Lời xin lỗi của người Việt Nam học Tiếng Anh Nghiên cứu dụng học liên ngôn ngữ

Lời xin lỗi của người Việt Nam học Tiếng Anh: Nghiên cứu dụng học liên ngôn ngữ Nguyễn Hương Lý Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ Luận văn ThS ngành: Ngôn ngữ Anh; Mã số: 60 22 15 Người hướng dẫn: Dr. Hà Cẩm Tâm Năm bảo vệ: 2012 Abstract: Part A is the introduction of the study including the identification of the problem, the aims, the objectives, the scope of the study, the significance, the research method as well as the organization of the study. Part B contains 3 chapters. Chapter 1 reviews the theoretical issues relevant to the study including pragmatics, speech act theory and some previous studies on interlanguage apologies. Chapter 2 discusses issues of methodology and outlines the study design, data collection instruments, reliability and validity test of the data collection instruments, procedure of data collection, selection of subjects and analytical framework. Chapter 3 presents the data analysis and discusses the findings on the choice of apology strategies used by EN speakers, EFL learners and VN speakers in relation to the variables of Power (P), Social Distance (D) and Ranking of Imposition (R) in the contexts under studied. Some pragmatic transfer on interlanguage apology is also mentioned in this chapter. Part C provides an overview of major findings and interpretations, implications, limitations and suggestions for further research. Keywords: Tiếng Anh; Giao tiếp; Liên ngôn ngữ; Người Việt Nam Content Part I: INTRODUCTION 1. Identification of the problem To become effective communicators nowadays, it is essential for English foreign language (EFL) Learners to gain communicative competence. Communicative competence, according to Ellis, ―entails both linguistic competence and pragmatic competence‖ (Ellis, 1994:696). Linguistic competence is the ability to use the linguistic rules of a given language. Pragmatic competence, on the other hand, is ―the ability to use language effectively in order to achieve a specific purpose and to understand language in context‖ (Thomas, 1983:94). Likewise, Bialystok (1993) claimed that pragmatic competence is the ability to make use of different language functions, the ability to understand the speakers’ underlying intention; and the ability to modify the speech according to contexts. Recently, increasing attention has been paid to pragmatic competence due to the fact that foreign language learners who have good knowledge of grammar and a wide range of vocabulary but lack sociolinguistic awareness may encounter communicating problems with native speakers because of their incompetence to use sociolinguistic rules properly or interpret those words correctly. Moreover, in accordance with Thomas (1983), native speakers often forgive the phonological, syntactic and lexical errors made by L2 speakers but usually interpret pragmatic errors negatively as rudeness, impoliteness or unfriendliness. Thus foreign language speakers need to have more than pure linguistic competence in order to be able to communicate effectively in a language and know how a language is used by members of a speech community to accomplish their purposes (Hymes:1972). In other words, it can be justifiably suggested that foreign language speakers need to use the target language in both linguistically and socially appropriate ways. Over the past few decades, language teaching in the world has witnessed a shift from the focus on the development of learners’ linguistic competence to the development of learners’ communicative competence. Many empirical studies on learners’ pragmatic competence on the basis of diverse speech acts have been conducted in variety of cultures and languages to gather information on what appropriate use of linguistic forms in different sociocultural contexts actually comprises. Those studies have contributed greatly to a better understanding of the use of linguistic forms in different languages and cultures and further to avoiding cross-cultural miscommunication. On response to this trend, some Vietnamese researchers investigated similarities and differences in the realization of speech acts such as requesting, inviting, disagreeing, greeting, giving and receiving compliments, apologizing, promising made by speakers of English and Vietnamese. Among these speech acts, apology is considered a highly-recurrent and routinized act. Kasper (1996) stated that in any speech community, participants need to engage in remedial verbal action upon committing an offense, that is to apologize. However, this kind of speech act is still under-researched in Vietnam. Van (2000), Phuong (2000) and Trang (2010) are some of Vietnamese researchers working on this topic up to now. However, their studies mainly compared and contrasted the realization of apology between two groups of language, English and Vietnamese. N ative Vietnamese speakers’ speech act behavior which can influence Learners’ performance of the target language was understudied. Thus, gaps are still there to fill in pragmatics, especially in the interlanguage speech act of apology. In this study the aim is to compare the speech act of apologies among EN speakers, English EFL learners and VN speakers. 2. Aims of the study This study aims at identifying Vietnamese EFL learners’ deviations linguistically in the production of apology in relation to English native speakers in the contexts studied. In particular, the study attempts to find out how much Vietnamese learners of English can approximate native speakers in the apology strategy use as well as responding to contextual factors involved in the contexts. 3. Objectives of the study The study will uncover the deviations in using apology strategies by Vietnamese EFL learners in some contexts studied. Particularly, it uncovers: 1) differences in the use of apology strategies by EN Speakers and Vietnamese EFL Learners. 2) differences in the use of apology strategies by EN Speakers and VN Speakers. 4. Scope of the study This study just focus on the language used by Vietnamese learners of English in formulating in the speech act of apology in relation to the three social parameters (P, D and R) in the contexts studied. In other words, the survey concentrates on verbal communication. Moreover, the survey mainly considers the acceptance of apologies and ignores all the cases where apologies are refused. 5. Significance of the study This study will be an attempt to fill in a gap in the area of interlanguage pragmatics where learners’ production of linguistic acts has not taken into consideration enough. Thus, the study will be a reference material for not only English language learners to improve their knowledge on the interlanguage pragmatics but also their communicative competence. 6. Method of the study Quantitative is mainly used in this study. In other words, all the conclusions and considerations are based on the analysis of the empirical studies and statistics processed Chi-square test. In addition, such methods as descriptive, analytic, comparative and contrastive are also utilized to describe and analyze, to compare and contrast the database so as to bring out differences in using apology strategy by English and Vietnamese speakers. 7. Organization of the study This study is divided into three parts as follows: Part A is the introduction of the study including the identification of the problem, the aims, the objectives, the scope of the study, the significance, the research method as well as the organization of the study. Part B contains 3 chapters. Chapter 1 reviews the theoretical issues relevant to the study including pragmatics, speech act theory and some previous studies on interlanguage apologies. Chapter 2 discusses issues of methodology and outlines the study design, data collection instruments, reliability and validity test of the data collection instruments, procedure of data collection, selection of subjects and analytical framework. Chapter 3 presents the data analysis and discusses the findings on the choice of apology strategies used by EN speakers, EFL learners and VN speakers in relation to the variables of Power (P), Social Distance (D) and Ranking of Imposition (R) in the contexts under studied. Some pragmatic transfer on interlanguage apology is also mentioned in this chapter. Part C provides an overview of major findings and interpretations, implications, limitations and suggestions for further research. Part B: DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1. Pragmatics 1.1.1. Overview Leech (1983) defined pragmatics as ―any background knowledge assumed to be shared by the speaker and the hearer and contributes to the hearer’s interpretation of what the speaker means by a given utterance‖ (Leech, 1983:13) Crystal proposed: ―pragmatics is the study of language from the point of view of users, especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interactions, and the effects their use of language has on other participants in the act of communication‖ (Crystal, 1985: 240). 1.1.2. Interlanguage Pragmatics According to Kasper (1998), interlanguage pragmatics investigates the learners’ development and the use of pragmatic knowledge in second language (L2) context. In other words, it examines non- native speakers’ comprehension, production, and acquisition of linguistic action in L2, or put briefly, interlanguage pragmatics investigates how L2 learners develop the ability to understand and perform action in a target language (Kasper & Rose, 2002). 1.1.3. Pragmatic Transfer Kasper (1992: 207) defined pragmatic transfer as ―the influence exerted by learners’ pragmatic knowledge of languages and cultures other than L2 on their comprehension, production, and acquisition of L2 pragmatic information‖. Due to the inseparable relationship between language and culture, Kasper (1992) identified two types of pragmatic transfer: sociopragmatic transfer and pragmalinguistic transfer. 1.2. Speech acts Yule (1996:47) states that ―Action performed via utterances is generally called speech acts‖. That is because of the fact that people, in communicating, do not only produce utterances containing grammatical structures and words but also perform actions via those utterances. For example, when the teacher says to a student ―You should show me your homework ‖, he is performing the action of ordering the student to show him his homework. Another example is that in the saying ―Anh ăn sáng chưa ?”, the Vietnamese speaker does not really want to know whether the hearer has had breakfast or not. Instead, he is simply producing a greeting routine. In real life communication, such sorts of sentences have their uses quite independent from their lexical and grammatical forms. 1.2.1. Three-dimension speech acts According to Austin (1962), a speech act consists of three related acts: - The locutionary act occurs whenever speakers produce an utterance. - The illocutionary act is the function of the utterance that the speaker has in mind. - The Perlocutionary act occurs when speakers want a speech act to have an effect on what they utter. 1.2.2. Classification of speech acts Searle (1969) set up five types of speech acts, namely, Representatives, Commisives, Directives, Declaratives, Expressives. 1.2.3. Speech act of Apology Marquez-Reiter (2000: 44) stated that an apology is ―compensatory action for an offense committed by the speaker which has affected the hearer‖. Holmes (1990:156) gives the definition of an apology as a speech act addressed to remedy an offence for which the apologizer takes responsibility, and thus to restore equilibrium between the apologizer and the person offended. 1.2.4. Apology strategies Apology strategies are the methods used by individuals to perform the speech act of apology. There are a number of researchers who have developed systems for classifying apology strategies in various ways. 1.3. Previous Studies on Apology Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY 2.1. The research questions: 1) How do Vietnamese EFL Learners differ from EN Speakers in their use of apology strategies in the contexts studied? 2) How do VN Speakers differ from EN Speakers in their use of apology strategies in the contexts studied? 2.2. Research design 2.2.1. Informants In this study, data were collected from the three groups of informants. Their ages ranged from 20 to 30 and they were all university students. To ensure compatibility, informants coming from very rural backgrounds were excluded. In all groups, the number of males and females were evenly distributed. The first group (TL) included 30 English native (EN) Speakers. They were students at University of South Australia. To eliminate the speakers from other language backgrounds, in the questionnaire for native speaker informants, there was an extra item to find out if they spoke any other language(s) at home. The second group (IL) included 30 Vietnamese native (VN) speakers. They were studying at Thai Nguyen College of Education . Their English was much limited compared with that of Vietnamese learners. The third group (NL) included 30 Vietnamese EFL learners. They were doing English as their major at Thai Nguyen College of Education. They were in their third year and their level of English proficiency was intermediate or above. 2.2.2. Data collection instruments In this study, the data of the apology speech act made by EN Speakers, VN Speakers and Vietnamese EFL Learners were elicited through a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) since it was proved to bring some outstanding advantages over other methods such as ethnographic, role – play or multiple choice methods. According to Tam (1998), to overcome the reliability problems in the use of DCT, the study should be divided into two main phases: (1) The metapragmatic questionnaire (MPQ) was designed for validity and realiability test of internal and external factors; (2) The DCT was designed to elicit apology tokens from the three groups of informants. 2.2.2.1. Variables manipulated in data collection instruments This section discusses the variables manipulated in the questionnaires for data collection of the study. The three variables used in this study were based on Brown and Levinson’s (1987: 76) theory as follows: + The relative social distance (D) has the following values: (1) + D (unfamiliar) = Speaker and Hearer do not know or identity with each other. They are strangers interacting due to social/ life circumstances. (2) – D (familiar) = Speaker and Hearer know or identity with each other. They are quite familiar with each other. + The social power (P) has the following values: (1) +P (high power) = Speaker has a higher rank, title or social status than Hearer. (2) =P (equal power) = Speaker and Hearer are equal in rank, title or social status. (3) – P (low power) = Speaker has a lower/less rank, title or social status than Hearer. + The ranking of imposition (R) is related to the degree of severity of offense. In this study, R was kept constantly high under study. It means great severity of offense. As R was kept fairly high through situations but P and D varied systematically, there were constellations assumed to underline the situations: +P -D; +P +D; =P –D; =P +D; -P –D & -P +D. A bank of 18 real – life situations based on Brown and Levinson’s theory were designed to elicit the subjects’ assessment of the social variables in the contexts. Some situations were adapted from Van’s study (2000). Based on the analysis result of the MPQ, 6 situations found to be both valid and reliable would be used for data collection through the DCT. 2.2.2.2. The content of the questionnaire In order for the informants to be able to decide what/how to respond in a relevant way to a certain situation, clear instructions were given at the beginning of each questionnaire. Personal information about the subjects’ backgrounds such as age, gender, language was obtained by a first section of each questionnaire. The followings are the details of each questionnaire. 2.2.2.2.1. Metapragmatic questionnaire (MPQ) The MPQ aimed to test the validity and reliability of the 18 real – life situations in which variables’ constructs were reflected in previous section. Subjects rated their assessment of each variable on a three-point scale as in the sample item given below: METAPRRAGMATIC QUESTIONAIRE Instruction: Could you please read the following situations on the following pages and tick the answer in the appropriate box? Situation 11: You are a staff manager. You kept a student waiting for half an hour for a job interview because you were called to an unexpected meeting. Questions 1 2 3 How well acquainted are the Speaker and the Hearer? Not at all A little bit Very well How do you rate the social status of the Speaker with respect to the Hearer? Lower Equal Higher How do you rate the seriousness of the Hearer’s offense? Not serious Quite serious Serious 2.2.2.2.2. Open-ended Discourse Completion Task Questionnaire (DCT) The DCT was intended to elicit apologies from the informants. It comprised the six situations (selected from 18 situations in the MPQ) in accordance with the purpose of the research, reflecting the constructs of variables discussed in the previous part. Each situation was followed by a question: ―What would you say?‖ Following is a sample of the DCT. Instruction: Please read the six brief situations calling for an apology below. After each situation, please write down exactly what you might say in a normal conversation. Situation 11: You are a staff manager. You kept a student waiting for half an hour for a job interview because you were called to an unexpected meeting. What would you say to that student when you return? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2.2.3. Procedure As we discussed above, the purpose of the MPQ was to ensure that the questionnaire used to collect data on apology was valid and reliable. In order to achieve these goals, the MPQ was randomized. Then the English version was administered to the English informants and the Vietnamese version was completed by the native speakers of Vietnamese. No time limits were imposed on completing the questionnaire. The results of the MPQ by English subjects were used as the baseline for the selection of the reliable situations for the DCT. Meanwhile, the results by Vietnamese speakers were kept for comparing the choice of apology strategies in later analysis. Afterwards, from the situations in the MPQ, the ones which satisfied constellation of P, D and R-values as required by the research design were selected and rearranged, and the DCT was prepared and administered. To make it consistent, informants were still those who rated social factors in the MPQ. The data collected were then coded using the coding system in section 2.4 of this chapter. 2.3. Results of the MPQ Table 1. Mean ratings of social factors by English informants (n=30) and Vietnamese informants (n=30) Constellation Situations P D R -P; -D EN VN EN VN EN VN 1 1.1 1.03 2.1 2.03 2.33 2.17 6 1.03 1.03 2.43 2.37 2.87 2.53 -P; +D 3 1.7 1.67 1.73 1.77 2 1.87 9 1.77 1.63 1.57 1.63 2 2.17 14 1.07 1.83 1.03 1.13 2.63 2.37 =P; -D 8 2 2 2.67 2.63 2.73 2.57 10 2.03 1.97 2.03 2.03 1.93 1.73 12 2.03 2 2.73 2.77 2 2.03 18 2 1.97 2.83 2.77 1.93 1.57 =P; +D 7 2.03 2 1.07 1.03 1.43 1.3 13 2 2 1.03 1.1 2 2.03 16 2.03 1.97 1 1.03 2.87 2.83 +P; -D 2 2.87 2.93 2.93 3 2.37 2.23 5 2.9 2.93 2.07 2.03 2.07 1.63 17 2.53 2.6 2.87 2.83 1.93 1.6 +P; +D 4 2.7 2.7 1.07 1.13 1.63 1.37 11 2.87 2.93 1.07 1.13 2.33 1.97 15 2.73 2.77 1.07 1.1 1.83 1.57 After all the things were considered, the six reliable situations selected for the DCT were Situation 2 (Cinema), Situation 11 (Interview), Situation 8 (Camera), Situation 16 (Car), Situation 6 (Essay), Situation 14 (Food). 2.4. Coding system The model of apology strategies used to analyze the data of this study was the combination of strategies conducted by Olshtain and Cohen (1983), Trosborg (1995); Holmes (1990) and could be categorized as follows: (1) An expression of apology (2) An explanation or account (3) An acknowledgement of responsibilit (4) An offer of repair (5) Promise for forbearance (6) Concern for the hearer Chapter 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. Apologies by Vietnamese EFL Learners and English native speakers 3.1.1. In high power settings (+P) In the settings where the Speaker had greater power than the Addressee, EN Speakers differed greatly from Learners in the use of an expression of apology and an acknowledgement of responsibility strategy . It appeared that Power had different influences on the two groups in the formulation of apology. While EN speakers enjoying higher power chose to use an expression of apology in combination with an acknowledgement of responsibility, Learners preferred an explanation or account. This discrepancy seems to be related to the cultural differences in the perception of obligations and rights of the party involved. 3.1.2. In equal power settings (=P) In the settings where the Speakers had equal power as the Addressee, the results show that EN Speakers noticeably differed from Learners in the use of an explanation, an offer of repair or concern for the hearer strategy. These differences can result from the differences in the social norms between the two cultures. 3.1.3. In low power settings (-P) The results show that Learners employed more apology strategies than EN Speakers in the settings where the Speaker had less power than the Addressee. Furthermore, what they intended to communicate may be different due to the differences in the rate of Imposition and Power. In Sit.6 (Essay), Learners used more apologies than EN Speakers, except for the promise of forbearance strategy. In Sit.14 (Food), Learners and EN Speakers were significantly different in using an expression of apology, an acknowledgement of responsibility and an offer of repair strategy. 1.1.4. In familiar settings (-D) Results show that in the settings where the Speaker was familiar with the Addressee, Learners used an explanation or account and concern for the hearer strategy more often than EN Speakers did in the same situations. On the other hand, EN Speakers employed an expression of apology and responsibility strategy more often for the familiar high and equal power situations (cinema and camera situations) than Learners did and the frequency with which an acknowledgement of responsibility strategy was used by the two groups for Sit.2 (Cinema) was significantly different. It seemed that in Vietnam, people enjoying equal and higher power tended to avoid acknowledging the responsibility for the offense they made to the lower power familiar Addressee because they are afraid of losing face. However, in familiar low power situation (Sit.6-Essay), more Learners chose an expression of apology and an acknowledgement of responsibility strategy for the offense than EN Speakers and the frequency with which an expression of apology strategy was used was significantly different. 3.1.5. In unfamiliar settings (+D) In the settings where the Speaker was unfamiliar with the Addressee, the two groups of respondents differed in the choice of the more commonly used strategies. More EN Speakers employed an offer of repair for the three situations than Learners. Also, in the unfamiliar high and equal power settings, EN Speakers acknowledged responsibility more but gave explanation less than Learners and the trend was quite the reverse in the unfamiliar low power situation. It seemed that the social power [...]... VN Speakers often used ―Tôi sẽ đền cho anh. ‖ or Anh muốn tôi đền bao nhiêu?‖ Similarly, EFL learners frequently said ―I will compensate How much do you want for this damage.” 2 Implications for Teaching and Learning English in Vietnam The findings of this study showed that the different pragmatic rules between the two languages may pose difficulties for Vietnamese EFL Learners Therefore, pedagogical... of comparing the speech act production of apology made by native speakers of Vietnamese and English and Vietnamese EFL learners Besides, it is followed by some pedagogical implications and some suggestions for further studies 1 Major findings Results from a comprehensive analysis of apologies made by EN Speakers, Vietnamese EFLLearners, and VN Speakers in a variety of contexts revealed distinctions... Native Speakers of English and Vietnamese Learners of English, M.A thesis, La Trobe University, Australia 48 Tam, H.C (2005) Requests by Vietnamese Learners of English Unpublished Ph D Thesis, CFL, VNU, Hanoi 49 Thomas, J (1983) Cross-cultural pragmatic failure Applied Linguistics, 4, 91-112 50 Trang, N.T (2010), Apologizing strategies by American Speakers of English and Vietnamese Speakers of English Unpublished... Learners showed concern for the hearer for the familiar settings than EN Speakers This seems to be the result of negative transfer from Vietnamese socio-pragmatic because not only EFL Learners but also VN Speakers were found to use this strategy more than EN Speakers In Vietnamese context, the Speaker needs to show concern for the familiar Addressee in order to maintain the long-lasting relationship 3.3.2... Australia such kind of responsibility would be taken care of by the insurance company Moreover, Learners showed concern for the hearer for this situation significantly more than EN Speakers because Vietnamese people, in some cases, consider concern for the hearer as more important than an offer of repair Obviously, Learners in this situation transferred from their socio-pragmatic to the target language...and Imposition influenced on the use of apology strategies for the +D situations rather than the social distance in these situations 3.2 Apologies by English native Speakers and Vietnamese native Speakers 3.2.1 In high power settings (+P) Findings of apology strategy use by EN Speakers and VN Speakers in high power settings reflect a significant difference between the two groups of... negative pragmalinguistic transfer refers to the use of particular linguistic form-functions in their interlanguage which are influenced by their perception and production of formfunction mappings in Vietnamese but are different from English native speaker norms Results show that, when compared with negative sociopragmatic transfer, there is less negative pragmalinguistic transfer observed in EFL learners’... Sit.8) or ―I’ll take it to be fixed‖ (EN11, Sit.8), or ―I’ll get it repaired” (EN19, Sit.8) However, EFL learners were found to offer repair by using expressions which were directly translated from Vietnamese to English such as ―I’ll compensate you a new one‖ (L16, Sit.8) or ―I’ll repair it for you‖ (L11, Sit.8) Similarly, in situation 16 (car), most EN Speakers said that ――I’ll give you my insurance... Results of this study show some differences in the frequency of apology strategy use by EN Speakers, EFL Learners and VN Speakers These diferences may be due to EFL Learners’ negative transfer from Vietnamese apology patterns to English The following discusses the influences of pragmatic transfer on EFL learners’ interlanguage apologies in two perspectives—negative sociopragmatic transfer and negative... Vietnamese EFLLearners, and VN Speakers in a variety of contexts revealed distinctions in apology strategy use among the three groups Some of the distinctions may be due to negative transfer from Vietnamese patterns, such as VN Speakers and EFL Learners giving an explanation or account for Sit.16 (Car) or showing concern for the hearer for Sit.8 (Camera) significantly more than EN Speakers, while others . Lời xin lỗi của người Việt Nam học Tiếng Anh: Nghiên cứu dụng học liên ngôn ngữ Nguyễn Hương Lý Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ Luận văn ThS ngành: Ngôn ngữ Anh; Mã số: 60 22 15 Người. implications, limitations and suggestions for further research. Keywords: Tiếng Anh; Giao tiếp; Liên ngôn ngữ; Người Việt Nam Content Part I: INTRODUCTION 1. Identification of the problem. However, this kind of speech act is still under-researched in Vietnam. Van (2000), Phuong (2000) and Trang (2010) are some of Vietnamese researchers working on this topic up to now. However, their