Apologizing strategies by american speakers of english and vietnamese speakers of English Nguyễn Thùy Trang Trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ Luận văn ThS. Chuyên ngành: English Linguistics; Mã Số: 60 22 15 Người hướng dẫn: Phan Thị Vân Quyên, M.A Năm bảo vệ: 2010 Abstract: The study “Apologizing strategies by American speakers of English and Vietnamese speakers of English” is a cross-cultural pragmatics one concerning the production of apology with reference to strategy preferences done via a written DCT and analyzed for sociocultural features. Seventy-six informants equally falling into two main groups, American speakers of English and Vietnamese speakers of English, were invited to participate in the survey from which the apologizing verbal expressions towards different communicating partners in four studied situations would be elicited. The exhaustive framework of apology strategies proposed by Cohen and Olshtain (1989) and Trosborg (1995) were the foundation for this study whose findings have revealed noticeable coincidences. Firstly, Vietnamese speakers of English and American speakers of English both employed a same high level of using the strategy Explicit expression of apology combining with Acknowledgment of responsibility and Explanation for the violation when apologizing. It was however interesting that while the American subjects mainly chose the strategy Offer of repair to apologize, the Vietnamese ones preferred to show Concern for the hearer sharpening the images of the cultural traits of a sentimental Vietnamese culture and a rational American culture. The Vietnamese’s apology realizations from this study moreover reflect the more power and distance-sensitivity towards the selection of apologizing strategies than the American groups, which has cemented the theories of Brown and Levinson (1983), Trosborg (1989) and many other previous studies on the influential factors of the speech act realization. The accomplishment of the thesis is hoped to serve as a useful source of reference for researchers in related fields, Vietnamese teachers and learners of English as well as those with regular Vietnamese – American cross-cultural contacts. Important findings have also cemented the inevitability of incorporating culture into the teaching of English so that Vietnamese learners of English will be provided with both linguistic and cultural input Keywords: Tiếng Anh; Giao tiếp; Người Mĩ; Người Việt. Content: iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF PROJECT REPORT i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS vi LIST OF TABLES vii PART A: INTRODUCTION 1. Problem statement and background 2. Aims of the study 3. Scope of the study 4. Methods of the study 5. The organization of the study PART B: DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1. Cross-cultural communication 1.1.1. Cross-cultural communication 1.1.2. Potential problems in Vietnamese-American cross-cultural communication 1.2. Speech acts theories 1.2.1. Speech acts 1.2.2. Three – dimension speech act 1.2.3. Classification of speech act 1.2.4. Apologizing as a speech act 1.3. Politeness 1.3.1. Politeness theories 1.3.2. Politeness in apologizing 1.4. Situations which elicit apologies in American culture and Vietnamese culture 1.5. Apologizing strategies 1.6. Previous studies on apologizing Chapter 2: METHODOLOGY 2.1. Research methods 2.2. Data collection instruments 2.3. The questionnaire v 2.3.1. Factors manipulated in the DCT 2.3.2. The DCT 2.2. The subjects 2.3. Data collection procedure Chapter 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. Overview of the apologizing strategies used by two groups of subjects 3.2. Choices of apologizing strategies by situations 3.2.1. Choices of strategies by Vietnamese speakers of English 3.2.2. Choices of strategies by American speakers of English 3.2.3. A comparison of the strategies preferences by two groups of subjects 3.3. Preferences of apologizing strategies as seen from communicating partner’s parameters 3.3.1. Vietnamese’s apologizing strategies as seen from communicating partner’s parameters 3.3.2. American’s apologizing strategies as seen from communicating partner’s parameters 3.3.3. A comparison of Vietnamese and American informants’ apologizing strategies as seen from communicating partner’s parameters PART C: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 1. Conclusion 2. Implications for cross-cultural communication and TEFL in Vietnam 3. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further study BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES Appendix A: Discourse Completion Task (for American informants) (DCT) Appendix B: Discourse Completion Task (for Vietnamese informants) (DCT) Appendix C: The coding system Appendix D: Sample Coding Scheme of a DCT 1 PART A: INTRODUCTION 1. Problem statement and background of the study Thanks to the advent of today’s global economic system and the open policies, Vietnamese are enjoying more chances to come into contact and cooperate with more foreigners many among whom are from English-speaking countries. Contacts in reality for the past few years, however, have made an arising problem apparent that while Vietnamese speakers can be very high-linguistic-competent, many of them still fail to maintain successful conversations with people from other cultures. Probably it is because “Communication across cultures is, by definition, problematic, for cultures are systems of symbolic meanings shared by one group yet foreign to another” (Geertz, 1973, Trice & Beyer, 1992). The differences in sociolinguistic rules across cultures cause some difficulty for learners of foreign language and then lead to miscommunication. Recognizing the problem, a number of studies concerning cross-cultural communication have been conducted. And apologizing as a universal and one of the main communicative acts and among the most “sensitive” areas of politeness in human interactions is then chosen for the research. As apologizing is a social act, and human societies vary greatly in their social organization, we should expect variation in why, when, and how this social act is carried out. In spite of being among the most-interested topics in the world, the speech act of apologizing is still an under-researched one in Vietnam, especially in term of an interlanguage approach within cross-cultural studies. Dang Thanh Phuong (2000) and Kieu Thi Hong Van (2000) are the two Vietnamese authors working on this topic up to now though their studies solely follow the traditional method of contrasting pragmatics between Vietnamese language and English. 2. Aims of the study To investigate primarily the apologies of Vietnamese speakers of English and American speakers of English from which the cultural similarities and differences in the choice of apologizing strategies of the two groups will be figured out, three research questions to be addressed are: 1. How do American speakers of English verbally apologize? 2. How do Vietnamese speakers of English verbally apologize in English? 3. What are the similarities and differences between the apologizing strategies employed by Vietnamese speakers of English and American speakers of English? 3. Scope of the study The thesis focuses on the intralinguistic factors of apology which means the verbal expressions of apology employed by VSE and ASE. At the same time, only the situations where both the hearer (H) and speaker (S) know the offence will be used. In addition, the languages will be English, which is used as a foreign language in Vietnam and a native language in the US. 2 PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1. Cross cultural communication 1.1.1. Cross-cultural communication “Cross-cultural communication is communication between people from different cultures, communication is influenced by cultural values, attitudes, and behavior, the influence of culture on people’s reactions and responses to each other” (Levine & Adelman, 1993, p.xviii) 1.1.2. Potential problems in Vietnamese-American cross-cultural communication In the words of Hofstede (1980), the Vietnamese culture can be described as high power distance, high collectivism, moderate uncertainty avoidance, and high context (Quang, 1997; Gorlanes & Brilhart, 1997, Smith, Esmond & Pham, 1996). The characteristics of communication in Vietnam are therefore considered to be indirect, ambiguous, harmony-oriented and reserved (Gudykunst et al., 1996). In addition, the Vietnamese are said to attach more importance to sentiment than to reason (Mac Giao, 2002). They consequently treat one another basing on affection and gratitude, which leads to their tolerance of people having made mistakes. Another traditional Vietnamese value is their allegiance to the family. It can be realized in reality when misconduct of an individual is blamed not only on himself, but also on his parents, siblings, relatives, and ancestors. American culture, on the other hand, belongs to the "low-context" group (Hall, 1976). The Americans tend to be more individualistic and be a moderately low power distance culture when people believe in minimizing status differences between individuals and sharing power (Stella, 1992). The American culture is, additionally, regarded as a rational one. In his works, Wanning, (1999, p.116) said “We are a most litigious people, and we prefer to believe that there is always a responsible party for every event in life” (in Lustig & Koester, 2010). Apparently, this is a law-governed culture within which social behaviors are mostly practiced through legal ethics. (Nguyen Quang, 2000). 1.2. Speech act theories 1.2.1. Speech acts According to Yule (1996, p.47), speech act are, generally, the actions produced via utterances to communicate. These speech acts, considered the basic or minimal units of linguistic communication, are performed in authentic situations of language use (Searle 1969, p.16). Speech acts reflect the fundamental cultural values and social norms of a target language and demonstrate the rules of language use in a speech community. 1.2.2. Three-dimension speech acts 3 A speech act consists of three related acts, (i) Locutionary act -The action performed by uttering a well-formed, meaningful sentence, (ii) Illocutionary act -The communication force which accompanies the utterance, e.g. promising, warning, conceding, and so on; and (iii) Perlocutionary act -The effect of the utterance on the H who may feel amused, persuaded, warned. Of the three dimensions, the illocutionary act puts the communicative force into the utterance (Austin, 1962) 1.2.3.Classification of speech acts The original classification initiated by Austin including five basic categories of verdictive, expositive, exercitive, behavitive and comissive was developed into an alternative taxonomy of the fundamental classes of illocutionary act by Searl (1976). The taxonomy consists of five types of general functions performed by speech act (i) Declaration - declaring, christening, (ii) Representatives - asserting, disagreeing, (iii) Expressive - thanking, apologizing, (iv) Directives - ordering, requesting and (v) Comissives - promising, offering. Yule (1996, p.55) summarizes the five general functions of speech acts with their key features Speech act type Direction of fit S = Speaker, X = Situation Declarations Words change the world S causes X Representatives Make words fit the world S believe X Expressives Make words fit the world S feels X Directives Make the world fit words S wants X Comissives Make the world fit words S intends X Table 1: The five general functions of speech act (Yule, 1996, p.55) 1.2.4. Apologizing as a speech act: An apology is basically a speech act which is intended to provide support for the H who was actually or potentially malaffected by a violation X. In the decision to carry out the verbal apology, the S is willing to humiliate him/herself to some extent and to admit to fault and responsibility for X. Hence, the act of apologizing is face-saving act (henceforth FSA) for H and face-threatening act (henceforth FTA) for the S (Brown &Levinson, 1978). Similar to other speech acts, apologies constitute a broad spectrum of behaviors used to satisfy a variety of communicative purposes. According to Goffman (1971, cited in Kasper, 1993), apologies can be divided into two types, namely (i) Ritual apologies - Those redressing virtual offenses, which are remedial by the sole offering of an apologetic formula, and (ii) Substantive apologies - Those redressing actual damage inflicted on the addressee, sometimes including an offer of material compensation. 1.3. Politeness 1.3.1 Politeness theories 4 Lakoff holds that “Politeness is a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange.” Blum- Kulka (1987, p.131) whereas defines politeness as the interactional balance achieved between two needs: The need for pragmatic clarity and the need to avoid coerciveness. Among the variety of proposed politeness concepts, the 'face-saving view' of politeness by Brown and Levinson (1987), has been the most influential to date. Their face theory contains three basic notions: face, face threatening acts (FTA) and politeness strategies (p.66). 1.3.2. Politeness in apologizing Competent facework, which lessens the potential for specific actions to be regarded as face- threatening, encompasses a wide variety of communication behaviors. These behaviors may include apologies, excessive politeness, the narration of justification or excuses, displays of deference and submission, the use of intermediaries or other avoidance strategies. The major patterns or strategies that make up the apology speech act are available to speakers across languages, yet preference for any one of them or for a combination of them will depend on the specific situation within the given language and culture group. 1.4. Situations which elicit apologies in American culture and Vietnamese culture The study “Problems in the comparison of speech acts across cultures” by Woflson, Marmor and Jones (1989, pp.175-195) examined the actual conditions which elicited apologies in everyday interactions in American English. They concern the obligation to keep a social or work-related commitment, to respect the property of others, not to cause damage or discomfort to others and some other more subtle obligations. Overall, Americans typically apologize for wrongdoing of only themselves and a few others such as spouse, young children, and pets (Sugimoto, 1998). Studies on apologies in Vietnamese languages done by Van (2000) and Phuong (2000) showed some situations rated as highly offending. They are plagiarism, failure to finish task on time, damage to others’ properties, and so on. 1.5. Apologizing strategies According to Olshtain and Cohen (1983), the five strategies which make up the speech act set of apology (Olshtain& Cohen, 1983) consist of the first two which are general and the three later which are situation specific: (1) Expression of apology, (2) Acknowledgment of responsibility, (3) Explanation or account of the violation, (4) Offer of the repair, and (5) Promise of forbearance. This framework has been used in many studies up to now, among which the CCRASP is the best-known. Trosborg (1995) with her study on request and apologies across cultures set up a list of apologizing strategies with quite the same basic strategies but some substrategies have been added basing on data 5 collected from her research. , Strategy 0: Opt-out: Complainee does not take on responsibility, Strategy 1: Minimization, Strategy 2: Acknowledgment of responsibility, Strategy 3: Explanation or Account, Strategy 4: Apologize, Strategy 5: Offer of repair, Strategy 6: Promise of forbearance, Strategy 7: Express the concern for the hearer 1.6. Previous studies on apologizing There have been a number of empirical studies on interlanguage communication to examine the production of apology speech act by learners, mostly of English as a foreign language, at different proficiency levels from various language backgrounds (Cohen et al, 1986; García (1989), Trosborg, 1986, 1995; Bergman & Kasper, 1993, Maeshiba et al, 1996; Rose, 2000). Their studies show that the rules of speaking of a person’s first language come into play in their use of a second language, and that although learners have access to the same range of speech act realization strategies as native speakers, irrespective of proficiency levels, they differ from native speakers in the way they implement strategies linguistically. The research “Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and Apologies” which projects a cross-cultural speech act realization in seven different territories by Blum-Kulka is probably the most- well known up to now. Most of the limited pragmatics research in Vietnamese is in the tradition of contrastive pragmatics, which contrast the realization patterns of speech acts such as greeting (Suu, 1990), compliment and compliment response (Quang, 1998), request and request response (Thanh, 2000; Quyen, 2001), and disagreeing (Huong, 2001) in Vietnamese with those of other languages, particularly English. Apology studies in Vietnamese also follow descriptive and contrastive pragmatics tradition. To date there are two studies on the speech act of apologizing by Dang Thanh Phuong (2000) and Kieu Thi Hong Van (2000). Phuong (2000) compares and contrasts the English and Vietnamese apologies and responses. His study shows that English and Vietnamese differ in terms of directness and indirectness levels in the given contexts, and that the English use more lexico-modal markers than Vietnamese. Meanwhile the Vietnamese employ more politeness markers in their apologies and responses. Quite different, in her research, Van (2000) examines the realization patterns of apology in English and Vietnamese with respect to strategies, remedial support and internal modification in relation to the variation of context-external factors and context-internal factor. Data from the study reflect the significant effect of the age of the H with respect to the S on Vietnamese patterns of apologies whereas it cannot be found in the English group. Also Vietnamese speakers took P and D into consideration more than English speakers in the acts of apologizing. 24 REFERENCES Austin J. L. (1962), How to Do Things with Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Bardovi-Harlig, K. & Hartford, B. S. (1991). Saying "no" in English: Native and nonnative rejections. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning. Vol 2 (pp. 41-57). Urbana, IL. Retrieved July 2nd 2010 from www.carla.umn.edu/ speechacts/refusals/structure.html Beebe, L., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. M. (1990), Pragmatic Transfer in the ESL Refusals, Newbury House, New York. Retrieved July 2 nd 2010 from www.carla.umn.edu/ speechacts/refusals/structure.html Bergman, M. & Kasper, G. (1993), ‘Perception and performance in native and nonnative apology’. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds), Interlanguage Pragmatics, OUP, Oxford. Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M. (1996), Investigating the structure of discourse completion tests, Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, University of Philadelphia, Philadelphia. Billmyer, K., & Varghese, M. (2000), Investigating instrument-based pragmatic variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics, 21(4), pp. 517-552. Blum-Kulka, S. (1989), Playing It Safe: The Role of Conventionality in Indirectness. In S. Blum-Kulla, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, pp. 37-70, Ablex Publishing, Norwood. 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. Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B., & Gerson, R. (1985), The language of requesting in Israeli society. In J. Forgas (Ed), Language and social situation, pp. 113-114. Springer Verlag, New York. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. & Kasper, G. (Eds) (1989), Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, pp. 1-34, Ablex Publishing, Norwood. Borton, L. (2000), Working in a Vietnamese voice, Academy of Management Executive, 14(4), pp.20-29. Brown, G. & Yule, G. (1989), Discourse analysis, CUP, Cambridge. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1987), Politeness, CUP, Cambridge. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978), Universals of language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. Olshtain (1989). Apologies across languages. Cenoz, J. & Valencia, J. (1994), Interlanguage pragmatics: The role of linguistic and social psychological elements in the production of English requests and apologies, Vitoria-Gasteiz, University of the Basque Country, Spain Clyne, M. (1994), Intercultural communication at work, CUP, Cambridge Cohen, A. D. & Olshtain, E. (1993), The production of speech acts by EFL learners, TESOL Quarterly, 27, pp. 33-56. Cohen, A. D., Olshtain, E., & Rosenstein, D. S. (1986), Advanced EFL apologies: What remains to be learned? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 62 (6), pp. 51-74. Retrieved May 15 th 2010 from http://www.carla.umn.edu/speechacts/apologies Coulmas, F. (1981), “Poison to your soul” Thanks and apologies contrastively viewed. In F.Coulmas (Eds), Conversational routine, pp. 69-91, The Hague, Mouton. Damen, L. (1987). Cultural learning: The fifth dimension in the language classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 25 Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J.W. (1986), I very appreciate”: Expressions of gratitude by native and nonnative speakers of American English, Applied Linguistics 7 (2), pp. 167–185. Eisenstein, M. & Bodman, J.W. (1993), Expressing gratitude in American English. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (Eds), Interlanguage Pragmatics, OUP, Oxford. Ellis, R. (1994), The studies of second language acquisition. In A.S. Byon (2005), Apologizing in Korean: Cross- cultural Analysis in Classroom Settings, Korean Studies, Vol.29, pp.137-166. Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1976), Is Sybil there: Some American English directives. Language in Society, 5, pp.25-66 Færch, C. & Kasper, G. (1989), Internal and external modification in interlanguage request realization. In S. Blum- Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics (pp. 221-247), Ablex Publishing, Norwood Fraser, B. (1990), Perspective of politeness, Journal of pragmatics 14, pp. 219-236. Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981), The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 27, pp. 93-109. Gamble, T.W. & Gamble, M. (2004), Communication works (5 th Ed.), The McGraw-Hill, INC. Garcia, C. (1989), Apologizing in English: Politeness strategies used by native speakers and non-native speakers, Multilingua 11, pp.387-406. Geertz, C. (1973), The interpretation of cultures. In W.B. Gudykunst & S. Ting-Toomey (1988), Culture and interpersonal communication, pp. 27 -30, Sage, The U.S. Gorlanes, G.J. and Brilhart, J.K. (1997), Communication in group (3 rd Ed.), The McGraw-Hill, INC. Grice, H. P. (1975), Logic and conversation. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Eds), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, pp. 41–58, Academic Press, New York. Hall, E. (1959), The silent language, Doubleday, New York. Hall, E. (1976), Beyond culture, Doubleday, New York. Hinkel, E. (1997), Appropriateness of advice: DCT and Multiple Choice Data. Applied Linguistics, 18 (1), pp.1-26 Hoa, N.T.M. (2007), Developing EFL learners’ intercultural communicative competence: A gap to be filled? Retrieved July 2 nd 2010 from http://www.asian-efl-journal.com Hofstede, G. (1980), Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related value, Sage, CA. Hua Xang (2007), A contrastive study into apology strategies: Native British, Chinese graduates students and Chinese EFL students, Ph.D Dissertation, Open University, UK. Huong, K.T.T (2006), Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese: A pragmatics and conversation analysis perspective, Ph.D. Dissertation, CFL, VNU, Hanoi. Hussein, R. F & Hammouri, M. T. (1998). Strategies of apology in Jordanian Arabic and American English. Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan. Retrieved July 14 2010 from http://www.uni- graz.at/ling2www_gls49_hussein.pdf Kasper, G. (1996), Politeness, Handbook of Pragmatics, Verschueren, Amsterdam. Kasper, G., & Rose, K. (2002), Pragmatic development in a second language, Blackwell, MA. [...]... A cross-cultural study of greeting and address terms in English and Vietnamese Unpublished MA Thesis Linguistics, University of Canberra, Australia Tam, H.C (1998), Requests by Australian native speakers of English and Vietnamese learners of English Unpublished M.A Thesis, La Trobe University, Australia Thanh, D.T.M (2000), Some English- Vietnamese cross-cultural differences in requesting Unpublished... Weinbbach, L (1987), Complaints: A study of speech act behavior among native and non-native speakers of Hebrew In E Olshtain (1989), Apologies across languages Owen,M (1983), Apologies and Remedial Exchanges: A study of Language Use in Social interaction, NY Phuong, D.T (2000), A cross-cultural study of apologizing and responding to apologies in Vietnamese and English Unpublished M.A Thesis, CFL, VNU,... Vietnamese Speech, Mahidol University, Thailand Stella T (1992), Cross-Cultural Face-Negotiation: An Analytical Overview, Simon Fraser University Sugimoto, N (1998), Norms of apology depicted in U.S American and Japanese literature on manners and etiquette, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22 (3), pp 251-276 Suu, N.P (1990), A cross-cultural study of greeting and address terms in English. .. Reiter, R (2000), Linguistic politeness in Britain and Uruguay: A contrastive study of requests and apologies, Pragmatics and Beyond, New Series 83, Amsterdam Martinez-Flor, A & Uso-Juan, E (2010), Speech act performance: Theoretical, empirical and methodological issues, John Benjamin Publishing Company, The Netherland Multilingua, Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, Vol.8, Iss.1,... Apologies in English and Vietnamese Unpublished M.A Thesis, CFL, VNU, Hanoi Vollmer, J.H & Olshtain, E (1989), The language of apologies in German In S Blum-Kulka, J House & G Kasper (Eds) (1989), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies, pp 174-196 Ablex Publishing, Norwood Wagner, L C (2004), Positive and Negative Politeness Strategies: Apologizing in the Speech Community of Cuernavaca, Mexico,... Studies 13, pp 19-27, University of Louisville, Mexico Watts, Richard J (2003), Politeness, CUP, Cambridge Werkhofer, K (1992), Traditional and modern views: the social constitution and the power of politeness In R Wats, S Ide, & K Elich (Eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in History, Theory and Practice, pp.155-199 Wolfson, N (1989), Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL, Newbury House., Rowley,... Linguistics 8, pp.33-53 Linton, R (1945), The Cultural Background of Personality, New York Lustig, M.W., & Koester, J (2006), Intercultural competence (6th ed.), Allyn & Bacon, Pearson, The US Lyhu, I (1992), The art of refusal: Comparison of Korean and American culture, Ph.D Dissertation, Indiana University Mac Giao (2002), A new approach to Vietnamese culture Retrieved July 02, 2010, from http://www.dunglac.net/macgiao/vh-06-ketthumuc.htm... cultures of work organizations, New York, Prentice-Hall Trosborg, A (1987), Apology strategies in natives/non-native Pragmatics v11, pp 147-167 Trosborg, A (1995), The communicative act of apologizing In A Trosborg, Interlanguage pragmatics: Requests, Complaints, Apologies, pp 373 – 433, Mouton De Gruyter, New York Useem, J., & Useem, R (1963), Human Organizations Van, K.T.H (2000), Apologies in English and. .. Yoshinaga, N., & Ross, S (1996), Transfer and proficiency in interlanguage apologizing In S M Gass & J Neu (Eds), Speech act across cultures challenges to communication in a second language, pp.155-187, Mouton Du Gruyter, New York Labov, W & Fanshel, D (1977), Therapeutic discourse, Academic Press, New York Lakoff, R (1977), What you can do with words: Politeness, Pragmatics, and Performative Lederach, J.P (1995)... Leech, G.N.(1983), Principles of pragmatics In E Olshtain(1989), Apologies across languages Levine, R.L & Adelman, M.B (1993), Beyond language (2nd ed.), Prentice Hall, INC Levinson, S (1983), Pragmatics, CUP, Cambridge Linnell, J., Porter, F L., Stone, H., & Chen, W (1992), Can you apologize me? An investigation of speech act performance among non-native speakers of English Working Papers in Educational . Vietnamese speakers of English 3.2.2. Choices of strategies by American speakers of English 3.2.3. A comparison of the strategies preferences by two groups of subjects 3.3. Preferences of apologizing. method of contrasting pragmatics between Vietnamese language and English. 2. Aims of the study To investigate primarily the apologies of Vietnamese speakers of English and American speakers of English. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 3.1. Overview of the apologizing strategies used by two groups of subjects 3.2. Choices of apologizing strategies by situations 3.2.1. Choices of strategies by Vietnamese