Luận văn Expressing gratitude by native speakers of English and Vietnamese learners of English

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSTABLE OF CONTENT ABSTRACTABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONSLISTS OF TABLES, CHART AND GRAPHSPART A: INTRODUCTION . . . .11. Rationale .12. Aims of the study . . . .33. Objectives of the study .34. Scope of the study .45. Organisation of the study .4PART B: DEVELOPMENT .6Chapter I: Literature review .61.1. Speech acts . . . .61.1.1. The notion of speech acts . . 61.1.2. Classifications of speech acts . . 81.1.3. Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices . .101.1.4. Felicity conditions . .111.1.5. Expressing gratitude as a speech act .121.2. Theories of politeness . 131.2.1. Brown &Levinsons theory of politeness . .131.2.2. Social factors affecting politeness in communication . .161.2.3. Indirectness and politeness . .171.3. Co-operative Principle .201.3.1. Non-observance of the maxims . . 221.3.1.1. Flouting a maxim . . . .221.3.1.2. Violating a maxim . . 231.3.1.3. Infringing a maxim . . .231.3.1.4. Opting out a maxim . .231.3.1.5. SUSPENDING A MAXIM . . . 241.4. Relevance theory . .24Chapter II: Methodology . . 262.1. Research questions . .262.2. Research method . .262.2.1 Data collection method . . . 272.2.2. The method of the study . . .29 2.2.2.1 Data collection instruments. . . . . . .302.2.2.2.1. Variables manipulated in the data collection instruments . .302.2.2.2.2. The content of the questionnaires . .312.2.2.2. Selection of subjects . . 332.2.2.3. Procedures . . . 33 2.2.2.4. Results of the MPQ. . . . .342.3. Analytical framework . . . . .373.6.1. Eisenstein &Bodmans analytical framework . .373.6.2. Analytical framework of the study . . .39Chapter III: Data analysis . .453.1. Choice of sub acts in higher power setting (+P) . . 463.1.1. Choice of sub acts in sit 1 . 463.1.2. Choice of sub acts in sit 2 . . 483.2. Choice of sub acts in equal power setting (=P) . .523.2.1. Choice of sub acts in sit 6 . . . . . . .523.2.2. Choice of sub acts in sit 9 . . .55 3,3, Choice of sub acts in lower power setting (-P) . . .573.3.1. Choice of sub acts in sit11 . . . 57 3.3.2. Choice of sub acts in sit 12 . . . 593.4. Choice of sub acts in the setting where the degree of gratitudeis low (-R) . 623.3. Choice of sub acts in the setting where the ranking of imposition is high (+R).643.4. Conclusion . .68PART C: CONCLUSION . . 691. Major findings .691.1. Data collection instrument 691.2. Choice of sub acts in expressing gratitude .692. Implications for teaching and learning English in Vietnam 713. Suggestions for further research 73APPENDIX A 74APPENDIX B . . .81REFERENCES . . .84

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