A comparative study on apologizing in english and vietnamese conversations

Trang 5 ABSTRACT This thesis delves into a detailed cross-cultural examination, specifically targeting the nuances of apology strategies within English and Vietnamese contexts.. Modality

Rationale

Effective communication is akin to an art form, where conversationalists are artists creating dialogic masterpieces In all facets of life, adept communication skills are not just preferable but are prerequisites for building successful relationships and navigating cultural norms Regardless of geographical or cultural contexts - be it Western societies or Vietnam, real-life interactions or filmic representations - the quality of communication can be a determinant for the success or failure of relationships

In a world that is replete with human imperfections, apology comes to the fore as a necessary tool in maintaining social harmony As highlighted by North-Holland

(1987), when a person’s action, utterance, or lack thereof offends another and they are deemed accountable, an apology is warranted This act of apologizing encompasses not just the words expressed but also the intent to rectify the wrong, to mend what has been fractured in the relationship The nature and delivery of such apologies vary depending on the relationship’s intimacy and cultural contexts, demonstrating the nuances of this communicative act

In the contemporary digital age, marked by advanced 4.0 technologies, societal evolution is mirrored by growing demands for online entertainment As such, real-life conversations and societal norms are increasingly being documented and globalized to cater to this evolving need for virtual connectedness

The importance of apologies in English and Vietnamese dialogues has been acknowledged and extensively studied by many researchers worldwide Yet, there remains a conspicuous gap in literature pertaining to the specific utterances of apologies in English-Vietnamese conversations This is crucial to attain a comprehensive understanding of cross-cultural communication between English and Vietnamese speakers and to cultivate effective English teaching methodologies based on a communicative approach

To bridge this knowledge gap, I have undertaken this cross-cultural study titled

“A Comparative Study on Apologizing in English and Vietnamese Conversations” for my master's thesis The aim of this research is to explore the cultural similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese apologizing practices, with a particular focus on filmic conversations

By contributing to our understanding of effective cross-cultural communication, it is my hope that this study will enhance the portrayal of real-life interactions in films and improve the teaching and learning methodologies of English.

Aim and Objectives of the Study

Aim of the Study

The aim of the study is to investigate the similarities and differences in apologies in English and Vietnamese conversations in terms of apology strategies and modality markers.

Objectives of the Study

The following detailed objectives are set to ensure the implementation of the above aim:

- To explore the apology strategies in English and Vietnamese conversations

- To identify the use of modality markers in apology utterances in English- Vietnamese conversations

- To find out the similarities and differences in the use of apology strategies and modality markers in English and Vietnamese conversations.

Research Questions

In order to achieve the aim and objectives of the study, the following research questions will be applied:

1 What apology strategies are used in English and Vietnamese conversations?

2 What modality markers are used in apology utterances in English and Vietnamese conversations?

3 What are the similarities and differences in the use of apology strategies and modality markers in English and Vietnamese conversations?

Scope of the Study

This study concentrates solely on apology utterances in English and Vietnamese conversations based on the theoretical framework of Holmes (1990) and House and Kasper (2012) and will not include the following aspects:

Firstly, it does not address paralinguistic and extralinguistic factors Although these factors are crucial in communication, there is limited consensus among linguists regarding these issues

Secondly, this study does not differentiate between American English and British English Both variations of English are treated with equal relevance

Thirdly, owing to resource and time constraints, this research focuses on apology utterances in movies, utilizing multiple films in each category, rather than on response utterances

Finally, while acknowledging the significance of factors such as age, gender, social status, and the relationship between interlocutors - as they impact the politeness strategies employed by the speaker - these elements are outside the purview of this study due to limitations in time and research capacity.

Significance of the Study

Theoretically, first, this study underscores the significance of culture in verbal behaviors, contributing to the exploration of speech acts within the framework of pragmatics and linguistic politeness Second, by applying the insights gained from both domestic and international language theories, this investigation of the strategies used in apologies will contribute to the preservation of the integrity of the Vietnamese language

Practically, the findings of this study will highlight notable similarities and differences in apologies as depicted in English and Vietnamese films Consequently, this research will greatly assist directors and producers of English and Vietnamese films, as well as viewers, by equipping them with a solid understanding of the apology utterances This understanding will help to optimize communication effectiveness and mitigate culture shock in cross-cultural interactions.

Organization of the Study

The study is divided into five chapters:

Chapter 1, Introduction, presents the rationale, aim, objectives, scope of the study, significance, research questions, methods, and organization of the study

Chapter 2, Literature Review, presents a theory of politeness and modality

This chapter also provides the theoretical background of negative politeness strategies, i.e apology strategy in English and Vietnamese

Chapter 3, Methods and Procedures, presents the research methods of the study, data collection, and data analysis

Chapter 4, Findings and Discussion, presents the results gained in the processing of the data and discusses the results of the data analysis

Chapter 5, Conclusion, summarizes the findings recorded during making this study, presents the constraints of the study, provides some suggestions for further study, and gives implications on teaching and learning

This chapter provides a review of the thesis’s theoretical background We begin with the leading academic theories on which this study is based Next, we provide a theoretical framework for the method of analysis conducted in the present study, including the theories of apology strategies and modality, which will be taken into consideration Finally, a brief overview of previous studies related to the topic of this paper is presented.

Theoretical Background

Speech Act

Austin’s pioneering work “How to Do Things with Words”, first published in

1962, established the theory of speech acts and profoundly influenced the study of language use, pragmatics, and communication Austin (1962) challenged the traditional view that the primary function of language is to describe the world or state facts, suggesting instead that language is often used to ‘do things’ – that is, to perform actions

Following Austin’s ground-breaking work on speech act theory, many other scholars have contributed to its development, notably Searle (1969) and Yule (1996) Searle (1969), a prominent philosopher of language, further developed Austin's speech act theory, focusing on the structure of illocutionary acts and exploring several key concepts in detail In his work “Speech Acts: An Essay in the

Philosophy of Language” published in 1969, Searle proposed a set of rules that categorize and differentiate illocutionary speech acts, offering a way to understand the speaker's intent behind utterances

Yule (1996), another influential linguist, incorporated the principles of speech act theory into his pedagogical works on English language learning Yule’s (1996)

“Pragmatics” provides an accessible introduction to the study of language use, acknowledging the crucial role of context in interpreting meaning

In this work, Yule explores various aspects of pragmatics, including speech acts, and makes the field more accessible to language learners His work highlights the practical implications of speech act theory for language teaching and learning, demonstrating how understanding speech acts can enhance learners' communicative competence and ability to navigate different cultural and social contexts

Yule’s view on speech acts (1996) focuses significantly on the illocutionary force of an utterance, which he considers to be the most discussed aspect among the three types of speech acts identified by Austin (1962) “the most discussed is illocutionary force Indeed, the term ‘speech act’ is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of an utterance” (page )He highlights the importance of understanding the illocutionary force - the speaker's intention or purpose - in interpreting an utterance correctly He notes that the term

‘speech act’ is often narrowly interpreted to refer exclusively to the illocutionary force In other words, when people think about speech acts, they are usually considering what action is being performed by the speaker through the utterance, such as making a promise, issuing a warning, or asking a question

Further illustrating the complexity of illocutionary force, Yule (1996) mentions that a single locutionary act – the utterance of specific words – can be associated with various illocutionary forces depending on the context and intention of the speaker As an example, he points out that the phrase “I'll see you later” can function as a prediction (“I predict that I will see you later”), a promise (“I assure you that I will see you later”), or even a warning (“You should be aware that I will see you later”)

This perspective underscores the flexibility of language and the crucial role of context and speaker intention in interpreting an utterance It also emphasizes the complexity and richness of human communication, where words and phrases can be imbued with multiple meanings and functions depending on the circumstances in which they are used

Therefore, Yule’s insight (1996) into the prevalence of illocutionary force in the study of speech acts has greatly contributed to our understanding of how people use language to convey their intentions and to perform different social actions, revealing the multi-dimensionality of even the simplest utterances

The classification of speech acts by prominent linguists like Austin, Searle, and Yule gives us a deeper understanding of how language functions in human communication

Austin (1962) was one of the first to categorize speech acts into five classes: verdictives, exercitives, commissives, expositives, and behabitives Each of these categories encapsulates a unique set of functions and purposes of speech, from delivering a judgement (verdictives), to committing the speaker to a course of action (commissives), to reacting to others' behavior or expressing attitudes (behabitives) Austin’s classification of speech acts (1962) gives us a nuanced understanding of how speech serves different purposes in our daily communication Here, we take a deeper look at each of Austin's categories (1962) with examples:

+ Verdictives: This category of speech acts involves making a judgement or evaluation based on certain evidence or reasons For instance, a doctor diagnosing a patient's condition based on symptoms and test results (“I diagnose you with the flu.”) (p.159) is an example of a verdictive Similarly, a teacher assessing a student's performance on a test (“I estimate your score will be around 85”) (ibid) is also a verdictive

+ Exercitives: These speech acts involve making a decision for or against a certain course of action or advocating it For example, a parent commanding a child to do their homework (“I command you to finish your homework before dinner.”) (ibid) or a friend recommending a book (“I recommend you read ‘To Kill a

Mockingbird’.”) (ibid) are instances of exercitives

+ Commissives: In these speech acts, the speaker commits to a certain course of action For instance, when a person promises to help a friend with their move (“I promise to help you move this weekend.”) (ibid), or when someone swears to tell the truth in court (“I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”) (ibid), they're performing commissive speech acts

+ Expositives: These speech acts involve explaining or expounding views, conducting arguments, or classifying usages and references For instance, when a lecturer describes a scientific concept to their students (“I will describe the process of photosynthesis.”), or when a lawyer affirms their client's innocence in court (“I affirm my client's innocence.”), they are using expositive speech acts

+ Behabitives: This class of speech acts pertains to reacting to others’ behaviors or expressing attitudes towards others’ past or imminent actions For example, when someone accepts an invitation (“I accept your invitation to dinner.”), thanks someone for a gift (“I thank you for this lovely present.”), or apologizes for a mistake (“I apologize for forgetting your birthday.”), they're enacting behabitive speech acts

These categories provide a detailed framework to understand the variety and complexity of speech acts in human communication, highlighting the diverse purposes language can serve

Searle (1979), a noted linguist and philosopher, proposed a new classification system for speech acts, which he felt addressed some of the limitations of Austin’s earlier taxonomy (1962) Below, each category is elaborated with examples and illustrations:

Politeness

Politeness according to Brown and Levinson (1987) plays a crucial role in social interaction, serving as the oil that keeps social interaction running smoothly It entails showing consideration for others, respecting their personal space, and generally being pleasant and agreeable Its primary function is to regulate relationships and minimize potential confrontation or conflict in social interactions

The concept of politeness is multifaceted, drawing interpretations and insights from various dimensions, primarily in the field of sociolinguistics The discussion on politeness has been broad, ranging from its role in mitigating conflict and maintaining social etiquette to its integral relationship with the notion of ‘face’

Lakoff (1990) (in Yule, 1997, p.106) views politeness as an interpersonal strategy to manage the inherent conflict in human communication He highlights that every participant enters a conversation with a personal objective, ranging from explicit requests to more subtle desires like wanting to be likable While some of these goals can be achieved simultaneously, others might necessitate a compromise where one participant's gain is the other’s loss

Such scenarios, where a person has to deliver unpleasant news, deny a request, or end a conversation prematurely, present a risk of insult and consequent breakdown in communication Lakoff (1990) defines politeness as “a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange.” (p.34)

The concept of ‘face’ as it relates to politeness and interpersonal interaction was particularly noted by sociologist Erving Goffman and later developed in the field of linguistic pragmatics by sociolinguists such as Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson John J Gumperz, an anthropological linguist, is also mentioned here as emphasizing the role of politeness as fundamental to maintaining social order and fostering human cooperation

‘Face’ represents an individual’s claimed social value, essentially their social identity, in a specific context It's the positive public self-image that a person wants to present to others during interactions In a business meeting, for instance, an individual like Mr Smith might want to convey the image of being sophisticated, intelligent, witty, and educated This image is Mr Smith’s ‘face’ in that context However, maintaining ‘face’ is not a solitary effort It is a shared responsibility in any social interaction All participants in the interaction must recognize and accept the face that each individual presents If the ‘face’ is not accepted or is challenged, it can lead to feelings of embarrassment or discomfort, leading to a “loss of face” That's why many interactions involve what Goffman termed “face work” – the collective efforts by the participants to uphold everyone’s face and avoid any potential face- threatening acts (FTAs)

However, conflicts are inevitable in human interactions, and there might be instances where what one person says or does might pose a threat to another person's face This is where the idea of a face-threatening act (FTA) comes into play FTAs are behaviors that run the risk of damaging the face of the recipient For example, if someone bluntly criticizes Mr Smith's proposal during the meeting, it could be seen as an FTA because it threatens his desired face as a knowledgeable and competent professional

But people usually employ various strategies to mitigate these FTAs, often through what is termed as face-saving acts (FSAs) Face-saving acts are behaviors designed to avert potential damage to an individual's face They could involve a range of communicative strategies, such as using indirect language, hedging, or giving compliments before a critique For instance, instead of outrightly criticizing Mr Smith's proposal, a colleague might say, “You've done a lot of good work on this proposal, and I admire your effort I wonder if we could consider a few more alternatives for this section.” Here, the criticism is veiled as a suggestion, and it’s preceded by a compliment, serving as an FSA to preserve Mr Smith’s face

Therefore, according to Gumperz, Brown (1987), Levinson (1987), Goffman

(1955), and Yule (1997), politeness and the awareness of ‘face’ are pivotal in maintaining a harmonious social order They enable us to navigate potential pitfalls in communication, negotiate social roles, and foster mutual respect and cooperation Brown and Levinson (1987) offer a comprehensive approach to understanding politeness They conceptualize politeness as a social tool to manage and mitigate potential conflict They argue that social interactions invariably carry a potential for aggression given the various expectations, goals, and perspectives involved Politeness, according to them, acts as a social lubricant that “presupposes that potential for aggression as it seeks to disarm it, and make possible communication between potentially aggressive parties” (Goffman,1967, p.89)

Thus, the role of politeness transcends mere etiquette – it is a strategic tool employed to ensure smooth, cooperative interactions Politeness strategies can be seen as forms of linguistic diplomacy, where individuals use diplomatic language to prevent or resolve conflicts, ensuring peaceful interactions

In contrast to Brown and Levinson's conflict-based perspective, Yule (1996) looks at politeness from the lens of societal norms and manners Yule suggests that politeness can be viewed as a fixed concept within a cultural context, encapsulated in the idea of 'polite social behavior' He writes, “It is possible to treat politeness as a fixed concept, as in the idea of ‘polite social behavior’, within a culture” (p.59)

This perspective emphasizes the role of cultural expectations and societal norms in shaping the idea of politeness Polite behaviors and expressions, under this view, are those that align with the established social expectations of a given cultural context It focuses on an individual’s understanding of these standards and how they navigate them in their interactions

In the realm of politeness, the concept of ‘face’ is pivotal Both Yule (1996) and Brown and Levinson (1987) tie the idea of politeness closely with the preservation of ‘face’, essentially an individual’s public self-image Yule describes 'face' as “the public self-image of a person It refers to that emotional and social sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize” Similarly, Brown and Levinson (1987) perceive ‘face’ as something emotionally invested and susceptible to damage or enhancement during social interactions

Yule (1996) defines ‘face’ as the public self-image of a person It refers to that emotional and social sense of self that everyone has and expects everyone else to recognize and adds that politeness is the means employed to show awareness of another person’s face If a person says something that represents a threat to another individual's expectations regarding self-image, it is described as a face-threatening act (FTA) Alternatively, given the possibility that some action might be interpreted as a threat to another’s face, S can say something to lessen the possible threat This is called a face-saving act (FSA) Yule (1996) divides it into ‘negative face’ and

‘positive face’ Negative face, according to Yule (1996), is “the need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others” (p.61)

This aspect of face highlights a person's need for autonomy, personal space, and the freedom to act as per their will

Conversely, positive face signifies a need for social acceptance and inclusion

It is “the need to be accepted, even liked, by others, to be treated as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her wants are shared by others” (p.62) This side of face encapsulates the universal human longing for acceptance, affirmation, and social connection

Politeness - Directness - Indirectness in Apologizing

Apologizing is one of the most sensitive areas of daily communication in terms of politeness It plays a crucial role in keeping people happy and friendships going Although by apologizing, S recognizes the fact that a violation of a social norm has been committed and admits to the fact that s/he is at least partially involved in its cause, apologizing is mostly a social habit Sometimes you mean it when you say

“sorry”, sometimes you do not You probably say it without thinking when you bump into someone by mistake

As a norm of politeness and a social habit, people would definitely get annoyed when apologizing is not given at the appropriate time or place as it is predicted and expected An American professor experienced this while teaching a class at a Brazilian University The two-hour class began at 9 A.M Only 10 students arrived on time Several students arrived after 10 A.M., and two students came after 11 A.M Although all the students greeted the professor as they arrived, few apologized for their lateness The professor became angry but anyway decided to study the students' behaviour He found that in an American University, students are not expected to arrive at the appointed time, while in Brazil, the teacher nor the students always arrive at the appointed hour Arriving late may not be very important in Brazil, nor is staying late In Brazil, a person who usually arrives late is probably more successful than a person who is always on time In fact, Brazilians expect a person with status or prestige to arrive late

Politeness in apologizing may be expressed either directly or indirectly

1 Directly , done via an explicit illocutionary force indicating device (IFID), which selects a routinized, formula expression of regret (a performative verb) such as: (be) sorry, apologize, regret, excuse, etc (English); Xin lỗi, tha thứ, lấy làm tiếc, etc (Vietnamese)

2 Indirectly, performed by any utterance containing:

- An explanation or account of the cause which brought about the offense

- An expression of S’s responsibility for the offense:

E.g.: That’ll never happen again.

Apology Strategies

Various scholars have proposed different classification systems for apology strategies, including the notable works of Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984), Fraser

(1981), Olshtain and Cohen (1983), Owen (1983), and Trosberg (1987) This body of research has emerged predominantly from the field of second language acquisition, where understanding diverse apology strategies is crucial for effective communication in a new language (Holmes, 1990)

The focus of these studies is often comparative, aimed at understanding how apology strategies differ across various cultures and languages This comparative approach can help second language learners comprehend and appropriately apply the nuances of apology strategies in their target language, thereby improving their communication skills and cultural sensitivity

2.1.4.1 Apology Strategies by Blum-Kulka and Olshtain

Blum-Kulka and Olshtain (1984) proposed a detailed analysis of the specific strategies employed in making requests and apologies across different cultural and linguistic contexts Their work has since become a foundational reference in the field of interlanguage pragmatics and cross-cultural communication

Their study established a framework for classifying the strategies employed when making apologies The strategies are categorized as follows:

+ Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices (IFIDs): These are the direct expressions of an apology, such as “I apologize” or “I'm sorry” IFIDs are explicit apologies that leave no doubt about the speaker’s intention

+ Explanation or Account: This strategy involves the speaker providing an explanation or justification for the wrongdoing For instance, they might explain unexpected circumstances or provide an account of the event

+ Acknowledgement of Responsibility: Here, the speaker accepts blame or takes responsibility for the offensive action This can be seen in statements such as “It was my fault” or “I take full responsibility”

+ Offer of Repair: This involves attempts by the speaker to rectify the situation or make up for the wrongdoing This could include actions like replacing a damaged item or promising to redo a task

+ Promise of Forbearance: In this strategy, the speaker promises not to repeat the offending action This could be expressed as “I won't do it again” or “This won't happen in the future” (Blum-kulka & Olshtain, 1984)

Fraser (1981) expands on his analysis of apology strategies by outlining nine specific strategies:

- Announcing the Apology: This strategy is straightforward and direct The speaker clearly states that they are apologizing, making it explicit to the receiver

An additional example could be, “I hereby apologize for my mistake.”

- Stating the Obligation to Apologize: This strategy reflects the speaker's recognition of their duty to apologize They verbalize their obligation, displaying their understanding of the wrongdoing For instance, “I must apologize for being late to our meeting.”

- Offering an Apology: Here, the speaker extends an apology to the listener as an offer, implying it is up to the listener to accept it or not An example could be, “I offer my sincerest apology for my oversight.”

- Requesting Acceptance of the Apology: This strategy not only involves the speaker’s expression of remorse but also seeks the listener’s active acceptance For example, “Please accept my apologies for the inconvenience caused.”

- Expressing Regret for the Offense: This strategy goes beyond the simple statement of an apology and delves into the speaker’s feelings about their actions

It showcases the speaker’s regret and remorse For instance, “I deeply regret my behavior last night.”

- Requesting Forgiveness for the Offense: Here, the apologizer directly appeals for the receiver’s forgiveness, indicating a desire to mend the relationship A different example could be, “I humbly ask for your forgiveness for my actions.”

- Acknowledging Responsibility for the Offending Act: This strategy revolves around the speaker taking full responsibility for their offensive act By doing so, they acknowledge their error An example could be, “It was my fault that the project failed.”

- Promising Forbearance from Similar Offending Act: This strategy consists of a commitment to avoid repeating the same mistake, indicating personal growth and learning For example, “I assure you that this miscommunication will not occur in the future.”

- Offering Redress: This strategy involves the speaker’s attempt to make things right by offering to amend the situation or compensate for the offense An additional example could be, “I am willing to make up for my mistake by working extra hours this week.”(p.76)

Cross-cultural Communication

Generally, “communication” refers to the conveying and receiving of messages between two or more people This is often referred to interpersonal communication “Interpersonal communication: Communication that occurs between two people within the context of their relationship and that, as it evolves, helps them to negotiate and define their relationship.” (Floyd, 2011) Traditionally, definitions of communication emphasized the transfer of meaning, but more recent definitions underscore the importance of shared understandings and the transaction of meaning “Communication must include both the transfer and the understanding of meaning Communicating is more than merely imparting meaning; that meaning must also be understood.” (Robbins & Judge, 2017) However, in many communication situations, differences in interests, needs, and beliefs can interfere with the process of achieving shared meanings “Communication is the process through which people use messages to generate meanings within and across contexts, cultures, channels, and media.” (McCornack, 2014, p.5) Some people seem to view communication as merely the transferring of information and therefore do not engage in the act of shared meaning-making Communication can be defined as the use of language where more than one person is involved in constructing meaning

Communication extends beyond words In many communication events, multiple sign systems may be involved Words, pictures, diagrams, print layouts, and types of print all contribute to shaping the message In some communication events, these different sign systems may convey contradictory messages

Within Vietnamese social interactions, participants typically have no difficulty discerning whether they share the same social status In situations where the social status is unequal, the individuals higher or lower in the hierarchy are typically well- identified For instance, in an academic setting, teachers are positioned higher than students, and within a family, parents hold a higher status than their children, etc Social status in Vietnam may also be influenced by factors such as gender and age For example, societal norms traditionally accord superior status to older individuals relative to their younger counterparts This hierarchical structure is reflected in the Vietnamese language itself through the use of paired terms such as ông - cháu, chú - cháu, anh - em, bác - tôi, which denote the age differences between interacting parties

To emphasize and respect these social differences, the Vietnamese language employs the use of both titles and full names when addressing others For example, students, viewing themselves as lower in status than their lecturers, tend to use formal address that includes both a title and a full name (such as “giáo sư Trần Đình Huy”), rather than just the first name Pronouns used in conversation, especially during initial interactions, also reflect this formality and respect for social status However, as the conversation progresses and depending on the context, these may transition to more informal forms

Generally, Vietnamese people favor positive politeness strategies in speaking contexts, often emphasizing shared values, agreement, and a sense of belonging to the same group This alignment with positive politeness strategies underlines the significance of harmonious relationships and mutual respect within the fabric of Vietnamese communication and culture

2.1.5.3 Politeness in Anglo-American Culture

Yule (1997) highlights that “the relative status of participants in a conversation is largely determined by social values associated with factors such as age and power” For instance, in English-speaking contexts, speakers who perceive themselves as holding a lower status often indicate the social distance between themselves and those with a higher status by employing address forms that incorporate a title and last name, excluding the use of the first name (e.g., Mrs Clinton, Mr Adams)

The choice of address form, however, can be influenced by the degree of friendliness or familiarity between the speakers, as well as by the context of the conversation Factors such as these can be subtly negotiated during the interaction

In certain Western cultures, there are instances where females are accorded a higher social status than males This is seen in conventions like addressing a group with “Ladies and gentlemen”, where ladies are mentioned first Similarly, the principle of “ladies first” exemplifies this idea of granting precedence or deference to women in various social situations, from opening doors to serving food Additionally, in certain greeting customs, it is considered polite for the male to wait for the female to initiate a greeting

However, it is important to note that these conventions can vary widely based on the cultural context and individual beliefs, and are not universally applicable Furthermore, the concept of politeness and the ways it is manifested are continually evolving with changing societal norms and attitudes.

Theory of Modality

In recent years, the concept of modality has been recognized as a key area of investigation within the field of modal logic Modality is considered a functional semantic category, reflecting a myriad of relations - between the utterance and the speaker's perceived reality, between the speaker and their utterances, and even between the speaker and the listener However, these are merely some of the most distinctive features of modality Providing a clear and comprehensive definition for this multifaceted concept proves challenging due to its complexity

Many aspects of modality have been explored in linguistic research, with the perspective proposed by Lyons (1977) gaining substantial support According to Lyons, modality involves the use of words by the speaker (S) to express their opinion or attitude towards the proposition expressed by the sentence or the situation described by the proposition This view encapsulates the idea that modality is not just about the literal meaning of words, but also about how those words reflect the speaker’s perception, attitude, and personal evaluation of the stated proposition

To illustrate, let’s consider the sentence, “She must be at home” Here, the modal verb ‘must’ indicates the speaker’s strong belief or certainty that the person in question is at home Similarly, in the sentence “It might rain”, the modal verb ‘might’ reveals the speaker’s uncertainty about the likelihood of rain These examples show how modality, as defined by Lyons, functions as a vehicle for expressing various degrees of speaker certainty, possibility, obligation, or permission

Sharing similar views, Hoang Trong Phien (1983) proposes that modality is a potent grammatical category in all types of sentences This can be exhibited in topical sentences and assists in introducing new information This enables the hearer (H) to comprehend the speaker’s (S) perspective towards reality In this context, modality acts as a tool for indicating speaker attitudes, beliefs, or judgments regarding the content of their speech, thereby enriching the hearer’s understanding of the speaker’s stance

On the other hand, Frawley (1992) argues that modality semantically represents the speaker’s attitude or level of commitment towards the content of a proposition In Frawley’s view, modality does not merely convey the factual content of a statement but also provides a window into the speaker’s subjective view of the situation being discussed This interpretation of modality helps explain why two statements with similar factual content can convey vastly different messages depending on the speaker’s use of modal verbs, adverbs, or other modal expressions For instance, the statement “You may leave the room” versus “You should leave the room” conveys different degrees of suggestion or command, revealing the speaker’s differing attitudes toward the proposed action

Papafragou (2000) states that, “Modal expressions allow us to discuss (and modal concepts allow us to conceptualize) about states of affairs which are not present in the current situation and may never occur in the actual world.” This suggests that modality provides a mechanism for discussing hypothetical or potential situations, offering a layer of cognitive flexibility to our linguistic capabilities

In terms of semantics, Downing and Locke (1995) posit that modality is a semantic category that expresses notions such as possibility, ability, necessity, desire, obligation, and permission This interpretation of modality reflects its wide-ranging utility in conveying various aspects of meaning beyond factual content, containing various degrees of likelihood, intention, or social constraint

Overall, from the perspective of many linguists, modality is a crucial part of the meaning that facilitates the expression of the speaker’s attitude and opinion towards the proposition expressed in the utterance Despite variations in their definitions and characterizations, these scholars have a shared understanding that modality is a vital linguistic tool for conveying subjective judgment, perspective, or speculation In this sense, modality fills language with a profound versatility, allowing speakers to report facts and express their perspectives and attitudes about these facts

2.1.6.2 Classification of Modality Markers in Conversations

House and Kasper (2012) delineate two principal categories of modality markers: downgraders and upgraders To provide a more nuanced comprehension of these categories, they elaborate on the constituents of each:

- Downgraders: These are modality markers that soften the impact of an utterance, making it less forceful or confrontational There are 11 different types of downgraders:

+ Politeness Markers: Politeness markers exhibit respect and courtesy to the listener They are usually optional but express the speaker’s consideration for the listener's feelings For example, “Would you please pass the salt?” or “Could you kindly let me know your availability?” In both these cases, ‘please’ and ‘kindly’ work as politeness markers, demonstrating the speaker’s wish to maintain a positive relationship with the listener

+ Play-downs: Play-downs are expressions that minimize the intensity or importance of a matter They are used when the speaker wants to downplay the severity or impact of an issue For instance, saying, “I had a slight disagreement with my friend ”, to refer to a heated argument, or, “It’s a bit chilly today”, when it is freezing outside These expressions attempt to reduce the emotional charge from the situation

+ Consultative Devices: These devices invite the listener’s participation or opinion in the conversation, thereby promoting a more cooperative dialogue They often appear as ritualized formulas like, “Would you mind if I open the window?” or “Do you think it's a good idea to invest in this venture?” Here, the speaker is not just asking for permission or opinion, but also implying a respect for the listener’s viewpoint

+ Hedges: Hedges introduce a level of ambiguity or non-commitment to the speaker's utterance This might be a way to decrease the force of an assertion or to express uncertainty Phrases like, “I think he might be unwell”, or “She could possibly join us for dinner”, convey the speaker’s lack of absolute certainty

+ Understaters: Understaters deliberately minimize the severity or significance of the situation in order to be tactful or to maintain harmony For example, in a business context, someone might say, “We’ve encountered minor obstacles”, when referring to significant challenges

+ Downtoners: Downtoners work by modulating the impact of an utterance They soften the impact by downgrading the force of the speech Phrases like, “We could perhaps look into that matter”, or “You might be a little off the mark”, serve to mitigate the forcefulness of the speaker’s utterance

+ Minus Committer: Minus committers lower the speaker’s commitment to the proposition By using phrases like, “I suppose it could be true”, or “I guess she might be right,” the speaker distances themselves from a full endorsement of the proposition

Previous Studies

Making reference to research works related to the field of English - Vietnamese cross-cultural communication conducted by master’s and doctoral students, the researcher finds that the linguistic devices used to express politeness have not been studied carefully and have not highlighted the role of these devices in the aspect of politeness Specifically, among a big amount of research works on cross- cultural communication that has been carried out in the works produced by Nguyen Quang (2000), Some differences in Vietnamese-American speech communication in the way of complimenting and receiving compliments, Ph.D thesis, University of

Social Sciences and Humanities, VNU Hanoi; Vu Thi Thanh Huong (1997),

Politeness in Modern Vietnamese: A Sociolinguistic Study of a Hanoi Speech Community, Ph.D thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto;

Nguyen Thi Thuy Minh (2005) with the topic entitled Criticizing and Responding to

Criticism In A Foreign Language: A study of Vietnamese Learners of English, Ph.D thesis, University of Auckland; and Tran Huu Phuc, Ton Nu Hoang Yen, Linguistic Markers Expressing Politeness Strategies In British And American Political Speeches, Issn 1859-1531 - Tạp chí Khoa Học Và Công nghệ Đại học Đà Nẵng, Số

Nguyen Quang carefully analyzes politeness strategies as well as lexico-modal markers in the speech acts of complimenting and responding to compliments But due to the peculiarities of the study, he only focuses on politeness strategies and interactive communication in complementing and responding to compliments in Vietnamese and English

In her work, Le Thi Van (2019) deals with the aspect of interlanguage pragmatics, directly related to the speech act of sympathizing, centering on sympathizing utterances in English and Vietnamese communication

The study most closely related to the present research is Le Thi Van’s M.A thesis entitled “Sympathizing strategies in English and Vietnamese” The study focuses on sympathizing expressions in different types of discourse in English and Vietnamese to find out the similarities and differences between English and

Vietnamese syntactic and pragmatic features of these expressions However, this study is only concerned with the description and analysis of the typical syntactic and pragmatic features of sympathy expressions in relation to politeness in spoken discourse in English and Vietnamese

Like other research works on speech acts, due to the peculiarities of each, the works produced by the authors mentioned above do not mention apology strategies, especially lexico-modal markers displaying politeness in utterances of apology between two linguistic-cultural communities studied This is exactly what needs to be done in order to understand more of the aspects of negative politeness strategies in both English and Vietnamese

In the current context, the exchange among countries in the world is happening more and more strongly, and the improvement of foreign languages in general and English, in particular, is more important than ever before Researching the similarities and differences in English - Vietnamese cross-cultural communication is of great significance, making an important contribution to improving the quality of communication and teaching English

Realizing that politeness and its relation to culture in human communication are clearly shown in the negative politeness strategies of apologizing, the researcher decided to study the speech act of apologizing with the negative politeness strategy to help readers get an insight into the Anglo-American and Vietnamese cultural charateristics related to the apology utterance in conversation

Tahir and Pandian (2016) presents a cross-cultural examination of apology strategies used by native speakers of Kurdish and American English The study aimed to identify similarities and differences in how apologies are expressed in both languages To collect data, the researchers utilized a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) questionnaire, comprising 15 different situations, administered to 50 native speakers of English and 50 native speakers of Kurdish The analysis revealed that both languages shared five main strategies for apologizing, indicating the universality of speech acts: An expression of apology, an explanation or account of the situation, an acknowledgement of responsibility, an offer of repair, and a promise of forbearance However, variations emerged in the use of sub-strategies for explicit expressions of apology Native speakers of English leaned more towards using an expression of regret as their primary means of apologizing, while native speakers of Kurdish preferred the strategy of offering an apology Additionally, differences were observed in the frequency of apology strategies used in each language (Tahir & Pandian, 2016)

This research on cross-cultural apology speech acts provides valuable insights for the author’s thesis, “A Comparative Study on Apologizing in English and

Vietnamese Conversations.” It highlights the importance of considering cultural and linguistic differences when examining apology expressions By understanding the distinct approaches to apologizing in different languages and cultures, my study can explore how Vietnamese and English speakers express apologies in conversations, identifying similarities and differences between the two languages This comparative analysis will contribute to enhancing cross-cultural communication and understanding in apology situations, fostering effective intercultural interactions between Vietnamese and English speakers

Aydin (2013) investigates how Turkish speakers, American English speakers, and advanced nonnative speakers of English in Turkey express apologies in cross- cultural contexts The key findings of the study relevant to my master thesis “A

Comparative Study on Apologizing in English and Vietnamese Conversations” are as follows:

Indirect Apologies: The data revealed that Turkish participants tend to use more indirect language in their apologies compared to American English speakers This suggests that cultural norms and communication styles influence how apologies are expressed

Effect of Relationship: The relationship between the offender and the offended has a significant impact on the way apologies are made This finding indicates that cultural and social factors play a crucial role in shaping apology speech acts

Influence of Native Culture: Advanced nonnative speakers of English in

Turkey, although approaching target cultural norms in their apology strategies, are still influenced by their native culture This suggests that language learners may carry aspects of their native culture into their second language communication, affecting how apologies are expressed

Research Methods

To achieve the aim and objectives of the study, the researcher will employ the following methods:

- Qualitative and quantitative methods: The qualitative method will be used to categorize and describe materials in order to recognize the features of apology utterances and identify the linguistic tools used to exhibit politeness in such utterances Additionally, various linguistic techniques, such as semantic analysis, context analysis, pragmatic analysis, etc., will be utilized to augment the qualitative analysis method The quantitative method, leveraging statistical analysis techniques, will be used to enumerate and scrutinize the collected data Employing both qualitative and quantitative methods in tandem will enable the researcher to achieve efficiency in the study

- Contrastive analysis will be applied to compare the quantity of apology strategies, as well as modality markers, used in English and Vietnamese movies

- Descriptive and interpretive methods: Both descriptive and interpretive methods are crucial to characterize and interpret the findings.

Data Description

English Movies

The data for this study is drawn from a collection of English-language movies which are popular and have been translated into various languages, including Vietnamese These movies span various genres, periods, and themes, thereby providing a rich tapestry of conversational contexts for the study of apologizing Specifically, nine movies from which the utterances have been collected are Dirty Dancing (1987), Jupiter Ascending (2015), One Day (2011), Waitress (2007), The Lord of the Rings (2001-2003), The Lake House (2006), The King’s Speech (2010),

No Strings Attached (2011), and Practical Magic (1998) See APPENDIX B for short description of each movie

From each of these movies, multiple utterances related to apologizing were extracted Care was taken to ensure a variety of contexts: from personal relationships to broader societal interactions, from casual conversations to emotionally charged confrontations The utterances were then transcribed verbatim, maintaining the originality of the dialogue to preserve the nuances of the original context

The data set comprises 50 utterances in total, providing a comprehensive view of the act of apologizing in English-language movies The subsequent analysis will delve deeper into the linguistic and cultural aspects of these utterances.

Vietnamese Movies

In this study, the Vietnamese utterances that are analyzed originate from contemporary filmic sources, which range from dramas to action-packed movies This range ensures that the gathered data encapsulates varied contexts, characters, and situations representative of modern Vietnamese conversational practices Six films from which the utterances have been extracted are Người thừa kế dòng họ

(1998), Chạm mặt giang hồ (2020), Cuộc đời bất hạnh (2022), Đại ca vào tù (2021), Đàn bà thâm độc (2022), Duyên kiếp lỡ yêu (2022) See APPENDIX B for short description of each Vietnamese movie

In the analysis of these 50 Vietnamese utterances, care has been taken to ensure that they are contextually relevant and represent diverse situations where apologies might be warranted This selection, rooted in popular cinematic conversations, ensures a comprehensive understanding of the cultural nuances and variations in Vietnamese apologizing practices.

Data Analysis

The choice to use Holmes’ (1990) apology strategies as the framework for this study is based on several rationales:

Comprehensiveness: Holmes’ strategies encompass a broad range of apology tactics, from explicit expressions of apology to subtler strategies like explanations and promises of forbearance This extensive framework allows a thorough exploration of apology behavior in both English and Vietnamese

Cultural Considerations: Holmes’ framework appreciates the variability of apology strategies across different contexts and cultures For instance, the strategy of acknowledging the hearer’s entitlement to an apology is particularly relevant in cultures that highly value honor and respect, such as Vietnam This cultural relevancy can provide a rich and nuanced analysis of the Vietnamese data

Consideration of Context: Holmes’ strategies do not just focus on the language used, but also the context of the apology This enables a more detailed analysis that includes situational variables, the relationship between the interlocutors, and other factors that could influence the choice of apology strategy

Practical Application: Holmes’ framework facilitates the comparison of apology behavior across cultures, which could have practical applications in intercultural communication, language teaching, and translation The findings from the study could help individuals navigate cross-cultural communication more effectively by understanding the differences and similarities in apology behaviors between English and Vietnamese speakers

Acknowledging Responsibility: A unique aspect of Holmes’ framework is the explicit acknowledgment of responsibility, divided into several subcategories This is essential because the way responsibility is handled in apologies can significantly differ across cultures, adding depth to the analysis

Integration of Previous Frameworks: Holmes’ framework is built upon previous works, including those by Olshtain and Cohen (1983), but offers refinements and additions Using this model thus incorporates previous research while expanding on their limitations

By choosing Holmes’ (1990) apology strategies, the thesis will provide a nuanced, in-depth, and culturally sensitive exploration of how English and Vietnamese speakers apologize, ultimately contributing to our understanding of cross-cultural pragmatics

Additionally, the theory of modality markers displaying politeness by House and Kasper (2012) is also applied in this section The study by House and Kasper

(2012) focuses on modality markers and their role in conveying politeness in conversations

The decision to apply the theory of modality markers displaying politeness by House and Kasper (2012) in this study was informed by several factors:

Relevance to the Study: The primary focus of our research is on the act of apologizing in conversations, which inherently involves politeness strategies House and Kasper’s theory specifically targets modality markers as tools for conveying politeness, making it directly relevant and applicable to our study

Depth of the Theory: The theory provides a comprehensive framework for understanding how modality markers function in conversations It doesn't just focus on modal verbs but extends its analysis to adverbs and adjectives, offering a holistic view of how politeness is constructed linguistically

Cross-Cultural Applicability: While many theories of politeness are grounded in a specific cultural context, House and Kasper's theory offers insights that can be applied across different languages and cultures This made it an ideal choice for a comparative study between English and Vietnamese, which have distinct linguistic and cultural backgrounds

Previous Research Validation: The work by House and Kasper has been widely cited and acknowledged in the field of linguistics and sociolinguistics This lends credibility and validation to our study, ensuring that our analysis is grounded in a well-established theoretical framework

Potential for Nuanced Insights: By focusing on modality markers, we hoped to unearth subtle differences and similarities in how English and Vietnamese speakers use language to convey politeness Such nuances might be overlooked if we adopted a broader or different theoretical approach

Flexibility: The theory allows for an exploration of not just the linguistic elements but also the cultural and contextual factors influencing the use of modality markers This flexibility was crucial in accommodating the multifaceted nature of our study, which aimed to capture both linguistic structures and cultural nuances

In sum, House and Kasper's theory provides a robust and fitting lens through which we can analyze and understand the intricacies of apologizing in English and Vietnamese conversations It facilitates a deeper understanding of the linguistic strategies employed by speakers of both languages while also shedding light on the cultural norms and values underpinning these strategies.

Research Procedures

The research procedures for this study can be categorized as follows:

Data Collection: As outlined in the section 3.2, the researcher will gather a total of 100 apology utterances, divided equally between English and Vietnamese languages These utterances will be sourced directly from English - Vietnamese movie transcripts The coding system for these expressions will be:

English Apology Utterances: EU1 through EU50

Vietnamese Apology Utterances: VU1 through VU50 (See Appendix A)

Data Analysis: Based on Holmes’ (1990) apology strategies, a rigorous analysis of the gathered apology utterances will be undertaken This will involve the identification of politeness strategies and modality markers based on House and Kasper’s categories (2012) that denote politeness within the context of English - Vietnamese apology utterances

Coding and Categorization: Following the data analysis, the identified apology strategies and modality markers will be systematically coded and categorized This step is crucial for providing a structured understanding of the data and preparing it for further interpretation

Interpretation of Results: Informed by the analysis, the data will be further examined to discern patterns, differences, and similarities in the apology strategies and modality markers used in English - Vietnamese conversations

Presentation of Findings: Subsequently, the outcomes of the data analysis and interpretation will be articulated in a clear and accessible manner Tables and figures will be utilized to represent the apology strategies and modality markers, thus facilitating visual comprehension of the findings

Comparative Analysis: The study will engage in a comprehensive comparative analysis, exploring the differences and similarities in the apology strategies and modality markers in English - Vietnamese apologizing utterances

Discussion and Conclusion: The final step involves a detailed discussion of the study's findings, exploring the implications and potential factors contributing to the observed patterns in politeness strategies This section will also present conclusions and propose recommendations for future research in this area

In summary, this chapter details a methodical approach combining qualitative and quantitative analyses, contrastive analysis, and descriptive and interpretive methods to study apologies in English and Vietnamese The research employs a comprehensive framework and structured procedures for data collection, analysis, and presentation, ensuring a thorough exploration of apology strategies and modality markers in both languages

CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the researcher applies the theories of apology strategies and modality markers, both of which emphasize politeness, to a collection of 50 English and 50 Vietnamese utterances containing apologies The researcher first identifies the apology strategies present in the utterances This is followed by an analysis of the modality markers within them The chapter concludes with a discussion of the findings, highlighting the similarities and differences between the two languages in their employment of apology strategies and modality markers.

Apology Strategies in English and Vietnamese

Apology Strategies in English

In examining a data set of 50 utterances sourced from an eclectic mix of English films, we observed a comprehensive spectrum of apology strategies in play These strategies manifest with distinct frequencies, underscoring the nuanced portrayal of apologies in cinematic narratives Notably, all four primary apology strategies were represented:

(A) An Explicit Expression of Apology

A detailed breakdown of these findings can be found in Table 4.1, showcasing the frequency and distribution of each apology strategy within the English utterances

Frequency and Distribution of Apology Strategies in English

No Apology strategies Frequency Percentage

(A) An Explicit Expression of Apology

7 + Recognizing Hearer's Entitlement to an

The table presents various apology strategies and their respective frequencies and percentages out of a total of 92 instances The strategies are grouped under four main categories: (A) An Explicit Expression of Apology, (B) Explanation or Account, (C) Acknowledgment of Responsibility, and (D) Promise of Forbearance The most frequent strategy is the “Expression of Regret” at 38.1%, followed by

“Explanation or Account” at 33.7% Some strategies, such as “Recognizing Hearer's

Entitlement to an Apology” and “Offering Repair/Redress”, have a frequency of 0, indicating they were not used in the observed instances

The findings from the analysis of the English utterances regarding apology strategies provide valuable insights into how apologies are conveyed in the provided contexts Here is a detailed discussion on the findings:

4.1.1.1 An Explicit Expression of Apology

The most striking observation is the high reliance on the “Expression of

Regret” strategy (38.1%) This suggests that in many situations, English speakers prioritize communicating their emotional response to the wrongdoing By expressing regret, they are not merely acknowledging the mistake but also emphasizing the genuine sorrow they feel, which can be pivotal in mending relationships and restoring trust

Sorry for the disruption, folks (EU2)

Expression of Regret: The word “Sorry” is a direct expression of regret, indicating the speaker's acknowledgment of the disruption caused The added context “for the disruption” specifies what the regret is about, and the term “folks” addresses the audience, making the apology more personal This utterance from “Dirty Dancing” exemplifies how expressing regret can be both succinct and potent in conveying genuine remorse

Well, I’m sorry about that (EU9)

Expression of Regret: The phrase “Well, I'm sorry” indicates the speaker’s remorse or regret over a certain situation or event The added context “about that” points to a specific event or situation that has taken place This utterance from “One Day” demonstrates the flexibility of expressing regret, where it can be paired with other discourse markers like “Well” to add nuance to the apology

Request for Forgiveness: The low frequency of directly asking for forgiveness (1.1%) suggests that while English speakers in these contexts acknowledge their mistakes, they might leave the decision of forgiveness to the listener without explicitly requesting it

I hope you’ll accept my apology (EU1)

Request for Forgiveness: The phrase “accept my apology” is a direct appeal to the listener, requesting their understanding and forgiveness for the speaker’s prior actions or behavior By using this phrasing, the speaker emphasizes their genuine remorse and hope for reconciliation

The next most frequent strategy is providing an “Explanation or Account”

(33.7%) This indicates a tendency among English speakers to justify or explain their actions, potentially to lessen the perceived severity of the offense By offering context, they might hope to make the listener more understanding or sympathetic to the situation This can also be seen as an attempt to share their perspective, ensuring that the apology is not just about acknowledging the mistake but also about being understood

I’m sorry about going through all your stuff (EU12)

Explanation or Account: The subsequent phrase “about going through all your stuff” directly follows the apology marker “I’m sorry” This provides context for the apology, specifying the action that led to the need for an apology By stating the specific action that caused offense, the speaker is transparent about their wrongdoing This utterance from “One Day” is a clear example of how providing an account or explanation can accompany an expression of regret, ensuring that the listener knows precisely why the apology is being offered

By six minutes I’m sorry The bus was late (EU17)

Explanation or Account: After acknowledging the lateness with “By six minutes I'm sorry.”, the speaker offers the reason “The bus was late” This provides a specific explanation for the delay and subtly suggests that the cause was outside of the speaker’s control By being transparent about the reason for being late, the speaker is aiming to provide context and understanding to the listener, hoping to diminish any potential negative judgment This utterance from “Waitress” exemplifies how an explanation or account can accompany an expression of regret, offering clarity to the listener about the circumstances leading to the offense

Both strategies of Accepting Blame and Expressing Self-Deficiency (at 7.6% and 6.5% respectively) revolve around the speaker taking responsibility for their actions The data suggests that a notable proportion of English speakers are willing to admit their mistakes and acknowledge their shortcomings This acceptance of responsibility can be crucial for an apology to be perceived as sincere

Hi, I'm sorry to have kept you waiting (EU42)

Accepting Blame: In the phrase “to have kept you waiting”, the speaker overtly acknowledges their role in the delay By using this phrase, the speaker (Dr Forster) is taking full responsibility for making someone wait This act of accepting blame showcases the speaker’s genuine acknowledgment of their oversight and their understanding of its potential inconvenience Such a direct recognition of responsibility can be pivotal in restoring trust and mending relationships

I’m sorry, Earl, for not being able to repeat your words verbatim, something I should be able to do (EU2)

Expressing Self-Deficiency: The phrase “something I should be able to do” stands out as a direct acknowledgment of the speaker’s own deficiency By stating this, the speaker recognizes and admits their shortcoming in not being able to meet an expected standard or ability Such an acknowledgment can be seen as a humble recognition of one's own limitations, which can be a significant step in fostering understanding and empathy from the listener

A commitment to ensure that the mistake does not recur in the future is evident in a few utterances This strategy (5.4%) showcases the speaker’s introspection and their determination to avoid repeating the mistake, emphasizing the genuineness of their remorse

Whatever it is I do, I will not do it anymore (EU31)

Apology Strategies in Vietnamese

In examining a data set of 50 utterances sourced from an eclectic mix of Vietnamese films, we observed a comprehensive spectrum of apology strategies in play Notably, all four primary apology strategies were represented:

(A) An Explicit Expression of Apology

A breakdown of these findings can be seen in Table 4.2, showcasing the frequency and distribution of each apology strategy within the Vietnamese utterances

Frequency and Distribution of Apology Strategies in Vietnamese

No Apology strategies Frequency Percentage

(A) An Explicit Expression of Apology

7 + Recognizing Hearer's Entitlement to an

Table 4.2 summarizes the frequency and distribution of apology strategies observed in Vietnamese, totaling 94 instances The most common strategy is the

“Expression of Regret” with a prominence of 40.5% This is followed by

“Explanation or Account” at 29.8%, and “Offering Repair/Redress” capturing 10.6% Other strategies, including “Request for Forgiveness” and “Accepting Blame”, have frequencies of 4.3% and 5.3%, respectively Strategies like “Expressing Self-

Deficiency”, “Expressing Lack of Intent”, and “Promise of Forbearance” each account for 2.1% Notably, there were no instances of “Recognizing Hearer's

In the Vietnamese filmic conversations, the analysis revealed diverse strategies employed by the characters to convey apologies The richness of these strategies showcases the depth of the Vietnamese cultural context and the multifaceted ways in which individuals express remorse and seek reconciliation

4.1.2.1 An Explicit Expression of Apology

This strategy is the most direct form of apology, where the speaker unequivocally expresses their remorse

- Expression of Regret: This was the most frequent strategy, evident in 40.5% of the utterances It emphasizes the speaker's emotional state and genuine remorse over the incident The high frequency suggests that expressing regret is a preferred and culturally ingrained method of apologizing in Vietnamese conversations

Tại hồi trưa tình huống nguy cấp quá nên anh mới nói vậy Xin lỗi em nha (VU2)

English translation: Earlier at noon, the situation was so urgent that I had to speak that way I'm sorry

Analysis: Expression of Regret: The phrase “Xin lỗi em nha” (I'm sorry) encapsulates the speaker's remorse The word “Xin lỗi” is a direct expression of apology, emphasizing the speaker's feelings of regret

Dạ tôi xin lỗi cô Hai Tôi có lỗi với cô nhiều lắm (VU12)

English translation: I sincerely apologize, Ms Hai I've wronged you greatly

Expression of Regret: The phrase “tôi xin lỗi” (I apologize) is a straightforward manifestation of the speaker's remorse, highlighting the emotional aspect of the apology

- Offer of Apology/IFID: Occurring in 3.2% of the utterances, this indicates a straightforward and unambiguous admission of wrongdoing Such a strategy is often employed when the offense is clear, and the speaker wants to take immediate responsibility

Example 11: Ông tha lỗi cho cháu Cháu cảm thấy vừa rồi ông cứ dồn mẹ cháu vào chỗ khó nói khó xử ạ (VU1)

Please forgive me, grandfather I feel that you just put my mother in a difficult and awkward position

Offer of Apology/IFID: The straightforwardness of the utterance is evident in the phrase “Ông tha lỗi cho cháu”, which translates to “Please forgive me.” This directly addresses the elder (grandfather) and seeks his understanding and forgiveness Example 12:

Em xin lỗi đã làm phiền chị Hai nhé Bây giờ chị hai phải làm thêm, công việc nhiều hơn chịu vất vả Mà em cũng cảm ơn chị đã giấu kín chuyện này cho em (VU34)

I apologize for bothering you, Ms Hai Now you have to do extra work and bear more hardship I also want to thank you for keeping this matter a secret for me

Offer of Apology/IFID (Illocutionary Force Indicating Device): The initial “Em xin lỗi” translates to “I apologize”, signifying a direct expression of remorse

- Request for Forgiveness: Making up 4.3% of the utterances, this strategy underlines a desire for reconciliation and the speaker's hope that the aggrieved party will move past the offense

Example 13: Ông Bảy ơi, ông Bảy tha cho con (VU13)

English translation: Mr Bảy, please forgive me

Request for Forgiveness: The phrase “ông Bảy tha cho con” (Mr Bảy, please forgive me) is a direct plea for pardon The speaker is explicitly asking Mr Bảy for forgiveness, indicating a sincere wish to mend the situation and an acknowledgment of their fault or misdeed

Found in 29.8% of the utterances, this strategy provides a context or rationale behind the speaker's actions, often aiming to clarify misunderstandings or to show that there were valid reasons behind the wrongdoing

Tại hồi trưa tình huống nguy cấp quá nên anh mới nói vậy Xin lỗi em nha (VU2)

English translation: Earlier at noon, the situation was so urgent that I had to speak that way I'm sorry

Explanation or Account: The segment “Tại hồi trưa tình huống nguy cấp quá nên anh mới nói vậy” (Earlier at noon, the situation was so urgent that I had to speak that way) provides a rationale for the speaker’s earlier behavior This explanation does not deflect blame but provides context to the listener, indicating that the speaker's behavior was prompted by an external factor, in this case, an urgent situation

Anh Lạc Đà ơi, em tin anh đang nói rất là thật Em cũng tin anh thương em rất nhiều, nhưng mà em không thể đáp lại tình cảm đó được Em xin lỗi (VU4)

English translation: Mr Lạc Đà, I believe you are being very sincere I also believe you love me very much, but I cannot reciprocate those feelings I’m sorry

Explanation or Account: The segment “em tin anh đang nói rất là thật Em cũng tin anh thương em rất nhiều, nhưng mà em không thể đáp lại tình cảm đó được” provides a rationale for the speaker’s inability to reciprocate the feelings The speaker provides context to the listener, explaining her emotional state and why she feels the need to apologize

This highlights the speaker’s maturity and willingness to take responsibility for their actions

- Accepting Blame: Representing 5.3% of the utterances, it's a direct admission of fault, often used in situations of clear-cut mistakes

Dạ tôi xin lỗi cô Hai Tôi có lỗi với cô nhiều lắm (VU12)

English translation: I sincerely apologize, Ms Hai I've wronged you greatly

Acknowledgment of Responsibility (Accepting Blame): Through the expression “Tôi có lỗi với cô” (I've wronged you), the speaker not only communicates remorse but also takes full responsibility for the wrongdoing The added emphasis “nhiều lắm” (greatly/very much) underlines the magnitude of the speaker’s acknowledgment

- Expressing Self-Deficiency: Found in 2.1% of the utterances, it is a more introspective strategy where the speaker acknowledges their own shortcomings that led to the offense

Tôi xin lỗi Tôi vụng về quá làm từ Dung Hòa phải khó xử (VU48)

English translation: I apologize I was so clumsy, making it awkward for Dung Hòa Analysis:

Apology strategies: Acknowledgment of Responsibility (Expressing Self-Deficiency):

By stating “Tôi vụng về quá” (I was so clumsy), the speaker emphasizes their own inadequacy or clumsiness, which led to the unfortunate situation This strategy involves the speaker pointing out their own shortcomings that caused the situation, thereby taking responsibility

- Recognizing Hearer’s Entitlement to an Apology: Interestingly, this was not found in any of the analyzed utterances This might suggest cultural nuances in the way Vietnamese speakers approach the act of apologizing, possibly emphasizing personal reflection and action over vocalizing the listener's right to an apology

- Expressing Lack of Intent: Making up 2.1% of the utterances, this strategy addresses unintentional wrongdoings, emphasizing that the harm was not premeditated

- Hey there! The thing about teacher Linh, you’re just telling us now

- It wasn't him who said it, but it was Tung’s dad who just found out and told us

Utterance: Tại tôi quên (VU6)

English translation: It’s because I forgot

Apology strategies: Acknowledgment of Responsibility (Expressing Lack of Intent):

Similarities and Differences in Apology Strategies in English and

From the data gathered, various apology strategies employed by speakers of both English and Vietnamese were identified Here is a comparative analysis of the strategies in both languages:

Frequency and Distribution of Apology Strategies in English and Vietnamese

(A) An Explicit Expression of Apology

+ Recognizing Hearer’s Entitlement to an

Table 4.3 provides a comparison of the distribution of apology strategies between English and Vietnamese utterances The “Expression of Regret” strategy is predominant in both languages, with percentages of 38.1% in English and slightly higher at 40.5% in Vietnamese This is followed by the “Explanation or Account” strategy, which is used 33.7% of the time in English and 29.8% in Vietnamese For the “Offering Repair/Redress” strategy, it is notable in Vietnamese at 10.6%, whereas it is not observed in English “Accepting Blame” is more frequent in English at 7.6% compared to 5.3% in Vietnamese Some strategies like “Expressing Self-Deficiency” and “Promise of Forbearance” are more prominent in English with 6.5% and 5.4%, respectively, while they hold lesser significance in Vietnamese The strategy

“Recognizing Hearer’s Entitlement to an Apology” is equally non-existent in both languages at 0.0%

4.1.3.1 An Explicit Expression of Apology

- Offer of Apology/IFID: English speakers tend to use this strategy more than

Vietnamese speakers, with 6.5% compared to 3.2% This suggests that the English language might have more direct ways of offering an apology The higher frequency in English may suggest that the language often employs explicit markers of apology This could be indicative of a societal value of clear communication and the importance of explicitly acknowledging errors The lower frequency in Vietnamese could be attributed to the culture's possible reliance on implicit methods or non-verbal cues to convey an apology, emphasizing the importance of understanding underlying meanings in communication

- Expression of Regret: Both English and Vietnamese speakers have a high percentage of expressing regret with 38.1% and 40.5% respectively This shows that expressing regret is a common way to apologize in both cultures The closeness in percentages for both languages suggests that regret is universally recognized as a vital component of apologies However, the exact expressions or contexts where regret is conveyed might differ between the two languages, warranting further exploration

- Request for Forgiveness: This strategy is more commonly employed by

Vietnamese speakers at 4.3% compared to 1.1% in English The higher use by Vietnamese speakers may indicate the culture's emphasis on humility and the importance of seeking reconciliation in relationships This strategy's significance may also be rooted in Vietnamese cultural values, where interpersonal harmony is paramount

English speakers tend to provide explanations or accounts slightly more frequently at 33.7% compared to the 29.8% observed in Vietnamese The slight preference for explanations in English can be seen as a cultural emphasis on reason and logic, where understanding the ‘why’ behind an action is crucial It might also suggest a societal value on accountability, where it's not just about admitting a mistake but understanding and explaining it

- Accepting Blame: English speakers slightly lead in accepting blame with 7.6% against Vietnamese’s 5.3% The slightly higher percentage for English might reflect the culture’s emphasis on personal responsibility and accountability The Vietnamese percentage, though lower, still signifies a cultural value of admitting mistakes, albeit potentially in different contexts or manners

- Expressing Self-Deficiency: English speakers use this strategy three times more than Vietnamese speakers, with 6.5% compared to 2.1% The higher English percentage suggests a more individualistic culture where personal shortcomings are openly acknowledged Vietnamese’s lower percentage might reflect a societal tendency to avoid overtly highlighting personal flaws to maintain face, a significant concept in many Asian cultures

- Recognizing Hearer’s Entitlement to an Apology: Neither English nor

Vietnamese speakers were found to use this strategy

- Expressing Lack of Intent: Both languages show similar percentages with

1.1% for English and 2.1% for Vietnamese

- Offering Repair/Redress: Interestingly, while no English speakers were observed using this strategy, 10.6% of Vietnamese speakers offered some form of repair or redress The stark difference here is noteworthy Vietnamese’s higher percentage could be tied to the cultural significance of actions over words In Vietnamese culture, genuine remorse might often be displayed through actions intended to rectify the situation or compensate the aggrieved party The absence in

English suggests that verbal apologies might often suffice, or that actions of redress are implied rather than explicitly stated

English speakers employ this strategy more than Vietnamese, with 5.4% compared to 2.1% The higher percentage for English might suggest a forward- looking perspective, emphasizing not just the present apology but a commitment to avoiding future errors

 Expression of Regret: Both cultures value the importance of expressing regret when apologizing, making it a significant aspect of their apology strategies

 Explanation or Account: Providing an explanation or account of the wrongdoing is another similarity between the two cultures It appears that understanding and justifying one’s actions is essential in both English and Vietnamese conversational practices

 Offer of Apology/IFID: Directly offering an apology appears to be more characteristic of English speakers This might indicate a more direct approach to apologies in English culture compared to Vietnamese

 Request for Forgiveness: Vietnamese speakers seem to place more emphasis on seeking forgiveness This might suggest a deeper cultural inclination towards reconciliation and the importance of restoring harmony

 Expressing Self-Deficiency: English speakers tend to express their shortcomings more than Vietnamese speakers This might imply a cultural tendency in English to acknowledge personal flaws when apologizing

 Offering Repair/Redress: The significant difference in this strategy, with

Vietnamese speakers offering repairs or redress far more frequently, suggests a stronger cultural focus on tangible actions as a form of apology This might reflect the Vietnamese emphasis on restoring balance and making amends While there are distinct patterns of apologizing in both English and Vietnamese, both languages reflect the broader human desire to mend relationships and express remorse The subtle differences might be attributed to cultural nuances, values, and societal norms, shedding light on the intricate relationship between language and culture Vietnamese culture, influenced by Confucian values, places a high emphasis on maintaining harmony in interpersonal relationships This could explain the higher frequency in seeking forgiveness and offering redress, as both strategies aim at mending and strengthening relationships

Anglo-American cultures, often characterized by individualism, might prioritize personal responsibility and future commitments (as seen in the higher percentages of accepting blame and promising forbearance) In contrast, Vietnamese, with a more collectivist culture, might prioritize the well-being of the group, leading to strategies that emphasize reconciliation and tangible actions English, with its higher percentages in direct offers of apology and explanations, seems to favor a direct approach Vietnamese, on the other hand, might employ more indirect strategies, valuing subtlety and reading between the lines

Besides, in Vietnamese culture, preserving one’s face (or dignity/ reputation) and that of others is crucial This might explain the lower percentages in strategies that overtly acknowledge personal flaws or directly accept blame

In sum, the data underscores the profound interplay between language and culture Apologizing, a universal act, is intricately woven with societal values, norms, and histories This study highlights the importance of understanding these cultural nuances, especially in our increasingly globalized world where cross-cultural interactions are frequent.

Modality Markers in Apology Utterances in English and Vietnamese

Modality Markers in Apology Utterances in English

In the data of 50 English utterances collected from the selected English movies, we realize a total of 46 modal markers showing politeness in conversations These modal markers are categorized into two primary groups, including Downgraders and Upgraders, demonstrated in Table 4.4.:

Frequency and Distribution of Modality Markers in English

No Modality markers Frequency Percentage

Table 4.4 presents the frequency and distribution of modality markers that exhibit politeness in English utterances, with a total of 46 instances The markers are divided into two categories: Downgraders and Upgraders

Among Downgraders, “Hedges” are the most common with a frequency of 17.4% Following closely are “Politeness Markers”, “Play-downs”, and

“Consultative Devices”, each with a frequency of 10.9% “Understaters” and

“Hesitator” have percentages of 6.5% and 4.3% respectively Some markers, like

“Downtoners”, “Minus Committer”, and “Scope-Staters”, are used sparingly, each accounting for 2.2% Notably, “Forewarn” and “Agent Avoider” were not observed in the data, both registering at 0.0%

In the Upgraders category, the “Intensifier” stands out as the most prevalent with 26.0%, while “Plus Committer” accounts for 6.5% Several markers, including

“Overstater”, “Lexical Intensifier”, “Aggressive Interrogative”, and “Rhetorical

Appeal”, were not employed in the observed utterances, each with a frequency of

The data reveals a pattern of language use, emphasizing the importance of modality markers in portraying politeness in conversations

Downgraders are linguistic tools that help reduce the force of a speech act, making it less direct and more polite They constituted a significant majority of the modality markers observed

- Politeness Markers: At 10.9%, politeness markers underlines the importance of directly expressing courtesy in conversations

Our deepest apologies for the interruption, sir (EU35)

Downgraders - Politeness Markers: The word “sir” is used to exhibit respect and courtesy to the listener, emphasizing the group’s consideration for the listener’s feelings and status

Hi, I’m sorry to have kept you waiting (EU42)

The usage of “Hi” is a polite form of address, demonstrating respect and courtesy to the listener

- Play-downs, Consultative Devices, Hedges: These three categories combined nearly form 40% of the downgraders They represent the speaker’s effort to be indirect, to seek feedback, or to show uncertainty, which can soften the statement’s impact and appear less assertive

Hey, there Just to say I’m running late, but I’m on my way (EU15)

Downgraders - Play-downs: The phrase “Just to say” can be seen as a play-down By using “just”, the speaker minimizes the intensity of the announcement about being late, making it sound less severe than it might be

Hey, there Just to say I’m running late, but I’m on my way (EU15)

Consultative Devices: The greeting “Hey, there” serves as a consultative device, aiming to engage the listener in a friendly and cooperative manner before delivering the main message

I mean, I was so stressed out at the time, taking on all those new patients (EU24)

Hedges: The phrase “I mean” introduces a level of ambiguity or non-commitment to the speaker’s utterance This might be a way to decrease the force of an assertion or to express uncertainty

- Understaters and Downtoners: These markers minimize the force of a statement, further emphasizing the speaker’s desire to appear non-imposing

Sorry, I shouldn’t have said that (EU19)

Downgraders- Understaters: The word “shouldn’t” acts as an understater, indicating that the speaker acknowledges their error without aggressively admitting fault Example 27:

Yeah, my fault I should have given her the decaf (EU13)

Downtoners: The modal verb “should” serves as a downtoner by expressing a sense of obligation or advisability, suggesting that it would have been preferable to give her the decaf, but it was not an absolute necessity

- Hesitator: The presence of hesitators (4.30%), such as “um” or “well”, can indicate a speaker's uncertainty or reluctance, which can be interpreted as a form of politeness as the speaker is taking time to carefully phrase their statement

I know I’m not good at all this, you know, dad/husband thing (EU14)

Hesitator: The phrase “you know” is a form of hesitator, indicating the speaker’s uncertainty or reluctance in expressing the sentiment It also seeks confirmation or understanding from the listener

- Scope-Staters and Minus Committer: These markers (4.4% combined) limit the applicability of the statement, showing restraint in claims or promises, and can be seen as an effort to not overstep or exaggerate

I’m sorry You know, I refused your first two marriage proposals, not because I didn’t love you, but because I couldn’t bear the idea of a Royal life Couldn’t bear the idea of a life of tours, public duty, of Well, a life that no longer was really to be my own

Scope-Staters: “You know” and “Well” - These phrases indicate the speaker’s personal stance and perspective on the matter, signaling that the speaker is sharing their individual viewpoint rather than stating an objective truth

Okay, what? Okay, I won’t (EU32)

Minus Committer: “Okay, I won’t.” The repeated use of “Okay” before stating “I won’t” suggests the speaker might be giving in to a request or demand, possibly one they don't entirely agree with The tone is one of reluctant agreement or acquiescence

By saying “Okay, I won’t,” the speaker acknowledges the listener's perspective or wish, even if they may have reservations While the speaker commits to not doing a particular action (“I won’t”), the preceding “Okay, what?” hints at a lack of full conviction or understanding The speaker seems to be saying they will not do it, but they might not be fully clear on what they are agreeing to or why

Notably, some downgraders like Forewarn and Agent Avoider were absent, suggesting that these specific forms of softening might not be as prevalent or relevant in the given context

Contrary to downgraders, upgraders (38.5%) intensify the force of a speech act They constituted a smaller but still significant portion of the modality markers

- Intensifiers: This was the most frequently observed upgrader, at 26.0% Intensifiers

, like “very” or “really”, amplify the sentiment of a statement Their high occurrence indicates that while politeness is essential, there are moments where emphasis and clarity take precedence

The repetition of the word “really” serves as an intensifier, emphasizing the depth of the speaker's remorse and enhancing the strength of the apology

- Plus Committer: These markers (6.5 %), which increase the speaker’s commitment to a statement, suggest that there are instances where speakers want to strongly establish reliability or assurance

Whatever it is I do, I will not do it anymore (EU31)

The phrase “I will not do it anymore” demonstrates a heightened degree of commitment from the speaker, ensuring that they won’t commit the said act in the future

It is worth noting the absence of some upgraders like Overstater, Lexical Intensifier, Aggressive Interrogative, and Rhetorical Appeal This absence can indicate a preference for direct yet polite communication without resorting to rhetorical or aggressive tactics

Overall, the data underscores the intricate balance between downgrading and upgrading statements in polite conversation While the majority of modality markers used were downgraders, indicating a preference for indirectness and softening statements, upgraders also played a vital role in intensifying and emphasizing statements when necessary The nuanced use of these markers paints a picture of a communicative style that is both considerate and clear.

Modality Markers in Apology Utterances in Vietnamese

In the data of 50 Vietnamese utterances collected from the selected English movies, we realize a total of 46 modal markers showing politeness in conversations These modal markers are categorized into two primary groups, including Downgraders and Upgraders, demonstrated in Table 4.5:

Frequency and Distribution of Modality Markers in Vietnamese

No Modality markers Frequency Percentage

Table 4.5 depicts the frequency and distribution of modality markers indicating politeness in Vietnamese utterances, totaling 58 instances The markers are categorized into Downgraders and Upgraders

In the Downgraders section, “Politeness Markers” dominate with a substantial 39.8% This is followed by “Hedges” at 17.2% Both “Play-downs” and

“Consultative Devices” share an identical frequency of 10.3% “Understaters” are less common, accounting for 5.2%, while “Scope-Staters” are observed minimally at 1.7% Several markers, including “Downtoners,” “Minus Committer”, “Forewarn,"

“Hesitator”, and “Agent Avoider”, have no representation in the data, each scoring 0.0%

In the Upgraders category, the “Intensifier” is the sole prominent marker with a frequency of 15.5% The rest, namely “Overstater”, “Plus Committer”, “Lexical Intensifier”, “Aggressive Interrogative”, and “Rhetorical Appeal”, are all absent from the observed utterances, each with a percentage of 0.0%

The analysis of modality markers in Vietnamese utterances offers valuable insights into the nuances of polite communication in the Vietnamese language and culture Let's dissect these findings:

The dominance of downgraders in Vietnamese utterances, at 84.5%, underlines the Vietnamese cultural emphasis on indirectness, humility, and respect, especially in contexts that could potentially cause offense or discomfort

- Politeness Markers: With almost 40% of all modality markers falling under this category, it is evident that Vietnamese speakers often utilize direct expressions of courtesy such as “xin lỗi” (sorry) or “vui lòng” (please) This underscores the cultural importance of overtly expressing politeness and respect

Example 33: Ông tha lỗi cho cháu Cháu cảm thấy vừa rồi ông cứ dồn mẹ cháu vào chỗ khó nói khó xử ạ (VU1)

English translation: Please forgive me, grandfather I feel that you just put my mother in a difficult and awkward position

Modal markers: The phrase “ạ” at the end of the sentence is a distinctive feature of the Vietnamese language It'’s a politeness marker commonly used to show respect, especially when addressing someone older or of higher status In this context, it emphasizes the speaker’s respect towards the grandfather and highlights the cultural importance of hierarchical relationships in Vietnamese conversations This falls under the modality marker category of Politeness Markers

Anh Lạc Đà ơi, em tin anh đang nói rất là thật Em cũng tin anh thương em rất nhiều, nhưng mà em không thể đáp lại tình cảm đó được Em xin lỗi (VU4)

English translation: Mr Lạc Đà, I believe you are being very sincere I also believe you love me very much, but I cannot reciprocate those feelings I’m sorry

Politeness Marker (Downgrader): “ơi” used after “Anh Lạc Đà” is a form of address that adds a touch of warmth or politeness

- Play-downs and Consultative Devices: By minimizing the force of their statements or seeking feedback, Vietnamese speakers demonstrate a tendency to be indirect and collaborative in their communication This reflects a desire to maintain harmony and avoid confrontations

Xin lỗi Hiển Hồi nãy giờ chị đi trên đường bây giờ mới tới tiệm (VU14)

English translation: I’m sorry, Hiển I was on the road, and I've just arrived at the shop

Analysis: The structure “I’ve just arrived” can be seen as a Play-down (Downgrader), as it minimizes the duration of the speaker's absence and emphasizes the immediacy of her recent arrival

Thôi thì chị hoàn lại tiền cho em coi như là bồi thường chuyện hôm nay nha (VU19)

English translation: Well, I’ll refund your money as compensation for today’s incident

Analysis: Consultative Devices (Downgrader): “nha” (okay?) - The word “nha” at the end of the sentence serves as a consultative device, seeking the listener's understanding or acceptance of the proposed solution

- Hedges: The presence of hedges, markers that indicate uncertainty or non- commitment, suggests that Vietnamese speakers often prefer to convey information or opinions in a manner that is not overly assertive This can be seen as a strategy to avoid potential disputes and to present oneself as open-minded and adaptable

Anh cũng không chắc đó có phải là con của anh không nữa? Lúc đó anh không nhớ gì hết (VU9)

English translation: I’m also not sure if that's my child I don’t remember anything from that time

Hedges (Downgrader): “Anh cũng không chắc” (I’m also not sure) – The speaker uses this to express his lack of certainty about the situation

Nhân tiện tôi cũng xin lỗi anh về chuyện um sùm hôm bữa ở nhà anh ngày chủ nhật đó Thật ra chỉ là chuyện hiểu lầm thôi (VU32)

English translation: By the way, I also want to apologize to you about the awkward situation at your house last Sunday It was actually just a misunderstanding

Hedges (Downgrader): The term “thật ra” which translates to “actually” in English is a hedging device In the given Vietnamese utterance, “thật ra” is used to introduce a clarification about the previously mentioned “awkward situation” at someone’s house By prefacing the clarification with “thật ra”, the speaker is softening the forthcoming information, indicating that what they are about to say may challenge or modify the listener’s current understanding of the situation In this context, the speaker wants to convey that the perceived awkwardness was not as serious or intentional as it might have seemed The hedge “thật ra” prepares the listener for this shift in perspective and softens the blow, so to speak It is a way of saying, “What you think happened isn't exactly the whole story.”

- Understaters: These markers further emphasize the Vietnamese inclination to minimize the impact of potentially sensitive statements, perhaps to avoid appearing boastful or confrontational

Con xin lỗi cô, nhưng mà con không có biết nói chuyện văn vẻ như ba con Nhưng mà những lời con nói là những lời sự thật không á Với lại cô nghĩ thử coi, một khi mà cô đã lấy ba con rồi là cô phải về sống chung với con, mà tánh con khó sống lắm, hở cái là con đùng đùng đùng đùng làm sao mà sống được, đúng không, con báo cô trước để cô chuẩn bị thôi à (VU30)

English translation: I apologize, but I can’t speak as eloquently as my father However, what I said is the truth Just think about it, once you marry my father, you'll have to live with me I'm not easy to live with, I get upset easily Isn’t it true? I’m just warning you in advance so you can prepare

Understaters: “con không có biết nói chuyện văn vẻ như ba con” (I can’t speak as eloquently as my father) In the given Vietnamese utterance, the speaker contrasts their speaking skills with those of their father, stating that they “cannot speak as eloquently” Here, the understater is used to humble oneself, effectively lowering the expectation of the listener about the speaker’s communicative prowess In this context, the understater not only serves to downplay the speaker’s ability but also sets a sincere tone for the rest of the conversation It’s a tactful way to admit a shortcoming while ensuring that the listener understands the genuine intent behind the words

- Scope-Staters: Their limited presence suggests that while there might be situations where limiting the applicability of a statement is necessary, it is not a predominant feature in the Vietnamese utterances analyzed

Dạ con xin lỗi mẹ Hòa Xin lỗi chú Phong Con đã làm cho bạn Ngân Nga khóc vì không có mẹ (VU47)

English translation: I’m sorry, Mother Hòa I apologize to Uncle Phong I made Ngân

Nga cry because she doesn't have a mother

Scope-Staters: “Con” which translates to “I” or “me” in this context indicates a personal viewpoint or stance In this context, the scope-stater serves to emphasize the personal nature of the apology and the responsibility the speaker is taking for their actions It's a way of ensuring that the listener understands that the speaker is genuinely recognizing and owning up to their mistake from their personal perspective

Interestingly, some downgraders like Downtoners, Minus Committer, Forewarn, Hesitator, and Agent Avoider were not present in the analyzed data This suggests that these specific strategies might be less favored or perhaps the sample did not present situations where they would be aptly used

While the presence of upgraders is significantly less when compared to downgraders, they still play a role in Vietnamese communication

Similarities and Differences in Modality Markers in English and

Modality markers are linguistic elements that express the speaker’s attitude or stance towards the proposition or addressee They can be categorized into two primary types: Downgraders and Upgraders Downgraders reduce the force of a statement, making it less direct or assertive, while Upgraders increase the force or intensity of a statement The table below illustrates the proportions of modality markers employed in both English and Vietnamese utterances containing apologies

Frequency and Distribution of Modality Markers in English and Vietnamese

No Modality markers English % Vietnamese %

Table 4.6 contrasts the use of modality markers denoting politeness in English and Vietnamese utterances The markers are segmented into Downgraders and Upgraders

- Politeness Markers are considerably more frequent in Vietnamese at 39.8%, compared to 10.9% in English

- Hedges are nearly identical between the two languages, with 17.4% in English and 17.2% in Vietnamese

- Play-downs and Consultative Devices share a close percentage in both languages, approximately 10.9% in English and 10.3% in Vietnamese for each

- Understaters have a mild presence with 6.5% in English and 5.2% in Vietnamese

Scope-Staters are observed minimally, 2.2% in English and 1.7% in Vietnamese

- Some markers, like Downtoners, Minus Committer, Forewarn, Hesitator, and Agent Avoider, show disparities For instance, Downtoners and Minus Committer are present in English at 2.2% but absent in Vietnamese Similarly, “Hesitator” is seen in English at 4.3% but not in Vietnamese

- Intensifiers are more pronounced in English with 26.0%, compared to 15.5% in

- Plus Committer is observed in English at 6.5% but is missing in Vietnamese

The rest of the markers, such as Overstater, Lexical Intensifier, Aggressive Interrogative, and Rhetorical Appeal, do not appear in either language, with a 0.0% presence

From the data presented, we can observe the following patterns:

- Politeness Markers: There is a significant difference between the two languages, with Vietnamese having a high percentage of 39.8% compared to English’s 10.9% This suggests that Vietnamese communication places a considerable emphasis on politeness, possibly due to cultural values around respect and maintaining harmony in conversations In many Asian cultures, hierarchical relationships, determined by factors such as age, status, and social position, command a distinct communicative approach This might necessitate the frequent use of politeness markers in Vietnamese to navigate these hierarchies appropriately The lesser frequency in English might suggest a more egalitarian social structure where overt linguistic politeness is not as necessary

- Play-downs, Consultative Devices: Both languages have almost similar percentages, suggesting that these strategies are universally utilized to a similar extent, regardless of the cultural backdrop These devices allow speakers to present information as suggestions rather than assertions, fostering a collaborative communicative environment

- Hedges: Both English and Vietnamese speakers employ hedges similarly, with 17.4% and 17.2% respectively This suggests that both languages use these linguistic devices to express uncertainty or to soften statements The near-equal employment of hedges in both languages underscores the universal human tendency to express uncertainty It is a linguistic reflection of our shared vulnerability to not always having definitive answers

- Understaters, Downtoners, Minus Committer, Scope-Staters: These are used more frequently in English, albeit marginally in some cases This might indicate a preference in English to occasionally tone down assertions or commitments English speakers might have a range of linguistic tools at their disposal to downplay or modulate the intensity of their statements, possibly reflecting a cultural value on modesty or avoiding overcommitment

- Forewarn, Agent Avoider: Neither language seems to use these strategies, indicating a possible cultural aversion to such linguistic devices or their irrelevance in typical conversational contexts

- Hesitator: English speakers employ this strategy, albeit in a small percentage, while it's absent in Vietnamese This might suggest a minor tendency in English to express hesitation or pause for thought during conversations

- Intensifier: English speakers use intensifiers more frequently (26.0%) compared to Vietnamese speakers (15.5%) This could hint at a cultural or linguistic preference in English to emphasize or intensify statements, making them more forceful The higher frequency in English might suggest a cultural and linguistic leaning towards hyperbole or emphasis It reflects a cultural value on passion and emphasis in communication The lesser frequency in Vietnamese might indicate a more reserved communication style, where overemphasis is not customary

- Plus Committer: Only English speakers use this strategy, suggesting a unique linguistic device or a cultural tendency to strengthen commitments or assertions Its presence only in English might suggest a societal value on making strong commitments or assurances This could be rooted in cultural norms that prioritize certainty and assurance in communication

- Overstater, Lexical Intensifier, Aggressive Interrogative, Rhetorical Appeal:

These strategies are absent in both languages, indicating they might not be common or preferred linguistic devices in conversational contexts

The use of modality markers provides a window into the cultural and linguistic nuances of English and Vietnamese

- Emphasis on Politeness: The significant use of politeness markers in

Vietnamese underscores the cultural importance of respect, especially in hierarchical relationships, possibly rooted in Confucian values

- Universal Strategies: The similarities in percentages for Play-downs, Consultative Devices, and Hedges between the two languages suggest that these strategies might be universally employed to navigate conversations, emphasizing the universality of certain conversational dynamics

- Expressing Certainty and Commitment: The higher use of intensifiers and plus committers in English might hint at a cultural and linguistic tendency to assert or emphasize points more strongly

In the realm of apology strategies, both English and Vietnamese speakers exhibit a marked emphasis on the expression of regret, suggesting its central role in the apology customs of both cultures However, differences emerge in other strategies For instance, the act of directly offering an apology, termed as Offer of Apology/IFID, is more commonly employed by English speakers, indicating perhaps a more direct approach to apologies in the English language Conversely, the strategy of requesting forgiveness is more prevalent among Vietnamese speakers This might shine a light on the Vietnamese culture’s deeper inclination towards reconciliation and the importance they place on restoring harmony Another intriguing distinction is seen in the offering of repair or redress While this strategy was absent among English speakers, a notable percentage of Vietnamese speakers opted to offer some form of tangible amend, possibly reflecting the Vietnamese emphasis on restoring balance in interpersonal relations

Moving on to modality markers, the data reveals significant cultural and linguistic insights Vietnamese speakers display a pronounced use of politeness markers, which might be a testament to the culture's emphasis on respect and possibly its roots in Confucian values which prioritize harmony in interpersonal interactions However, some strategies appear to transcend cultural boundaries Play-downs, Consultative Devices, and Hedges are employed similarly across both languages, suggesting that these linguistic tools might be universally favored to navigate certain conversational dynamics Another interesting observation is the English language’s predilection for intensifiers, hinting at a possible cultural or linguistic trend to assert or emphasize points with more vigor Additionally, the strategy termed as Plus Committer was found exclusively among English speakers, suggesting it might be a unique linguistic device or reflect a cultural tendency in English to reinforce commitments or assertions more robustly

In conclusion, the comparative analysis between English and Vietnamese, in the contexts of apology strategies and modality markers, underscores the intricate interplay between language and culture While certain communication patterns appear universal, highlighting shared human conversational needs, distinct patterns provide a window into the deeper cultural, societal, and linguistic landscapes of each language Such insights are invaluable for fostering effective cross-cultural communication

The objective of this chapter is to meticulously summarize the core outcomes of the study, derive conclusions based on the amassed evidence, and shed light on the broader implications of these findings Additionally, this chapter will outline potential areas for further exploration and enumerate the limitations inherent to the scope and methodology of this research.

Conclusion

The research ventured into a comprehensive cross-cultural exploration, focusing on the intricacies of apology strategies adopted in English and Vietnamese contexts Derived from a data set encompassing 50 diverse utterances in each language, the findings present a rich tapestry of linguistic nuances

Apology Strategies: The prominence of expressing regret as an apology strategy in both languages underscores its universal significance in interpersonal communication However, the study illuminated key distinctions: English speakers exhibited a propensity for direct apologies, underlining a perhaps inherent directness or explicitness in English conversational norms In contrast, Vietnamese speakers frequently resort to requests for forgiveness This trend might be emblematic of deeply ingrained cultural paradigms in Vietnamese society, emphasizing humility and indirectness

Modality Markers: The study’s exploration into modality markers unveiled a confluence of linguistic preferences and cultural ethos

The extensive use of politeness markers in Vietnamese dialogues is a testament to the nation's emphasis on respect, reverence, and possibly its Confucian underpinnings, which prioritize harmony in interpersonal dynamics

Despite the differences, certain conversational strategies seem to be universal constants Tools like Play-downs, Consultative Devices, and Hedges were ubiquitously observed across both linguistic spectra This observation posits that irrespective of cultural and linguistic backgrounds, there exist shared conversational needs and dynamics that traverse geographic and cultural boundaries.

Implications

Enhanced Cross-Cultural Communication

Facilitating Interactions Across Cultures: Imagine this study’s findings as a friendly guide for individuals who communicate with people from different cultures

It explains how saying “I'm sorry” can be different in English and Vietnamese

Understanding these distinctions can lead to more pleasant and effective conversations when people from various cultures interact

Fostering Empathy and Respect: When individuals grasp why others apologize in particular ways, it deepens their understanding and appreciation for one another For instance, if you know that in Vietnamese culture, it's common to ask for forgiveness, you won't be surprised or upset when someone does that This knowledge promotes empathy and respect in cross-cultural exchanges

Preventing Confusion and Misunderstandings: In cross-cultural encounters, misunderstandings can sometimes arise due to different ways of apologizing Having insights into apology strategies can act as a bridge to prevent these misunderstandings It ensures smoother and more harmonious communication among people from diverse backgrounds.

Pedagogical Implications

Enhancing Language Instruction : This study can serve as a valuable tool for educators, including language teachers and curriculum designers It empowers them to create language courses that go beyond just teaching vocabulary and grammar These courses can incorporate cultural insights, helping learners understand not just the language but also the customs and traditions linked to it

Fostering Cultural Respect : Educators play a crucial role in shaping students’ perspectives By educating students about cultural differences, teachers enable them to appreciate and respect diverse cultures For instance, when students learn why politeness holds significance in Vietnamese culture, they gain a deeper respect for it

Practical Life Skills : Learning about how people apologize differently in various cultures isn't merely about language; it is about acquiring practical life skills

This knowledge becomes especially valuable for individuals planning to live or work in a different cultural setting It equips them with the skills needed to communicate effectively and thrive in diverse environments.

Limitations

Scope of Data: While the data set used in this research included a total of 50 utterances from each language, which can be considered substantial, it is important to acknowledge that this is akin to looking through a small window into the expansive landscape of conversational dynamics In essence, the study is based on a snapshot, a limited selection of conversations Conversations are like vast oceans of human interaction, and this study has dipped its toes into those waters Therefore, while the findings provide valuable insights, they should be viewed as a representative sample rather than an exhaustive exploration

Source Limitations: Another limitation worth noting pertains to the source of the English utterances, which were primarily drawn from cinematic narratives, such as movies While movies offer engaging and often memorable dialogue, they do not always mirror the subtleties of real-life conversational nuances Films are designed for entertainment and storytelling purposes, and this inherent nature can lead to the amplification or dramatization of certain elements for dramatic effect Consequently, the apology strategies depicted in movies may not perfectly align with how apologies unfold in everyday conversations It's essential to recognize this potential divergence between cinematic portrayals and real-life communication when interpreting the study's findings.

Suggestions for Further Research

Future research endeavors should consider broadening the data set used for analysis While the current study offers valuable insights, the inclusion of additional sources can enhance the comprehensiveness of future investigations This might involve incorporating dialogues from various mediums, such as television series, literary works, or spontaneous real-world interactions By expanding the sources, researchers can gain a more holistic understanding of how apology strategies manifest across different contexts This broader data set can provide a more nuanced and encompassing view of conversational dynamics, shedding light on variations and commonalities that may not be evident in a limited data set

In-Depth Exploration of Culture and Language

To deepen our comprehension of apology strategies, particularly in the Vietnamese context, future research could undertake a more intricate examination of the cultural and historical underpinnings that influence these strategies This granular investigation can delve into the roots of these conversational norms within Vietnamese society, exploring how historical events, traditions, and social dynamics have shaped the way apologies are expressed By unraveling these cultural intricacies, researchers can offer a richer, more contextualized analysis of apology strategies and their evolution over time

Venturing beyond the boundaries of English and Vietnamese, researchers can embark on a broader comparative analysis encompassing a spectrum of languages and cultures Comparative studies can provide a panoramic view of global conversational norms and deviations By examining how apology strategies differ and converge across linguistic and cultural contexts, researchers can identify universal patterns and distinct cultural influences This comparative approach not only enriches our understanding of apology strategies but also contributes to the broader field of cross-cultural communication, transcending language barriers to uncover shared human conversational dynamics

In summary, this chapter provides a detailed summary of the main findings, discussing the implications of these findings, acknowledging the limitations of the research, and proposing directions for future research

In terms of conclusions, the study presents a thorough cross-cultural analysis of apology strategies in both English and Vietnamese contexts It was found that English speakers generally tend to employ more direct forms of apologizing, which is reflective of the explicitness often observed in English conversational norms On the other hand, Vietnamese speakers frequently opt for requests for forgiveness in their apologies, a practice that seems to be deeply rooted in cultural values that prioritize humility and indirectness The study also notes the extensive use of modality markers in Vietnamese dialogues, highlighting cultural values of respect and reverence Interestingly, certain strategies like play-downs and consultative devices are found to be common across both languages, suggesting some universality in apology strategies

The implications of these findings are significant, particularly in the realms of cross-cultural communication and pedagogy From a cross-cultural communication perspective, the study enhances understanding between cultures by elucidating the differences in apology strategies It fosters empathy and respect for different cultural norms in apologizing, and importantly, helps prevent confusion and misunderstandings in intercultural interactions Pedagogically, the insights from this study can be instrumental in informing language education with cultural nuances By incorporating these cultural insights, educators can cultivate a deeper respect for different cultures among students Furthermore, this knowledge equips language learners with practical communication skills essential for interacting effectively in diverse cultural environments

The study, however, is not without its limitations The scope of the data, though substantial, offers only a glimpse into the vast landscape of conversational dynamics Also, the reliance on English movie dialogues as a primary data source may not fully capture the complexities of real-life conversations, as cinematic narratives can sometimes dramatize or amplify conversational elements

Looking forward, the study suggests several avenues for further research Expanding the data set to include a wider range of sources, such as TV series, literary works, or spontaneous real-world conversations, could provide a more rounded analysis A more in-depth exploration of the cultural and historical influences on apology strategies, especially in the Vietnamese context, would offer richer insights Moreover, a broader comparative analysis encompassing a variety of languages and cultures could reveal universal patterns and unique cultural influences in apology strategies Overall, the chapter underscores the need for broader and deeper exploration in future research to fully comprehend the universality and cultural specificity of apology strategies

Aydin, M (2013) Cross cultural Pragmatics: A study of Apology Speech Acts by Turkish speakers, American English Speakers and Advance Nonnative Speakers of English in Turkey In ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (p 65)

Blum-kulka, S., & Olshtain, E (1984) Requests and Apologies: A Cross-Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization Patterns (CCSARP) Applied Linguistics, 5(3), pp.196–213

Brown, P & Levinson, S C (1987) Politeness - Some Universals in Language Usage Cambridge University Press

Brown P & Levinson S., Universals in Language usage: Politeness phenomena In

E N Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction, 8(1978), pp.56-289 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Fraser, B (1981) On Apologising In Florian Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech (pp 259–271) Mouton

Chu, L (2016) An Empirical Study on Apology Strategies Adopted by Chinese EFL

Coates, J (1983) The semantics of the modal auxiliaries Routledge

Downing, A., & Locke, P (1995) A University Course in English Grammar Phoenix ELT

Floyd, K (2011) Interpersonal Communication (2nd ed.) McGraw-Hill

Holmes, J (1990) Apologies in New Zealand English Language in Society, 19(2), pp.155–199

Frawley, W (1992) Linguistic Semantics Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers

Grice H P., Logic and conversation (In P Cole & J L Morgan, Syntax and Semantics (Eds.): Speech Acts 3, Academic Press, New York, (1975)

Cook, G (1990), Trancribing infinity: Problems of context presentation* 1, Journal of Pragmatics

Han, H V 2015 The issues of modality in semantics and pragmatics Open Access

House, J., & Kasper, G (2012) no (modality marker)- Politeness Markers in English and German In Rasmus Rask Studies in Pragmatic Linguistics, Volume 2, Conversational Routine (pp 157–186)

Hymes, D (1972) On Communicative competence England, Hormondsworth,

House, J & Kasper, G (1983) Politeness Markers in English and German, New York University Bobst Library Technical Services Authenticated

Lyons, J (1977) Semantics, volume 2, Cambridge University Press

Leach, G N (1983) Principle of Pragmatics London & New York: Longman McCornack, S (2014) Interpersonal Communication and Older Adulthood: An Introduction Bedford/St.Martin’s

Mey, J L (1994) Pragmatic: An introduction Blackwell, U.K and U.S.A: Textbook Papafragou, A (2000) Modality: Issues in the semantics - pragmatics interface,

Palmer, F R (1986) Mood and Modality Cambridge University Press

Quirk, R (2007) A University Grammar of English Pearson Education India

Roach, P (2010) English phonetics and phonology fourth edition: A practical course Ernst Klett Sprachen

Rogers, D (1997) English for International Negotiations- A Cross-Cultural Case Study Approach New York: St Martin’s Press

Robbins, S P., & Judge, T A (2017) Organizational Behavior In Pearson Education Limited (7th ed.) Pearson Education Limited

Saville-Troike, M (2003) The Ethnography of Communication Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Tahir, R I., & Pandian, A (2016) A comparative Analysis of Apology Speech Acts between American English and Iraqi Kurdish International Journal of English

Thomas, J (1995) Meaning in interaction London and New York: Longman Trosborg, A (1987) Apology strategies in natives/non-natives Journal of Pragmatics, (11), pp.147-167

Virna, M (2014) Robin Lakoff’s Politeness Satya Wacana Christian University Von Wright, G H (1952) An Essay in Modal Logic Amsterdam: North-Holland

Yule, G (1996) Pragmatics Oxford: Oxford University Press

Yule, G (1997) Pragmatics Oxford: Oxford University Press

Le Thi Van (2019), Sympathizing strategies in English and Vietnamese”, M.A thesis

Nguyen Quang (2000), Some differences in Vietnamese-American speech communication in the way of complimenting and receiving compliments, Ph.D thesis, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, VNU Hanoi

Nguyen Thi Thuy Minh (2005) with the topic "Criticizing and Responding to

Criticism in a Foreign Language: A study of Vietnamese Learners of English,

Ph.D thesis, University of Auckland

Tran Huu Phuc, Ton Nu Hoang Yen Linguistic Markers Expressing Politeness Strategies In British And American Political Speeches: A Corpus-Based Approach, Issn 1859-1531 - Tạp chí Khoa Học Và Công nghệ Đại học Đà Nẵng,

Vu Thi Thanh Huong (1997), Politeness in Modern Vietnamese: A Sociolinguistic Study of a Hanoi Speech Community, Ph.D thesis, Department of Anthropology,

Movie No Apology Utterance Code

1 I hope you'll accept my apology EU1

2 Sorry for the disruption, folks EU2

3 I'm sorry that I didn't live up to your expectations EU3

6 I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this isn't love EU6

7 I'm sorry for staring, but it's really quite astonishing EU7

8 No, I'm so sorry, I don't think I can do this EU8

9 Well, I'm sorry about that EU9

10 Sorry, I'm no good at this EU10

11 Yeah, well, I got waylaid EU11

12 I'm sorry about going through all your stuff EU12

13 Yeah, my fault I should have given her the decaf EU13

14 Look, Sylvie, I know I'm not good at all this, you know, dad/husband thing EU14

15 Hey, there Just to say I'm running late, but I'm on my way EU15

16 And I'm sorry for being so snappy this morning EU16

17 By six minutes I'm sorry The bus was late EU17

18 Yeah, sorry, it was a compliment EU18

19 Sorry, I shouldn't have said that EU19

21 Sorry, this is important EU21

22 Hey, I'm really sorry for what I said before EU22

23 I want to apologize for it EU23

24 I mean, I was so stressed out at the time, taking on all those new patients EU24

25 I hadn't been sleeping well EU25

26 My judgment was not what it normally is EU26

27 I want you to know that'll never happen again EU27

28 From now on our relationship will be strictly a medical and professional one EU28

29 I'm sorry, Earl, for not being able to repeat your words verbatim, something I should be able to do EU29

30 I'm sorry, Jenna I'm really sorry EU30

31 Whatever it is I do, I will not do it anymore EU31

32 Okay, what? Okay, I won't EU32

33 I hope I didn't hurt her feelings too bad EU33

34 I'm just pointing out her good qualities EU34

35 Our deepest apologies for the interruption, sir EU35

36 I must apologize a thousand, thousand times, my master EU36

38 Sorry about the paw prints by the front door They were there when I moved in EU38

39 Sorry I haven't made it to the mailbox lately EU39

40 It's been a long week All night shifts EU40

41 I'm sorry I've just been so swamped and EU41

42 Hi, I'm sorry to have kept you waiting EU42

43 I'm sorry, I can't I'm taking Vanessa out for

44 I'm sorry, I don't have a receptionist I like to keep things simple EU44

I'm sorry You know, I refused your first two marriage proposals, not because I didn't love you, but because I couldn't bear the idea of a Royal life

Couldn't bear the idea of a life of tours, public duty, of Well, a life that no longer was really to be my own

46 I'm only very sorry to leave you at this great time of crisis EU46

47 I didn't know that I'm sorry about everything EU47

48 No, I'm sorry I'm the one who's come to your house uninvited EU48

49 I know I hurt you I'm sorry EU49

Magic 50 I'm sorry, baby I'm just so tired EU50

Movie No Apology Utterance Code

Người thừa kế dòng họ 1 Ông tha lỗi cho cháu Cháu cảm thấy vừa rồi ông cứ dồn mẹ cháu vào chỗ khó nói khó xử ạ VU1 Chạm mặt giang hồ

2 Tại hồi trưa tình huống nguy cấp quá nên anh mới nói vậy Xin lỗi em nha VU2

Anh Lạc Đà ơi, em tin anh đang nói rất là thật

Em cũng tin anh thương em rất nhiều, nhưng mà em không thể đáp lại tình cảm đó được Em xin lỗi

5 Cô giáo ơi, tôi vô tâm với cô quá Giờ tôi không biết phải làm sao Tôi xin lỗi cô VU5

7 Thôi giờ cô chờ con chút Con ra siêu thị mua về liền cô VU7

9 Anh cũng không chắc đó có phải là con của anh không nữa? Lúc đó anh không nhớ gì hết VU9

10 Con xin lỗi mẹ VU10

11 Cho tao xin lỗi Tao mới làm xong VU11

12 Dạ tôi xin lỗi cô Hai Tôi có lỗi với cô nhiều lắm VU12 Đại ca vào tù 13 Ông Bảy ơi, ông Bảy tha cho con VU13 Đàn bà thâm độc

14 Xin lỗi Hiển Hồi nãy giờ chị đi trên đường bây giờ mới tới tiệm VU14

Chị biết rồi Nhưng mà chị xin lỗi Bây giờ cũng gấp quá rồi cãi lộn cũng không có được cái gì hết Tốt nhất đó là em qua đây em chọn cái hoa nào đẹp thì chị bó liền cho em

16 Thông cảm nha Xin lỗi VU16

17 Xin lỗi, xin lỗi Bữa nay chợ đầu mối không có hoa ly nên… Chị xin lỗi em VU17

Chị có bó cho em một bó hoa khác rồi Bông Hồng Nhung cũng đẹp lắm, có thêm bông hoa lan màu trắng điểm thêm rất là đẹp Còn nếu mà em không thích thì em cứ chọn đi em chọn hoa nào rồi Chị bó liền cho em

19 Thôi thì chị hoàn lại tiền cho em coi như là bồi thường chuyện hôm nay nha VU19

20 ừ ừ Ừ chị thật lòng xin lỗi VU20

21 À, còn mấy cái hoa cài áo nữa Để chị làm ngay nha VU21

Hôm nay chắc là không được rồi, tại vì em có hứa là đưa con qua nhà cô chơi Đã hứa với người ta rồi mà, nên xin lỗi anh nha

23 Anh, ngày mai em bù sinh nhật muộn được không? VU23

Tôi xin lỗi Tại Thỏ nó nói là nó nhớ chị Thanh quá cho nên là tôi chờ nó tan học rồi tôi đưa nó qua đây luôn

Trời ơi, hôm nay anh nói chuyện gì lạ quá vậy?

Nhưng mà xin lỗi anh Hôm nay tôi đang bận việc, không nói chuyện với anh kiểu mà yêu màu tím thích lãng mạn với anh được đâu

26 Chút xíu nữa thì làm hại chị rồi Em xin lỗi chị nhé VU26

27 Em xin lỗi chị nha, em… VU27

Tôi hiểu rồi Anh Sơn Phong, tôi xin lỗi nha Đây là chuyện riêng của tôi không có liên quan gì với người này hết Mời mấy anh ra ngoài nói chuyện với tôi

Anh Trần Tình, em xin lỗi anh nha Nhưng mà em không thể thấy anh đối xử tốt và thương em như vậy mà em lợi dụng anh được Tình cảm của em và anh vẫn chưa xác định được mà