bettyuyen96
New Member
Download Luận văn Expressing gratitude by native speakers of English and Vietnamese learners of English
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT
ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
LISTS OF TABLES, CHART AND GRAPHS
PART A: INTRODUCTION . . . .1
1. Rationale .1
2. Aims of the study . . . .3
3. Objectives of the study .3
4. Scope of the study .4
5. Organisation of the study .4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT .6
Chapter I: Literature review .6
1.1. Speech acts . . . .6
1.1.1. The notion of speech acts . . 6
1.1.2. Classifications of speech acts . . 8
1.1.3. Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices . .10
1.1.4. Felicity conditions . .11
1.1.5. Expressing gratitude as a speech act .12
1.2. Theories of politeness . 13
1.2.1. Brown &Levinsons theory of politeness . .13
1.2.2. Social factors affecting politeness in communication . .16
1.2.3. Indirectness and politeness . .17
1.3. Co-operative Principle .20
1.3.1. Non-observance of the maxims . . 22
1.3.1.1. Flouting a maxim . . . .22
1.3.1.2. Violating a maxim . . 23
1.3.1.3. Infringing a maxim . . .23
1.3.1.4. Opting out a maxim . .23
1.3.1.5. SUSPENDING A MAXIM . . . 24
1.4. Relevance theory . .24
Chapter II: Methodology . . 26
2.1. Research questions . .26
2.2. Research method . .26
2.2.1 Data collection method . . . 27
2.2.2. The method of the study . . .29
2.2.2.1 Data collection instruments. . . . . . .30
2.2.2.2.1. Variables manipulated in the data collection instruments . .30
2.2.2.2.2. The content of the questionnaires . .31
2.2.2.2. Selection of subjects . . 33
2.2.2.3. Procedures . . . 33
2.2.2.4. Results of the MPQ. . . . .34
2.3. Analytical framework . . . . .37
3.6.1. Eisenstein &Bodmans analytical framework . .37
3.6.2. Analytical framework of the study . . .39
Chapter III: Data analysis . .45
3.1. Choice of sub acts in higher power setting (+P) . . 46
3.1.1. Choice of sub acts in sit 1 . 46
3.1.2. Choice of sub acts in sit 2 . . 48
3.2. Choice of sub acts in equal power setting (=P) . .52
3.2.1. Choice of sub acts in sit 6 . . . . . . .52
3.2.2. Choice of sub acts in sit 9 . . .55
3,3, Choice of sub acts in lower power setting (-P) . . .57
3.3.1. Choice of sub acts in sit11 . . . 57
3.3.2. Choice of sub acts in sit 12 . . . 59
3.4. Choice of sub acts in the setting where the degree of gratitudeis low (-R) . 62
3.3. Choice of sub acts in the setting where the ranking of imposition is high (+R).64
3.4. Conclusion . .68
PART C: CONCLUSION . . 69
1. Major findings .69
1.1. Data collection instrument 69
1.2. Choice of sub acts in expressing gratitude .69
2. Implications for teaching and learning English in Vietnam 71
3. Suggestions for further research 73
APPENDIX A 74
APPENDIX B . . .81
REFERENCES . . .84
Để tải bản DOC Đầy Đủ xin Trả lời bài viết này, Mods sẽ gửi Link download cho bạn sớm nhất qua hòm tin nhắn.
Ai cần download tài liệu gì mà không tìm thấy ở đây, thì đăng yêu cầu down tại đây nhé:
Nhận download tài liệu miễn phí
2. (+P +R): Higher power, high degree of gratitude. A private secretary helped her director to prepare an important speech and a potential deal. She did the job well despite the short notice (sit 2, speech).
6. (=P +R): Equal power, high degree of gratitude. A person’s mother underwent an operation but he did not have enough money for the fee. So his friend lent him $6000 (sit 6. money).
9. A next-door neighbor gives you some books you want be cause it is far from your house to the library (sit 9, books).
11. (-P –R): Lower power, low degree of gratitude. A private secretary lost the phone number of a new employee. So, her boss gave her the number again (sit 11, phone number).
12. (-P –R): Lower power, high degree of gratitude. A student was doing his thesis but he could not find some books. His supervisors allowed him to use his supervisor’s library and explained to him what he did not understand. So he wrote an excellent thesis (sit 12, thesis).
Table 3 shows the 6 situations with mean ratings of social factor by English and Vietnamese subjects.
Table 3. Mean ratings of social factor by English and Vietnamese subjects (n= 45)
Situation
Mean score of P
Mean score of D
Mean score of R
English
Vietnamese
English
Vietnamese
English
Vietnamese
S1
2.80
2.84
2.78
2.89
1.20
1.04
S2
2.87
2.89
2.78
2.87
2.80
2.73
S6
1.91
1.95
2.88
2.98
2.87
2.82
S9
1.8
2
2.62
2.91
1.24
1.02
S11
1.07
1.02
1.78
2.93
1.22
1.27
S12
1.13
1.08
2.69
2.84
2.82
2.78
As can be seen the Vietnamese subjects tend to assess the degree of gratitude lower than English subjects. But Vietnamese subjects tend to consider the social distance higher than English subjects. As far as power is concerned, Vietnamese subjects have similar assessment to the English subjects.
2.3. Analytical framework
It is no easy job to provide an analytical framework for the ways to express gratitude since gratitude expressions are not formulaic as requests, apologies or invitations etc, which explains why so far there have been only few researches on expressing gratitude which lays a firm foundation for the analytical framework of this study. Perhaps, the two most influential researches on this act are those conducted by Eisenstein & Bodman (1986, 1993). Thus, it is a good idea to take a look at what these authors do to code their data.
2.3.1. Eisenstein & Bodman’s analytical framework
According to Eisenstein & Bodman, expressing gratitude is a complex act ranging from “simple, phatic utterances to lengthy communicative events”. And in expressing gratitude a set of speech acts is involved, and ‘members of each set interacted synergistically to express gratitude appropriately, especially in the situation that causes the recipient to feel unusually grateful or indebted to the giver” (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1993: 67). This is the reason why Eisenstein & Bodman do not base their coding on an available analytical framework or work out a framework of their own to code utterances on their data. Basically, their coding is based on the underlying speech act of each utterance. Thus, such utterances “Thank you for inviting me. I had a great time” is coded as “Thank + Expressing pleasure”. In addition to this, they use functional categories described in the literature (Van Ek, 1976, Searle, 1969) to do the coding. However, in some cases they have to create their own “tentative terminology where appropriate descriptor had not been previously identified” (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1993: 66). Consider the following utterances produced when the Speaker opened his friend’s gift:
Oh, how beautiful! How did you know? It’s just what I wanted.
Eisenstein & Bodman remark that “the italicized utterances were clearly not intended to express the function of Asking Information or Expressing Need”. Hence, they code them as “Expessing intimacy: Mind Reading”, an indirect complement acknowledging the accuracy of the giver’s understanding of the receiver’s unexpressed desires (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1993:66).
Eisenstein & Bodman also provide sample coding of their data. Taking a close look at their sample coding, we can realize that their coding of an utterance is firstly based on the presence of the performative verb in that utterance. The performative verb acts as a lexical trigger indicating explicitly the illocution of the utterance. For example, almost all utterances containing the word thank is coded as thanking. As a result, utterances like “thank you so much”, “thank you”, “Thanks a bunch” and “thanks for inviting me” are all coded as thanking. Likewise, all utterances containing the lexical trigger “appreciate” are coded as expressing appreciation. Thus, expressing appreciation may be “I really appreciate it” or “I really appreciate what you are doing”.
When it is impossible to find out the lexical trigger, their coding is then based on typical functions performed in utterances. Consider the following examples adapted from Eisenstein & Bodman (1993):
Situation A. To a friend who lent you $ 5
Thanks a bunch. You are a life saver (Thanking + Complimenting).
Situation B. To a friend who brings you a birthday present
Oh, you know me so well (Expressing surprise + Complimenting).
It’s lovely, but you don’t have to get me anything (Complimenting + Expressing lack of necessity).
Situation D. To a friend who offers to lend you $500 you suddenly need
I’ll return it to you as soon as I can (Promising to repay).
And in some cases, their coding is totally based on the speakers’ intention in context. Consider the following examples:
Situation G. To a relatively new friend whose party you have really enjoyed
You’ll have to come for dinner at my place when we get a chance.
I’d like you to come over my place next time.
I’d like to have you over. I’ll be in touch with you.
Obviously, the normal functions of the above utterances are not offering. However, they are all coded as offering reciprocity.
Considering Eisenstein & Bodman’s coding system, we can conclude that it appears appropriate, especially in the coding of such an act as expressing gratitude. One reason for this is that Eisenstein & Bodman, whenever possible, take advantage of the achievements of other researcher’s works and adapt them to their coding system. Another reason is that Eisenstein & Bodman base their creation of tentative terminology on the speaker’s meaning in context, on the typical functions of an utterance. In other words, they base their new terms on the illocution of utterances and thus make it abundantly clear the intention of the speaker.
However, Eisenstein & Bodman’s coding framework has some limitations. For example, the iliticized utterances of “How did you know? It’s just what I wanted” (produced after opening a friend’s gift) is coded as “Expressing Intimacy: Mind Reading”. In our opinion, it would be better for these utterances to be coded as “Complimenting” because the speaker in this case, as Eisenstein & Bodman (1993) remark, acknowledges the accuracy of the hearer’s understanding of the speaker’s unexpressed desires – an indirect complement. Similarly, such response as “I don’t know how to thank you” is coded as “Expressing relief + Thanking”, which does not seem appropriate. The reason is that the response should be treated as a single utterance, before and after which there is a pause on the part of the speaker, instead of two utterances. Therefore, we tentatively code it as “Expressing indebtedness” because the speaker acknowledges a debt to the hearer in expressing gratitude, and tries to pay the debt by means of language. But the speaker in this case admits that he cannot do that and hence indirectly admits that he is indebted to the hearer.
2.3.2. Analytical framework of the study
As stated above, it is no easy job to provide an analytical framework for this study. The main reason is that the social variables underlying the situations in this study are different from those in Eisenstein & Bodman’s researches. It should be added that the degree of gratitude is usually low (-R) in Eisenstein & Bodman’s research while the degree of gratitude is high in the three situations of this study. As a consequence, utterances collected from our data will be different from Eisenstein & Bodman’s data and thus they will require different terms to code them. Therefore, following Eisenstein & Bodman, we will use the functions identified by Searle (1969), Van Ek (1976) ...
Download miễn phí Luận văn Expressing gratitude by native speakers of English and Vietnamese learners of English
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT
ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
LISTS OF TABLES, CHART AND GRAPHS
PART A: INTRODUCTION . . . .1
1. Rationale .1
2. Aims of the study . . . .3
3. Objectives of the study .3
4. Scope of the study .4
5. Organisation of the study .4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT .6
Chapter I: Literature review .6
1.1. Speech acts . . . .6
1.1.1. The notion of speech acts . . 6
1.1.2. Classifications of speech acts . . 8
1.1.3. Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices . .10
1.1.4. Felicity conditions . .11
1.1.5. Expressing gratitude as a speech act .12
1.2. Theories of politeness . 13
1.2.1. Brown &Levinsons theory of politeness . .13
1.2.2. Social factors affecting politeness in communication . .16
1.2.3. Indirectness and politeness . .17
1.3. Co-operative Principle .20
1.3.1. Non-observance of the maxims . . 22
1.3.1.1. Flouting a maxim . . . .22
1.3.1.2. Violating a maxim . . 23
1.3.1.3. Infringing a maxim . . .23
1.3.1.4. Opting out a maxim . .23
1.3.1.5. SUSPENDING A MAXIM . . . 24
1.4. Relevance theory . .24
Chapter II: Methodology . . 26
2.1. Research questions . .26
2.2. Research method . .26
2.2.1 Data collection method . . . 27
2.2.2. The method of the study . . .29
2.2.2.1 Data collection instruments. . . . . . .30
2.2.2.2.1. Variables manipulated in the data collection instruments . .30
2.2.2.2.2. The content of the questionnaires . .31
2.2.2.2. Selection of subjects . . 33
2.2.2.3. Procedures . . . 33
2.2.2.4. Results of the MPQ. . . . .34
2.3. Analytical framework . . . . .37
3.6.1. Eisenstein &Bodmans analytical framework . .37
3.6.2. Analytical framework of the study . . .39
Chapter III: Data analysis . .45
3.1. Choice of sub acts in higher power setting (+P) . . 46
3.1.1. Choice of sub acts in sit 1 . 46
3.1.2. Choice of sub acts in sit 2 . . 48
3.2. Choice of sub acts in equal power setting (=P) . .52
3.2.1. Choice of sub acts in sit 6 . . . . . . .52
3.2.2. Choice of sub acts in sit 9 . . .55
3,3, Choice of sub acts in lower power setting (-P) . . .57
3.3.1. Choice of sub acts in sit11 . . . 57
3.3.2. Choice of sub acts in sit 12 . . . 59
3.4. Choice of sub acts in the setting where the degree of gratitudeis low (-R) . 62
3.3. Choice of sub acts in the setting where the ranking of imposition is high (+R).64
3.4. Conclusion . .68
PART C: CONCLUSION . . 69
1. Major findings .69
1.1. Data collection instrument 69
1.2. Choice of sub acts in expressing gratitude .69
2. Implications for teaching and learning English in Vietnam 71
3. Suggestions for further research 73
APPENDIX A 74
APPENDIX B . . .81
REFERENCES . . .84
Để tải bản DOC Đầy Đủ xin Trả lời bài viết này, Mods sẽ gửi Link download cho bạn sớm nhất qua hòm tin nhắn.
Ai cần download tài liệu gì mà không tìm thấy ở đây, thì đăng yêu cầu down tại đây nhé:
Nhận download tài liệu miễn phí
Tóm tắt nội dung:
w degree of gratitude. A senior lecturer had an appointment with a student on the student’s thesis but he was busy. He wrote his suggestions on a piece of paper and his assistant helped him to give it to the student when this student came to his office. (sit 1, lecturer).2. (+P +R): Higher power, high degree of gratitude. A private secretary helped her director to prepare an important speech and a potential deal. She did the job well despite the short notice (sit 2, speech).
6. (=P +R): Equal power, high degree of gratitude. A person’s mother underwent an operation but he did not have enough money for the fee. So his friend lent him $6000 (sit 6. money).
9. A next-door neighbor gives you some books you want be cause it is far from your house to the library (sit 9, books).
11. (-P –R): Lower power, low degree of gratitude. A private secretary lost the phone number of a new employee. So, her boss gave her the number again (sit 11, phone number).
12. (-P –R): Lower power, high degree of gratitude. A student was doing his thesis but he could not find some books. His supervisors allowed him to use his supervisor’s library and explained to him what he did not understand. So he wrote an excellent thesis (sit 12, thesis).
Table 3 shows the 6 situations with mean ratings of social factor by English and Vietnamese subjects.
Table 3. Mean ratings of social factor by English and Vietnamese subjects (n= 45)
Situation
Mean score of P
Mean score of D
Mean score of R
English
Vietnamese
English
Vietnamese
English
Vietnamese
S1
2.80
2.84
2.78
2.89
1.20
1.04
S2
2.87
2.89
2.78
2.87
2.80
2.73
S6
1.91
1.95
2.88
2.98
2.87
2.82
S9
1.8
2
2.62
2.91
1.24
1.02
S11
1.07
1.02
1.78
2.93
1.22
1.27
S12
1.13
1.08
2.69
2.84
2.82
2.78
As can be seen the Vietnamese subjects tend to assess the degree of gratitude lower than English subjects. But Vietnamese subjects tend to consider the social distance higher than English subjects. As far as power is concerned, Vietnamese subjects have similar assessment to the English subjects.
2.3. Analytical framework
It is no easy job to provide an analytical framework for the ways to express gratitude since gratitude expressions are not formulaic as requests, apologies or invitations etc, which explains why so far there have been only few researches on expressing gratitude which lays a firm foundation for the analytical framework of this study. Perhaps, the two most influential researches on this act are those conducted by Eisenstein & Bodman (1986, 1993). Thus, it is a good idea to take a look at what these authors do to code their data.
2.3.1. Eisenstein & Bodman’s analytical framework
According to Eisenstein & Bodman, expressing gratitude is a complex act ranging from “simple, phatic utterances to lengthy communicative events”. And in expressing gratitude a set of speech acts is involved, and ‘members of each set interacted synergistically to express gratitude appropriately, especially in the situation that causes the recipient to feel unusually grateful or indebted to the giver” (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1993: 67). This is the reason why Eisenstein & Bodman do not base their coding on an available analytical framework or work out a framework of their own to code utterances on their data. Basically, their coding is based on the underlying speech act of each utterance. Thus, such utterances “Thank you for inviting me. I had a great time” is coded as “Thank + Expressing pleasure”. In addition to this, they use functional categories described in the literature (Van Ek, 1976, Searle, 1969) to do the coding. However, in some cases they have to create their own “tentative terminology where appropriate descriptor had not been previously identified” (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1993: 66). Consider the following utterances produced when the Speaker opened his friend’s gift:
Oh, how beautiful! How did you know? It’s just what I wanted.
Eisenstein & Bodman remark that “the italicized utterances were clearly not intended to express the function of Asking Information or Expressing Need”. Hence, they code them as “Expessing intimacy: Mind Reading”, an indirect complement acknowledging the accuracy of the giver’s understanding of the receiver’s unexpressed desires (Eisenstein & Bodman, 1993:66).
Eisenstein & Bodman also provide sample coding of their data. Taking a close look at their sample coding, we can realize that their coding of an utterance is firstly based on the presence of the performative verb in that utterance. The performative verb acts as a lexical trigger indicating explicitly the illocution of the utterance. For example, almost all utterances containing the word thank is coded as thanking. As a result, utterances like “thank you so much”, “thank you”, “Thanks a bunch” and “thanks for inviting me” are all coded as thanking. Likewise, all utterances containing the lexical trigger “appreciate” are coded as expressing appreciation. Thus, expressing appreciation may be “I really appreciate it” or “I really appreciate what you are doing”.
When it is impossible to find out the lexical trigger, their coding is then based on typical functions performed in utterances. Consider the following examples adapted from Eisenstein & Bodman (1993):
Situation A. To a friend who lent you $ 5
Thanks a bunch. You are a life saver (Thanking + Complimenting).
Situation B. To a friend who brings you a birthday present
Oh, you know me so well (Expressing surprise + Complimenting).
It’s lovely, but you don’t have to get me anything (Complimenting + Expressing lack of necessity).
Situation D. To a friend who offers to lend you $500 you suddenly need
I’ll return it to you as soon as I can (Promising to repay).
And in some cases, their coding is totally based on the speakers’ intention in context. Consider the following examples:
Situation G. To a relatively new friend whose party you have really enjoyed
You’ll have to come for dinner at my place when we get a chance.
I’d like you to come over my place next time.
I’d like to have you over. I’ll be in touch with you.
Obviously, the normal functions of the above utterances are not offering. However, they are all coded as offering reciprocity.
Considering Eisenstein & Bodman’s coding system, we can conclude that it appears appropriate, especially in the coding of such an act as expressing gratitude. One reason for this is that Eisenstein & Bodman, whenever possible, take advantage of the achievements of other researcher’s works and adapt them to their coding system. Another reason is that Eisenstein & Bodman base their creation of tentative terminology on the speaker’s meaning in context, on the typical functions of an utterance. In other words, they base their new terms on the illocution of utterances and thus make it abundantly clear the intention of the speaker.
However, Eisenstein & Bodman’s coding framework has some limitations. For example, the iliticized utterances of “How did you know? It’s just what I wanted” (produced after opening a friend’s gift) is coded as “Expressing Intimacy: Mind Reading”. In our opinion, it would be better for these utterances to be coded as “Complimenting” because the speaker in this case, as Eisenstein & Bodman (1993) remark, acknowledges the accuracy of the hearer’s understanding of the speaker’s unexpressed desires – an indirect complement. Similarly, such response as “I don’t know how to thank you” is coded as “Expressing relief + Thanking”, which does not seem appropriate. The reason is that the response should be treated as a single utterance, before and after which there is a pause on the part of the speaker, instead of two utterances. Therefore, we tentatively code it as “Expressing indebtedness” because the speaker acknowledges a debt to the hearer in expressing gratitude, and tries to pay the debt by means of language. But the speaker in this case admits that he cannot do that and hence indirectly admits that he is indebted to the hearer.
2.3.2. Analytical framework of the study
As stated above, it is no easy job to provide an analytical framework for this study. The main reason is that the social variables underlying the situations in this study are different from those in Eisenstein & Bodman’s researches. It should be added that the degree of gratitude is usually low (-R) in Eisenstein & Bodman’s research while the degree of gratitude is high in the three situations of this study. As a consequence, utterances collected from our data will be different from Eisenstein & Bodman’s data and thus they will require different terms to code them. Therefore, following Eisenstein & Bodman, we will use the functions identified by Searle (1969), Van Ek (1976) ...