," "tha lỗi," "tha thứ," "thứ lỗi," "thứ tha," and "lỗi." Additionally, 20 utterances utilizing mixed apology strategies were recorded Overall, 355 instances of performative expressions of apology were extracted from 650 pragmatic exchanges involving apologizing and responding The table details 14 distinct forms and their linguistic realizations, while Figure 5.1 illustrates the frequency of these forms.

Table 5.2 Distribution of patterns and linguistic realizations of apology utterances in

Lỗi của tôi (my fault)

2 Apologizing + Apologizer Thứ lỗi cho tôi (pardon me) 19 5.35

Tha thứ cho tôi (forgive me)

Tha thứ cho tôi vì … (forgive me for Gerund/NP but Clause)

4 Apologizing + Apologizee Xin lỗi, tên (sorry, proper name)

5 Apologizing + Explanation Thứ lỗi cho … (forgive my

Xin lỗi vì … (sorry for NP/ gerund)

Xin lỗi đã …… (sorry to VP)

7 Apologizer + Apologizing Tôi xin lỗi (I apologize) 59 16.62

Tao xin lỗi nếu … (I apologize if Clause)

Mẹ xin lỗi vì … (I apologize for NP/ that Clause/ Gerund)

Tôi thực sự xin lỗi (I’m really sorry.)

Anh thật sự xin lỗi em vì

(I’m truly sorry for what happened)

Có gì cho anh xin lỗi

Cho người ta xin lỗi đi

Table 5.2 highlights that pattern 8, which combines Apologizer, Apologizing, and Apologizee, leads with a frequency of 23.38% This is followed by pattern 7, featuring Apologizer and Apologizing, at 16.62%, and pattern 4, consisting of Apologizing and Apologizee, at 15.49% Patterns 3, 10, 13, and 2 fall within the 5% to 10% range, while the remaining patterns, including patterns 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 12, each account for under 5% of occurrences.

Figure 5.2 Pattern distribution of apology utterances in Vietnamese conversations

Figure 5.1 displays the distribution of linguistic expressions used for apologies in Vietnamese, highlighting various performative expressions such as xin lỗi, tiếc, hối hận, thứ lỗi, tha thứ, lỗi, and thứ tha These expressions are drawn from a total of 355 apology utterances categorized within direct and mixed apology strategies.

Table 5.3 below displays the frequency of eight different performative expressions

Table 5.3 Performatives’ distribution of apology utterances in Vietnamese conversations

Figure 5.3 Performatives’ distribution of apology response utterances in

Xin lỗi Tiếc Hối hận Lỗi Tha thứ Thứ lỗi Thứ tha Tha lỗi m

In the analysis of performative expressions, the term "xin lỗi" emerged as the most frequently used lexeme, representing 67.03% of total occurrences (n=40), significantly surpassing the combined percentage of other expressions at 32.97% Its prevalence was more than 5.5 times greater than the second-most common expression, "tha thứ," which accounted for 12.01%, and nearly 7.5 times higher than "lỗi," at 9.05% The least frequent term was "thứ tha," with only 0.86%.

The sub-types of indirect strategies included 5 different sub-strategies which had a variety of occurrences as demonstrated in Figure 5.4

Figure 5.4 Frequency of indirect strategies in Vietnamese

Figure 5.4 illustrates the prevalence of five sub-types of indirect strategies, with remedial support emerging as the most prominent apology strategy at 18.15% Both explanation or account and opting out strategies were observed with similar frequencies, around 9.0% Acknowledgment of responsibility ranked third at 5.23%, while evasive strategies were the least common.

Indirect Strategies m a Acknowledgment of Responsibility

Figure 5.5 Frequency of acknowledgment of responsibility in Vietnamese

(No.4, Appendix 5) (Đàm: I admit that I did it

Direct and Indirect Response Strategies

As seen in the literature review, the adoption ARS taxonomy among Holmes m

This thesis builds upon the apology response strategies established by scholars such as Searle (1975) and others (1990, 1995), yet it uncovers new strategies specific to Vietnamese culture The findings reveal five additional apology response strategies that were not identified in previous research discussed in Chapter 2 These strategies were derived from analyses of Vietnamese conversations in film scripts and subtitles, contributing to the existing apology response taxonomy proposed by Holmes.

(1995) which were entitled ironic acceptance, refusal plus, unsatisfied questions, direct apologizing and mixed apology response strategy The first 4 sub-skills were in direct response strategies

The article explores various direct response strategies to apologies, highlighting ironic acceptance, refusal plus, and unsatisfied questions as key components Ironic acceptance occurs when apologizees express acceptance while feeling offended, indicating their dissatisfaction Refusal plus involves explicit performative expressions such as "không" and "không đời nào," signaling a strong rejection of the apology, while unsatisfied questions imply a refusal without directly stating it Additionally, direct apologizing is characterized by phrases like "xin lỗi" and "tha thứ," used by apologizees to reject apologies The article also distinguishes between no response, where apologizees remain silent, and mixed apology response strategies, where they utilize various responses Notably, no response is excluded from Table 5.2, which focuses solely on verbal responses, while mixed apology response strategies are introduced as a new category.

A glimpse at Table 5.4 given below reveals the data about the frequency of ARSs in Vietnamese conversations extracted from scripts and subtitles of socio- psychological film contexts

Table 5.4 Frequency of apology response strategies in Vietnamese conversations

Mixed apology response strategy Subtotal 51 7.84

As Table 5.4 demonstrates, direct response strategies occupied the most at

In a recent analysis, direct response strategies were found to be the most prevalent, accounting for 47.7% of the responses (n=10) This was slightly higher than the indirect response strategies, which comprised 44.46% (n=9) Notably, the emerging mixed apology response strategies were significantly less common, representing only 7.84% of the total responses.

In Vietnamese films, the most common apology response strategy employed by characters is acceptance, accounting for 39.85% of instances Following this, rejection ranks second at 32.62%, while evasion is noted as the third most frequent strategy, representing 13.08% of the responses.

(n), and acknowledgement at 7.85% (nQ), respectively

Figure 5.9 indicates that advice/suggestion emerged as the most frequently used response strategy at 12.77%, closely followed by absolution at 11.38% In contrast, thanking was the least utilized strategy, accounting for only 0.62% Other response strategies included requests at 3.85% and expressing emotions at 4.31% Additionally, strategies recorded below 3% included expressing empathy at 2.46%, ironic acceptance at 2.61%, and formal acceptance at 1.83%.

Figure 5.10 Frequency of acceptance in Vietnamese

Apologizers often receive forgiveness from those they have wronged, particularly through the use of explicit performative phrases in Vietnamese such as "được rồi," "đồng ý," "chấp nhận," "không sao," "không có gì," and "chuyện nhỏ." These expressions indicate acceptance and understanding, facilitating the reconciliation process.

Vu and Lam decided to divorce and after they got out of court, they talked to each other They look at each other, pained

(5.15) Hoàng Lâm: Vũ… Dù bây giờ nói chẳng để làm gì, nhưng anh vẫn muốn nói rằng… Anh …anh xin lỗi!

Vũ Vũ: - Không sao! Không sao cả Kết thúc rồi mà

(No.15, Appendix 5) (Hoang Lam: Vu… Even though it's useless to say it now, I still want to say that… I…I'm sorry!

Vu Vu: It's okay! It's okay It's over.)

By saying “Không sao”, the ex-wife as the apologizee tended to understand why her ex-husband hurt her a2 Thanking

The apologizees thanked the apologizers by uttering cám ơn, cảm ơn, or biết ơn for their apologies

Tùng and Đào were deeply in love, discussing the significant news of Đào's pregnancy Tùng expressed his commitment, saying he would take responsibility for the baby, and apologized to Đào for the situation Grateful for his support, Đào thanked him, highlighting their strong bond during this pivotal moment.

(No.16, Appendix 5) (Tùng: I will be responsible for your pregnancy I’m terribly sorry Đào: Thank you.)

In the dialogue, Đào expressed her gratitude to Tùng by saying "Cám ơn anh" after he apologized, highlighting her appreciation for his readiness to take responsibility for her pregnancy.

When offering advice to those who apologize, the goal is to improve the situation or address the harm caused For example, in a conversation, one person might ask, "Are you in a lot of pain? I was thoughtless." This highlights the importance of acknowledging feelings and taking responsibility for one's actions.

Thư: Đau chứ sao không đau Mày khi nào cũng vậy Phải cẩn thận chứ

(No.17, Appendix 5) (Bảo: Is it painful? It’s careless of me

Thư: For sure, you are always that careless You should be more careful.)

In this conversation, Thư got hurt when Bảo accidentally dropped the pencil case on her hands, then Thư advised Bảo to be more careful a4 Request

The apologizees implied to accept the apologies when asking the apologizers not to repeat the offensive actions

(5.18) Béo: Mình xin lỗi Tây Thu

Tây Thu: Vậy thì Béo xin nghỉ tiết thể dục đi, đưa đồng phục của cậu tớ mặc

(No.18, Appendix 5) (Béo: I’m sorry, Tây Thu

Tây Thu: You will then ask the teacher for being absent from physical education class and lend me your uniform.)

Tây Thu requested Béo to give her his uniform for physical education class since hers was destroyed by Béo a5 Expressing Empathy

The apologizees showed their empathy to the offense made by the apologizers as illustrated in the example below

Bò rừng: Con xin lỗi Ông Phẩn: Mày không có lỗi gì cả Chị mày u mê, nhưng may mắn có mày tỉnh táo gọi tao và mẹ mày xuống.

In a conversation between Bò rừng and Ông Phẩn, Bò rừng expresses regret, to which Ông Phẩn reassures him that he is not at fault, attributing the misunderstanding to his sister's ignorance He commends Bò rừng for his awareness and for bringing the issue to the attention of both him and their mother.

In this conversation, Bo Rung told his father about Vu's divorce because Lam is an adulterer a6 Expressing Emotion

The apologizees expressed their emotions on what they felt about the apologizers

(5.20) Mạnh: Vợ, cho anh xin lỗi Anh…

Vợ Mạnh: Em quá thất vọng về anh

(No.20, Appendix 5) (Mạnh: Honey, please forgive me! I…

Mạnh’s wife: I’m so disappointed with you.)

Mạnh took the saving money to invest in his own business without telling his wife When his wife realized the saving disappeared and knew Mạnh took it, she said

Em quá thất vọng về anh since she felt disappointed with her husband a7 Formal Acceptance

Such expressions “I accept your apology”, “I forgive you” were used more frequently in formal contexts.

(5.21) Hà: Ba ơi, con xin lỗi, con biết lỗi rồi ba

Bố: Ba tha thứ cho con, nhưng con có biết con làm vậy ba đau lòng lắm không?

(No.21, Appendix 5) (Hà: Dad, please forgive me!

Her father: I forgive you, but you know it’s hurt.)

This is a conversation among a daughter and her father She asked her dad to forgive her faults and her dad, a retired old man accepted her apologies by uttering

Ba tha thứ cho con a8 Ironic Acceptance

Recent research has identified a new apology response strategy in Vietnamese conversations, contributing to the apology response taxonomy established by Holmes (1995) While recipients often use performative expressions to accept apologies, they may not genuinely feel satisfied, indicating their displeasure with the offense Consequently, these acceptances can be seen as ironic rather than sincere.

(5.22) Nữ tặc: Xin lỗi Tắc đường m

Mạnh: Không sao Tại hạ mới đến có 2 tiếng thôi

(No.22, Appendix 5) (Gamer: Sorry Traffic jam

Mạnh: It is OK It's only been 2 hours since I arrived.)

Despite Mạnh’s waiting for 2 hours, he still accepted the apologies by uttering

Không sao However, that he informed that he has been waiting for only 2 hours showed that he was annoyed b Rejection

A glance at Figure 5.11 reveals data about Frequency of rejection in Vietnamese conversations

Figure 5.11 Frequency of rejection in Vietnamese

With the percentage of 3.08% (n ), refusal was the most popular option It was 20 times higher than the lowest level of direct apologizing at 0.16% (n=1)

Standing on top 2 was complaining at 2.0% (n) The others of asking for compensation and unsatisfied questions witnessed the same occurrence at 1.23%

(n=8) and at 0.92% (n=6), respectively Ranking at the second lowest was refusal plus at 0.46% (n=3) b1 Complaining

(5.23) Trâm: Xin lỗi anh, em…

Her boyfriend: Đừng nói anh là em lại để quên ví ở nhà đó chứ?Em hay quên thế nhờ?

Her boyfriend: Don’t tell me you forget your wallet again You keep forgetting everything.)

Trâm’ boy friend made comment on her short memory by uttering Em hay quên thế nhờ? and it seems he was not happy with that b2 Asking for Compensation

(5.24) Thanh: Anh xin em, hay tha lỗi cho anh một lần này thôi Anh sẽ làm bất cứ điều gì mà em muốn

Vân: Điều tôi muốn tôi vừa nói với anh rồi đấy

(No.24, Appendix 5) (Thanh: I beg your pardon, please forgive me just this once I will do whatever you want

Vân: I just told you what I want!)

Thanh and Vân, a married couple, are in the midst of a heated argument due to Thanh's overwhelming jealousy Despite his feelings, Thanh expresses his desire to keep Vân by promising to fulfill all her wishes In response, Vân, who feels wronged, outlines the compensation she seeks from him However, Thanh refuses to accept her demands, escalating the tension between them.

In this strategy, individuals employ performative expressions like "no," "never," "not forgive," "not forget," "under no circumstances," "not allowed," and "cannot forgive" to effectively reject apologies.

(5.25) Mạnh: Anh xin lỗi, vụ hôm trước lỡ tay đánh em…Em còn đau không?

(No.25, Appendix 5) (Mạnh: I'm sorry, I accidentally hit you the other day Do you still have pain? Mạnh’s wife: No.)

Mạnh went over to massage his wife’s shoulder and he apologized for hitting his wife earlier However, she refused her husband’s apologies when saying Thôi, thôi b4 Refusal Plus

Refusal plus refers to the use of performative expressions like "m không," "không bao giờ," "không bỏ qua," "không quên được," "không đời nào," "không được," and "không thể tha thứ" to reject apologies The apologizees often accompany these refusals with comments indicating that they find it absurd for the apologizers to express regret for the offenses committed against them.

(5.26) Hoàng Lâm: Anh xin lỗi

Vân: Không Anh đùa à Sau tất cả những gì đã xảy ra? Thật không tưởng tưởng nổi anh là loại người gì?

(No.26, Appendix 5) (Hoàng Lâm: I’m so sorry

Vân: No Are you kidding me? For all that happened? I can't imagine what kind of person you are.)

Vân refused Hoàng Lâm’s apologies by saying Không and then added that it was ridiculous of him to say sorry for what he did to her. b5 Unsatisfied Question

Unsatisfied question occurs when the apologizees ask questions to infer that they cannot accept the apologies from the apologizers, which means that unsatisfied question implicitly infers to rejection

(5.27) Hoàng Châu: Xin lỗi, cho tui…

Mụ chủ: Gì đây? Mượn tiền nữa hả?

(No.27, Appendix 5) (Hoàng Châu: Sorry, can I …

His landlady: What? Borrow money again?)

Apology and Response Strategies

The analysis of pragmatic acts of apology and response strategies in Vietnamese conversations revealed that these exchanges can be initiated through direct, indirect, or mixed apology strategies They conclude with direct, indirect, or mixed response strategies Overall, nine distinct exchanges of apology and response strategies were identified in Vietnamese communication.

Table 5.6 Exchanges of pragmatic acts in in Vietnamese conversations

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in Vietnamese n %

1 Direct strategies Direct response strategies

Direct strategies - direct response strategies

2 Direct strategies Indirect response strategies

Direct strategies - indirect response strategies

3 Direct strategies Mixed response strategies

Direct strategies - mixed response strategies

Indirect strategies - direct response strategies

Indirect strategies - indirect response strategies

Indirect strategies - mixed response strategies

Mixed strategies - direct response strategies

Mixed strategies - indirect response strategies

Mixed strategies - mixed response strategies

A glance at Table 5.6 below reveals information about top three exchanges of pragmatic acts of apologizing and responding which were entitled [direct strategies

– direct response strategies] accounting for 24.0% (n6), [direct strategies – indirect response strategies] at 22.46% (n6), and [indirect strategies – direct response strategies] at 21.54% (n0), respectively

5.1.3.1 Direct Apology Strategies - Direct Response Strategies

The pragmatic act involved six smaller exchanges, initiated through direct strategies and concluded with acceptance or rejection based on those strategies Notably, the occurrence of the pattern [direct strategies – acceptance] was 20.0%, which was five times greater than the 4.0% seen in the pattern [direct strategies – rejection].

Table 5.7 Exchanges of direct apology strategies and direct response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in Vietnamese

Expression of Regret Acceptance 130 20.0 Offer of Apology Acceptance

Request for Forgiveness Acceptance Expression of Regret Rejection 26 4.0 Offer of Apology Rejection

Below is an example of the pragmatic act with the use of the pattern [direct strategies (offer of apology) – acceptance (suggestion)]

(5.37) Khánh: Anh xin lỗi mà cưng Nha ? Chỉ một giờ thôi

Mai: Anh đi rồi về nhanh!

(No.37, Appendix 5) (Khánh: Honey, I'm sorry It'll only take one hour

Mai: You go and come back quickly!)

Khanh expressed his feelings for Mai by asking her to wait for him during a client meeting, saying, "Anh xin lỗi mà cưng." This direct approach left Mai with little choice but to accept his apology, leading her to suggest, "You go and come back quickly," indicating her willingness to meet him for dinner afterward.

5.1.3.2 Direct Apology Strategies - Indirect Response Strategies

Table 5.8 illustrates that six smaller exchanges began with direct strategies but concluded with either evasion or acknowledgment through indirect response strategies Notably, the exchange characterized by direct strategies leading to evasion accounted for 16.0%.

(n4) was nearly 2.5-fold compared to the exchange [direct strategies – acknowledgement] at 6.46% (nB)

Table 5.8 Exchanges of direct apology strategies and indirect response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in Vietnamese

Expression of Regret Evasion 104 16.0 Offer of Apology Evasion

Request for Forgiveness Evasion Expression of Regret Acknowledgement 42 6.46 Offer of Apology Acknowledgement

5.1.3.3 Direct Apology Strategies – Mixed Response Strategies

The exchange [direct strategies – mixed response strategies] made up 3.54% (n#)

Table 5.9 Exchanges of direct apology strategies and mixed response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in Vietnamese

Expression of Regret Mixed response strategies

Offer of Apology Mixed response strategies

5.1.3.4 Indirect Apology Strategies - Direct Response Strategies

In terms of indirect strategies as the first act, the exchange [indirect strategies

– acceptance] also ranked the first at 18.0% (n7) which was more than 5-fold compared to the exchange [indirect strategies – rejection]at 3.54% (n#)

Table 5.10 Exchanges of indirect apology strategies and direct response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in Vietnamese

Explanation or account Acceptance Evasive strategies Acceptance

Explanation or account Rejection Evasive strategies Rejection

Example 5.39 shows the exchange [indirect strategies (evasive strategies) – direct response strategies (rejection)]

(5.38) Thanh: Có tí thôi mà, gì mà làm quá lên vậy ?

(No.38, Appendix 3) (Thanh: Just a little, why overdo it?

The conversation was between the husband Thanh and his wife Vân Thanh got angry and slammed the bathroom door which accidentally hit his wife’s foot m

Thanh rushed to check on his wife, concerned about her pain Initially frustrated, he attempted to downplay the situation, saying, "It's just a little, why are you making such a big deal out of it?" Vân, visibly upset, responded with skepticism, "Just a little bit?" highlighting that it did hurt and indicating her rejection of his apologies.

5.1.3.5 Indirect Apology Strategies - Indirect Response Strategies

The exchange [indirect strategies – acknowledgement] and [indirect strategies – evasion] stood at 5.69% (n7) and 14.16% (n), respectively

Table 5.11 Exchanges of indirect apology strategies and indirect response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in Vietnamese

Explanation or account Evasion Evasive strategies Evasion

Explanation or account Acknowledgement Evasive strategies Acknowledgement Opting out Acknowledgement Remedial support Acknowledgement

An example of the pragmatic act below illustrates the use of the exchange

[indirect strategies (explanation or account) – evasion (shift of blame)]

(5.39) Sơn: Hôm nay đúng là cháu có chút việc bận, đi hơi nhanh nên va phải cô ấy

Thanh thoáng lúng túng quay sang nhìn Sơn

Vân: Là lỗi của tôi Tôi sang đường mà không để ý tín hiệu đèn

(Sơn: I am a bit busy today, I was driving quite fast, so I bumped into her Thanh turns his gaze to Sơn for a brief moment

Vân acknowledged her mistake in crossing the street without paying attention to the traffic light, saying, "It’s my fault." Sơn clarified his actions after being misunderstood by Thanh's parents and Vân's husband regarding the application of ice to Vân's arm bruise He apologized, explaining that he was in a hurry due to some commitments, stating, "Today, I was a bit busy and walked quickly, so I bumped into her." However, Vân took responsibility for the incident, emphasizing that it was her fault.

5.1.3.6 Indirect Apology Strategies - Mixed Response Strategies

The exchange [indirect strategies – mixed apology response strategy] stood at 4.0% (n&)

Table 5.12 Exchanges of indirect apology strategies and mixed response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in Vietnamese

Explanation or account Mixed response strategies

Evasive strategies Mixed response strategies

Opting out Mixed response strategies

Remedial support Mixed response strategies

5.1.3.7 Mixed Apology Strategies - Direct Response Strategies

The exchange [mixed apology strategies – acceptance] at 2.15% (n) comprised of two sub-exchanges [mixed apology strategies – acceptance] at 1.84% (n) and [mixed apology strategies – rejection] at 0.31% (n=2) m

Table 5.13 Exchanges of mixed apology strategies and direct response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in Vietnamese

5.1.3.8 Mixed Apology Strategies - Indirect Response Strategies

The exchange [mixed apology strategies – evasion] at 1.54% (n) was exactly 2.5 times higher than the exchange [mixed apology strategies - acknowledgement] at 0.61% (n=4)

Table 5.14 Exchanges of mixed apology strategies and indirect response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in Vietnamese

Mixed apology strategies - indirect response strategies

5.1.3.9 Mixed Apology Strategies - Mixed Response Strategies

Unlike English film conversations, the exchange [mixed apology strategies – mixed response strategies] did exist in Vietnamese at 0.31% (n=2), m

Table 5.15 Exchanges of mixed apology strategies and mixed response strategies in

Exchanges of pragmatic acts in Vietnamese n % Mixed apology strategies - Mixed response strategies

The exchange [mixed apology strategies – mixed apology response strategies] in Example 5.42 is illustrated

(5.40) Thành: Mình… xin lỗi Mình hứa sẽ tỉnh lại mà

Oanh khẳng định rằng việc xin lỗi là không cần thiết và cô sẽ không bao giờ tha thứ cho người kia nếu họ không nhận ra lỗi lầm của mình Cô nhấn mạnh rằng nếu người đó không chịu mở mắt để nhìn nhận sự thật, thì sẽ không có cơ hội nào cho sự tha thứ.

(No.40, Appendix 5) (Thành: I’m…sorry I promise to get well soon

Oanh: Why should you apologize? I will never forgive you Don't apologize

If you don't open your eyes, I will never forgive you again )

In a dramatic turn of events, lovers Thành and Oanh find themselves in a serious motorbike accident, with Thành sustaining more severe injuries As he apologizes, saying "Mình… xin lỗi," and promising to recover, he employs direct strategies and offers remedial support Oanh, however, responds with an unsatisfactory question, "Tại sao phải xin lỗi?" implicitly rejecting his apology, and later directly states, "Mình không đời nào tha thứ cho cậu," indicating her refusal to forgive him She further warns that if he does not open his eyes, she will never forgive him, expressing her feelings through a combination of unsatisfied questioning, direct refusal, and a threatening acknowledgment Both characters skillfully utilize mixed strategies in their communication.

Recent studies indicate a shift in communication patterns among the Vietnamese, particularly in the ways they apologize and respond Traditionally, Vietnamese individuals favored indirect strategies for expressing apologies, but this research reveals a notable change in these approaches.

Vietnamese characters in films used direct strategies more often than indirect strategies.This change could be originated from some causes which are analyzed below:

1 Technology helps cross-culture and interculture happen wider and faster which are unaffected by geography and regional factors

Cultural interference, once limited to direct interactions among family and friends, has evolved significantly due to advancements in information technology and communication Historically constrained by geography, today's global connectivity allows for rapid cultural exchange, particularly among younger generations like Gen Z (8X, 9X, and 10X) With tools such as Zalo, Messenger, and Skype, communication has become more accessible, diminishing barriers of time and space This has led to an increase in cultural interactions, with diverse countries and cultures frequently engaging with one another As a result, cultural exchange now occurs on an unprecedented scale, encompassing international economic activities, trade, investment, and academic collaborations According to Bùi Hùng (2014), global cultural exchange manifests in various forms, including the international division of labor, globalization of financial markets, and cultural dissemination through the Internet and mass media.

2 Life is developing fast; hence, communication between people is forced to be faster according to the development of society Every generation has to change ways of communication to meet the requirements of the job, but it is different among different generations

Nguyễn Thanh Tuấn (2008) emphasizes the interdependent relationship between behavioral culture and social development, highlighting how behavioral culture shapes human interactions with each other and the environment The World Bank (2021) reports that Vietnam's GDP per capita surged 2.7 times from 2002 to 2020, reaching nearly $2,800, while the poverty rate plummeted from over 32% in 2011 to below 2% Additionally, Hà Chính (2020) notes that the Economist magazine recognized Vietnam as one of the top 16 most successful emerging economies globally in August 2020 The World Bank (2021) further indicates that Vietnam achieved an impressive average economic growth rate of 6.8% annually from 2016 onwards.

In 2019, Vietnam ranked among the top 10 fastest-growing countries, reflecting a significant shift in behavioral culture as the nation modernizes The rapid development of society and the economy has expanded access to information and broadened social interactions compared to the past, where daily interactions were limited Today, the demands of a busy lifestyle necessitate quicker communication, prompting individuals to convey information more succinctly and effectively This evolution in communication style allows for more direct interactions, contrasting with previous studies that indicated a preference for indirect communication strategies among Vietnamese people.

GENDER INFLUENCES ON APOLOGY AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES

Gender Influences on Apology Strategies in Vietnamese Film

Table 5.16 indicates that men tend to apologize directly more often than women, with direct strategies used by males at 25.54% compared to 24.46% for females Conversely, women are more inclined to use indirect apology strategies, with a notable 32.76% employing this approach.

(n!3), which was 2.5 times more than males at 12.62% (n) Together with indirect strategies, males’ mixed apology strategies accounted for 1.08% (n=7) were also lower than that of female at 3.54% (n#)

Distribution of gender on apology and response strategies

Table 5.16 Apology strategies in terms of gender in Vietnamese conversations

Females apologized indirectly the most at 32.76% (n!3), nearly 1.5 times than direct strategies at 24.46% (n9), and more than 9 times higher than the lowest ranking of mixed apology strategies at 3.54% (n#).

Gender Influences on Response Strategies in Vietnamese Film

Table 5.17 reveals the distribution of apology response strategies in both genders

Table 5.17 Apology response strategies in terms of gender in Vietnamese conversations

In a study of apology response strategies, males exhibited a higher tendency to respond indirectly, with 20.92% of responses being indirect compared to 15.39% direct responses Conversely, females favored direct response strategies, utilizing them at a rate of 32.31%, while their indirect responses accounted for 23.54% Additionally, females employed mixed apology response strategies at 6.61%, which was significantly more frequent than the 1.23% observed in males.

Gender Influences on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in

A glimpse at Table 5.18 shows the gender influences on exchanges of apology and response strategies in Vietnamese film conversations

Table 5.18 Gender influences on exchanges of apology and response strategies in

1 Direct strategies - direct response strategies n 156 27 51 55 23

2 Direct strategies - indirect response strategies n 146 32 44 33 37

3 Direct strategies - mixed response strategies n 23 2 10 10 1

4 Indirect strategies - direct response strategies n 140 12 27 69 32

5 Indirect strategies - indirect response strategies n 129 17 19 49 44

6 Indirect strategies - mixed response strategies n 26 1 6 16 3

7 Mixed strategies - direct response strategies n 14 2 2 6 4

8 Mixed strategies - indirect response strategies n 14 1 2 6 5

9 Mixed strategies - mixed response strategies n 2 0 0 1 1

Among the three most frequently used exchanges, Exchange 1, utilizing direct response strategies, led with 24.0% (n6), closely followed by Exchange 2, also employing direct response strategies, at 22.46% (n6) Exchange 4, which focuses on indirect strategies within direct response, secured the third position at 21.54% (n0) Conversely, the least utilized exchanges were represented by Exchange 9.

[mixed strategies - mixed response strategies] at 0.31% (n=2), and Exchange 7 [mixed strategies - direct response strategies] and Exchange 8 [mixed strategies - indirect response strategies] both at 2.15% (n) were at the bottom three

Research by Holmes (1995) suggests that men tend to mirror female communication styles when interacting with women In contrast, when communicating with other men, they are more likely to engage in traditional gender-specific behaviors, characterized by reduced verbal expression and less emotional nuance (Sprecher & Sedikides, 1993).

5.2.3.1 Same Gender Interactions on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in English Film Conversations

Figure 5.15 describes the same gender interactions on exchanges of apology and response strategies in Vietnamese film conversations

Figure 5.15 Same gender interactions on exchanges in Vietnamese

It seems that F-F preferred using Exchange 1 [direct strategies - direct response strategies], Exchange 2 [direct strategies - indirect response strategies],

Exchange 4 [indirect strategies - direct response strategies], and Exchange 5 [indirect strategies - indirect response strategies] while M-M would rather use the first two

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6 Ex7 Ex8 Ex9

Same gender interactions on exchanges

In the analysis of M-M and F-F exchanges, Exchange 2 stood out as the only instance where both genders exhibited a similar proportion, approximately 5% Notably, there was no recorded use of Exchange 9, which pertains to mixed strategies and mixed response strategies, within M-M interactions.

5.2.3.2 Mixed Gender Interactions on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in English Film Conversations

Figure 5.16 illustrates the mixed-gender interactions regarding apologies and response strategies in Vietnamese films, highlighting that Exchanges 1, 2, 4, and 5 are the most commonly utilized.

Figure 5.16 Mixed gender interactions on exchanges in Vietnamese

Exchanges 1 and 2 revealed a higher frequency of male-to-female apologies in Vietnamese, indicating that males tend to apologize directly to females, who may respond either directly or indirectly Conversely, Exchanges 4 and 5 showed a greater number of female-to-male interactions Notably, there was no evidence of mixed response strategies in male-to-female interactions, suggesting that males are less inclined to use mixed apology strategies with females Additionally, Exchanges 3, 6, 7, and 8 in Vietnamese demonstrated low usage, similar to patterns observed in English.

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6 Ex7 Ex8 Ex9

Mixed gender interactions on exchanges

POWER INFLUENCES ON APOLOGY AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES193 1 Power Influences on Apology Strategies in Vietnamese Film

Power Influences on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in

In a study examining communication strategies among individuals of varying social power, direct strategies emerged as the most prevalent choice among lower-power individuals, utilized 17.69% of the time, significantly surpassing the 16% usage of indirect strategies Interestingly, both lower and higher power individuals favored direct strategies over indirect ones, showing a similar pattern in their approach However, the distinction in the frequency of direct versus indirect strategy usage was minimal Notably, individuals with equal power demonstrated the highest preference for direct strategies, employing them 20% of the time, outpacing both lower and higher power groups.

5.3.2 Power Influences on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in Vietnamese Film Conversations

The power influences among gender interactions on exchanges of apology and response strategies in Vietnamese film conversations were illustrated in numbers in Table 5.19 m conversations

Higher power apologizer – lower power apologizee Lower power apologizer – higher power apologizee

1 Direct strategies - direct response strategies n 156 7 12 13 6 10 18 20 8 10 21 22 9

2 Direct strategies - indirect response strategies n 146 8 10 8 9 11 15 12 13 13 19 13 15

3 Direct strategies - mixed response strategies n 23 0 2 3 0 1 3 3 1 1 5 4 0

4 Indirect strategies - direct response strategies n 140 4 7 18 8 5 10 24 11 3 10 27 13

5 Indirect strategies - indirect response strategies n 129 5 5 13 12 7 6 17 15 5 8 19 17

6 Indirect strategies - mixed response strategies n 26 1 2 4 1 0 2 6 1 0 2 6 1

7 Mixed strategies - direct response strategies n 14 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 2

8 Mixed strategies - indirect response strategies n 14 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 3 0 1 2 2

9 Mixed strategies - mixed response strategies n 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

5.3.2.1 Higher Power Apologizer – Lower Power Apologizee Interactions on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in Vietnamese Film Conversations

The H-L interactions among same genders on exchanges of apology and response strategies in Vietnamese film conversations were shown in Figure 5.18

Figure 5.18 Higher power apologizer – lower power apologizee interactions of same genders on exchanges in Vietnamese

Both genders exhibited an equal use of Exchange 2 (Direct strategies - indirect response strategies) at 1.23% (n=8) when apologizing and responding to the same sex Notably, neither gender utilized Exchange 9 in their communication Female-to-female interactions showed a higher frequency of Exchanges 1, 4, 5, and 6 compared to male-to-male interactions Additionally, only female-to-female communication employed Exchanges 3, 7, and 8, while male-to-male interactions did not incorporate these exchanges.

Figure 5.19 illustrates the H-L interactions among mixed genders on exchanges of apology and response strategies in Vietnamese film conversations

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6 Ex7 Ex8

Higher power apologizer – lower power apologizee interactions of same genders on exchanges

Figure 5.19 Higher power apologizer – lower power apologizee interactions of mixed genders on exchanges in Vietnamese

The interaction between males and females in the H-L context peaked at 1.85% during Exchange 1, followed closely by Exchange 2 at 1.54% Males tended to offer direct apologies to both genders, while females responded to their male counterparts in either direct or indirect ways.

What can be seen from Figure 5.19 is that the proportion of H-L interaction among F-M was the top on Exchange 5 at 1.85% (n) Exchange 2 at 1.38% (n=9) and Exchange 4 at 1.23% (n=8) had similar occurrence

5.3.2.2 Lower Power Apologizer – Higher Power Apologizee Interactions on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in Vietnamese Film Conversations

Figure 5.20 highlights the L-H interactions among same genders on exchanges of apology and response strategies in Vietnamese film conversations

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6

Higher power apologizer – lower power apologizee interactions of mixed genders on exchanges

Figure 5.20 Lower power apologizer – higher power apologizee interactions of same genders on exchanges in Vietnamese

Exchanges 1, 2, 4, and 5 were the most frequently utilized by both genders, with significant differences in usage patterns Female-Female (F-F) interactions dominated Exchange 4 at 3.69%, while Male-Male (M-M) interactions peaked at 1.69% for Exchange 2, indicating a notable disparity in exchange preferences between the genders.

The analysis indicates that the frequency of exchanges among female-female (F-F) interactions was generally higher than that of male-male (M-M) interactions, with the exception of exchange 9, which had no recorded instances for either gender Additionally, there were no occurrences of M-M in exchange 6.

The L-H interactions among mixed genders on exchanges of apology and response strategies in Vietnamese film conversations were given in Figure 5.21 below

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6 Ex7 Ex8

Lower power apologizer – higher power apologizee interactions of same genders on exchanges

Figure 5.21 Lower power apologizer – higher power apologizee interactions of mixed genders on exchanges in Vietnamese

In the study of mixed apology strategies, Exchange 9 showed no occurrences for either gender, indicating a lack of preference for these strategies In Vietnamese interactions, Exchanges 1 and 2 had higher occurrences among male-female (M-F) pairs compared to female-male (F-M) pairs in low-high (L-H) interactions Conversely, Exchanges 4 and 5 were more prevalent among F-M interactions than M-F There was minimal variation in occurrences for Exchanges 2 and 4 across mixed-gender interactions Notably, mixed-gender interactions were present in nearly every exchange except for Exchange 9 M-F interactions peaked at 2.77% in Exchange 1, while F-M interactions reached their highest at 2.31% in Exchange 5.

5.3.2.3 Equal Power Apologizer – Apologizee Interactions on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies in Vietnamese Film Conversations

The E-E interactions among same genders on exchanges of apology and response strategies in Vietnamese film conversations were discovered in Figure 5.22

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6 Ex7 Ex8

Lower power apologizer – higher power apologizee interactions of mixed genders on exchanges

Figure 5.22 Equal power apologizer – apologizee interactions of same genders on exchanges in Vietnamese

Exchange 9 also did not exist in E-E interactions among same genders M-M also did not use Exchanges 6 and 8 Male seemed not using mixed apology strategies There was a similar use among both genders in Exchange 2 at 2.0% (n) M-M with equal powers exploited Exchange 2 the most at 3.59% (n ) while F-F preferred using Exchange 4 at 4.15% (n')

The example below was the demonstration of the pattern [indirect strategies

(opting out-justification) – direct strategies (acceptance-unsatisfied question)]

(5.41).Trung: Các cậu, tôi vừa mới nhận được thông báo hôm nay thôi Gặp tình thế này, tôi chỉ có thể trả tiền công cả tuần cho các cậu

Sơn: Chuyện quái gì vậy?

(No.41, Appendix 5) (Trung: I have just received the notification today I can only pay you a week's salary for this show

Sơn: What the hell is going on?)

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6 Ex7 Ex8

Equal power apologizer – apologizee interactions of same genders on exchanges

Nam, the boss, informed his employees that the performance by Sơn and his friends would be halted temporarily He clarified that the decision was not personal but a company mandate regarding their weekly salary, stating, "I just received this notification today In this situation, I can only pay you for the week." Unsurprisingly, Sơn and his friends were dissatisfied with this announcement and subtly indicated their rejection of the apology when they inquired further.

Figure 5.23 demonstrates the E-E interactions among mixed genders on exchanges of apology and response strategies in Vietnamese film conversations

Figure 5.23 Equal power apologizer – apologizee interactions of mixed genders on exchanges in Vietnamese

It is clear that neither gender participated in Exchange 9, indicating that they opposed employing [mixed strategies- mixed response strategies] Exchanges 1 and

In the analysis of gender interactions, Exchanges 2 between male-female (M-F) interactions were notably higher than those between female-male (F-M) Conversely, Exchanges 4 and 5 exhibited a greater ratio in F-M interactions compared to M-F Minor differences were observed in mixed-gender interactions during Exchanges 2 and 4, while Exchange 9 was absent, indicating a lack of mixed-gender contact in that instance.

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6 Ex7 Ex8

Equal power apologizer – apologizee interactions of mixed genders on exchanges

M - F F- M m in F-M also did not exist While Exchange 1 between M-F interactions peaked at 3.23% (n = 21), Exchange 5 between F-M interactions reached a peak of 2.62% (n 17)

The exchange [indirect strategies (remedial support) – indirect response strategies (acknowledgement)] is presented in Example 5.41 as follow

(5.42).Tuấn: Anh biết là em buồn anh lắm phải không?

Hương: Chứ còn gì nữa Thử như vậy nữa xem, em chia tay luôn đấy

(No.42, Appendix 5) (Tuấn: I know that I made you feel sad, right?

Hương: For sure One more time and we’ll break up.)

In a conversation between lovers Tuấn and Hương, Tuấn's week-long absence without informing Hương led to tension in their relationship He expressed his concern and apologized, acknowledging her feelings by saying, "I know you must be very sad." In response, Hương warned him that if it happened again, she would consider breaking up, emphasizing her need for respect in the relationship This exchange highlights Tuấn's attempt to show concern while Hương asserted her boundaries through a warning.

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Chapter Five explores the sociopragmatic features of apologies and response strategies in Vietnamese socio-psychological films, focusing on gender and social power dynamics It examines three key areas: the exchanges of apology and response strategies, the influence of gender on these exchanges, and the impact of power on the interactions The findings from Chapter Five, in conjunction with those from Chapter Four, enable a comparative analysis of the sociopragmatic features of apologies in conversations across two languages, as discussed in Chapter Six.

CHAPTER SIX SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN APOLOGY AND

RESPONSE STRATEGIES IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

This chapter explores the similarities and differences in apology exchanges and response strategies, focusing on the influences of gender and power dynamics in English and Vietnamese film conversations It provides clear explanations to enhance understanding of how these factors shape the way apologies are communicated in both cultures.

SIMILARITIES IN APOLOGY AND RESPONSE STRATEGIES IN

Similarities in Gender Influences on Apology and Response Strategies in

6.1.2.1 Gender Influences on Apology Strategies

Figure 6.4 demonstrates gender influences on apology strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations

Ex1 Ex2 Ex3 Ex4 Ex5 Ex6 Ex7 Ex8 Ex9

Exchanges of apology and response strategies

Figure 6.4 Gender influences on apology strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations

Research indicates that males in both languages are less likely than females to initiate adjacency pairs using apology strategies This finding aligns with Holmes' (1995) study, which revealed that females engage more frequently in initiating exchanges related to apologies and responses Consequently, females exhibit a greater tendency to apologize compared to their male counterparts.

Apology strategies vary significantly between genders, with men more likely to offer direct apologies, while women tend to use indirect methods This difference highlights the contrasting approaches to expressing remorse among males and females.

Males in both languages did not prefer using mixed apology strategies while females did

6.1.2.2 Gender Influences on Response Strategies

Figure 6.5 illustrates that males tend to respond to apologies less frequently than females, indicating that women are more likely to acknowledge and respond positively to apologies.

Direct strategies Indirect strategies Mixed apology strategies

M-English m that the exchanges of pragmatic acts of apologizing and responding among women were more than those among men in both languages

Figure 6.5 Gender influences on response strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations

As regard to the distribution of both genders in apology response strategies, women rejected apologies more than men; however, they accepted apologies moderately lower than their male counterparts

Along with acceptance, evasion by female was the only other one in apology response strategy taxonomy proposed by Homes (1990, 19952) which had lower percentage than male

In both languages, females used indirect response strategies and mixed apology response strategy more than males even though the latter was the least frequently used by both sexes

6.1.2.3 Gender Influences on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies

Figure 6.6 highlights the gender influences on apology exchanges and response strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations, revealing that both genders tend to favor Exchange 1 (direct strategies - direct response strategies) and Exchange 2 (direct strategies - indirect response strategies).

Exchange 4 [indirect strategies - direct response strategies], Exchange 5 [indirect strategies - indirect response strategies] most frequently, and Exchange 6 [indirect strategies - mixed response strategies], Exchange 8 [mixed strategies - indirect response strategies] the least with their same gender Another similarity is that male did not use Exchange 9 [mixed strategies - mixed response strategies] with the same gender in both languages

Figure 6.6 Gender influences on exchanges of apology and response strategies in

English and Vietnamese film conversations

In the context of mixed-gender interactions, Exchanges 1, 2, 4, and 5 emerged as the most frequently utilized, while Exchanges 3, 6, 7, and 8 were the least engaged Notably, Exchange 1 ranked highest in usage among male participants.

In both languages, there was no evidence of the use of mixed response strategies in male-female interactions, indicating that males tended to avoid employing mixed apology strategies when communicating with females.

Among same gender interactions, F-F apology exchanges were more frequent than M-M apology exchanges while in mixed-gender interactions, M-F apology exchanges outnumbered F-M apology exchanges

Similarities in Power Influences on Apology and Response Strategies 214 6.1.4 Summary on Similarities in Apology and Response Strategies in Film

6.1.3.1 Power Influences on Apology Strategies

The article explores various social relationships identified through data collection, including dynamics within families, workplaces, friendships, and romantic partnerships Key relationship pairs include parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, in-laws, staff and managers, friends, and romantic partners The study categorizes social power dynamics into three groups: higher power apologizers to lower power apologizees (H-L), lower power apologizers to higher power apologizees (L-H), and equal power apologizers and apologizees (E-E).

Figure 6.7 below compares and contrasts power influences on apology strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations

Figure 6.7 Power influences on apology strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations m

It is noticeable that higher, lower, and equal power exhibited different distribution patterns of apology strategies in both languages.

Individuals in positions of higher power tend to apologize less frequently than those in lower power roles In fact, those with lower power are more likely to offer apologies Furthermore, those with higher power do not favor direct strategies when apologizing to those of lower power, regardless of the language used.

6.1.3.2 Power Influences on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies

Figure 6.8 gives information about power influences on exchanges of apology and response strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations.

Figure 6.8 Higher power apologizer – lower power apologizee influences on exchanges of apology and response strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations

Exchange 1Exchange 2Exchange 3Exchange 4Exchange 5Exchange 6Exchange 7Exchange 8Exchange 9

Higher power apologizer – lower power apologizee F-M Higher power apologizer – lower power apologizee F-F Higher power apologizer – lower power apologizee M-F Higher power apologizer – lower power apologizee M-M m

Figure 6.9 Lower power apologizer –higher power apologizee influences on exchanges of apology and response strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations

Figure 6.10 Equal apologizer – apologizee influences on exchanges of apology and response strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations

Power Lower power apologizer – higher power apologizee Power Lower power apologizer – higher power apologizee Power Lower power apologizer – higher power apologizee Power Lower power apologizer – higher power apologizee

Power Equal power apologizer - apologizee Power Equal power apologizer - apologizee

Power Equal power apologizer - apologizee Power Equal power apologizer - apologizee m

In general, in all interactions among H-L, L-H, or E-E, female apologized to female more than to male Conversely, male apologized to each other less frequently than male apologize to female

Apology exchanges among H-L were not as frequent as those employed among L-H and E-E, to be specific, listed the least On the other hand, E-E seemed to make apology exchanges the most

6.1.4 Summary on Similarities in Apology and Response Strategies in Film Conversations

There are 10 similarities that are listed as follows:

One key similarity in the act of apologizing is the intention behind it; apologizers seek forgiveness from the apologizees, hoping for a positive response to their acknowledgment of mistakes.

Both languages utilize three distinct categories of apology strategies: direct strategies, indirect strategies, and a mixed apology strategy that combines elements from the other two Among these, the expression of regret is the most commonly employed direct strategy in apologies.

(3) Regarding patterns and linguistic realizations of utterances containing direct apology strategies, there are 13 patterns in both languages including form 1, 2,

3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16 as seen in Table 6.8 Both languages employed performative expressions to express their direct apologies

Both languages exhibit three primary response strategies: direct, indirect, and mixed The mixed response strategy reflects attitudes of acceptance, refusal, acknowledgment, or evasion Direct response strategies are more prevalent than indirect ones, with acceptance being the most frequently used approach in direct responses, showing similar usage across both languages.

Response utterances in both English and Vietnamese can be classified into four main patterns: direct positive responses, indirect positive responses, indirect negative responses, and mixed apology responses In situations where the apologizee wishes to explicitly accept an apology, both cultures show a preference for using direct positive responses.

Each apology strategy is often paired with three distinct response strategies, which vary in their frequency of use These combinations include four pragmatic act exchanges: Exchange 1 involves direct strategies paired with direct response strategies, Exchange 2 features direct strategies with indirect response strategies, and Exchange 4 includes indirect strategies coupled with direct response strategies.

Exchange 5 [indirect strategies – indirect response strategies] are quite popular in both languages On the other hand, the remaining swaps are listed at the bottom of the use

Research indicates that males initiate exchanges less frequently than females, aligning with Holmes' (1995) findings that women are more inclined to initiate apologies and responses Consequently, women are more likely to both apologize and respond to apologies Additionally, men are more prone to direct apologies, while women often utilize indirect methods for expressing apologies.

In both languages, men are less inclined to use mixed apology strategies compared to women While women tend to reject apologies more often than men, their acceptance rate is slightly lower than that of males Additionally, females utilize indirect and mixed apology response strategies more frequently than males, although mixed strategies are the least common among both genders.

Both genders frequently utilize Exchanges 1, 2, 4, and 5, while Exchanges 6 and 8 are used less often Notably, males do not use Exchange 9 with their own gender in either language, highlighting a significant similarity in communication patterns.

Exchanges 1, 2, 4, and 5 are the most popular platforms for interactions between different genders, with Exchange 1 leading in male-female communication in both languages Conversely, Exchanges 3, 6, 7, and 8 are the least utilized Notably, Exchange 9 sees no usage in male-female interactions, indicating that men tend to avoid using mixed apologies when communicating with women.

In general, female apologized to female more than to male It seems, on the other hand, that male apologized to each other less frequently than male apologize to female

The distribution patterns of apology strategies vary significantly across different status levels in both languages Individuals in higher power positions tend to apologize less frequently, while those in lower power positions exhibit a greater tendency to apologize Moreover, higher power apologizers in both languages typically avoid using direct strategies when addressing lower power apologizees.

In communication exchanges, females tend to apologize to each other more frequently than males do, regardless of the context (H-L, L-H, or E-E) Males, conversely, apologize to one another less often than they do to women Notably, apologies exchanged between H-L are less common compared to those between L-H and E-E, with the latter two categories exhibiting the highest frequency of apologies Among these, E-E interactions show the most engagement in expressing regret.

DIFFERENCES IN APOLOGY AND RESPONSES IN ENGLISH AND

Differences in Apology and Response Strategies

6.2.1.1 Direct and Indirect Apology Strategies

In the analysis of Figure 6.1, it was observed that indirect strategies were predominantly utilized in English, whereas direct strategies were more commonly employed in Vietnamese The distinction between direct and indirect strategies was notably significant in English, while the difference in Vietnamese was minimal.

An analysis reveals that while indirect strategies were more prevalent than direct strategies in English, expressions of regret within direct strategies were most frequently observed in film dialogues In English, requests for forgiveness were utilized more often than offers of apology, contrasting with the approach taken in Vietnamese.

In the context of indirect strategies, English predominantly employed acknowledgment of responsibility, whereas Vietnamese favored remedial support When it comes to evasive strategies, English utilized all three sub-types, while Vietnamese lacked the querying precondition Additionally, evasive strategies were the least common in Vietnamese, contrasting with the mixed apology strategies observed in English.

In a comparative analysis of direct apology strategies, English exhibited 21 distinct linguistic patterns, while Vietnamese conversations revealed only 14 patterns Notably, Vietnamese lacked patterns 4, 8, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21, which were present in English Conversely, pattern 22 was identified in Vietnamese but was absent in English.

English and Vietnamese exhibit distinct linguistic patterns in their expressions of apology The most common structures in English include [Apologizer + Verb + Apologizing], [Apologizing], and [Apologizer + Apologizing + Preposition + Explanation] In contrast, Vietnamese commonly employs patterns such as [Apologizer + Apologizing + Apologizee], [Apologizer + Apologizing], and [Apologizing + Apologizee] These differences highlight the varied approaches to conveying apologies in each language.

Different languages employ various performative expressions to convey apologies In English, key expressions include "afraid," "apologise," "sorry," and "forgive," totaling nine distinct terms In contrast, Vietnamese features eight performative expressions such as "xin lỗi," "tha thứ," and "hối hận." Notably, "sorry" is the most frequently used term in English, while "xin lỗi" holds the same position in Vietnamese Despite the differences in expression, both languages share the common goal of directly addressing and apologizing for offenses.

6.2.1.2 Direct and Indirect Response Strategies

In analyzing Figure 6.2, a new apology response strategy termed the mixed apology response strategy was identified in the English data collection In contrast, the Vietnamese analysis revealed additional strategies that expanded the apology response taxonomy established by Holmes (1990, 1995), including ironic acceptance, refusal plus, unsatisfied questions, direct apologizing, and the mixed apology response strategy.

The first 4 sub-categories belonged to direct response strategies

A deeper analysis reveals that English speakers often reject more direct response strategies compared to their Vietnamese counterparts In contrast, when it comes to indirect response strategies, Vietnamese individuals predominantly employ evasion, while English speakers are more likely to utilize acknowledgment.

Related to the differences, each language uses different linguistic realizations

Direct positive responses in English include "yes," "OK," "alright," and "it’s alright," while in Vietnamese, they are "vâng," "dạ," "đồng ý," and "được rồi." Additionally, those who apologize often use indirect positive responses such as "never mind," "no problem," "it’s nothing," and "not at all."

English and không sao, không có gì, không chi mô, and chuyện nhỏ in Vietnamese

Direct negative responses included no, I can’t, I will not, I can’t forgive you in

English and không, không đời nào, không bao giờ, không bỏ qua, and không thể nào in Vietnamese Indirect negative responses may comprise of sorry or I’m sorry in

English and xin lỗi or rất tiếc in Vietnamese

6.2.1.3 Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies

In the analysis of apology and response strategies, Vietnamese exhibited nine exchanges, while English demonstrated only eight, as there was no recorded instance of the ninth exchange involving mixed apology and response strategies.

Exchange 4 [indirect strategies – direct response strategies] was the most employed exchange in English while Exchange 1 [direct strategies – direct response strategies] was most-frequently used in Vietnamese In further depth, there was little differentiation among the top of Exchange 1 and the three highest exchanges of m

Exchange 2 [direct strategies – indirect response strategies], Exchange 4 [indirect

Differences in Gender Influences on Apology and Response Strategies

imbalance among top 4 in English

6.2.2 Differences in Gender Influences on Apology and Response Strategies

6.2.2.1 Gender Influences on Apology Strategies

In the study of apology strategies, Trosborg (2011) found that English-speaking females employed direct and remedial strategies, which had a lower percentage compared to males Conversely, in Vietnamese, males exhibited a higher percentage of evasive strategies alongside direct strategies, while their use of opting out, remedial, and mixed apology strategies was lower than that of females.

In both English and Vietnamese, males were more likely to offer direct apologies than females, with a notable distinction in English and a modest difference in Vietnamese Conversely, females utilized indirect apology strategies more frequently than males in both languages, with a significant disparity observed in Vietnamese, while the difference in English was minimal.

Research indicates that female speakers utilize a higher proportion of mixed apology strategies compared to males, although both genders employ this approach the least in English In Vietnamese, distinct differences emerge in the least-used apology strategies, with males favoring opting out, while females tend to use evasive strategies.

6.2.2.2 Gender Influences on Response Strategies

Female employed direct response strategies more than male did in English but this fact was reversed in Vietnamese

In a comparison of mixed apology response strategies between genders, females in both Vietnamese and English exhibited a higher frequency of usage than males, with this disparity being particularly pronounced in Vietnamese Conversely, Vietnamese males utilized mixed apology strategies the least, while the strategy of acknowledgment was the least employed overall.

Differences in Power Influences on Apology and Response Strategies 223 6.2.4 Summary on Differences in Apology and Response Strategies in Film

In the context of same-gender interactions, exchanges 3, 7, and 9 showed no recorded interactions among males in English, while exchanges 3 and 7 were present in Vietnamese Additionally, exchange 9, which involves mixed response strategies, was utilized among females in Vietnamese but was absent in English.

No record in exchange 9 was reported among F-M in English but there was in Vietnamese The top exchange among F-M was exchange 4 in English and exchange

6.2.3 Differences in Power Influences on Apology and Response Strategies

6.2.3.1 Power Influences on Apology Strategies

In English, individuals with higher power tend to employ indirect apology strategies more frequently than direct ones, showing a significant disparity in their usage compared to those with lower power.

In Vietnamese communication, higher power apologizers, as well as those with lower and equal status, predominantly employ direct strategies, followed by indirect ones Notably, the differences in the use of direct and indirect strategies among the three power levels appear to be minimal.

There is a possibility that lower and higher power apologizers in English tended to be opposite in exploiting direct and indirect strategies as opposed to those in Vietnamese

Research indicates that mixed apology strategies are rarely documented among higher power apologizers in English, though they have been observed in Vietnamese In contrast, lower power apologizers frequently employ these mixed strategies more than their higher and equal power counterparts Notably, the distinction in the use of mixed apology strategies between lower and equal power apologizers is more pronounced in English than in Vietnamese.

6.2.3.2 Power Influences on Exchanges of Apology and Response Strategies

Women generally engage in exchanges more than men when interacting with individuals of equal or lower power However, in low-high interactions, Vietnamese men tend to use apology exchanges more frequently than women In contrast, English-speaking women utilize apology exchanges more than men across all types of interactions, regardless of whether the apologizers hold higher, lower, or equal status to the apologizees.

Even though apology exchanges were made among E-E interactions the most in both languages, the disparity among E-E and L-H in English was slight but was remarkable in Vietnamese

6.2.4 Summary on Differences in Apology and Response Strategies in Film Conversations

Differences in apology and response strategies between the two languages exist alongside the similarities as presented above These include:

(1) There are strategies towards apologizing and responding to apologies recorded in both English and Vietnamese, or rather, English and Vietnamese conversational discourses, though at different rates of occurrences

In English communication, indirect strategies are more commonly used, while Vietnamese speakers favor direct approaches Unlike English, Vietnamese shows minimal differentiation between direct and indirect strategies In English film dialogues, expressions of regret are predominantly conveyed through direct strategies, even though indirect strategies overall are more frequently utilized.

In communication styles, English speakers tend to request forgiveness more frequently than they offer apologies, a contrast to Vietnamese speakers who do not exhibit this tendency When it comes to indirect strategies, English speakers commonly acknowledge responsibility, while Vietnamese individuals often provide remedial support Additionally, evasive strategies are less prevalent in Vietnamese communication, whereas English speakers utilize a mix of apology strategies.

In English, there are 21 unique patterns for expressing direct apology strategies in utterances, while Vietnamese conversations exhibit only 14 patterns Notably, Patterns 4, 8, 13, 17, and 18 highlight significant differences in linguistic realizations between the two languages.

19, 20, and 21 in Table 4.2 are not known in Vietnamese; nevertheless, Pattern 22 in Table 5.2 is known in Vietnamese but not in English

Another distinction between English and Vietnamese was the usage of linguistic realization patterns, which varied in type and frequency The patterns

[Apologizer + Verb + Apologizing], [Apologizing], and [Apologizer + Apologizing+ Preposition + Explanation] are among the top five most often used patterns in English [Apologizer + Apologizing + Apologizee], [Apologizer + Apologizing], and

[Apologizing + Apologizee] are most used in Vietnamese

(3) Performative expressions vary between two languages The nine performative expressions in English are afraid, apologise, apology, excuse, forgive, pardon, regret and sorry; in contrast, the eight performative expressions in

In Vietnamese, expressions of regret include xin lỗi, tiếc, and hối hận, with xin lỗi being the most common equivalent to the English "sorry." Both languages utilize these performative expressions to convey remorse for any potential offense, highlighting the universal nature of apologetic communication across cultures.

(4) Regarding the variations, a further apology response strategy in English is identified and given the label mixed apology response strategy However, in

In exploring Vietnamese apology response strategies, additional methods such as ironic acceptance, refusal plus, unsatisfied questions, direct apologizing, and mixed apology response strategies have been identified and incorporated into Holmes' (1990, 1995) taxonomy of apology responses.

When analyzing direct response strategies, it is evident that English speakers tend to reject more often than their Vietnamese counterparts In contrast, when examining indirect response strategies, Vietnamese individuals predominantly utilize evasion, while English speakers favor acknowledgment.

(5) As for the differences, each language uses different linguistic realizations

Direct positive responses in English include "yes," "OK," "alright," and "it's alright," while in Vietnamese, they are expressed as "vâng," "dạ," "đồng ý," and "được rồi." Additionally, indirect positive responses used by apologizers consist of phrases such as "never mind," "no problem," "it's nothing," and "not at all."

English and không sao, không có gì, không chi mô, and chuyện nhỏ in Vietnamese

Direct negative responses included no, I can’t, I will not, I can’t forgive you in

English and không, không đời nào, không bao giờ, không bỏ qua, and không thể nào in Vietnamese Indirect negative responses may comprise of sorry or I’m sorry in

English and xin lỗi or rất tiếc in Vietnamese

(6) Vietnamese people employ a total of 9 exchanges of apology and response strategies, however English only use 8 exchanges since exchange 9 [mixed apology strategies – mixed response strategies] is not documented

In English, exchange 4 is the most commonly utilized, whereas in Vietnamese, exchange 1 holds that distinction The top exchanges in Vietnamese, specifically exchanges 1, 2, 4, and 5, show minimal differences in usage Conversely, exchange 4 in English exhibits a notable disparity compared to the other top exchanges.

In Vietnamese, the differences in apology strategies between men and women are notable, with men typically offering direct apologies more frequently Conversely, women are more likely to employ indirect apology strategies While this gender disparity in apology usage is significant in Vietnamese, it remains minimal in English.

Recent research indicates that a new type of mixed apology strategy is employed less frequently by both genders in English, with females utilizing these strategies more often than males In contrast, Vietnamese speakers exhibit notable differences in their least-used response strategies, where men tend to opt out, while women prefer evasive strategies.

(8) In English, women use direct response strategies more frequently than men, whereas in Vietnamese, the opposite is true

CHAPTER SUMMARY

Chapter Six explored the similarities and differences in apology exchanges and response strategies between English and Vietnamese, highlighting the impact of gender and power dynamics in socio-psychological film conversations This comparative analysis sets the stage for Chapter Seven, which discusses implications for language teaching, learning, and research.

CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This chapter concludes by exploring the dynamics of apology exchanges and response strategies, highlighting the influence of gender and power in English and Vietnamese socio-psychological film conversations It also identifies the similarities and differences in these exchanges between the two languages Additionally, the chapter proposes implications for language research, communication practices, and language teaching and learning.

CONCLUSION

This thesis explores the pragmatic acts of apology and response strategies in English and Vietnamese film conversations, focusing on the influences of gender and power dynamics It aims to identify both the similarities and differences in apology and response strategies between the two languages.

The thesis is guided by a theoretical framework rooted in sociopragmatics and conversational analysis, drawing on key theories such as Schegloff's (2007) conversational analysis, Mey's (2006, 2013) pragmatic act theory, Trosborg's (2011) apology strategy taxonomy, Holmes' (1990, 1995) response strategy taxonomy, and Searle's (1975) speech act theory This research employs a contrastive and descriptive qualitative methodology, supplemented by a quantitative approach to achieve its objectives.

Comparing the pragmatic acts of apologizing and responding to apologies in English and Vietnamese reveals both universal and culturally specific elements of communication This analysis highlights the significance of cultural context in understanding language use Numerous studies have focused on the speech acts of apologizing and apology responses in these two languages Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of this doctoral thesis provide critical insights and conclusions regarding these differences and similarities.

In everyday interactions, individuals engage in various pragmatic acts, with the combination of apologizing and responding to apologies being a notable example The methods of expressing apologies and the responses to them are significantly shaped by factors such as gender, power dynamics, and cultural backgrounds of both the apologizers and the recipients.

In both English and Vietnamese, apologies are expressed through three primary strategies: direct, indirect, and a newly identified mixed strategy Direct strategies, as outlined by Trosborg (2011), include expressions of regret, offers of apology, and requests for forgiveness, while indirect strategies encompass acknowledgment of responsibility, explanations, evasive tactics, opting out, and providing remedial support Notably, direct strategies are the only ones that utilize performative markers of apology, whereas indirect strategies do not The mixed apology strategy can incorporate performative markers when direct strategies are combined with other forms of apology.

The thesis explores the patterns and linguistic realizations of apology utterances, focusing on performative expressions as essential elements In English, these expressions encompass nine key terms: afraid, apologize, apology, excuse, forgive, pardon, regret, and sorry In contrast, the Vietnamese language features distinct performative expressions for conveying apologies.

The article discusses eight performative expressions in Vietnamese, including xin lỗi, tiếc, and hối hận, highlighting their varying frequencies of use In English, "be sorry" is the most commonly used expression, while Vietnamese speakers predominantly use "xin lỗi" to convey apologies Despite the differences in language, both English and Vietnamese expressions serve the same purpose: to apologize for offenses committed.

In both English and Vietnamese, responses to apologies can be categorized into three main strategies based on Holmes' (1990, 1995) taxonomy and Searle's (1975) speech act theory This taxonomy includes direct response strategies such as acceptance and acknowledgment, alongside indirect strategies like evasion and rejection Additionally, several new response strategies have been identified, including ironic acceptance, refusal plus, unsatisfied questions, direct apologizing, and mixed apology response strategies.

In the context of direct and indirect apology responses, different languages exhibit distinct linguistic expressions In English, direct affirmative responses include terms such as "yes," "OK," "alright," and "it’s alright," while in Vietnamese, equivalent expressions are "vâng," "dạ," "đồng ý," and "được rồi."

Apologizers often use indirect positive responses such as "never mind," "no problem," and "it's nothing" in English, while in Vietnamese, they might say "không sao," "không có gì," or "chuyện nhỏ." Conversely, direct negative responses include "no," "I can't," and "I won't" in English, along with "không," "không đời nào," and "không bao giờ" in Vietnamese Additionally, indirect negative responses can be expressed through phrases like "sorry" or "I'm sorry" in English, and "xin lỗi" or "rất tiếc" in Vietnamese.

The pragmatic dynamics of apologizing and responding to apologies involve a total of 9 exchanges, with 8 identified in English and 9 in Vietnamese Notably, Vietnamese includes an additional adjacency pair due to the presence of mixed apology strategies in both the initiating and closing acts, a combination not found in English.

Research indicates that gender influences the use of apology strategies, with males initiating adjacency pairs less frequently than females Men are more likely to offer direct apologies, while women tend to employ indirect methods Additionally, women reject apologies more often than men, although they accept them at a slightly lower rate compared to their male counterparts.

In all interactions, females apologized to each other more frequently than males did, regardless of the context (H-L, L-H, or E-E) Males tended to apologize less often to one another compared to their apologies directed towards females Notably, apologies exchanged between H-L were less common than those between L-H and E-E, with L-H and E-E being highlighted as the least frequent Conversely, exchanges of regret were most prevalent among E-E interactions.

In examining social power dynamics, it was found that individuals of varying status—higher, lower, and equal—demonstrated distinct patterns in their use of apology strategies and responses in both languages Notably, those with higher status tended to apologize less frequently and were less likely to respond to apologies Conversely, individuals with lower status apologized more often and were more responsive to apologies Furthermore, lower-status individuals showed a greater tendency to accept apologies, while those of higher status were more prone to reject them.

Women tend to engage in apology exchanges more frequently with individuals of equal or lower power compared to men In Vietnamese interactions, men generally utilize apologies more than women, except in lower-to-higher (L-H) interactions However, in English, women consistently use apology exchanges more than men across various power dynamics, including higher, lower, or equal status While both English-English (E-E) interactions show a high frequency of apologies, the difference between E-E and L-H interactions in English is minimal, contrasting with a significant disparity observed in Vietnamese.

IMPLICATIONS

English Language Research Implications

This research contributes to the understanding of English and Vietnamese languages by introducing a new apology strategy, termed the mixed apology strategy, into Trosborg's (2011) apology strategy taxonomy This strategy occurs when apologizers combine multiple approaches in their apologies Additionally, the study identified new apology response strategies in Vietnamese, expanding Holmes' (1995) taxonomy to include ironic acceptance, refusal plus, unsatisfied questions, direct apologizing, and the mixed apology response strategy.

Researchers have traditionally viewed apologizing and responding to apologies as distinct speech acts; however, this study reinterprets them as interconnected pragmatic acts that reflect the interpersonal relationships between apologizers and apologizees By examining these exchanges, the research highlights the significance of the pragmatic act of apologizing and responding, suggesting that this approach offers a novel perspective compared to previous studies on the topic of apology.

Communication Implications

Understanding the nuances of speech acts, particularly in the context of apologies and responses, is complex and often leads to communication breakdowns This doctoral thesis equips students with insights into speech act and pragmatic act theory, enhancing their awareness of linguistic interactions, especially regarding apologizing and responding By analyzing real-life conversations, it highlights diverse apology and response patterns, revealing how a single utterance can serve various communicative functions depending on the context The research identifies common forms of apologies and responses in both English and Vietnamese, aiding interlocutors in navigating these exchanges more naturally, which is vital for non-native speakers Ultimately, this study fosters cultural awareness and improves the effectiveness of communication in the target language.

Pedagogical Implications

In today's globalized world, enhancing English language education across all school levels—primary, lower secondary, and upper secondary—remains a key objective for Vietnam's Ministry of Education and Training The findings of this study have significant implications for second language (L2) teaching and learning within classroom settings.

L2 learners should first recognize the apology and response strategies present in their L1 to effectively master linguistic structures and social conventions in the L2 Language teachers play a crucial role in fostering this awareness by providing information that encourages students to apply their universal sociopragmatic knowledge from their L1 in L2 contexts EFL educators can highlight universal aspects of language while distinguishing them from language-specific elements For instance, sub-strategies like ability and willingness are common in both Vietnamese and English, illustrating the overlap in sociopragmatic strategies across languages.

Students can leverage their native language skills to navigate apologies and responses in both English and Vietnamese This study highlights the relevance of sociopragmatics in EFL classrooms, particularly in exploring British and American culture By examining how individuals from English-speaking countries apologize and respond based on context, gender, and social power, students gain valuable insights into appropriate behavior A thorough analysis of the similarities and differences in apologies between English and Vietnamese enhances cross-cultural understanding, equipping students with the knowledge to communicate effectively with local speakers and across cultures Additionally, the findings offer practical suggestions for Vietnamese English teachers to better guide their students in mastering the nuances of apologies in both languages.

This article explores the similarities and differences in the expressions of apologies and their responses between English and Vietnamese By providing this information to Vietnamese learners of English and English teachers, the study aims to help students navigate cultural nuances and avoid potential culture shocks in communication with native English speakers and vice versa Understanding these linguistic subtleties can enhance cross-cultural interactions and foster better communication skills among learners.

The study explores the linguistic patterns of apologies and apology responses in English and Vietnamese, enabling students to select appropriate expressions in various communication contexts Even students with limited language proficiency can enhance their linguistic skills by learning these patterns While advanced learners may use complex structures, their responses may not always reflect native-like proficiency Therefore, it is essential to teach both the correct grammatical forms and the contextual usage of apologies and responses The findings have been implemented in the Grammar and Writing Skill classes at the Faculty of English, University of Foreign Language Studies – The University of Danang, where students practice writing formal and informal emails, including apologies Understanding 21 forms of apologies allows students to diversify their writing structures, aligning with grammar criteria for assessments This research, funded by UFLS – UD, also contributed to a scientific study investigating apology strategies among EFL students.

This study explores the dynamics of apologies and responses through the lens of sociopragmatics, examining the contexts in which these exchanges occur Understanding the appropriate linguistic patterns for different genders and power dynamics is crucial for enhancing students' language proficiency and improving their real-life communication skills.

While it may be unrealistic to expect all students to attain native-like sociopragmatic competence, it is essential to enhance their awareness of the sociopragmatic elements of the language they are learning Language teachers should acknowledge the importance of cross-cultural differences and implement specialized teaching methods This can be achieved through various classroom activities, including teacher-led discussions, cooperative group work, role plays, and other tasks focused on sociopragmatics Such activities can enhance students' understanding of pragmatic acts, such as apologies and responses, while also developing their sociopragmatic skills in relation to gender and power dynamics.

LIMITATIONS OF THE THESIS

There are certain limitations that need to be acknowledged related to this doctoral thesis as follows

The initial investigation focused solely on verbal conversations in both languages However, non-verbal elements of apologies and responses, such as gestures and body language—like nodding with eyes downcast for apologies, smiling and nodding for acceptance, or shaking heads and grimacing for rejection—play a significant role in communication These non-verbal cues warrant separate study as they contribute valuable insights to the field of language research.

The translation of apology and response strategies from Vietnamese socio-psychological films into English, as detailed in Chapter 5, was undertaken by the doctoral candidate This process may lead to misunderstandings for English speakers learning Vietnamese, due to cultural differences in the pragmatic acts of apologies and responses.

A notable limitation of this study is the relatively small number of conversations gathered from socio-psychological film contexts, with 557 exchanges in English and 650 in Vietnamese This limited dataset may restrict the generalizability of the findings, highlighting the need for a larger-scale data collection to enhance the robustness of the results.

Future research should concentrate on non-verbal apologies and responses, as well as the pragmatic acts of apologies and strategies influenced by age and offense severity This doctoral thesis has already established the impact of gender and power on apology exchanges, highlighting the need for further exploration in these areas.

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS AND CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS

I don't know!

2 Ngô Thị Hiền Trang & Lưu Quý Khương (2022) A lexicogrammar approach to analyze response strategies to apology in English conversations International Journal of English Language Studies, 4(1), 45-50 https://doi.org/10.32996/ijels.2022.4.1.6

3 Ngo, T H T., & Luu, Q K (2022) Direct apology strategies and their lexicogrammatical realizations in English conversations: Implications for EFL students International Journal of TESOL & Education, 2(2), 82–94 https://doi.org/10.54855/ijte.22225

4 Ngo, T H T (2022) An investigation into apology strategies and lexicogrammatical realizations of apology utterances in English conversations

International Journal of Humanities, Philosophy and Language, 5 (17), 107-

5 Ngô Thị Hiền Trang & Lưu Quý Khương (2022) Hành động xin lỗi trực tiếp và hồi đáp trong hội thoại tiếng Việt Tạp chí Ngôn ngữ và đời sống, 6b(327)-2022, 25-33

Ngô Thị Hiền Trang và Huỳnh Ngọc Mai Kha (2022) đã nghiên cứu về chiến lược hồi đáp lời xin lỗi trong thư tiếng Anh của sinh viên chuyên ngữ tại Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ - Đại học Đà Nẵng Bài viết được đăng trên Tạp chí Ngôn ngữ và đời sống, số 9(330) năm 2022, trang 56-65 Nghiên cứu này cung cấp cái nhìn sâu sắc về cách thức sinh viên xử lý và phản hồi các tình huống xin lỗi trong giao tiếp tiếng Anh, góp phần nâng cao kỹ năng ngôn ngữ và hiểu biết văn hóa cho người học.

7 Ngo, T H T (2022) Using Apology Strategies in Letters by EFL Students at University of Foreign Language Studies – The University of Danang

International Journal of Language Instruction, 1(2), 1-12 https://doi.org/10.54855/ijli.22121 m

Ngô Thị Hiền Trang (2022) đã thực hiện đề tài nghiên cứu khoa học cấp cơ sở với mã số T2021-05-20, mang tên “Khảo sát chiến lược xin lỗi và hồi đáp trong thư tiếng Anh của sinh viên chuyên ngữ Trường đại học Ngoại ngữ - Đại học Đà Nẵng” Đề tài được bảo vệ vào tháng 10 năm 2022 và đạt xếp loại tốt với 87 điểm.

In her 2021 presentation at the national conference on language research and teaching in Da Nang, Ngô Thị Hiền Trang explores the reasons and methods by which university students at the University of Foreign Language Studies in Vietnam apologize to their lecturers This study sheds light on the dynamics of student-teacher interactions in an academic setting, emphasizing the significance of effective communication in fostering positive educational relationships.

Abdi, R., & Biri, A (2014) A Study of Apology Speech Act in Sitcoms: Implications for Language Teaching and Learning Journal of Modern Research in English

Aijmer, K (2002) English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus (Vol 10) John Benjamins Publishing

Al Ali, S A S (2018) ‘Saying Sorry’: Pragmatics and the use of Positioning Theory in a Study of Apology Behaviour of Saudi and Australian Women Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University

Almela, A (2020) Quantitative methods research in language and linguistics and

SPSS: An introduction Paper presented at the International Research Methods in

Language and Linguistics Webinar, The University of Murcia, Spain

Altayari, D.R (2017) A Sociolinguistic Study of the Speech Act of Apology by Saudi Speakers Humanity & Social Sciences Journal, 12 (2), 37- 44

In their 2018 study, Anguera et al explore the distinctions between mixed methods and multimethods in research, questioning whether the differences are merely semantic Meanwhile, Aquino et al (2006) investigate the dynamics of revenge and forgiveness within organizations, identifying power, procedural justice, and types of offenses as key predictors of individuals' responses, including reconciliation and avoidance Both articles contribute valuable insights into methodological approaches and interpersonal behaviors in organizational contexts.

Aries, E (2006) Sex differences in interaction In K Dindia & D.J Canary (Eds.),

Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp 21-36) Mahwah, NJ:

Austin, J (1962) How to do things with words Havard University Press

Bataineh, R F (2006) Apology strategies of Jordanian EFL university students

A cross-cultural study by Bataineh (2008) explores the differences in apologies between native speakers of American English and Jordanian Arabic, highlighting the nuances in their communicative practices Additionally, Bennett and Dewberry (1994) investigate the identity implications and constraints that apologies impose on recipients, emphasizing the psychological aspects of receiving an apology Together, these studies provide valuable insights into the cultural and psychological dimensions of apologetic communication.

Bennett, M., & Earwaker, D (1994) Victims’ responses to apologies: The effects of offender responsibility and offense severity The Journal of Social

Bergvall, V L (1999) Toward a comprehensive theory of language and gender Language in society, 273-293

Bilmes, J (1986) Language and behavior Plenum

Blum-Kulka, S., & Olshtain, E (1984) Requests and apologies: A cross-cultural study of speech act realization patterns (CCSARP) Applied linguistics, 5(3), 196-213

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., Freedle, R., & Kasper, G (Eds.) (1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (Vol 31) Greenwood Press

Brinton, L J (2000) The structure of modern English: A linguistic introduction (Vol

Brown, A & M Gullberg (2008) Bidirectional crosslinguistic influence in L1-L2 encoding of manner in speech and gesture: A study of Japanese speakers of English Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(2), 225-251

Brown, G., Brown, G D., Brown, G R., Gillian, B., & Yule, G (1983) Discourse analysis Cambridge University Press

Brown, P., & Levinson, S (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language use

Brown, S & Attardo, S (2005) Understanding language structure, interaction, and variation: an introduction to applied linguistics and sociolinguistics for nonspecialists University of Michigan Press

Apology serves as a crucial leadership behavior, as highlighted in Brubaker's (2016) meta-analysis, which underscores its implications for organizational leaders Furthermore, Butler's (2001) socio-constructivist analysis emphasizes the significance of context in interpreting apologies, particularly among native English-speaking college students Together, these studies reveal the multifaceted role of apologies in leadership and communication within organizational settings.

Cameron, D (1995) Rethinking language and gender studies: some issues for the 1990s Language and gender: Interdisciplinary perspectives, 31-44

Cameron, D (1997) Theoretical debates in feminist linguistics: Questions of sex and gender Gender and discourse, 21-36

Cameron, D., et al (1996) The language-gender interface: challenging co-optation,

V Bergvall, J Bing, A Freed (Eds.), Rethinking language and gender research: Theory and practice Longman

Chen, G M., et al (1998) Foundations of intercultural communication Pearson

Chen, N (2014) A sociopragmatic study of apology strategies in Chinese on age differences Master thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University

In their study, Chun and Yun (2010) explore the dynamics of apology strategies among social unequals in "The Dream of the Red Chamber," highlighting the cultural nuances of interpersonal communication in Chinese society Meanwhile, Cohen and Olshtain (1989) focus on establishing a framework for assessing socio-cultural competence, specifically through the lens of apologies, emphasizing the importance of understanding language use in social contexts Together, these works underscore the critical role of apologies in navigating social hierarchies and fostering effective communication.

Collier, D (1993) The comparative method, Ada W Finifter (Ed.), Political science: The state of discipline II American Political Science Association

Creswell, J W et al (2007) Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation The counseling psychologist, 35(2), 236-264

Creswell, J W., & Creswell, J D (2017) Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches Sage publications

Culpeper, J (Ed.) (2011) Historical sociopragmatics John Benjamins Publishing Company

Culpeper, J., & Haugh, M (2014) Pragmatics and the English language Macmillan International Higher Education

Darby, B W., & Schlenker, B R (1989) Children's reactions to transgressions: Effects of the actor's apology, reputation and remorse British Journal of Social

Demester, G (2006) Explicit apologies in English and Romanian: A construction grammar approach Paper presented at the 11th International Pragmatics

Deutschmann, M (2003) Apologising in British English Doctoral dissertation, Umeồ universitet

Dindia, K., & Allen, M (1992) Sex-differences in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis

Downing, A., & Locke, P (2002) A university course in English grammar Psychology Press

Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M J (2010) When apologies work: How matching apology components to victims’ self-construals facilitates forgiveness Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 113(1), 37-50

Fraser, B (1981) On apologizing In F Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine (pp 259-271) Mouton de Gruyter

Freed, A F (1995) Language and gender Annual review of applied linguistics, 15, 3-22

Frescura, M A (1993) A sociolinguistic comparison of “reactions to complaints”:

Italian L1 vs English L1, Italian L2, and Italian as a community language

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto

Garcia, C (1989) Apologizing in English: Politeness strategies used by native and non-native speakers Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage

Geis, M L (1995) Speech acts and conversational interaction Cambridge University Press

Gibbs, G R (2007) Thematic coding and categorizing Analyzing qualitative data, 703, 38-56

Goffman, E (1976) Replies and responses Language in Society 5, 257-313

Goffman, E (1981) Forms of talk University of Pennsylvania Press

Gómez, P C (2014) Statistical methods in language and linguistic m research Ibérica, 28, 225-256

Gooder, H., & Jacobs, J M (2000) 'On the Border of the Unsayable': The apology in postcolonizing Australia Interventions, 2(2), 229-247

Grainger, K (2013) Of babies and bath water: Is there any place for Austin and Grice in interpersonal pragmatics? Journal of Pragmatics, 58, 27–38

Grice, H P (1975) Logic and conversation In Peter Cole & Jerry Morgan (eds.),

Syntax and semantics, 3, 41–58 Academic Press

Hall, E T (1976) Beyond culture Anchor Press-Doubleday

Halliday, M A K., & Matthiessen, C M (2013) Halliday's introduction to functional grammar Routledge

Harré, R & Van Langenhove, L (2001) Varieties of positioning Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 21(4), 393–407

Heringer, J.T (1977) Pre-sequences and indirect speech acts, in E.O.Keenan and T.L.Bennett (Eds.), Discourse across time and space, 169-180 University of

Heritage, J (1984) A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement

In Max Atkinson & John Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action, 299–345 Cambridge University Press

Heritage, J (2010) Conversation analysis: Practices and methods In David Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice, 208–231 Sage

Hill, K M (2013) When are apologies effective? An investigation of the components that increase an apology’s efficacy ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Hinton, P R., McMurray, I., & Brownlow, C (2014) SPSS explained Routledge Hofstede, G (2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context Online readings in psychology and culture, 2(1), 2307-0919

Holmes, J (1990) Apologies in New Zealand English Language in society, 19(2), 155-199

Holmes, J (1995) Sex differences and apologies: One aspect of communicative m competence Readings on second language acquisition, 362-385

Holmes, J (2008) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics Longman

Holmes, J (2013) Women, men and politeness Routledge

House, J (1988) "Oh excuse me please ": Apologizing in a foreign language In

B Kettemann, P Bierbaumer, A Fill & A.Karpf (Eds.), Englisch als Zweitsprache, 303-327 Narr

Huang, Y (Ed.) (2017) The Oxford handbook of pragmatics Oxford University Press

Hudson, T., et al (1995) Developing prototypic measures of cross-cultural pragmatics Natl Foreign Lg Resource Ctr

Hussein, R., & Hammouri, M (1998) Strategies of Apology in Jordanian Arabic and American English Grazer Linguistische Studien, 7(49), 37-50

Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R (2001) Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and applications Polity

Hutchby, I (2017) Conversation analysis The Wiley‐Blackwell encyclopedia of social theory, 1-9 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118430873.est0069

Hymes, D (1972) Models of interaction of language and social life Direction: Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of communication Chandler

Jones, J F (2013) Investigating apology response strategies in Australian English and Bahasa Indonesia: gender and cultural perspectives Australian Review of

Kasper, G (2006) Speech acts in interaction: Towards discursive pragmatics Pragmatics and language learning, 11

Kecskes, I (2017) Cross-cultural and intercultural pragmatics The Oxford handbook of pragmatics, 400-415

Kecskes, I & Romero-Trillo, J (2013) Research trends in intercultural pragmatics Mouton de Gruyter

Kennedy, G (2003) Structure and meaning in English: A guide for teachers m

Kiger, P J (2004) The art of the apology Workforce Management, 83(10), 57-60 Knupfer, N N., & McLellan, H (1996) Descriptive research methodologies Handbook of research for educational communications and technology, 1196-1212

Kondo, S (2010) Apologies: Raising learners' cross-cultural awareness In A Martínez-Flor, & E Usó-Juan (Eds.), Speech Act Performance Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues, 145-162 Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Publishing Company http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/lllt.26.09kon

Kotthoff, H & Spencer-Oatey, H (2007) Handbook of intercultural communications Walter de Gruyter

Lakoff, R (1977) What can you do with words: Politeness, Pragmatics and Performatives Center for Applied Linguistics

Lakoff, R T (2001) Nine ways of looking at apologies: The necessity for interdisciplinary theory and method in discourse analysis The handbook of discourse analysis, 199-214

Leech, G.N (1983) Principles of pragmatics Longman

Levinson, S C (1983) Pragmatics Cambridge University Press

Lewis, R D (1996) When cultures collide: Managing successfully across cultures Nicholas Brealey

Litosseliti, L (Ed.) (2018) Research methods in linguistics Bloomsbury Publishing Lukasik, V J (2000) Predictors of the willingness to use forgiveness as a coping strategy in adolescent friendships Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne

Majeed, A., & Janjua, F (2014) Comparative structures of the apology strategies in English, Urdu and Punjabi: A pragmatic study ZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 3(11), 257-264

Margaret, D & Jennifer, B & Joanna, T (2015) Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (9 th ed.) Oxford University Press m

Mey, J L (2013) A brief sketch of the historic development of pragmatics In The

Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics

Meyerhoff, M (1999) Sorry in the Pacific: Defining communities, defining practices Language in society,28(2), 225-238

Meyerhoff, M (2000) How apologies get to be gendered work Gendered Speech in

Meyerhoff, M (2003) Claiming a place: Gender, knowledge, and authority as emergent properties The handbook of language and gender, 302-326

Miles, M B., & Huberman, A M (1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook Sage publications

Mills, S (2011) Discursive appraoches to politeness and impoliteness In Linguistic Politeness Research Group (ed.), Discursive appraoches to politeness, 19–56

Mir, M (1992) Do we all apologize the same? An empirical study on the act of apologizing by Spanish speakers learning English Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3, 1-19

Moeschler, J (2004) Intercultural pragmatics: a cognitive approach Retrieved on June 7, 2020 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269615377

Moeschler, J (2004) Intercultural pragmatics: a cognitive approach Intercultural pragmatics, 1(1), 49-70 Retrieved on December 12, 2019 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269615377_Intercultural_pragm atics_A_cognitive_approach

Morse, J M (2003) Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research, 1, 189-

Murphy, J (2014) Apologies in the discourse of politicians: A pragmatic approach The University of Manchester

Murray, A., et al (1987) Analyzing intercultural communication Walter de Gruyter m

Nikmah, M.T (2012) Analysis of apology as a politeness style of expressed by the characters in the twilight saga movie

Unpublished MA thesis State Institute of Islamic Studies, Salatiga, Indonesia

O’Grady, W., Dobrovolsky, M., & Katamba, F (1996) Contemporary linguistics:

Olshtain, E (1989) Apologies across languages In S Blum-Kulka, J House & G Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp.155-

Owen, M (1983) Apologies and remedial interchanges: A study of language in social interaction Mouton

Qadoury, A (2011) Pragmatic Transfer in Iraqi EFL Learners’ Refusals

International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(2), 166-175

Qari, I (2017) Politeness study of requests and apologies as produced by Saudi

Hijazi , EFL learners , and British English university students Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Roehampton

Quirk et al (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language Longman Quirk, R., & Greenbaum, S (1990) A university grammar of English Rouledge

Radford, A (1997) Syntactic theory and the structure of English: A minimalist approach Cambridge University Press

Radford, A (2004) English syntax: An introduction Cambridge University Press Rasinger, S M (2013) Quantitative research in linguistics: An introduction A&C Black

Reiter, R M (2000) Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A contrastive study of requests and apologies John Benjamins Publishing

Rocci, A (2006) Pragmatic inference and argumentation in intercultural communication Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(4), 409-442

Rossman, G B., & Rallis, S F (2011) Learning in the field: An introduction to m qualitative research Sage publications

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G (1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation Language 50, 696–735

Sadock, J M., & Zwicky, A M (1985) Speech act distinctions in syntax Language typology and syntactic description, 1, 155-196

Salehi, R (2014) A comparative analysis of apology strategy: Iranian EFL learners and native English speakers Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 1658-1665

Sari, D.P (2009) Apologizing acts in the film entitled “Pretty woman” Unpublished

MA thesis Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta, Indonesia

Schegloff, E A (1974) Sequence organization Cambridge University Press Schegloff, E A (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis I (Vol 1) Cambridge University Press

Schumann, K., & Ross, M (2010) Why Women Apologize More Than Men Psychological Science, 21, 1649 - 1655

Searle, J R (1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language (Vol 626) Cambridge University Press

Searle, J R (1975) Indirect speech acts In Speech acts, 59-82 Brill Academic Publishers

Shardakova, M (2005) Intercultural pragmatics in the speech of American L2 learners of Russian: Apologies offered by Americans in Russian Intercultural

Shariati, M & Chamani, F (2010) Apology strategies in Persian Journal of Pragmatics, 42(6), 1689-1699

Sinclair, J (2004) The Lexical Item In J Sinclair & R Carter (Eds.), Trust the Text:

Language, corpus and discourse Routledge

Sinclair, J M., & Coulthard, M (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: The

English used by teachers and pupils Oxford University Press

Snell-Hornby, M (2006) The turns of translation studies: New paradigms or shifting m viewpoints? John Benjamins Publishing

Sprecher, S., & Sedikides, C (1993) Gender differences in perceptions of emotionality: The case of close heterosexual relationships Sex roles, 28(9), 511-530

Stadler, S (2013) Cross‐cultural pragmatics The Encyclopedia of applied linguistics

Sugimoto, N (1997) A Japan-US comparison of apology styles Communication

Tajareh, M J (2015) An overview of contrastive analysis hypothesis Cumhuriyet ĩniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakỹltesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 36(3), 1106-1113

Taki, Y (2003) Culture and politeness: Differences of apology strategies of the British and Japanese people: Comparison of young and older subjects Studies in

Tallerman, M (2005) Understanding syntax (2 nd ed.) Hodder Education

Tannen, D (1994) Gender and discourse Oxford University Press

Tata, J (1998) The influence of gender on the use and effectiveness of managerial accounts Group & Organization Management, 23, 267-288

Thomas J (1995) Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics Longman Thomas, J (1983) Cross-cultural pragmatic failure Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 91-

Tran, Q V (2008) Vietnam's fundamental culture Education Publishing House Trosborg, A (2011) Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, complaints, and apologies (Vol 7) Walter de Gruyter

Tsui, A B (1994) English conversation Oxford University Press

Vollmer, H.J., & Olshtain, E (1989) The language of apologies in German In S Blum-Kulka & J House & G Kasper (Eds), Crosscultural pragmatics: Request and apologies (pp 197-218) Albex

Wannaruk, A (2008) Pragmatic transfer in Thai EFL refusals RELC journal, 39(3), 318-337 m

Wierzbicka, A (1987) English speech act verbs: A semantic dictionary Academic Press

Wierzbicka, A (2003) Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction Walter de Gruyter

Wolf, H G & Polzenhagen, F (2006) Intercultural communication in English: Arguments for a cognitive approach to intercultural pragmatics Intercultural Pragmatics, 3(3), 285-321

Wouk, F (2006) The language of apologizing in Lombok, Indonesia

Yule, G (1996) Pragmatics Oxford University Press

Cultural exchange in the era of globalization plays a vital role in fostering understanding and collaboration among diverse societies As globalization intensifies, it enables the sharing of cultural values and practices, enriching communities worldwide This exchange not only enhances cultural appreciation but also promotes social cohesion, making it essential for navigating the complexities of a connected world Embracing cultural diversity through dialogue and interaction can lead to mutual respect and innovative ideas, ultimately benefiting global society.

Cao, X H (1991) Tiếng Việt - Sơ thảo ngữ pháp chức năng Nhà xuất bản Khoa học và xã hội

Dang, T P (2000) A cross-cultural study of apologizing and responding to apologies in Vietnamese and English Unpublished Master Thesis in Linguistics, Hanoi

Dao, H T (2009) Ngôn ngữ học khối liệu và những vấn đề liên quan (Quyển I) Nhà xuất bản Khoa học xã hội

Diep, Q B (2005) Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt Nhà xuất bản Giáo dục

Do, H C & Bui, M T (2001) Đại cương ngôn ngữ học: Tập 1 Nhà xuất bản Giáo dục

Do, H C (2000) Tìm hiểu văn hóa qua ngôn ngữ Tạp chí Ngôn ngữ, 10,

Do, T K L (2005) Giáo trình Ngữ dụng học Nhà xuất bản Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội

Do, T M T (2000) Some English and Vietnamese cross-cultural differences in requesting Unpublished Master Thesis in Linguistics, Hanoi m

Trong năm năm qua, đã có những bước tiến vượt bậc trong nhiều lĩnh vực, thể hiện sự phát triển mạnh mẽ của đất nước Những cải cách và đổi mới đã mang lại hiệu quả tích cực, góp phần nâng cao đời sống người dân và thúc đẩy kinh tế Các chính sách được triển khai đã tạo ra môi trường thuận lợi cho doanh nghiệp và khuyến khích đầu tư Sự phát triển này không chỉ dừng lại ở các thành phố lớn mà còn lan tỏa đến các vùng nông thôn, giúp thu hẹp khoảng cách phát triển Những thành tựu này khẳng định quyết tâm của Chính phủ trong việc xây dựng một tương lai tươi sáng hơn cho đất nước.

Kieu, T T H (2006) Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese: A pragmatics and conversation analysis perspective Doctoral dissertation, Hanoi

Le, P T (2011) Translational variation in linguistic politeness in Vietnamese:

Australia and Vietnam Doctoral dissertation, Victoria University

Luu, V L (1998) Ngôn ngữ học và tiếng Việt Nhà xuất bản Khoa học và xã hội Nguyen, D D (2008) Ngữ dụng học: Tập 1 Nhà xuất bản Giáo dục

Nguyen, K T (1964) Nghiên cứu về ngữ pháp tiếng Việt: Tập 2 Nhà xuất bản Khoa học và xã hội

Nguyen, M T & Nguyen, V H (2004) Thành phần câu tiếng Việt Nhà xuất bản Giáo dục

Nguyen, P S (1990) A cross-cultural study of greeting and address terms in English and Vietnamese Unpublished Master Thesis in Linguistics, University of

Nguyen (1998) đã nghiên cứu sự khác biệt trong giao tiếp lời nói giữa Việt Nam và Mỹ, đặc biệt trong cách thức khen và tiếp nhận lời khen Luận án tiến sĩ này phân tích các yếu tố văn hóa ảnh hưởng đến hành vi khen ngợi và cách mà người Việt và người Mỹ phản ứng với lời khen Nghiên cứu này cung cấp cái nhìn sâu sắc về sự tương tác văn hóa và giúp hiểu rõ hơn về những đặc trưng trong giao tiếp giữa hai nền văn hóa.

Khoa học Xã hội và Nhân văn, Hà Nội

Nguyen, Q (2002) Giao tiếp và giao tiếp giao văn hóa Nhà xuất bản Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội