MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

DONG THAP UNIVERSITY

B.A THESIS

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON
INVITATIONS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE IN
TERMS OF CROSS - CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

(SUMMITED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS

OF THE B.A DEGREE)

NGUYEN VAN TRONG

DONG THAP - 2012

 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
DONG THAP UNIVERSITY

B.A THESIS

A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON
INVITATIONS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE IN
TERMS OF CROSS - CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE

(SUMMITED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE REQUIREMENTS

OF THE B.A DEGREE)

NGUYEN VAN TRONG

SUPERVISOR: HUYNH CAM THAO TRANG, M.A

DONG THAP - 2012

 iii

DECLARATION

I, hereby, declare that my thesis entitled: "A Comparative Study on Invitations in

English and Vietnamese In Terms of Cross - Cultural Perspective" is the result
of my own work, submitted in the fulfillment for the requirements of the B.A degree.
Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used
without due acknowledgment in the text of the thesis.

Cao Lanh City - April, 2012

Nguyen Van Trong

 iiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION ............................................................................................i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...................................................................................... v
ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................... vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTIFICATION CONVENTIONS .............. viii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTIONS .............................................................. 1

1.1. Motivation for the study ............................................................................. 1
1.2. Aims of the study ........................................................................................ 3
1.3. Research methods ....................................................................................... 3
1.4. Scope of the study ...................................................................................... 4
1.5. Significance of the study............................................................................. 4
1.6. Previous related studies .............................................................................. 5
1.7. Organization of the study ............................................................................ 5

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... 7

2. 1. Politeness strategies ................................................................................... 7
2.2. Generalization of speech acts .................................................................... 11
2.2.1. Definitions of speech acts ............................................................... 11
2.2.2. Classification of speech acts ........................................................... 13
2.3. Invitations as speech acts .......................................................................... 15
2.4. Pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics ................................................. 16
2.5. Categories of inviting in English and Vietnamese ..................................... 18
2.5.1. Categories of inviting in English ..................................................... 19
2.5.1.1. Direct invitations in English ................................................. 19
2.5.1.2. Indirect invitations in English ............................................... 21
 iiiii

2.5.2. Categories of inviting in Vietnamese .............................................. 22

2.5.2.1. Direct invitations in Vietnamese ........................................... 22
2.5.2.2. Indirect invitations in Vietnmaese ........................................ 24

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ........................................................... 27

3.1. Research questions ................................................................................... 27
3.2. Research participants ................................................................................ 27
3.3. Research procedure................................................................................... 29
3.4. Data collection instruments....................................................................... 29
3.4.1. The survey questionnaires............................................................... 29
3.4.2. Personal observations ..................................................................... 32
3.5. Data analysis method ................................................................................ 32

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................... 33

4. 1. An overview of results ............................................................................. 34
4.1.1. An overview of results in equal power settings ............................... 34
4.1.2. An overview of results high power settings ..................................... 35
4.1.3. An overview of results low power settings ...................................... 36
4.2. Results of data analysis ............................................................................. 37
4.2.1. The choice of inviting forms in equal power settings ...................... 38
4.2.2. The choice of inviting forms in high power settings ........................ 41
4.2.3. The choice of inviting forms in low power settings ......................... 45
4.3. Discussion ................................................................................................ 48
4.3.1. Research question 1
4.3.1.1. Similarities ........................................................................... 49
4.3.3.2. Differences ........................................................................... 50
4.3.2. Research question 2
 ivii

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... 56

5.1. Summary, major findings and implications on teaching ...................... 56
5.1.1. Summary ........................................................................................ 56
5.1.2. Major findings ................................................................................ 57
5.1.3. Implications on teaching ................................................................. 58
5.2. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies ................ 60
5.2.1. Limitations of the study .................................................................. 60
5.2.2. Suggestions for further studies ........................................................ 60

REFERENCES
In English

In Vietnamese
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Survey Questionnaire 1 (English version)
Appendix 2: Survey Questionnaire 2 (Vietnamese version)
Appendix 3: Observation sheet
Appendix 4: Invitations provided by English participants
Appendix 5: Invitations provided by Vietnamese participants
 vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, M.A. Huynh Cam

Thao Trang, for her enthusiastic and useful guidance, insightful comments, and
encouragement without which my thesis would not have been completed.
My special thanks go to all my lecturers in Foreign Language Department, Dong
Thap University for their precious assistance, knowledge and enthusiasm.
I am grateful to all the participants for their enthusiastic participation in the thesis.
Especially, I am indebted to my classmates in ĐHSAnh 08A, especially Nguyen Thi
Phuong Dung and Phan Thanh Tan, for their great support.
Last but not least, I would like to express my indebtedness to my family, especially
my parents, brothers and sisters who have given me constant support and love
during the completion of the thesis.

Nguyen Van Trong

 viii

ABSTRACT

This study which focused on speech acts of invitation, was conducted in the hope of
finding out the similarities and differences between how invitations are made in
English and Vietnamese by the people who are speaking these two languages under
the light of contrastive analysis and cross-cultural perspective. Data used for
analysis in this study were mainly collected through survey questionnaires, Through
analysis of forms of inviting provided by two groups of participants, it was deduced
that native speakers of English and Vietnamese are quite different in making
invitations under three social variables: social distance, relative power, and threats to
each other's negative face. One of the prominent results from data analysis is that
Vietnamese invitations are more diverse in terms of structural diversity, and
Vietnamese speakers are more direct in extending invitations in comparison to
English ones. Once, similarities and differences have been identified, implications
on teaching this speech were made.
 viiii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.2.2: Speech acts classification .................................................................... 14

Table 5.1: Forms of Invitations in English and Vietnamese ..................................... 25
Table 3.2. Information on the research participants ................................................. 29
Table 4.1.1 An overview of results in equal power settings ..................................... 34
Table 4.1.2. An overview of results in high power settings...................................... 36
Table 4.1.3. An overview of results in low power settings....................................... 37

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.2.1.a Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese

participants: situation 1 ........................................................................................... 38
Figure 4.2.1.b. Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese
participants: situation 2 ........................................................................................... 40
Figure 4.2.2.a. Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese
participants: situation 3 ........................................................................................... 41
Figure 4.2.2.b. Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese
participants: situation 4 ........................................................................................... 43
Figure 4.2.3.a. Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese
participants: situation 5 ........................................................................................... 45
Figure 4.2.3.b. Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese
participants: situation 6..............................................................................................47
 viii
ii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND NOTATIONAL CONVENTIONS

D: social distance
P: relative power
R: ranking of impositions
(S25): each sentence is assigned a number in the list of invitations provided by the
participants.
Italics type is used for terms and examples
 1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTIONS

This chapter introduces some very first parts of the thesis. It is comprised of
seven parts: (1) motivation for the study; (2) aims of the study; (3) research methods;
(4) scope of the study; (5) significance of the study; (6) previous related studies and
(7) organization of the study.

1.1. Motivation for the study

It is often said that to master a foreign language is difficult because enormous

vocabulary and profound understanding in grammar are not enough. Having certain
understandings of the culture where that language is spoken is a must. Let take
English and Vietnamese as an example. There are differences in the use of language
between English and Vietnamese. To immerse into the culture and daily life of the
target language is a must in order to comprehend wholly that language. In another
words, to learn a language means to learn the culture of the country where that
language is spoken. Acquiring a second language demands more than learning new
words and another system of grammar (Levine and Adelman, 1982). The goal of
learning a language, these days, is to be able to carry out effective communication.
Communication, however, may fail to achieve as there is lack of certain
understandings of the country where that language is spoken. There are “unwritten
rules” are potentially confusing and create misunderstandings even for native
speakers (Levine & Adelman, 1982). A deep understanding of culture may benefit
students in terms of interacting with people in the native country where their target
language is widely spoken. As a result, there should be a stress on the application of
combining culture to learning a language.

Language and culture can not be separated from each other. Each country has its
own traditions, customs, rituals reflected by the language. Understanding social
conventions and attention to such concepts as politeness, and face, which are
important to members in a particular culture, will certainly enable us to better
 2

comprehend the different ways of speaking by people from different cultures, thus
helping eliminate ethnic stereotypes and misunderstandings. Problems arise as
language learners are not competent and fail to understand the cultural- social
aspects of communication. Take speech acts of invitation as an example. Vietnamese
saying goes: "khách đến nhà không trà thì bánh" (when guests come, either tea or
cakes should be served). This saying highlights the importance of inviting in
Vietnamese culture, where invitation speech acts make up a high proportion in daily
interactions. Inviting undoubtedly plays an important role in communication in all
cultures. Wall (1987) indicated that many of our daily social interactions involve
making invitations and responding to them. In daily social life, people are
sometimes invited to go somewhere or to do something on important occasions such
as weddings, birthdays, and graduations, to small ones like movies, eating out, or
vendors in the markets invite customers to buy their items. Take these two following
sentences as examples:

(1) Alan and I wanted to have a few people over for a dinner party to
celebrate finishing my dissertation, and we’d like to invite you especially, since
you’re chairman. (Tillitt & Bruder, 1999, p.23).

(2) Ăn cho vui. Cô Nga. (Thach Lam, 2000, p.167)

Invitations help to establish, maintain, reinforce and further strengthen social

rapports. Americans and Vietnamese share certain similarities in terms of making
and responding to invitations in social interactions. However, differences are
undoubtedly numerous. Many cases of making invitations are different in Vietnam
and American. Mastering how to make appropriate invitations which are suitable to
a particular culture should be taken in considerations so as not to cause hurts, shocks,
misunderstandings, and misinterpretations. A frequently misunderstood area in
American verbal interaction is that of extending, accepting, and refusing invitations
(Levine & Adelman, 1982). Moreover, helping Vietnamese learners of English
master and use invitation-making effectively is a must.
 3

For the above reasons, the study is carried out to find out the differences of how
invitations are made in English and Vietnamese and to help Vietnamese learners
keep conversations with foreigners going on. Furthermore, the study is a hope to
give some reliable suggestions for teaching making invitations in particular, and
raise the importance of applying cross-cultural activities to teaching and learning
English to English majors in Dong Thap University in general. As a result the
following research questions are addressed:

1. What are the major similarities and differences in the ways native speakers
of English and native speakers of Vietnamese making invitations?
2. Do social distance (D), relative power (P), and ranking of impositions (R)
affect the choice of inviting forms by native speakers of English and Vietnamese
native speakers?

1.2. Aims of the study

The thesis aims to point out the similarities and differences in the way English and
Vietnamese native speakers making invitations. The thesis, in addition, aims to give
an insight into making invitations for English majors in Dong Thap University.
Moreover, it is intended to provide some reliable implications for teaching
invitation-making to English majors in Dong Thap University.

1.3. Research methods

In order to achieve the goals of a cross-cultural study mentioned earlier, the major
method to be employed in the study is a quantitative one. Also, contrastive analysis
is used. Therefore, the considerations, remarks, consumptions, comments and
conclusions in the thesis are mainly based on data analysis.

A number of data relating to making invitations in both English and Vietnamese

publications are collected from textbooks, short stories, books on English and
Vietnamese languages. They are then analyzed in the light of cross-cultural
perspective and analysis.
 4

Survey questionnaire, in addition, is conducted. It is carefully designed to

investigate the cross-cultural similarities and differences in making invitations
between the Vietnamese and English languages. In order to collect data for
contrastive analysis, two types of survey questionnaires are designed: one in English
and the other in Vietnamese. They are next delivered thirty native speakers of
English in Ho Chi Minh City, where many foreigners live and work and thirty native
speakers of Vietnamese as well. Data collected will then be analyzed in order to find
out the similarities and differences between inviting in the English and Vietnamese
languages.
Furthermore, personal observations are also carried out in different social
situations, in which people make invitations. Observation work is taken placed in
three different social contexts including university campus, market, park, and family
in which the ways interlocutors invite invitations are to be particularly noted down.
They are indispensable parts in the study in terms of setting up the hypothesis in the
thesis.

1.4. Scope of the study

The study focuses on speech acts of invitations performed by native speakers of

English and then compare them to those performed by Vietnamese native speakers in
order to investigate the similarities and differences between the two groups of
participants under the light of cross-cultural perspective. The theoretical background
presented in this thesis concerns with the speech acts theory and politeness strategies.
Due to the scope of an B.A thesis, time and experience limitations, the thesis is
limited to verbal aspects of making invitations, any feature relating to phonology
such as sounds, stress, intonation will be not discussed here in the thesis.

1.5. Significance of the study

The study deals with making invitations speech acts, which set up and promote
social rapports among people in a particular culture. As stated in the motivation of
the study, invitations speech act is an indispensable part in daily communication.
 5

The study is carried out with the hope to provide common understandings on making
invitations for Dong Thap University English-majors to avoid cultural conflicts and
effectively carrying out invitation-making in real life situations. In addition, the
study’s findings hope to make contributions to raising the importance of studying the
cross-culture for English majors in Dong Thap University.

1.6. Previous related studies

In 2005, in his dissertation “ Nghi thức lời nói trong tiếng Việt trên cơ sở lý thuyết
hành vi ngôn ngữ” (Speech etiquette in Vietnamese based on speech act theory),
Nguyen Van Lap has classified categories of invitations as speech etiquette in
Vietnamese in terms of speech act theory. The thesis introduced and analyzed two
main categories of invitations in Vietnamese including invitations with explicit
performative verbs and invitations with implicit performative verbs, which lays a
foundation for the data related to making invitations in Vietnamese in this study.

In autumn term 2008, in her study “ Politeness strategies in requests and

invitations: A comparative study between English and Vietnamese” Le Thi Mai
Hong focused and emphasized on politeness strategies used in the speech acts of
requests and invitations between English and Vietnamese. The study pointed some
major differences between politeness strategies employed in English invitations in
comparison with the Vietnamese ones.

The studies mentioned above are helpful to this study in terms of providing the
theoretical background for the thesis as they are closely related to making and
responding to invitations in English and Vietnamese right in the thesis.

1.7. Organization of the study

The thesis consists of five chapters:

Chapter 1: Introductions, this part presents the overview of the thesis including
motivation, aims, scope, research methods, significance, previous related studies as
 6

well as the organization of the study.

Chapter 2: Literature review, this chapter provides the theoretical background

including speech act theory, politeness strategies, pragmatics and cross-cultural
pragmatics, and categories of inviting forms in English and Vietnamese.

Chapter 3: Methodology, this chapter focuses on presenting research questions,

research participants, research procedure, data collection, as well as methods of
analysis.

Chapter 4: Results and discussion, this chapter presents the results gained in survey
questionnaires and observation and discusses the similarities and differences in how
invitations speech acts are made in English and Vietnamese as well as the influence
of three variables to the choice of inviting forms of two groups of participants.

Chapter 5: Conclusions, this part summaries the major findings recorded during the
making of the thesis, presents the limitations of the study, provides some suggestions
for further research and give implications on teaching.
 7

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review is organized into five parts: (1) politeness strategies (2)
generalization of speech acts, (3) invitations as speech acts (4) pragmatics and
cross-cultural pragmatics, (5) categories of inviting in English and Vietnamese. The
first part deals with literature on politeness strategies and their relations with
invitations in both languages.The second part aims to review the literature on the
definitions, classification of speech acts, as well as the existing theory on direct and
indirect speech acts. The next part concerns with invitations in terms of speech act
theory which involves the definitions, and categories of inviting in both languages.
The fourth part takes a look at pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics. Finally, the
fourth seeks the literature on inviting in English and Vietnamese.

2. 1. Politeness strategies

Politeness, an issue which has a great impact to human being and deeply influences
to human interaction, will be now discussed right in this part because

Politeness is basic to the production of social order, and a precondition of

human cooperation … any theory which provides an understanding of this
phenomenon at the same time goes to the foundation of human social life.

(Brown and Levinson, 1987)

In language studies, politeness implies the following: "(a) how languages

express the social distance between speakers and their different role relationships, (b)
"how face-work, that is, the attempt to establish, maintain, and save face during
conversation, is carried out in a speech community" (Richards et al. 1985, p.281).
Languages differ in how they express politeness. In English, phrases like It’s hot
here. I wonder if I could open the window? can be used to make a request more
polite. In other languages, the same effect can be expressed by a word or particle.
Politeness markers and the use of address forms convey differences between formal
 8

speech and colloquial speech.

Human communication serves to establish and maintain not only a comfortable

relationship between people but also a social harmony. Therefore, in interpersonal
communication, in terms of politeness, every participant notes social factors such as
age, gender, power and distance among the interlocutors. Moreover, politeness may
be described as a form of behaviour which is exercised in order to consolidate and
promote relationship between individuals or, at least, to keep it undamaged.

According to Leech (1983), politeness means to minimize the effect of impolite

statement or expression (negative politeness) and maximize the effects of polite
illocutions (positive politeness) (Leech, 1983). However, the best-known theory is
developed by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987). Their universalistic formulation of
politeness theory is problematic in some aspects.

The main issue of politeness is the notion of face. Face is defined as “the public
self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” (Brown and Levinson
1987, p.61). "Face" associates with the English idiom to lose face which means “to
do something which makes other people stop respecting you; to not maintain your
reputation and the respect of others”. Brown and Levinson treats the aspects of face
as “basic wants”, and distinguishes between positive face and negative face. Positive
face is interpreted as the want of every member to be desirable to, at least, some
others, whereas negative face is the want of every “competent adult member” for
his actions to be unimpeded by others (1987, p.62).

Moreover, Yule (1996) argues that in most English speaking contexts, the
participants in an interaction often have to determine, as they speak, the relative
social distance between them, and hence their face wants (1996, p.61)

“In everyday social interactions, people generally behave as if their public

self-image, or their face wants, will be respected. If a speaker says something that
represents a threat to another individual’s expectations regarding self-image, it is
 9

described as a face threatening act. Alternatively, given the possibility that some
action might be interpreted t as a threat to another’s face, the speaker can say
something to lessen the possible threat. This is called a face saving act.” (Yule 1996,
p.61).

Analyzing politeness, the anthropologists Brown and Levinson (1987)

distinguishes between positive strategies of politeness, those which show
closeness, intimacy, and rapport between the speaker and the hearer, and negative
politeness strategies, those which indicate various degrees of social distance
between the speaker and hearer. In this sense, politeness varies to show awareness
of another person’s face in situations of social distance or closeness. The choice
of appropriate politeness strategies in a given context depends on a number of
factors. Brown and Levinson (1987) groups these factors into a simple formula
consisting of three independent variables, namely the social distance (D) of the
speaker and the hearer (a symmetric relation), the relative power (P) of the
speaker and the hearer (an asymmetric relation), and the absolute ranking of
impositions (R) in the particular culture.

The social distance (D) is a symmetric social dimension of similarity/difference

within which the speaker and the hearer stand for the purposes of this act. In some
situations, D is based on a evaluation of frequency of interaction and the types of
material and non-material goods (embracing face) between S and H. The evaluation
will be usually measures of social distance relied on stable social attributes.

The relative power (P) which is an asymmetric social dimension is the degree to
which H can impose his own plans and his own self– evaluation (face) at the
expense of S’s plans and self – evaluation. Generally, there are two sources of P,
either of which may be authorized or unauthorized – material control (over
economic distribution and physical force) and metaphysical control (over the actions
of others, by virtue of metaphysical forces subscribed to by those others.

The absolute ranking (R) of imposition which is situationally and cuturally

 10

defined is the degree to which there is an interference in the speaker’s wants or self-
determination or approval (speaker’s negative and positive wants). There are
normally two scales or ranks which are identifiable 21 for negative–face: a ranking
of impositions in proportion to the expenditure of services (including the time
provision) and good (including non –material goods such as information, regard
expression and other face payments). As for positive – face, the, ranking of
imposition embraces an assessment of the amount of "pain" given to the hearer’s
face, based on the differences between the hearer’s desired self-image and that
presented in face threatening acts. Cultural rankings of facets of positive face (like
success, niceness, beauty etc.) can be reranked in specific circumstances, so do the
negative face rankings. Besides, that there are also personal rankings can explain
why some people object to certain kinds of face threatening acts and some do not.

These three factors affect indirectness in human interaction, especially in the

choice of politeness strategies which is an essential aspect of inviting. Together with
cross -cultural perspective, politeness is an another aspect which are used to create
the anlytical framework for data analysis.

Basing on the theory of Brown and Levinson (1987), a bank of 6 situations was
designed to elicit offers. These situations were grouped according to three variables,
namely social distance (D) of the speaker and the hearer, the relative power (P) of
the speaker and the hearer (an asymmetric relation), and the absolute ranking (R) of
impositions in the particular culture. The situations under study were as follows:

The speaker has more power than the hearer; they are unfamiliar with each other.
The speaker has more power than the hearer; they are familiar with each other
The speaker and the hearer are equal in power; they are unfamiliar with each
other.
The speaker and the hearer are equal in power; they are familiar with each other.
The speaker has less power than the hearer; they are unfamiliar with each other.
The speaker has less power than the hearer; they are familiar with each other.
 11

2.2. Generalization of speech acts

2.2.1. Definitions of speech acts

J. Austin (1962) takes the pioneering role in formulating the theory of speech acts.
According to him, all utterances should be viewed as actions of the speakers, stating
or describing is only one function of language. He points out that the declarative
sentences are not only used to say things or describe states of affairs but also used to
do things.

Also, in 1962, he defines speech acts as the actions performed in saying

something. When people produce utterances, they often perform actions via those
utterances. These actions are called speech acts: such as apology, complaint,
compliment, invitation, promise, or request. A speech act is part of a speech event.
The speech act performed by producing an utterance, consists of three related acts
including locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act. They are listed as
follows:

Locutionary act is the basic act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression.

The locutionary act is performed with some purposes or functions in mind.

Illocutionary act is an act performed via the communicative force of an

utterance. In engaging in locutionary acts we generally also perform illocutionary
acts such as informing, advising, offer, promise, etc. In uttering a sentence by virtue
of conversational force associated with it.

Perlocutionary act is what we bring about or achieve by saying something, such

as convincing, persuading, deterring perlocutionary acts are performed only on the
assumption that the hearer will recognize the effect you intended.

Speech acts, since then, developed by many famous philosophers and have been
central to the works and further developed by many other philosophers and a great
concern of any research paper in terms of doing researches on linguistic fields.
 12

The two other famous linguistic researchers are Schmidt and Richards who
reaffirm that: speech act theory has to do with the functions of languages, so in the
broader sense we might say that speech acts are all the acts we perform through
speaking, all things we do when we speak. The theory of speech acts is partly
taxonomic and partly explanatory. It must systematically classify types of speech
acts and the ways in which they can succeed or fail. It must reckon with the fact that
the relationship between the words being used and the force of their utterance is
often oblique.

Paltridge (2000) defines that a speech act is an utterance that serves a function in
communication. Some examples are an apology, greeting, request, complaint,
invitation, compliment or refusal. A speech act might contain just one word such as
"No" to perform a refusal or several words or sentences such as: "I' m sorry, I can't, I
have a prior engagement". It is important to mention that speech acts include
real-life interactions and require not only knowledge of the language but also
appropriate use of that language within a given culture. Socio-cultural variables like
authority, social distance, and situational setting influence the appropriateness and
effectiveness of politeness strategies used to realize directive speech acts such as
requests (p.15).

Yule (1996, p.47), another famous linguist, defines that "in attempting to
express themselves, people do not only produce utterances containing grammatical
structures and words, they perform actions via those utterances." According to him,
actions performed via utterances are speech acts.

In daily communication, people perform speech acts when they offer an apology,
greeting, complaint, invitation, compliment or refusal. Since people often do more
things with words than merely convey what words encode, speech acts have to be
seen from real-life interactions. For example, in a classroom situation, when a
teacher says:

(1) May I have your attention?

 13

(1) is a request more than a question. In the same way, when a student talks to his
friend,
(2) We’re having some people over Saturday evening and wanted to know if
you’d like to join us.
(2) is an invitation more than a question. Moreover, speech acts require not only
knowledge of any languages but also the culture of the country where this
language is use. For examples in Vietnamese when we utter:
(3) Where are you going?
(3) means we are greeting the people we meet.

2.2.2. Classification of speech acts

According to Yule (1996), there is one general classification system that lists five
types of general functions performed by speech acts including declarations,
representatives, expressives, directives, and commissives.

Declarations are speech acts that change the world via their utterance. The
speaker has to have a special institutional role, in a specific context, in order to
perform a declaration appropriately. For example, "Priest: I now pronounce you
husband and wife."

Representatives are speech acts that state what the speaker believes to be the
case or not. Statement of fact, assertions, conclusions and descriptions are examples
of the speaker representing the world as he or she believes it is. For example, “The
Moon goes round the Earth." or "It is windy today."

Expressives are speech acts that state what the speaker feels. They express
psychological states and can be statement of pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy and
sorrow. For example, "What a great party!".

Directives are speech acts that the speakers use to get the Hearer to do
something. They express what the speaker wants. For instance, "Stand up, please!"
or "Could you open the door?".
 14

Commissives are speech acts that speakers use to commit themselves to some
future action. They express what the speaker intends. For example: "I’ll give one
hand." or "I’ll be back."

Yule (1996) also presents a table showing speech acts classification as follows:

Table 2.2.2: Speech acts classification

Speech act types Direction of fit S = Speaker

X = Situation
Declarations words change the world S causes X
Representatives makes words fits the world S believes X
Expressives makes words fits the world S feels X
Directives make the world fits words S wants X
Commissives make the world fits words S intends X

The usefulness of speech acts analysis is illustrating the kinds of things we can
do with words and identifying some of the conventional utterance forms we use to
perform specific actions. However, we need to look at more extended interaction to
understand how those actions are carried out and interpreted within speech events.

However, to compare selected speech acts from two languages, the topic is still
vast and could not be treated exhaustively in any one work. The cultural norms
reflected in speech acts differ not only from one language to another, but also from
one regional and social variety to another. So, different cultures find expression in
different system of speech acts, and that different speech acts become entrenched,
and, to some extent, codified in different languages.

Of these types, the characteristics of invitations can be easily recognised in

commissives and directives. In our daily interactions, inviting is one kind of speech
act that is commonly used with high frequency.
 15

2.2.3. Direct and indirect speech acts

In the former part, classification of speech acts have been made clear in terms of the
speaker's intention of Yule (1996). This part take a look at another way of classifying
speech acts.

Another approach to distinguish different types of speech acts is based on the

relationship between the structure and the function. Yule (1996) claims that three
structural forms (declarative, interrogative, imperative) and three general
communicative function (statement, question, command/request) can be combined
to create two other types of speech acts: direct and indirect speech acts. The
following example illustrates this:

Yule (1996) defines that whenever there is an indirect relationship between a

structure and a function, we have an direct speech act as in the following examples

(4) Do join me for a coffee? (Le Huy Lam, 2000)

Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure and a function, we

have an indirect speech act as in the following examples.

(5) Would you like to come over for dinner tomorrow? (Tillitt & Bruder, 1999)

It is not only used as a question but also a request, hence it is considered to be an

indirect speech act. He adds that indirect speech acts are generally associated with
greater politeness in English than direct speech acts.

2.3. Invitations as speech acts

There are, first, two concepts that are needed to make clear, namely invite and
invitation. Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary indicates that to invite means to
ask somebody to come to a social event or to ask somebody formally to go to
somewhere or do something. According to Cambridge Advanced Learner’s
Dictionary, an invitation means a polite request in which a person is asked to come to
an event or to perform some task as in the examples below:
 16

(6) I would like to invite you to a party next Friday.

(Tillitt & Bruder, 1999)

According to Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, an invitation means a

polite request in which a person is asked to come to an event or to perform some task.
As in the following examples:

(7) Would you like to come over my place on Thanksgiving?

(8) I’d love to. Shall I bring anything?

Similarly, Vietnamese dictionary (1994) defines "lời mời" as a wish or a polite
request that somebody does something or goes to somewhere. The following
examples illustrate this:

(9) Anh Tuệ, mời anh vào chơi! (Khai Hung, 1988)
(Mr. Tue, Come in, please!)
(10) Rước cụ ngồi chơi. (Khai Hung, 1988)
(Get - you - sit - play)
In his dissertation, Nguyen Van Lap (2005) points that "Invitations are polite
utterances, requesting others to do something together, which satisfies both the
speaker and hearer's benefits.

Le Thi Mai Hong (2009) indicates that invitation is the act of inviting or a
requesting to participate, be present or take part in something. Invitation is also a
speech act that expresses the speaker’s friendliness, politeness as well as respect and
hospitality toward the hearer.". In addition, Wolfson (1989) defines invitations as
speech acts that contain reference to time and/or mention of place or activity, and
most important, a request for response.

2.4. Pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics

As the study is centered on the speech act of invitations in terms of cross - cultural
perspective. It is, therefore, necessary to look at some basic information on what is
called pragmatics and cross - cultural pragmatics.
 17

Pragmatics, since its appearance, has excited great attention from many leading
linguists. Enormous efforts have gone into reaching a satisfactory definition of this
linguistic phenomenon.
The notion of pragmatics is clarified by Richards, Platt, & Webber (1992, p.284) as
follows:
Pragmatics includes the study of:
How the interpretation and use of utterances depend on knowledge of the real
world;
How speakers use and understand speech acts;
How the structure of sentences is influenced by the relationship between the
speaker and the hearer.
Of the above issues, the study of speech acts is considered to be of high
importance to pragmatics.
Yule (1996, p.3) defines pragmatics as follows:
Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning.
Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning.
Pragmatics is the study of how more get communicated than is said.
Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance.
As "every culture has its own repertoire of characteristic speech acts" and
"different cultures find expression in different system of speech acts and different
speech acts become entrenched, and to some extent, codified in different languages"
(Wierzbicka (1991, p.25). Nguyen Thien Giap (2007) states that in different cultures,
speech acts are performed in different ways through different languages.
Linguists, these days, has studied, contrasted how language is used in different
cultures, which is called contrastive pragmatics. Nguyen Thien Giap (2007) adds
that in order to master a language successfully, to carry out effective intercultural
communication, having the knowledge of the language is by all means insufficient,
 18

but the knowledge of pragmatics is a must.

Through what has been discussed so far, the speech act of invitations in English and
Vietnamese is not exception. It is about discussed in the study under contrastive
analysis. Cross-cultural perspective, certainly, is a great concern during the data
collection and analysis.

2.5. Categories of inviting in English and Vietnamese

Invitations can be in the forms of direct or indirect utterances. This paper aims to
investigating the similarities and differences in terms of syntactic and cross-cultural
features of spoken invitations in English and Vietnamese, in the effort of increasing
not only the effectiveness of teaching and learning invitations utterance in English and
Vietnamese but the ability to use language for Vietnamese learners of English.

Nevertheless, there is a little proper work on inviting in both languages. The

analytic framework of this study has been collected from a number of English and
Vietnamese researches as well as practical textbooks to invitations which contains
different forms of inviting. These are dissertations by Nguyen Van Lap (2005), Luu
Quy Khuong (2004) Tran Yen Bao Tran (2009), and Tillitt and Bruder (1999). In
these researches and textbooks, different linguistic forms of invitations are specified
and found out. In this study, categories of inviting in English and Vietnamese be
respectively discussed.

Tilltitt and Bruder (1999) has introduced numerous structures of English

invitations used in formal situations to informal ones. In his dissertation, Nguyen
Văn Lap (2005) has introduced forms of Vietnamese inviting including invitations in
with performative verb (mời) and invitations without performative verb. Luu Quy
Khuong (2007), in addition, has introduced different kinds of direct invitations in
English and Vietnamese. He indicated similarities and differences between English
and Vietnamese through contrastive analysis. Plus, another research goes to Tran
Yen Bao Tran (2009) has recorded different structures used to make direct invitations
in English and Vietnamese.
 19

These researches and textbook mentioned above is prominent in terms of

providing the analytical framework for discussing categories of inviting in English
and Vietnamese.

2.5.1. Categories of inviting in English

2.5.1.1. Direct invitations in English

Nguyen Thi Kim Quy (2004) defines that direct invitations that direct invitations are
used with performative verbs namely mời in Vietnamese and to invite in English or in
the forms of requests or of orders.

Category 1: Direct invitations in form of performative sentences:

First, take a look at the definitions of the term "performative sentence". Austin (1962)
made a great contribution in terms of discovering and developing what is called:
performative sentence. Austin (1962) stated that an performative sentence occurs
when:
(1) A sentence is uttered and an action thereby is performed.
(2) The grammatical structure of the sentence makes it look as though the sentence
states that it performed that action.

Cao Xuan Hao (1991) defined that a performative sentence is a kind of expressive
and declaration. It expresses the actions that contain in the utterance by directly
uttering. Such kind of sentence using a verb named performative verb namely "to
invite" in English. Following sentences illustrate this:

It's just that Alan and I wanted to have a few people over for a dinner to
celebrate finishing dissertation and we would like to invite you especially, since
you're chairman. (Tillitt & Bruder, 1999).

Likewise, Paltridge (200) indicated that an explicit performative sentence is a

statement which contains a performative verb that names the speech act. The
patterns of explicit performative sentences usually take the two following types:
 20

Form 1: Performative sentence with a subject

(1) Example: I would like to invite you to dinner next Sunday at my home.

Form 2: Performative sentence without a subject

The English invitations in forms of performative sentence without a subject are not
existed due to their incorrect syntactic forms. Invitations in the forms of
performative sentences appearing in this study take two forms including "would you
like" and "want to invite". In addition, in order to reduce the face - threatening act
the phrase "would like to" is added. Tran Yen Bao Tran (2009) indicated that explicit
performative invitations are employed between the interlocutors who differ in social
or status as in the following example:

(2) I would like you to the final ceremony of our language program next Friday
evening at 8:00. (Tilllitt & Bruder, 1999)
Category 2: Invitations in forms of declarative sentences

Form 3: Invitations in forms of declarative sentences

According to the textbooks, researches above, direct invitations in form of

declarative sentence is rarely appeared. Take a look at the following example:

(3) We just thought it would be nice to have you over for dinner. (Tilllitt &
Bruder, 1999)

Category 3: Direct invitations in forms of imperatives

Form 4: Invitations in forms of imperatives

Another category of direct invitations in English is discussed in this part is direct

invitations in forms o fimperatives. Duong Hai Dang (nd), these forms are often used
for people who are in the same rank, social class or inferior to the speakers; for
examples, boss uses with employee, teacher with students, friends with friends.

This type of invitations is considered less formal and is widely accepted in daily
 21

life conversations touched by the friendliness and intimacy such as relatives and
friends. The following sentences illustrate this:

(4) Do have a chocolate biscuit!

(5) Go out and have a drink!
(Cobuild, 2001)
The structure of suggestion "Let's + infinitive", similarly, is used to indicate a direct
invitation.

For instances:
(6) Let's go to our place for a beer. (Tillitt & Bruder, 1999)
(7) Let's go to our place for dinner. (Tillitt & Bruder, 1999)
Through materials on invitations in English found in the thesis, direct invitations
make up a modest number. This is because, as mentioned in the former part, direct
invitations may cause face - threatening.

2.5.1.2. Indirect invitations in English

In the above part, we have discussed one aspect of English invitations under syntactic
functions. In this part, forms of indirect invitations will respectively be discussed

Form 5: Invitations in forms of WH- questions

WH question (including how) is used in making invitation with a highest frequency.

In close relationship, people often use this kind of question to invite each other in
purpose of increasing friendliness. It also makes listeners feel comfortable and free.
The editor Le Huy Lam (2000) shows us some typical examples in his book.

(8) Why don’t you come on holiday with us?

(9) Why don’t you come round for a meal one evening next week?
(10) How do you fancy going out for a meal at the weekend?
According to Tilltilt and Bruder (1999) invitations used with How appear in
situations which is less formal. Let's look at the following examples:
 22

(11) How about dinner? (Tillitt & Bruder, 1999)

(12) How about coffee? (Tillitt & Bruder, 1999)
Among them, the WH- question started with "Would you like to…?" often appear in
making invitations with high frequency. It has been familiar with both native
speakers and foreigners.

Form 6: Invitations in forms of yes/no questions

This kind of invitation shows politeness and formality in speakers’ conversation

which is shown in the following sentences:

(13) Can you come over and join us?(Le Huy Lam, 2000)
(14) May we have the pleasure of your company at dinner?(Le Huy Lam, 2000)
Sometimes, many yes/no questions refer to invitation although they mention
different issues. For instance, when a person asks "Are you free next Thursday?" or
"Are you doing anything next weekend?", maybe he wants to invite the listener join
something with him/her. Before making invitation, he/she would like to know
whether if the listener will be free or not next time. It is a way to show the respect
and politeness of speaker. It helps the person who is invited has change to accept the
invitation or refuse it depending on his or her decision.

Form 7: Invitations in forms tag questions

Tag question is rarely used in making invitation. Speakers often use this kind of
sentence to remind or repeat their invitation to the invited people. See the following
example:

(16) “You will come to have dinner with us, won’t you?” (Le Huy Lam, 2000)

2.5.2. Categories of inviting in Vietnamese

2.5.2.1. Direct invitations in Vietnamese

As stated by Nguyen Thi Kim Quy (2004), likewise, direct invitations in Vietnamese
are in the forms of performative sentence, as well as in the forms of requests or
 23

orders. They are about to be discussed respectively in this part.

Category 1: Vietnamese direct invitations in the forms of performative

sentence:

Just like performative invitations in English, Vietnamese performative invitations

contain the performative verb, that is, "mời". See the following example.

(17) Mời bà cụ cứ ngồi chơi. (Khải Hưng, 1988)

(Invite- old woman- naturally- sit- play)
Vietnamese performative invitations can take one of the following forms:

Form 1: Performative sentence without subject ( the inviter)

Making invitations belonging to this kind of sentence does not contain the person
who is speaking out the invitation.

For examples:

(18) Mời bà cụ cứ ngồi chơi. (Khai Hung, 1988)

(Invite the old woman to sit down.)
(19) Mời cô ngồi tạm xuống ghế. (Khai Hung, 1988)
(Invite you sit temporarily down at this chair?)
Form 2: Performative sentence with a subject

Being different from the former form, making invitations belonging to this kind
contain the person who invites. Let's have a look at the following example:

(20) Tôi lấy làm hân hạnh mời anh lại chơi (Khai Hung, 1988)
(I honouredly invite you to come here play.)
(21) Thầy em muốn mời các bác hôm nay ở đây xơi rượu. (Khai Hung, 1988)
(My father would like to invite uncles to be here and dink wine.)

In many cases or situations which social distance is not the not the same
between the interlocutors in the conversations, in order to express the respect to the
invitee, the invitee usually adds some words or phrases such as kính, hân hạnh,
 24

trân trọng, xin trân trọng, xin trân trọng kính, có nhã ý with the aim to express
politeness.

Category 2: Invitations in forms of declarative sentences

Form 3: Invitations in forms of declarative sentences

(22) Chị xơi chén nước vậy. (Khải Hưng, 1988)

(sister, drink a cup of water.)
Category 3: Category 4: Invitations in form of imperatives
Form 4: Invitations in forms of imperative sentences

Take a look at the following example:

(23) Ông giáo hút thuốc đi. (Nam Cao, n.d)

(Mr. Giao, Let's smoke!)
Those instances belong to declarative sentence and imperative sentence mentioned
above show us that making invitation following these types has the same meaning.
Invitations here can be considered as orders. They are just different from containing
the word “đi” in imperative sentence and without it in declarative sentence.

2.5.2.2. Indirect invitations in Vietnamese

Category 4: Invitations in forms of questions

People frequently use interrogative sentence for making invitation indirectly. In

other words, it is a reminding saying which contains the meaning of invitation.
People use it for expressing their warm and friendly welcome to the invited person.

Form 5: Invitations in forms of Wh- questions

(24) Ông Đoàn sao lâu nay không thấy ông lại chơi. (Khai Hung, 1994)
(M. Đoan, Why haven't you come here recently?)
Form 6: Invitations in forms of Yes/No questions
(25) Con có muốn uống một ít cà phê không?
(Do you want to drink some coffee?)
 25

Form 7: Invitations in forms of Tag questions

(26) Chiều nay lại nhà tôi chơi, được không?
(You come to my house this evening, don't you)
In some other cases, likewise in English, people use many phrases such as kính, hân
hạnh, rất hân hạnh, trân trọng, “xin trân trọng, có nhã ý, etc when giving their
invitations to those who are in higher social positions than them. It is also a way to
show their respect to the people who are invited.

To be easy for the contrastive analysis in the later part of the thesis, the
following table shortly and clearly recorded what have been discussed so far. From
the theoretical background for both English and Vietnamese invitations, forms of
inviting are grouped together, covering seven forms of inviting in both languages

Table 5.1: Forms of Invitations in English and Vietnamese

Examples in Example in
Category Form
English Vietnamese

(1) Example: I (18) Tôi lấy làm

would like to invite hân hạnh mời anh
1. Performative
you to dinner next lại chơi.
sentences with a
1. Invitations in Sunday at my
subject.
forms of home.
performative
2. Performative (19) Mời cô ngồi
sentence
sentences without a tạm xuống ghế.
subject

2. Invitations in 3. Invitations in (3) We just thought (22) Chị xơi chén

forms of forms of it would be nice to nước vậy.
declarative declarative have you over for
sentences sentences dinner.
 26

4. Invitations in (4) Do have a (23) Ông giáo hút

3. Invitations in
forms of chocholate biscuit! thuốc đi.
forms of
imperative
(6) Let's go to our
imperatives
sentences.
place for a beer.

5. Invitations in (9) Why don’t you (24) Ông Đoàn

forms of Wh - come on holiday sao lâu nay không
questions with us? thấy ông lại chơi?

6. Invitations in (7) “Can you come (25) Con có muốn

4. Invitations in
forms of Yes/No over and join us? uống một ít cà
forms of questions
questions. phê không?

7. Invitations in (16) You will come (26) Chiều nay lại

forms of tag to have dinner with nhà tôi chơi,
questions us, won’t you? được không?

Under the theoretical background of inviting in English and Vietnamese, it can be

asserted that both direct and indirect invitations in English and Vietnamese, though
they are different in the number of categories, both have seven specific forms.
Basing on that, in the later part of the thesis, the data collected will be analyzed to
see what is the choice of two groups of participants for each of the six situations.

The review of literature dealt with so far holds an significant importance in

terms of providing the solid theoretical background for as well as setting up the
analytical framework for the data collection procedure in the coming part of thesis.
 27

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

The previous chapter has established the framework of the theoretical

background from which the speech act theory, politeness theory and other issues
related to the matter of this thesis have been introduced. This chapter focuses on
introducing the methodology of the thesis; in other words, the methods of collecting
data for analysis. This second chapter comprises five smaller parts: (1) research
questions (2) research participants; (3) research procedure; (4) data collection
instruments and (5) data analysis method.

3.1. Research questions

With the aims stated earlier, the following questions were addressed as follows and
the this thesis is hoped to answer them:

1. What are the major similarities and differences in the ways native speakers
of English and native speakers of Vietnamese making invitations?
2. Do social distance (D), relative power (P), and ranking of impositions (R)
affect the choice of inviting forms by native speakers of English and Vietnamese
native speakers?

3.2. Research participants

As the thesis was about to find out the similarities and differences between speech
acts of invitations in English and Vietnamese, the participants in the thesis were
native speakers of English and native speakers of Vietnamese. Sixty survey
questionnaires were handed out and sixty survey questionnaires returned were then
analyzed. All participants were asked to provide their nationalities, age, occupations,
gender, levels of education which were essential to find out the factors leading
similarities and differences of making invitations. In order for the data to be reliable,
prior to delivering the survey questionnaires, the participants were at first asked to
 28

give their permissions to join the survey.

The number of native English speakers was thirty in all: fifteen males and fifteen
females who are now living and working in Ho Chi Minh City, aged from nineteen
to thirty eight at the time of the survey. Their jobs were various: professors, teachers,
students, businessmen, managers, accountants. Their nationalities were diverse in
terms of English speaking countries; in other words, English is their first language
including the United States, The United Kingdom, Australia, Canada in order that
the results of the survey questionnaires were potentially reliable.

Thirty was the number of native speakers of Vietnamese: fifteen males and
fifteen females who are currently living and working in the city of Cao Lanh
(Mekong Delta Province of Dong Thap. This group of participants was at the age of
twenty one to forty three. These people speak Vietnamese as their first language.

The following table presented information on the research participants:

Table 3.2. Information on the research participants

Information Participants
English Vietnamese
Numbers in total 30 30
Between 20 and 30 24 27
Age Between 30 and 40 6 3
Male 15 15
Gender Female 15 15
Professor 1 1
Teacher 4 6
Accountant 2 2
Student 13 14
Restaurant 3 0
Job manager
 29

Worker 1 5
Company manager 2 0
Company 4 2
employee
Level of High school 4 5
education College or 26 25
University

3.3. Research procedure

In order to achieve the goals of the thesis in particular, as well as the thesis in
general the process of making the thesis comes through three major stages. Writing
the proposal was the very first stage in the process. This stage lasted nearly two
months from early October to late December, 2011. Then from early January to half
of this month, the survey questionnaire and personal observation were conducted. In
the last stage starting from late January to early May, the results from data analysis
were analyzed and discussed. This was also the stage when the thesis was finish both
in form and content.

3.4. Data collection instruments

To achieved the aims of the study with high reliability the study employed two data
collection instruments. These were survey questionnaires and personal observations.

3.4.1. The survey questionnaires

Survey questionnaire was the major data collection instrument employed in this
thesis. The thesis aimed to investigate the similarities and differences in producing
invitations speech acts by native speakers of English and those of Vietnamese.
Therefore, the delivered questionnaires were written in English and Vietnamese with
equal values. The questionnaire included two parts. The first part focused on
personal information about the participants such as nationality, age, gender, level of
 30

education, and occupation. The second part of the questionnaire provided situations
which required the participants’ answers. Each of which consisted of eight open
questions equivalent to eight situations in order to collect open answers from the
delivered participants. The situations in the questionaries were designed to reflect
real life situations. These eight questions particularly emphasized the situations,
relationships, genders, social status in which invitations speech acts were uttered.
Each of the question was comprised two main parts: the description of the situation
and the question to ask for the answer from the participants. The number of
questionnaires delivered was fifteen for each version the participants were asked to
write down their answers in the blank right below each question.

The questionnaires were then delivered to the participants. The chosen location
to deliver the English version of the survey questionnaires was Ho Chi Minh City,
the biggest and most crowded with expats in Vietnam. Twenty foreigners receiving
the questionnaires were definitely people coming from English speaking countries
such as The United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. Foreigners
whose first language was not English were not included. Also, Cao Lanh city was
the place in which Vietnamese version were delivered. They were people with
Vietnamese as their first language. Nevertheless, those who were Vietnamese
overseas were not chosen as the delivered participants. The forms of inviting
provided by these participants were analyzed in the light of pragmatics and cross –
cultural perspective and politeness strategies. A full version of each questionnaire is
provided in the appendices.

In the survey questionnaires, a series of six situations was designed to elicit

invitations from two groups of participants: native speakers of English and
Vietnamese native speakers. According to the theory of Brown and Levinson (1987),
there are three variables which have an effect on the choice of polite expressions
namely: social distance of the speaker (D), the relative power of the speaker and the
hearer (P), and the absolute ranking of impositions (R) in the particular culture.
 31

From that, six situations in the survey questionnaires were made into three groups.
The six situations are ordered as follows:

(1) The speaker has less power than the hearer; they are unfamiliar with each other.
(2) The speaker has less power than the hearer; they are familiar with each other.
(3) The speaker and the hear are equal in power; they are familiar with each other.
(4) The speaker and the hearer are equal in power; they are unfamiliar with each
other.
(5) The speaker has more power than the hearer; they are familiar with each other.
(6) The speaker has more power than the hearer; they are unfamiliar with each other.
Together with the categories of inviting discussed earlier, data collected from
two groups of participants will be analyzed to find out the choice of inviting forms
from the participants under the framework of Brown and Levinson' s theory.

The contents of the survey questionnaires are as follows:

Situation 1 was to investigate how invitation is made in the setting where the
speaker and the heare are equal in power and they are unfamiliar with each other,
that is between two people sitting near next to each other on the bus and they have
not known each other before.

Situation 2 was employed to explore which form is used by two groups of

participants in the setting where the speaker and the hearer are equal in power and
they are familiar with each other. In this situation, a student invites his or her
classmates to have lunch together in the school's cafeteria.

Situation 3 was used to discover which form of inviting is chosen by two groups
of participants in the setting where the speaker has more power than the hearer and
they are familiar with each other. In this situation, the parents will say something to
invite their children to sit down and have breakfast.

Situation 4 is designed to find out how the participant make an invitation in the
setting where the speaker has more power than the hearer and they are unfamiliar
 32

with each other. The speaker here in the situation is a manger or a boss of a company
who will invite a new applicant a cup of coffee.

Situation 5 was to investigate the way two groups of participants make invitation
in the setting where the speaker has lower power than the speaker and they are
unfamiliar with each other. The speaker in the situation is the shoe seller who invite
the customers to stop by and buy his or her products.

Situation 6 was employed to find out which form will be preferred by two
groups of participants in the setting where the speaker has less power than hearer
and they are familiar with each other. The students will invite their teacher to come
to the class party at the end of the course.

3.4.2. Personal observations

In addition to conducting survey questionnaires, personal observations played a

crucial role in terms of supplement data for the analysis. The personal observations
were employed with the aim to collect adequate data for analysis. To serve the aims
of a comparative analysis, just like the survey questionnaires, native speakers of
English as well as Vietnamese native speakers were observed with the focus of their
inviting utterances. The locations chosen for the observation work are in Ho Chi
Minh city and Cao Lanh city as well. Three public places were Ben Thanh market,
Dong Thap University campus, and a family. In these three contexts, the information
which made by the interlocutors related to speech acts of invitations are carefully
collected. While observing the conversations of the interlocutors, note – taking of
the interlocutors’ inviting forms was done with attention. Data collected from
personal observations is highly valued as it provides hypothesis for the contrastive
analysis.

3.5. Data analysis method

After being collected, the data was statistically analyzed using quantitative method.
The findings were mainly based on frequency distribution. The overview of results
 33

in each group of power settings (including two situations) was recorded in table
containing numbers of participants choosing this form and the equivalent percentage.
In each situation, the percentage of participants choosing each form of inviting
was presented in each chart (each chart was named according to the title of each
situation). The answers provided by two groups of participants were presented in
appendix 3 and 4 and they were coded from S(1) to S(360).

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

 34

This chapter concerns with the results recorded during the process of data
collections which employed two data collection instruments as well as the discussion
made basing on the results of the data collection process. In short, this part consists
of three parts namely (1) an overview of results; (2) results of data analysis; (3)
discussion.

4. 1. An overview of results

After holding the process of data collection, the study will now give the overview of
results through survey questionnaires completed by two groups of participants:
native speakers of English and native speakers of Vietnamese.

As mentioned in the former part, the survey questionnaire includes six situations.
Basing on the theory developed by Brown and Levinsion (1987), these six situations
were grouped into three groups. The overview of results for three groups are
respectively presented as follows:

4.1.1. An overview of results in equal power settings

Overall, the choices of inviting forms in the equal power settings where the speaker
and the hearer are in equal power and they can be unfamiliar with each other
(situation 1) and familiar with each other (situation 2) made by native speakers of
English and Vietnamese native speakers are quite different. Specifically, in situation
1, English participants prefer the forms of Yes/No questions, whereas most
Vietnamese ones make invitations in the forms of imperatives. In situation 2, there is
a notable similarity when most participants from two groups prefer choosing
imperative forms. The following table presents the overview results in equal power
settings:

Table 4.1.1 An overview of results in equal power settings

 35

Native speakers of Native speakers of

Situation Inviting forms
English Vietnamese
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Form 1 6 20%
Form 2
Form 3 4 13%
Form 4 5 17% 15 50%
1 Form 5
Form 6 25 83% 5 17%
Form 7
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Form 1
Form 2
Form 3
Form 4 18 60% 27 90%
2 Form 5
Form 6 12 40% 3 10%
Form 7

4.1.2. An overview of results high power settings

Generally, in the setting where the speaker has more power than the hearer, the
English and Vietnamese participants share both similarities and differences. First, in
situation 1, most Vietnamese and English participants (94% and 97% respectively)
choose to extend invitations in the forms of imperatives. By contrast, in situation,
most English participants (60%) choose the forms of Yes/No questions, whereas
Vietnamese ones invite in the forms of declarative sentences. The overview of
results in high power setting is as follows:
 36

Table 4.1.2. An overview of results in high power settings

Native speakers of Native speakers of

Situation Inviting forms
English Vietnamese
Number Percentage Number Percentage

Form 1
Form 2
Form 3 1 3%
3
Form 4 29 97% 28 94%
Form 5
Form 6 1 3%
Form 7 1 3%
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Form 1 6 20%
Form 2
Form 3 15 50%
4 Form 4 5 17%
Form 5 6 20%
Form 6 18 60% 10 33%
Form 7

4.1.3. An overview of results low power settings

Finally, in the setting where the speaker has lower power than the hearer,
Vietnamese and English participants one again share similarities and differences. In
situation 5, imperative forms are mostly chosen by 90% English participants and that
is also the choice of 67% of Vietnamese participants. In situation 6, Vietnamese
participants choose the form of performative sentence without a subject, whereas 50
 37

percents of English participants choose the form of performative sentence with

subjects.

What is presented above is the overview of results collected from two groups of
participants for three groups of results. To be more specific, the coming part is about
to look at the results for each situation. The overview of results in low power
settings is presented as follows:

Table 4.1.3. An overview of results in low power settings

Inviting Native speakers of Native speakers of
Situation
forms English Vietnamese
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Form 1 1 3%
Form 2 19 64%
Form 3
5 Form 4 27 90% 10 33%
Form 5
Form 6 3 10%
Form 7
Number Percentage Number Percentage
Form 1 15 50% 5 17%
Form 2 19 63%
Form 3
Form 4 10 33% 6 20%
6 Form 5
Form 6 5 17%
Form 7

4.2. Results of data analysis

 38

4.2.1. The choice of inviting forms in equal power settings

Situation 1

Figure 4.2.1.a Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese

participants: situation 1

90 83%
80
70
60
50%
50
40
30
20%
20 17% 15% 17%
10
0%0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0%
Native speakers
0 of English
Native speakers
Form 1 Form 2 Form 3 Form 4 Form 5 Form 6 Form 7
of Vietnamese

As seen in Figure 2.1.a, most of the English participants (83%) invite in the forms of
Yes/No- questions in situation 1 and some of the typical answers are as follows:
(S6) Do you want to eat some cakes?
(S7) Are you keen for a cake?
(S8) Would you like some cakes?
In the same situation, only five Vietnamese participants (equal to 17%) choose this
form of the Yes/no questions. Some of the typical examples are:
(S207) Chị có muốn ăn một cái bánh không?
(Do you want to eat a cake?)
(S208) Chị có muốn ăn một ít gì không?
(Do you want to eat something?)
(S210) Em có một vài cái bánh nè! Chị có muốn ăn một ít không?
 39

(I've got some cakes, Do you want to have some?)

Moreover, fifteen Vietnamese participants (making up 50%) invite in the forms of
imperatives meanwhile just five English participants, accounting for 17%, choose
this inviting form. Some of the answers provided by Vietnamese participants are as
follows:
(S181) Cô ơi ăn với con một cái bánh đi cô!
(Let's eat some cakes together!)
(S182) Cô ăn bánh đi cô!
(Let's eat some cake!).
and English ones are as follows:
(S1) You look hungry, Let's eat some cakes, please!
(S2) Are you hungry? Try these cakes, please!
(S3) You seem hungry, let's try a cake, please!

Moreover, there are six Vietnamese participants (equal to 20%) choosing the forms
of performative sentence with a subject and four Vietnamese participants (equivalent
to 13%) of the same group invite in the forms of declarative, but these numbers
make up a small percentage.

Over situation 1 (the speaker and the hearer are equal in power, they are
unfamiliar with each other, English participants make two choices including
invitations in forms of imperatives, invitations of Yes/no questions where as
Vietnamese got four choices invitations in form of performative sentence with a
subject; invitations in the forms of performative sentence without a subject;
invitations in form of imperatives; and invitations in form of Yes/no questions. In all,
there is a notable difference in the choice of inviting forms in this situation namely:
English participants prefer form 6 (using yes/no-questions) while most Vietnamese
participants prefer forms 4 (imperative sentences).

Situation 2
 40

Figure 4.2.1.b. Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese

participants: situation 2

90%
90
80
70
60%
60
50
40%
40
30
20
10%
10 Native speakers
0%0% 0%0% 0%0% 0%0% 0%0% of English
0 Native speakers
Form 1 Form 2 Form 3 Form 4 Form 5 Form 6 Form 7 of Vietnamese

As can be seen in figure 2.1.b, native speakers of English make two choices of the
inviting forms for situation 2 which the speaker and the hearer are in equal power
and they are familiar with each other; likewise, Vietnamese ones choose two forms
to inviting in the same situation. First, twenty nine Vietnamese participants (equal to
97%) choose form 4 (using imperatives) to show their friendliness and closeness in
situation 2. Some of the typical answers are as follows:
(S211) Ngồi bàn này luôn đi mấy bạn!
(Guys, let's sit down here at this table!)
(S212) Ê, lại đây ngồi ăn cơm luôn đi mấy bạn ơi!
(Hey, come to sit here and have lunch together)
(S213) Ăn trưa ở đây luôn đi mấy ông!
(Guys, let's eat lunch here)
In most cases, the English participants add the words please in order to make their
 41

imperatives more polite. Likewise, 60% of English participants (equivalent to 18

participants) invite in this forms. Take a look at some of the typical answers:
(S31) Please join me at this table,
(S32) Come here, please!
(S38) Join us for a drink.
In this situation, also, twelve English participants (40%) choose the forms of Yes/No
questions to extend their invitations. The following sentences illustrate this:
(S34) Do you want to join me at this table?
(S35) Are you care for this table?
In this situation, whereas, there are only three Vietnamese participants (equivalent to
10%) deciding to choose this form. The following introduces some typical answers:
(S214) Mấy ông ngồi đây ăn cơm luôn đi há?
(Can you guys sit here and eat lunch together?)
(S215) Ngồi đây luôn được hông?
(Can you sit here to eat?).
In general, from situation 2 ( the speaker and the hearer are in equal power; they
are familiar with each other, English participants choose two forms including.
invitations in form of imperatives and invitations in form of Yes/no questions;
likewise, Vietnamese participants make two choices: invitations in form of
imperatives and invitations in form of Yes/no questions. Generally, under situation 2,
most Vietnamese and English participants share in choosing the forms of imperative
sentences for making invitations in the situation where the hearer and the speaker are
in equal power and they are familiar with each other.

4.2.2. The choice of inviting forms in high power settings

Situation 3

Figure 4.2.2.a. Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese

participants: situation 3
 42

97%
100 94%
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 0%0% 0%0% 3% Native speakers
0% 0%0% 3%0% 0% 0% of English
0
Form 1 Form 2 Form 3 Form 4 Form 5 Form 6 Form 7 Native speakers
of Vietnamese

Looking at Chart 5, it is apparent that American participants and Vietnamese ones

share in the choice of inviting forms for situation 3 in the setting where the speaker
has more power than the hearer and they are familiar with each other. That is, most
of the participants invite in the form of imperatives including 29 participants of
English (making up 97%), some typical answers provided as:
(S61) Come down and enjoy breakfast!
(S62) Kids, sit down and have breakfast together!
Likewise, twenty eight Vietnamese participants (accounting for 94%) choose this
form. See some of the following typical answers:
(S260) Ngồi xuống ăn sáng luôn đi con trai ơi!
(Sit here and have breakfast)
(S243) Mấy đứa ra đây ăn sáng với ba mẹ luôn nè!
(Children, come out and have breakfast with us!)
In addition, only one English participant (equal to 3%) chooses one more form of
inviting (form 6 using Yes/no questions). For example,
(S63) Are you ready for breakfast?.
Moreover, one Vietnamese participant (accounting for 3%) chooses the form of tag
question in this situation like:
 43

(S241)Mấy con ăn sáng bây giờ luôn hén?

(You can eat breakfast now, can't you).
Furthermore, one Vietnamese participant (equivalent to 1%) choose to invite in the
form of declarative sentence. See the following answer:
(S242) Mấy đứa ra ăn sáng vậy!
(Come out and have breakfast)
Overall, in situation 3, English participants make two choices of inviting forms
including, invitations in form of imperatives and invitations in form of Yes/no
questions, whereas Vietnamese got three choices namely: invitation in form of
declarative sentence; invitations in form of imperatives; and invitations in form of
tag question. Overall, in situation 3, there is a notable similarity between two groups
of participants which most Vietnamese and English participants prefer form 4 (using
imperatives) to make their invitations.

Situation 4

Figure 4.2.2.b. Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese

participants: situation 4

60%
60
50%
50

40
33%
30
20% 17% 20%
20

10
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0% Native speakers
0 of English
Form 1 Form 2 Form 3 Form 4 Form 5 Form 6 Form 7 Native speakers
of Vietnamese

As can be clearly seen that Vietnamese and English participants differ in choosing
 44

inviting form for situation where the speaker has more power than the hearer and
they are unfamiliar with each other. English participants make three choices in this
situation: six participants make invitations in form of performative sentence with A
subject (20%); some of the answers are as follows:
(S91) I would like to invite you a cup of tea.
(S92) I would like to invite you a drink,
Six invitations in form of Wh-questions (20%), see the following answers:
(S95) How about a cup of tea?
(S96) Why don't you try a cup of tea?;
and eighteen choose to extend invitations in the form of Yes/No questions (60%).
See three following answers:
(S101) Are you keen for a cup of tea?
(S102) Do you want to try a cup of tea?
(S103) Would you like a cup of tea?
Vietnamese participants choices are quite different, in contrast. Fifteen Vietnamese
ones invite in the form of declarative sentences such as:
(S271) Uống một tách trà đỡ nhe!
(Drink a cup of tea!)
(S272) Bạn uống đỡ một tách trà cho đỡ khát nhe!
(Let's drink a cup of tea for being less thirsty).
Ten Vietnamese participants (accounting for 33%) decided to invite in the form of
Yes/ No questions such as
(S275) Bạn muốn uống một tách trà cho đỡ khát không?
(Would you like to drink a cup of tea for being less thirsty?)
(S276) Uống một tách trà nhe?
(A cup of tea).
Finally, the rest of Vietnamese participants ( equal to 17 %) extend their invitations
in the form of imperatives such as
(S277) Uống một tách trà đi bạn!
 45

(Let's drink a cup of tea!)

(S278) Dùng một tách trà cho đỡ khát đi bạn!
(Let's drink a cup of tea to be less thirsty).
In short, two groups of participants choose differently the forms of inviting for
situation 4. English participants got three forms: performative sentence with a
subject, WH-questions and Yes/no questions; Vietnamese participants invite in three
forms: declarative sentences, imperatives and Yes/no questions. However, English
participants prefer form 6 (using Yes/no questions) whereas Vietnamese ones prefer
form 3 (using declarative sentences).

4.2.3. The choice of inviting forms in low power settings

Situation 5

Figure 4.2.3.a. Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese

participants: situation 5

90%
90
80
70 64%
60
50
40 33%
30
20
10% Native speakers
10 3%
0% 0% 0%0% 0%0% 0% 0%0% of English
0
Native speakers
Form 1 Form 2 Form 3 Form 4 Form 5 Form 6 Form 7 of Vietnamese

As appears in figure 2.3.a that native speakers of English make two choices and
Vietnamese native speakers make three choices in the situation where the speaker
has less power than the hearer. First, 90 % of English participants choose the form of
imperatives with please added in most cases such as
 46

(S121) Please drop by and try these new shoes!

(S122) Come in please, very nice shoes inside!
whereas ten out of thirty Vietnamese participants (33%) choose this form such as the
following:
(S313) Ghé vô lựa giày mới bổ về đi chị!
(Let's drop by and select new shoes)
(S330) Mua giày ghé vô lựa đi anh ơi!
(Buying shoes, drop by to select).
Moreover, nineteen Vietnamese participants (equal to 64%) choose to extend their
invitations in the form of performative sentence without a subject. The following
examples are some typical ones:
(S301) Mời anh chị ghé vô lựa giày!
(Invite you come to select shoes)
(S302) Hàng mới về, mời anh chị quẹo lựa!
(New items here, invite you drop by and select).
Only one Vietnamese participant invite in the form of performative sentence with a
subject. This invitation is as follows:
(S303) Giày mới đây, em mời anh chị!
(New shoes here, I'd like you to select).
There are three English participants (equal to 10%) choosing the form of Yes/No
questions. Take a look at some typical answers:
(S123) Do you want to try these new items?
(S127) Would you like to try these new shoes?
Generally, two groups of participants differ much in choosing the forms of
inviting in situation 5 where English participants choose imperatives and Yes/No
questions: and Vietnamese ones invite in the forms of performative sentence without
subject and declarative sentences. Over these choices, most English participants
prefer form 4 while Vietnamese ones prefer 2.
 47

Situation 6

Figure 4.2.3.b. Forms of inviting provided by the English and Vietnamese

participants: situation 6

70
63%
60
50%
50

40
33%
30
20%
20 17% 17%

10 Native speakers of
0% 0% 0% 0%0% English
0% 0%0%
0 Native speakers of
Form 1 Form 2 Form 3 Form 4 Form 5 Form 6 Form 7 Vietnamese

Figure 2.3.b shows that English and Vietnamese participants greatly differ in
choosing the inviting forms for situation 6 where the speaker has less power than the
hearer. Fifteen English participants (accounting for 50%) choose the forms of
performative sentences with a subject to express their respect to the teacher. Some of
the typical answers are as follows:
(S151) We would like to invite you to join our class's party this weekend.
(158) Our class' d like to invite you to our party next Sunday.
whereas five Vietnamese participants (making up 17%) invite in this form. See some
of the answers:
(S331) Dạ lớp em mời cô đến dự buổi tiệc liên hoan với lớp em chủ nhật này!
(Our class would like to invite you to attend our class's party this Sunday)
(S332) Lớp em mời cô đến dự tiệc liên hoan với lớp chúng em!
(Our class would like to invite you to attend the party with us).
No English participants choose form 2, whereas nineteen Vietnamese participants
 48

(accounting for 63%) choose form 2 (performative sentence without a subject) such
as:
(S333) Mời quý thầy cô đến dự tiệc liên hoan với lớp chúng em!
(Invite dear teachers come to attend the party with our class.)
(S334) Mời thầy cô đến chơi với lớp em nhe cô!
(Invite teachers come to join our class)
In addition, six out of thirty Vietnamese participants (about 20%) choose the forms
of imperatives to make invitations in this situation. Some answers provided by them
are as follows:
(S335) Cô đến chơi với lớp em cho vui nha cô!
(Dear teacher, join and have fun with our class!)
(S336) Cô hãy đến chung vui với lớp em nghen cô!
(Let's come and have fun with our class!).
Ten English participants (accounting for 33%) choose the form of imperatives to
extend the invitation. See the following answers as examples:
(S152) Come and celebrate with us!
(S180) We are having a party this Sunday morning, please come and join us.
Five English participants (equivalent to 17%) make their invitations for situation 6
using Yes/No-questions like:
(S153) Would you like to join us in the class' s party next weekend?
(S154) Are you care for a drink with our class this weekend?
In general, in situation 6 belonging to low power setting, English and
Vietnamese participants expressed diffidently their preference of inviting forms
which English participants prefer form 1 (using performative sentence a subject, 4
(using imperative sentences) while Vietnamese participants prefer form 2 (using
performative sentence without a subject, and form 4 (using imperative sentences).

4.3. Discussion

As mentioned in chapter three, there were two research questions raised during the
 49

process of data analysis.

1. What are similarities and differences between the ways English native
speakers and Vietnamese speakers making invitations?
2. Do (social distance), relative power (P), and ranking of impositions (R) affect
the choice of inviting forms by native speakers of English and Vietnamese native
speakers?

In this part, after the results from survey questionnaires were introduced, the
discussion of these two research question was about to be made:

4.3.1. Research question 1: What are similarities and differences between

the ways English native speakers and Vietnamese speakers making invitations?

The data analysis above provides some interesting information about the ways native
speakers of English and Vietnamese native speakers making and choosing the
suitable forms of invitations over three groups of settings: equal power settings, high
power settings and low power settings, covering six situations.

From the data analysis, a lot of similarities and differences can be seen in the
ways of making invitations between Vietnamese and English participants.

4.3.1.1. Similarities

The very first similarity shared by invitations made in both languages is that the
performative verb invite and mời is used in some forms of inviting. The verb invite
occurs in the English data twenty one times and mời appears in Vietnamese data
fifty times; however, they are are used in different forms. In English data, the
performative verb mainly appears in the form of performative sentence with subjects
such as I would like to invite you to our party this weekend. By contrast, the word
mời is mostly used in the form of performative sentence without a subject such as
Mời cô đến chung vui với lớp em! (Invite you to come and have fun with our class!)

In order to reduce face-threatening, and to pay respect to the invitee, please in

 50

English, xin trân trọng, kính mời in Vietnamese were added, which appear in
imperative forms or performative sentences provided by two groups of participants.
The following answers provided by English participants illustrate this:

(S1) You look hungry, Let's eat some cakes, please!

(S2) Are you hungry? Try these cakes, please!
or some answers provided by Vietnamese participants as follows:
(S340) Kính mời cô thầy đến dự tiệc liên hoan với chúng em!
(Respectfully invite teachers come to attend the party with our class)
(S341) Thầy ơi, cô ơi! Lớp chúng em có tỗ chức một buổi liên hoan nhỏ, em kính
mời thầy cô đến dự cùng lớp chúng em!
(Dear teachers, our class is going to have a party, we respectfully invite you
to attend it with us)
The ways English and Vietnamese native speakers conduct invitation-making speech
act are both affected by three variables: social distance (intimacy), power relations
(social status or age) between the speaker and the hearer, and impositions (threats to
each other's negative face).

4.3.3.2. Differences

Beside all common features discussed above, there are various dissimilarities in
making invitations in English and Vietnamese.

First, from results of survey questionnaires, it is apparent that direct inviting in

Vietnamese employs more structures than that of English namely invitations in form
of performative sentence with or without a subject, declarative sentences, and
imperatives, while Vietnamese indirect invitations goes around just performative
sentence with subject, and imperatives.

In terms of directness and indirectness, through survey statistics, Vietnamese

tends to be more direct when extending invitations. As a matter of fact, the
proportion of direct forms chosen by Vietnamese participants are quite larger than
 51

those of English ones namely in situation 1, 4, and 6. The difference is due to

indirect invitations in English can cause face-threatening to the hearer.

In some cases appeared in the answers of English participants, elliptical yes/no

questions are used in situation 3 such as Have a drink here? or This table?, but they
do not appear in Vietnamese participants' answers.

4.3.2. Research question 2: Do (social distance), relative power (P), and

ranking of impositions affect the choice of inviting forms native speakers of
English and Vietnamese native speakers?

In the former part, similarities and differences in the ways English native speakers
and Vietnamese native speakers making invitations. This part is about to discuss the
influences of three social variables to the choice of inviting forms by two groups of
participants in each situation.

Situation 1

In situation 1 (the speaker invites a woman that he or she doesn't know to enjoy a
cake) where the speaker and the hearer are the same in power and they don't know
each other, Vietnamese prefer form 4 (in form of imperatives) while English
participants use type 6 (in the forms of Yes/No questions. The choice of of English
participants is due to the effect of R (threats to each other's negative face). Take a
look at some answers provided by English native speakers:

(1) Do you want to eat a cake?

(2) I have some cake Would you like to try one?
and some provided by Vietnamese participants as follows:
(3) Chị ơi chị ăn chút gì đi!
(Sister, Let's eat something!)
(4) Cô ơi cô ăn một chút đi!
(Aunt, Eat a liitle bit!)
Generally, in the equal settings, Vietnamese participants tend to be direct and
 52

imperative while English ones tend to be indirect. Despite of these differences, it can
not be drawn a conclusion that Vietnamese is more polite than English in making
invitation or vise verse. We can only conclude that it is matter of culture and habit
and language as a mean of communication.

Situation 2

The data presented in figure 2.1.b (situation 2) shows that Vietnamese participants
and English participants prefer type 4 (invitations in form of imperatives) in their
invitations made in the setting when the speaker and the hearer are in equal power
and they are familiar with each other (a friend invites their classmates to eat lunch
together) in order to show their friendliness. Social distance (D) has an effect to the
choice of inviting forms by Vietnamese and English participants. This is because
there is an intimacy between interlocutors. Look at the following answers provided
by English participants:

(5) Please join me at this table!

(6) The meal is ready, come out and enjoy together!
or some make by Vietnamese participants as follows:
(7) Các bạn lại ngồi cùng mình!
(Guys, come here and sit with me!)
(8) Ngồi chung bàn này luôn đi mấy ông!
(Guys, sit together here at this table!)

Situation 3

Both two groups of participants, in situation 3 where the speaker has more power
than the hearer; they are familiar with each other, tend to be imperative when most
of the participants from two groups prefer using form 4 (imperatives), specifically to
family members in situation 3. The reason why that form is preferred is that the
speaker and the hearer are in close relationship (affected by social distance - D) and
the speaker (a mother or a father) is in higher power or position (relative power-P)
 53

than the hearer (the children). Here are some imperative provided by English native
speakers and Vietnamese ones respectively:

(9) Sit down, kids breakfast is soon!

(10) Come here, breakfast will be served soon!
or some answers by Vietnamese participants as follows:
(11) Các con xuống ăn sáng đi!
(My kids, come down to have breakfast!)
(12) Ngồi xuống ăn sáng đi mấy đứa!
(Sit down and have breakfast!)

Situation 4

It appears in situation 4 where the speaker has more power than the hearer (a boss or
a manger invites a new applicant a cup of tea) that most Vietnamese speakers were
not influenced by social distance (D) but relative power (P), form 3 (declarative
sentences) were employed. Some of typical answer are as follows:

(13) Uống một tách trà cho đỡ khát vậy!

(Drink a cup of tea for being less thirsty!)
(14) Uống đỡ một tách trà vậy!
(Drink a cup of tea!)
However, in the same situation, most English ones prefer type 6 (in form of
Yes/No questions). No English participants choose to invite in the form
ofimperatives. These choice are strongly affected by R (threat to each other negative
face) and relative power (P). This is because the inviter (the boss) don't want to go to
the content of invitation directly. Take a look at some examples:
(15) Would you mind for a cup of tea?
(16) Are you keen for a drink?

Situation 5

Statistics shows in situation 5 that to invite the customers to stop by and choose the
 54

items (in the setting where the speaker has less power than the hearer and they are
strangers each others), Vietnamese speakers use performative sentences without
subjects to show be more respective to the customers. This choice of inviting form
by the shoe vendor was affected by social distance (D) and relative power (P). For
examples:
(17) Mời anh chị ghé vô gian hàng!
(Invite you to visit my store!)
(18) Mời anh chị ghé vô coi đi, đôi nào thấy được thì lấy!
(Invite you to to drop by to see the items, take any pair of shoes that you like).
While native speakers of English use imperative sentences for that situation to
establish friendliness with the word please accompanied. R and P did not express
their influence to the choice of English native speaker in this situation. See the
following answer below:
(19) Come in please!
(20) Please choose our new shoes!

Situation 6

In the setting where the speaker has lower power than the hearer; they are familiar
with each other (situation 6), performative sentences were mostly used both two
groups of participants in order to show respect to the person invited. Both of the
participants were influence by social distance and relative power. As a matter of fact
the students were in lower position than the teacher and they are in close relationship,
so performative sentence with a subject was preferred as in the following answer:

(21) We are having a party to celebrate finishing our course, we' d like to invite
you.
(22) We are having a barbecue next Sunday morning, we would like to invite you
since you have been such a nice teacher.
or some typical answers from Vietnamese participants as follows:
(23) Dạ em kính mời cô đến dự tiệc liên hoan với lớp chúng em tối thứ bảy này!
 55

(I would like to invite you to attend our class's party this Saturday evening!)
(24) Dạ thưa cô, lớp em có tổ chức một buổi tiệc liên hoan, em mời cô đến dự
với chúng em!
(Dear teacher, my class is having a party, I would like to invite you!)
However, in some cases, mời in Vietnamese appears in form of performative
sentence without a subject as this choice was influenced by social distance (D). Take
some typical answers as examples:
(25) Mời cô đến dự tiệc liên hoan với lớp chúng em cho vui nhe cô!
(Invite you to attend the party with our class to have fun!)
(26) Cô ơi! Mời cô đến dự tiệc liên hoan cuối tuần này với lớp chúng em!
(Dear teacher, invite you to attend the party this weekend with our class)
Finally, the choice of inviting forms make by English and Vietnamese participants is
both similar and different. Social status, intimacy and threats to each other's negative
face express their different influences to the choice of the speakers from both
languages.
 56

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS

Finally, chapter five of the thesis is about shortly to take a look at what are presented
in the thesis as well as give additional information related to the study. It is
comprised of two smaller parts: (1) summary, major findings, implications on
teaching and (2) limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies.

5.1. Summary, major findings and implications on teaching

5.1.1. Summary

The focus of this study was on the differences and similarities in English and
Vietnamese invitations. The literature review of the thesis is based on the theoretical
background of speech acts, politeness strategies, the existing theory on pragmatics
and cross-cultural pragmatics, categories of inviting in English and Vietnamese
through previous researches as well as books on linguistics and English learning.

The data for analysis was provided by two groups of participants: thirty English
native speakers and thirty Vietnamese native speakers. The study employs two data
collection instruments: survey questionnaires and personal observation, which
survey questionnaire is the major one. The survey questionnaires consisting six
situations were delivered to thirty Vietnamese and thirty English participants.

The study aims to find out the similarities and differences between the ways
English and Vietnamese making invitations. As a result, two research questions are
addressed: (1) What are the major similarities and differences in the ways native
speakers of English and native speakers of Vietnamese making invitations? (2) Do
social distance (D), relative power (P), and ranking of impositions (R) affect the
choice of inviting forms by native speakers of English and Vietnamese native
speakers?
Data analysis method in this study are statistics, comparing and contrasting. The
invitations provided by two groups of participants were classified according to forms
 57

of inviting existed in the invitation utterance to find how much percentage of

English participants and Vietnamese participants use a particular form in each
situation.
After the results was presented, the discussion to answer two research questions
were made, and some implications on teaching was introduced.

5.1.2. Major findings

Basing on the data analysis of invitation speech acts provided by English and
Vietnamese participants as well as the discussion of similarities and differences the
ways two groups of participants making invitations and the influence of three
variables to the choice of inviting forms by English and Vietnamese participants, the
study now comes to review the major findings recorded from the study.

In terms of syntactic analysis, Vietnamese participants employed more

invitations structures than those of English participants. Specifically, Vietnamese
speakers used seven forms of inviting including performative sentence with a subject;
performative sentence without a subject; declarative sentences; imperatives,
Wh-questions; Yes/no questions; and tag questions whereas English ones got five
forms including performative sentence with a subject; imperatives, Wh-questions;
Yes/no questions; and tag questions. Another major finding is that Vietnamese
participants are more direct than English in terms of using more direct forms of
inviting (161 out of 180 invitation utterances by Vietnamese participants are in
direct forms in comparison to 116 out of 180 by English ones). The reason is that
direct invitations in English are face-threatening.

In each situation provided, two groups of participants share similarities and

express differences in choosing the forms of inviting through three groups of
settings. The choices of inviting forms in the equal power settings where the speaker
and the hearer are in equal power and they can be unfamiliar with each other
(situation 1) and familiar with each other (situation 2) made by native speakers of
English and Vietnamese native speakers are quite different. Specifically, in situation
 58

1, most English participants prefer the forms of Yes/No questions (83%), whereas
most Vietnamese ones make invitations in the forms of imperatives (50%). In
situation 2, there is a notable similarity when most participants from two groups
prefer choosing imperative forms. In the setting where the speaker has more power
than the hearer, the English and Vietnamese participants share both similarities and
differences. In situation 3, most Vietnamese and English participants (94% and 97%
respectively) choose to extend invitations in the forms of imperatives. As a result,
from situation 3, English anh Vietnamese participants are found similar in choosing
the same form of inviting. By contrast, in situation 4, most English participants
(60%) choose the forms of Yes/No questions, whereas most Vietnamese ones invite
in the forms of declarative sentences (50%). Finally, in the setting where the speaker
has lower power than the hearer, Vietnamese and English participants one again
share similarities and differences. In situation 5, imperative forms are mostly chosen
by 90% English participants and that is also the choice of 67% of Vietnamese
participants. In situation 6, Vietnamese participants choose the form of performative
sentences without subjects, whereas 50 percents of English participants choose the
form of performative sentence with subjects.

The way English and Vietnamese people conduct inviting is affected by three
factors: social distance (or intimacy), power relations (i.e social status or age) between
the speakers, and impositions (i.e threats to each other’s negative face) negotiated by
interlocutors. In addition, the most popular forms of inviting in Vietnamese are
imperatives and performative sentence with a subject. Moreover, English participants
sound more polite in their invitations in comparison with Vietnamese ones tend to be
imperative in order to establish friendliness. In some settings like in situation 2
(between classmates), situation 3 (between the parents and children), English and
Vietnamese participants found to be nearly similar in the choice of inviting forms.

5.1.3. Implications on teaching

As mentioned in the former part, perceiving the similarities and differences about
 59

invitation- making speech act is a must in terms of helping teachers design tasks for
students. Under some aspects of contrastive view into making invitations both in
English and Vietnamese, the study is about to discuss some implications for
Vietnamese learners of English.

It is, first, essential for teachers to make students aware of cultural similarities and
differences of making invitations in Vietnamese culture and the cultures where the
target language is spoken. Teacher should distinguish and highlight which forms of
invitations, in other words, when and they are used in informal situations as well as
formal ones. Through that, students can get to know clearly the functions of this
speech act in order to use it effectively in daily interactions. It drives the students to
be more confident when they make and keep the conversations with other people,
especially those who come from English speaking countries. This is important
because teachers themselves are making every effort to qualify our students for
using English for communication.

Teachers, secondly, should provide their students any input that is necessary for
students to enrich their understandings on the way invitations made both languages
as well as to enhance students' language and communicative competence. The input
can be provided in various ways. For example, modern technology in language
teaching today offers a great help for teachers to provide students with many sources
of invitations such as Internet, television, videos, and many others. From that
teachers can provide students with many options for choosing suitable conversations
that are close to real life situations. These are quite different to what are presented in
the textbooks in order to bring authentic materials into the classroom.

Last but not least, teachers should also provide their students with as many as
communicative opportunities as possible. Teachers should transform the class into a
small society, or a neighborhood or an office where students can practice some
activities as role play or mapped dialogue. These activities can stimulate students'
enthusiasm, creativity in making invitations in English.
 60

5.2. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies

5.2.1. Limitations of the study

The study contains some limitations that should be noted. Firstly, there was a
limitation regarding the participants of the study. The Vietnamese participants are
mostly students, whereas, due to contact condition constraints, the native speakers of
English come from various backgrounds. They have different jobs and consequently,
in general, they have different social status. Some are university lecturers. This
difference does not ensure a parallel data for the comparison of the strategy use of
the two language groups. For example, a lecturer’s response might be more formal
than that of a student.

5.2.2. Suggestions for further studies

Although similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese invitations in

terms of cross-cultural perspective have been investigated so far in the thesis, it can
not cover all the aspects relating to such broad cultural and linguistic convention like
inviting and its related issues. As a result, further researches can further find out
more about this topic. Here are some suggestions:

A comparative study on accepting an invitation in English and Vietnamese in

terms of cross-cultural perspective.
A comparative study on refusing an invitation in English and Vietnamese in
terms of politeness strategies.

A comparative study on hedges in declining an invitation in English and

Vietnamese in terms of cross-cultural perspectives.

The thesis has been completed with greatest efforts. However, during the making
of the thesis, shortcomings and mistakes are inevitably unavoidable. Therefore,
sympathetic comments and suggestions are highly appreciated.
 REFERENCES
In English

Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Brow, P, & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge University Press.
Cobuild, C. (2001). English grammar. (T.Y. Nguyen, Trans.). Ho Chi Minh City:
Ho Chi Minh City Publishing House.
Duong Hai Dang. (n.d). Direct Invitations in English and Vietnamese. Ho Chi
Minh City: Ho Chi Minh City University of Education Press.
Hornby. (2003). Oxford Advanced Leaner’s Dictionary. Oxford University Press.
Invitation. (n.d). Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Retrieved April, 15,
2012, from http://dictionarycambridge.org/results.asp?Searchword =invitation
& x = 23 & y =14.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.
Le Huy Lam. (2000). Đàm thoại tiếng Anh trong mọi tình huống. Ca Mau City: Ca
Mau Publisher.
Le Thi Mai Hong. (2008). Politeness strategies in requests and invitations: A
comparative study between English and Vietnamese, Pragmatics essay. Dalarna:
Högskolan Dalarna University Press.
Levine, D.R. ,& Adelman, M.B.(1982). Beyond Language-Intercultural
Communication for English as a Second Language. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Luu Quy Khuong. (2007). An investigation into spoken direct invitations in English
and Vietnamese. Retrieved April, 11, 2012 from http://www.khsdh.udn.
vn/zipfiles/so23/23khuong_luu - 20quy _ loi _moi_truc_tiep.doc.
Making invitation in Vietnamese. (nd). Retrieved April, 25, 2012 from
http://vietnamese-learning.com/2156/making-invitation-in-vietnamese.
Nguyen Thi Kim Quy. (2004). A Cross-Cultural Study on Inviting and Responding
 to Invitations in Vietnamese and English. Ha Noi City: Ha Noi University Press.
Richard J. C., Platt J., Webber H. (1992) Longman Dictionary of Language
Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Longman.
Tillitt, B., & Bruder, N.B. (1999). Speaking naturally. USA: Cambridge
University Press.
Tran Yen Bao Tran. (2009). Direct Invitations and Indirect Acceptance Structures
in English and Vietnamese. Retrieved April, 20, 2012 from:
http://khoaanh.net/_upload/CA2009/Direct_invitation-indirect_acceptance%20T
ran%20Yen%20Bao%20Tran%204A.pdf.
Wall, A. P. (1987). Say it naturally. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Wierzbicka A. (1991). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human
Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

In Vietnamese

Cao Xuân Hạo. (1991). Tiếng Việt sơ khảo ngữ pháp chức năng. Hà Nội: Nhà
Xuất Bản Xã Hội.
Khải Hưng. (1988). Nửa Chừng Xuân. Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Văn Học.
Khải Hưng. (1994). Tuyển tập truyện ngắn. Hải Phòng: Nhà Xuất Bản Hải Phòng.
Nam Cao. (nd). Lão Hạc. Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Giáo Dục.
Nguyễn Thiện Giáp. (2007). Dụng học Việt ngữ. Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Đại Học
Quốc Gia Hà Nội.
Nguyễn Văn Lập. (2005). Nghi thức lời nói tiếng Việt trên cơ sở lý thuyết hành vi
ngôn ngữ (so sánh với tiếng Anh). Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh: Đại Học Khoa Học
Xã Hội và Nhân Văn Đại Học Quốc Gia Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh.
Thạch Lam. (2000). Dưới bóng hoàng lan. Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Giáo Dục.
Viện Ngôn ngữ. (1994). Từ điển tiếng Việt. Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Giáo Dục
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (IN ENGLISH)

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out what you would naturally say
in the situations listed below. Your assistance in completing the following items is
highly appreciated. You can be confident that this questionnaire is for research
purposes only and that you will not be identified in any discussion of the data.

Thank you very much for your assistance.

Part I
Please fill in your personal information.

1. Your nationality:.......................................
2. Your age:......................
3. Your gender :Male 
Female 
4. Level of education: High school 
College or University 
5. Your occupation:......................................

Could you please read the situations below? After each situation please write down
exactly what you would say in the normal conversation.
Part II
Situation 1: You are sitting and eating some cakes in the bus. The woman sitting
near you seems so hungry. You want to invite her a cake. What would you say?........
..................................................................................................................................
Situation 2: You are eating lunch in a school cafeteria. Some of your classmates are
coming. To invite your friends to eat together. What would you say? .......................
..................................................................................................................................
Situation 3: Suppose you are mother or father. You want to ask your children to sit
down and have breakfast. What would you say? ........................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Situation 4: You are a boss or a manager. An applicant comes to your company for
an interview. He/she looks very thirsty. You want to invite him/her a cup of coffee?
What would you say? ................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Situation 5: You are a shoe seller in a market. You want to invite the customers to
stop by and choose your items. What would you say? ................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Situation 6: At the end of the course, your class holds a party. You would like to
invite your teacher to join it. What would you say? ...................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Thank you very much for your co-operation!
APPENDIX 2: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (IN VIETNAMESE)

PHIẾU ĐIỀU TRA

Mục đích của phiếu điều tra này là nhằm tìm hiểu xem quý vị phát biểu như thế
nào trong các tình huống dưới đây. Rất cảm ơn và trân trọng sự nhiệt tình của quý vị
cho việc hoàn thành phiếu điều tra này. Quý vị hãy yên tâm vì phiếu khảo sát này chỉ
phục vụ cho quá trình nghiên cứu và thông tin cá nhân của quý vị sẽ không được bàn
luận trong bất kỳ tham luận này.
Xin cảm ơn chân thành vì sự giúp đỡ của quý vị
Phần 1:
Xin quý vị hãy điền vào những thông tin dưới đây:

Quốc tịch:...............................................................................
Tuổi:........................................................................................
Giới tính: Nam 
Nữ 
Trình độ học vấn:..................................................................
Nghề nghiệp:.........................................................................

Phần 2
Quý vị hãy đọc những tình huống dưới đây. Sau đó xin quý vị hãy viết câu trả
lời đúng với suy nghĩ của mình vào khoảng trống bên dưới mỗi câu hỏi:
Tình huống 1: Quý vị đang ăn một ít bánh trên xe buýt. Người phụ nữ ngồi kế bên
quý vị trong có vẻ rất đói. Bạn có ý muốn mời cô ấy ăn một cái bánh, quý vị sẽ nói
gì? .......................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Tình huống 2: Quý vị đang ngồi ăn trưa trong can tin trường. Một vài người bạn
cùng lớp đang đi đến. Quý vị sẽ nói gì để rủ các bạn cùng ngồi ăn chung? ..........
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Tình huống 3: Giả sử quý vị là ba hay là mẹ. Bữa sáng đã xong rồi. Quý vị thường
nói gì để kêu các con mình ngồi xuống ăn sáng?. ................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Tình huống 4: Giả sử quý vị là quản lý hay giám đốc của một công ty. Một ứng
viên đến công ty bạn xin việc, trong anh ta cô ta có vẻ rất khác nước, quý vị sẽ nói gì
để mời anh ta hay chị ta uống một tách trà? .........................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Tình huống 5: Giả sử quý vị là một người bán giày dép tại một khu chợ. Quý vị
thường nói gì để mời khách hàng ghé vào và chọn giày? ...................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Tình huống 6: Vào lúc kết thúc một học kỳ, lớp quý vị có tổ chức một buổi tiệc liên
hoan. Quý vị sẽ nói gì để mời giáo viên của bạn dự buổi tiệc đó? ........................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
Xin chân thành cảm ơn sự giúp đỡ của quý vị.
 APPENDIX 3: OBSERVATION SHEET

OBSERVATION SHEET

Part I. Observation information

Time of: .......................................................Date of observing:.................................
Place of observing:......................................................................................................
Group of participants:.................................................................................................
Nationalities................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................
Part II. Content
Place Participants Conversation
APPENDIX 4: INVITATIONS PROVIDED BY ENGLISH PARTICIPANTS

(S1) You look hungry, Let's eat some cakes, please!

(S2) Are you hungry? Try these cakes, please!
(S3) You seem hungry, let's try a cake, please!
(S4) Please try these ones!
(S5) Let's eat a cake, please!
(S6) Do you want to eat some cakes?
(S7) Are you keen for a cake?
(S8) Would you like some cakes?
(S9) Are you care for a cake?
(S10) Are you keen for a cake?
(S11) Would you like to try some cakes?
(S12) Would you like to try these cakes?
(S13) Do you want to eat some cakes?
(S14) Would you like to eat some cakes?
(S15) Would you like to try these cakes?
(S16) Cakes?
(S17) Can you please eat a cake?
(S18) Do you want some cakes?
(S19) You seem hungry. Are you care for a cake?
(S20) Would you like to try some cakes?
(S21) You sound hungry. Would you like some cakes?
(S22) Would you like to eat some cakes?
(S23) Are you keen for a cake?
(S24) You look hungry. Would you like some thing to eat?
(S25) Do you want to eat a cake?
(S26) I have some cake Would you like to try one?
(S27) Would you like to try some cakes?
(S28) Would you like to eat some cakes?
(S29) Would you please eat a cake?. I have some.
(S30) Would you like to have some cakes?
Situation 2:
(S31) Please join me at this table,
(S32) Come here, please!
(S33) Come over, please!
(S34) Do you want to join me at this table?
(S35) Are you care for this table?
(S36) Come on guys!
(S37) Do you want to drink something!
(S38) Join us for a drink.
(S39) Join me at this table.
(S40) Come here guys!
(S41) Come on over! please!
(S42) Let's have a drink, this table
(S43) Do you want to eat something?
(S44)Care for a drink?
(S45) Come here guys, and have lunch together!
(S46) Please join me here!
(S47) Come over here!
(S48) Join me for lunch!
(S49) Guys! Sit down and have lunch together
(S50) Come on girls!
(S51) Come over here and have a drink!
(S52) Hello! Come here, please.
(S53) Alright guys! Let's go and have a drink
(S54) Do you want to join us for lunch?
(S55)Come on over here.
(S56) Are you keen for a drink?
(S57) Can you guys sit here at this table?
(S58) Is this table alright?
(S59) Will you come here for a drink?
(S60) Do you want to join me here?
Situation 3:
(S61) Come down and enjoy breakfast!
(S62) Kids! Sit down and have breakfast together!
(S63) Are you ready for breakfast?
(S64) Sit down please, we are having breakfast now.
(S65) Child come here please, breakfast is ready.
(S66) Wash your face; be quite; come to the table and have you tea, porridge, and congee.
(S67) Please join me at this table!
(S68) Breakfast is ready, please come down!
(S69) Sit down and enjoy the meal!
(S70) Sit down, kids breakfast is soon!
(S71) The meal is ready! Kids, sit down and enjoy it!
(S72) Sit down for breakfast!
(S73) The meal is ready, come out and enjoy together!
(S74) Come here, breakfast will be served soon!
(S75) Let's enjoy!
(S76) Come to the table, please! Breakfast is ready
(S77) Let's enjoy your dish!
(S78) Come to the table, we are having breakfast!
(S79) Marc, breakfast is ready, let's come out!
(S80) Wash you hands, please! breakfast is ready!
(S81) Louis, come to the table and enjoy together!
(S82) Kids, Stop watching TV, come to the table, we are having breakfast now!
(S83) John, Stop studying, come to the kitchen for breakfast!
(S84) Oh! You are back! let's have breakfast together!
(S85) Sit down and enjoy the meal!
(S86) Breakfast is ready! Let's sit down!
(S87)Joan, sit down! Breakfast is ready!
(S88) Please stop playing Bob, come to the table and have breakfast now!
(S89) Please sit down, the meal is ready!
(S90) Sit down and enjoy breakfast!
Situation 4:
(S91) I would like to invite you a cup of tea.
(S92) I would like to invite you a drink
(S93) I'd like to invite you a cup of tea.
(S94) Sit here and relax, I' like invite you a drink.
(S95) How about a cup of tea?
(S96) Why don't you try a cup of tea?
(S97) What about a cup of tea?
(S98) How about tea?
(S99) What about tea?
(S100) How about a cup of tea?
(S101) Are you keen for a cup of tea?
(S102) Do you want to try a cup of tea?
(S103) Would you like a cup of tea?
(S104) Would you like to drink a cup of tea?
(S105) Care for a drink?
(S106) Would you like some tea or coffee?
(S107) Would you mind for a cup of tea?
(S108) Are you keen for a drink?
(109) Would you like some tea?
(110) Do you want to try some tea?
(S111) Would you like something to drink?
(S112) Would you like a coffee?
(S113) Coffee?
(S114) A cup of tea?
(S115) Would you like some coffee?
(S116) You seem thirsty! Would you like some tea?
(S117)Care for a drink?
(S118) Are you keen for a cup of tea?
(S119) I would like to invite you a drink.
(S120) Let's take a short break. I'd like invite you a tea.
Situation 5:
(S121) Please drop by and try these new shoes!
(S122) Come in! Very nice shoes inside.
(S123) Do you want to try these new items?
(S124) Care to try these ones?
(S125) We have nice shoes. Please come and try them on.
(S126) Hello! come to try our new items.
(S127) Would you like to try these new shoes?
(S128) Please drop by for a few minutes!
(S129) Have a look at our new items and choose that you like!
(S130) Very nice shoes, com and try them on!
(S131) New shoes here, drop by and choose!
(S132) Have a look and choose a pair of shoes you like!
(S133) Please come in!
(S134) Let's try our new items!
(S135) Let's drop by and select new shoes
(S136) New shoes here! Let's have look!
(S137) Come in please!
(S138) Please choose our new shoes!
(S139) Please go inside, new items here!
(S140) Please stop here, let's have a look at our new items!
(S141) New items here! Let's choose the ones you like!
(S142) Please come in, try on our new products!
(S143) Please stop by, our new shoes here!
(S144) Please drop by and try our new shoes!
(S145) New shoes here! Come in and try these ones!
(S146) Please drop by here for a moment!
(S147) New shoes here, welcome!
(S148) Let's choose our new items!
(149) Come in please!
(150) Very nice shoes, com and try them on!
Situation 6
(151) We would like to invite you to join our class's party this weekend.
(152) We have a lovely party and since you have you have been such a nice teacher, please
come and celebrate with us!
(S153) Would you like to join us in the class' party next weekend?
(S154) Are you care for a drink with our class this weekend?
(S155) Our class would like to invite you to our party this Sunday.
(S156) Mr. Smith, you have been such a nice teacher, we'd like to invite you our class' party
this Saturday.
(S157) Professor James, we are happy to invite you to our party this Sunday evening.
(S158) Our class' d like to invite you to our party next Sunday.
(S159) We are having a party to celebrate finishing our course, we' d like to invite you.
(S160) We are having a barbecue next Sunday morning, we would like to invite you since
you have been such a nice teacher.
(S161) We are having a party. Would you like to join us?. We are happy to have you.
(S162) Could you join us in our class party this Sunday evening?
(S163) Would you like to join us in the class party this Saturday evening?
(S164) We would like to invite you to our party this Sunday evening, we are happy to have
you!
(S165) To celebrate finishing the term, we would like to invite you since you have been so
nice with our class!
(S166) Our class would like to invite you to our class party this weekend, come and have
fun!
(S167) We are having a party this weekend, so we'd like to invite you professor Brown!
(S168) Our class is having a party this Sunday evening, and we especially invite you Mr.
Thomson.
(S169) We'd love to invite you to our party this weekend!
(S170) We are having a barbecue this Saturday morning, we would like to invite you.
(S171) We are having a class party to celebrate finishing the semester, please come and
have fun with us!
(S172) We are celebrating finishing the term, so please come and join us for the party next
Sunday morning!
(S173) We are going to hold a party this Saturday evening, so please come and have fun
with us!
(S174) Madame Jenifer, our class is having a party this Monday evening, please come and
join us!
(S175) We are having a party this Sunday evening, please come and join us, Mr. Johnson
(S176) Our class is having a barbecue next Sunday morning, let's come and join our party,
please!
(S177) This Sunday morning we are having a barbecue to celebrate finishing the course,
please come and join our party if you have free time!
(S178) Next Saturday evening, we are having class party, please come and have fun with
us!
(S179) Join us if you have free time.
(S180) We are having a party this Sunday morning, please come and join us.
APPENDIX 5: INVITATIONS PROVIDED BY VIETNAMESE
PARTICIPANTS
Situation 1:
(S181) Cô ơi ăn với con một cái bánh đi cô!
(S182) Cô ăn bánh đi cô!
(S183) Cô ơi cô ăn một chút gì đi!
(S184) Chị ơi ăn với em một cái bánh đi!
(S185) Chị ơi ăn với em một cái bánh đi!
(S186) Chị ơi ăn đỡ một cái bánh đi chị!
(S187) Dạ chị ơi ăn với em một cái bánh đi chị!
(S188) Chị ơi! Em có một cái bánh này! Chị ăn với em một cái bánh đi!
(S189) Chị ơi chị ăn chút gì đi!
(S190) Cô ơi cô ăn một chút đi!
(S191) Ăn một cái bánh đi chị!
(S192) Bánh của em nè! Chị ăn một cái đi!
(S193) Cô ơi cô ăn một chút gì đi!
(S194) Chị ơi em có một cái bánh này chị ăn với em một cái đi!
(S195) Bánh của em nè! Chị ăn một cái gì đi!
(S196) Cô ơi, dạ con mời cô ăn bánh!
(S197) Cô ơi! Con mời cô ăn một cái bánh!
(S198) Dạ con mời cô ăn bánh!
(S200) Cô có đói không! Cô mời cô ăn với con một cái bánh!
(S201) Con mời cô ăn bánh!
(S202) Cô ơi cô cô có đối không? con mời cô ăn với con một cái bánh!
(S203) Chị ơi ăn đỡ một cái bánh vậy!
(S204) Chị ơi ăn đỡ một cái bánh vậy!
(S205) Chị ăn với em một cái bánh cho vui chị!
(S206) Ăn với em môt cái bánh vậy!
(S207) Chị có muốn ăn một cái bánh không?
(S208) Chị có muốn ăn một ít gì không?
(S209)Chị ơi chị có muốn ăn bánh không?
(S210) Em có một vài cái bánh nè! Chị có muốn ăn một ít không?
Situation 2
(S211) Ngồi bàn này luôn đi mấy bạn!
(S212) Ê, lại đây ngồi ăn cơm luôn đi mấy bạn ơi!
(S213) Ăn trưa ở đây luôn đi mấy ông!
(S214) Mấy ông ngồi đây ăn cơm luôn đi há?
(S215) Ngồi đấy luôn được hông?
(S216) Các bạn cũng đi ăn trưa đó à! Hay là chúng ta ngồi chung choi vui nhé!
(S217) Mấy bạn ngồi vào bàn ăn trưa chung luôn đi!
(S218) Ăn trưa chưa? Ngồi ăn chung cho vui nhe!
(S219) Ê ăn chưa nè bạn!
(S220) Ê ăn cơm với tụi này đi cho vui!
(S221) Ê ngồi đây nè!
(S222) Nè mọi người lại đây ngồi chung cho vui nhé!
(S223) Các bạn lại ngồi cùng mình!
(S224) Ngồi chung bàn này luôn đi mấy ông!
(S225) Ngồi chung nhé!
(S226) Ê qua đây ngồi chung cho vui nhé!
(S227) Ngồi chung nè!
(S228) Ê lại đây ngồi cho vui này!
(S229) Ăn cơm trưa luôn nè mấy bạn!
(S230) Ghé vô đây ăn luôn cho vui mấy bạn ơi!
(S231) Ê lại đây ngồi ăn cơm luôn nè!
(S232) Mấy ông ghé vô ăn cơm luôn đi!
(S233) Ở đây né! Các bạn ngồi chung với mình nhe!
(S234) Ăn ở đây luôn cho vui mấy ông ơi!
(S235) Ngồi đây cùng ăn nhé!
(S236) Mấy bạn ghé vô ăn chung đi!
(S237) Ngồi bàn này ăn chung cho vui!
(S238) Ăn trưa luôn né!
(S239) Ê vô đây ăn luôn né!
(S240) Ê ở đây còn chổ nè lại đây ngồi chung cho vui đi!
Situation 3
(S241) Mấy con ăn sáng bây giờ luôn hén?
(S242) Mấy đứa ra ăn sáng vậy!
(S243) Mấy đứa ra đây ăn sáng với ba mẹ luôn nè!
(S244) Mấy con ngồi xuống ăn sáng nè!
(S245) Các con hãy ăn sáng trước khi đi học!
(S246) Xong rồi, ăn sáng đi mấy con! Chúc cả nhà ăn sáng ngon miệng!
(S247) Lại đây ăn sáng cùng ba mẹ nè con!
(S248) Bữa sáng xong rồi đó, các con xuống ăn nhanh để nguội!
(S249) Các con xuống ăn sáng đi!
(S250) Các con xuống ăn sáng còn đi học nữa!
(S251) Gia đình mình cùng nhau ăn sáng nha!
(S252) Ngồi ăn cơm luôn nè hai đứa1
(S253) Ăn sáng đi các con!
(S254) Mấy đứa xuống ăn sáng né!
(S255) Bữa sáng đã xong rồi, các con vào ăn đi!
(S256) Con trai ăn sáng nè, mẹ chuẩn bị xong rồi đây!
(S257) Ăn sáng luôn nè hai đứa!
(S258) Ngồi xuống ăn sáng đi mấy đứa!
(S259) Vô ăn cơm nè con!
(S260) Ngồi xuống ăn sáng đi con trai ơi!
(S261) Các con, ăn sáng nè các con!
(S260) Hai đứa ngồi xuống ăn sáng nè!
(S261) Ăn cơm nè con!
(S262) Các con ra ăn sáng nè!
(S263) Ăn cơn nè mấy đứa!
(S264) Ăn cơm luôn đi hai đứa!
(S265) Ngồi xuống ăn sáng luôn đi hai đứa!
(S266) Ăn sáng đi con!
(S267) Hai đứa ra ăn sáng luôn nè!
(S268) Hai con ra ăn sáng luôn nhe!
(S269) Hai con nhanh ra ăn sáng đi!
(S270) Nhanh ra ăn sáng nè hai đứa!
Situation 4
(S271) Uống một tách trà đỡ nhe!
(S272) Bạn uống đỡ một tách trà cho đỡ khát nhe!.
(S273) Bạn muốn uống một tách trà cho đỡ khát không?
(S274) Uống một tách trà nhe?
(S275) Bạn muốn uống một tách trà cho đỡ khát không?
(S276) Uống một tách trà nhe?
(S277) Uống một tách trà đi bạn!
(S278) Dùng một tách trà cho đỡ khát đi bạn!
(S279) Uống một tách trà nhe?
(S280) Uống một tách trà cho đỡ khát vậy!
(S281) Uống đỡ một tách trà cho đỡ khát rồi ta nói tiếp!
(S282) Dùng một tách trà đi bạn!
(S283) Uống đỡ một tách trà đi bạn!
(S284) Bạn uống đỡ một tách trà đi cho đỡ khát rồi chúng ta tiếp tục sau!
(S285) Bạn có muốn uống một chúc gì đó không?
(S286) Một tách trà nhe?
(S287) Uống với tôi một tách trà nhe?
(S288) Dùng một tách trà nhe!
(S289) Dùng một tách trà nhe?
(S290) Uống đỡ một tách trà vậy!
(S291) Uống đỡ một tách trà vậy!
(S292) Thôi nghĩ môt lát và uống đỡ một tách trà vậy!
(S293) Trông bạn có vẻ khát nước, uống đỡ một tách trà vậy!
(S294) Dùng một tách trà cho đỡ khát vậy!
(S295) Uống đỡ một tách trà đi bạn!
(S296) Nghị một lát, dùng một tách trà vậy!
(S297) Trong bạn khát đây, uống đỡ một tách trà vậy!
(S298) Dùng đỡ một trà rồi ta nói tiếp!
(S299) Uống đỡ một tách trà vậy!
(S300) Thôi nghĩ môt lát và uống đỡ một tách trà cho đỡ khát vậy!
Situation 5
(S301) Mời anh chị ghé vô lựa giày!
(S302) Hàng mới về, mời anh chị quẹo lựa!
(S303) Giày mới đây, em mời anh chị!
(S304) Dép đẹp, lại bền đây. Ghé xem đi bạn ơi!
(S305) Anh chị ghé vô lựa giày đi, ở đây giày đẹp không hà!
(S306) Mời anh chị ghé vô xem thử hàng mới về đây!
(S307) Vào lựa đi anh chị, có nhiều hàng mời về đẹp lắm!
(S308) Anh ơi anh! Chị ơi chị! Xin vào đây! Xin vào đây mua giày dép, ở đây vừa rẻ vừa
đẹp ạ!
(S309) Giày mới, giày đẹp đây!
(S310) Anh chị vào chọn đi, có nhiều hàng mới về lắm!
(S311) Quý khách có mua giày dép không không? Vào đây xem hàng mới về này, vừa đẹp,
rẻ lại bền!
(S312) Xin mời quý khách xem qua đi ạ!
(S313) Ghé vô lựa giáy mới bổ về đi anh chị!
(S314) Mời quý vị ghé vô cửa hàng em đi ạ!
(S315) Giày mới về đây! Mời bà con cô bác, anh chị ghé vô xem. Không mua thì xem cho
vui!
(S316) Mời quý khách mua hàng, mẫu mới không hà!
(S317) Mời quý vị ghé vô lựa giày!
(S318) Hàng mới về, hàng mới về, vào xem đi các anh chị ơi!
(S319) Anh chị mua gì quẹo lựa đi!
(S320) Mua giày, dép đi chị, hàng mới về nè!
(S321) Mời anh chị ghé vô mua hàng mới!
(S322) Anh/ chị giày ở đây rất đẹp và bền, anh chị thử một đôi nhe!
(S323) Mời anh chị ghé vô xem hàng!
(S324) Anh chị ghé vô lựa giày dép đi!
(S325) Mời anh chị ghé vô gian hàng!
(S326) Mua giày đi anh chị!
(S327) Mua gì vô thử luôn đi anh chị!
(S328) Mua giày dép ghé vô quẹo lựa đi anh chị!
(S329) Mời anh chị ghé vô coi đi, đôi nào thấy được thì lấy!
(S330) Mua giày ghé vô lựa đi anh chị ơi!
Situation 6
(S331) Dạ lớp em mời cô đến dự buổi tiệc liên hoan với lớp em chủ nhật này!
(S332) Lớp em mời cô đến dự tiệc liên hoan với lớp chúng em!
(S333) Mời quý thầy cô đến dự tiệc liên hoan với lớp chúng em!
(S334) Mời thầy cô đến chơi với lớp em nhe cô!
(S335) Cô đến chới với lớp em cho vui nha cô!
(S336) Cô hãy đến chung vui với lớp em nghen cô!
(S337) Nhân dịp kết thúc học kỳ này để tổng kết và chia sẻ lớp chúng em có tổ chức một
buổi tiệc nhỏ. Mời thầy cô đến chung vui cùng tụi em nhé!
(S338) Dạ em kính mời cô đến dự tiệc liên hoan với lớp chúng em tối thứ bảy này!
(S339) Dạ thưa cô, lớp em có tổ chức một buổi tiệc liên hoan, em mời cô đến dự với chúng
em!
(S340) Kính mời cô thầy đến dự tiệc liên hoan với chúng em!
(S341) Thầy ơi cô ơi! Lớp chúng em có tỗ chức một buổi liên hoan nhỏ, em kính mời thầy
cô đến dự cùng lớp chúng em!
(S342) Cô ơi lớp em có tổ chức tiệc liên hoan. Tụi em mời cô đến dự và chung vui với
chúng em ạ!
(S343) Thưa thầy, lớp em có tổ chức một buổi tiệc liên hoan vào.... Em đại diện lớp mời
thầy cô đến dự với lớp!
(S344) Hôm nay lớp em có tổ chức một buổi tiệc cuối học kỳ, lớp em kính mời thầy cô đến
chung vui!
(S345) Chúng em rất vui được mời cô đến dự liên hoan với lớp!
(S346) Lớp em có tổ chức một buổi tiệc liên hoan cuối tuần này! Cô đến chung vui với
chúng em!
(S347) Rất vui được mời cô đến dự tiệc liên hoan cuối tuần này với lớp chúng em!
(S348) Nhân dịp kết thúc học kỳ, lớp em có tỗ chức một buỗi tiệc liên hoan, kính mời thầy
cô đến chung vui!
(S349) Mời cô đến dự tiệc liên hoan cùng lớp chúng em cho vui nhe cô!
(S350) Dạ lớp em kính mời cô đến dự tiệc liên hoan với lớp chúng em!
(S351) Thầy ơi! Tuần này lớp em có một buổi liên hoan! Mời thầy cô đến chung vui với tụi
em ạ!
(S352) Dạ lớp em kính mời thầy đến dự tiệc liên hoan với lớp chúng em ạ!
(S353) Ngày mai lớp em có tổ chức một buổi tiệc liên hoan, em mời thầy cô đến dự và
chung vui với lớp chúng em ạ!
(S354) Thưa cô sắp tới lớp em có tổ chức một buổi tiệc liên hoan, nếu không có gì bận, lớp
em kính mời thầy cô dến dự chung với lớp chúng em!
(S355) Dạ lớp em có tổ chức một buổi liên hoan nhỏ, em mời thầy cô đến chới với lớp em
nhe cô!
(S356) Cô ơi! Mời cô đến dự tiệc liên hoan cuối tuần này với lớp chúng em!
(S357) Em xin mời quý thầy cô cùng dự buổi tiệc liên hoan với lớp chúng em!
(S358) Cuồi tuần này lớp em có tổ chức một buổi tiệc liên hoan! Mời thầy dến chung vui
với lớp em!
(S359) Cô đến dự tiệc liên hoan cuối tuần này với lớp chúng em nhe cô!
(S360) Cuối tuần này lớp em có tỗ chức một buổi tiệc liên hoan. Cô đến dự với lớp em cho
vui nhe cô!