000029036 APOLOGIES IN ENGLISH AND LAOTIAN LANGUAGES (FROM A CROSS – CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE WITHIN EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS) SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEGREE OF MASTER IN TESOL LỜI XIN LỖI BẰNG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG LÀO (TỪ GÓC NHÌN VĂN HÓA CHỮA TRONG MÔI TRƯỜNG GIÁO DỤC)
INTRODUCTION
Problem statement and background
Language plays a central role in human communication, and in recent years pragmatics has attracted growing interest from researchers A major motivation behind this trend is a sizable gap between established theories of language—phonology, syntax, and semantics—and how language functions in real communication Leech argues that, although linguistic theories aim to account for sound-meaning correspondence, they offer only a small part of a general account of language understanding.
As a result, foreign language curriculum now concentrates on communication with an emphasis on com municative competence rather than ju st linguistic competence Richards
(1985, p 49) shares the same views as H yme’s on com municative competence as being
Communicative competence goes beyond simply applying a language’s grammar rules to form grammatically correct sentences; it also requires knowing when, where, and to whom those sentences should be used In essence, it blends linguistic accuracy with contextual appropriateness to enable truly effective communication.
Communicative competence includes knowledge of speech acts, and Austin (1962) and Searle (1969) have stressed that illocutionary acts are an essential part of language use Because the same utterance can realize different speech acts depending on the context, there is not a one-to-one mapping between grammatical form and function; the same form may realize different acts across situations, and the same act can be realized in multiple ways (Hymens, 1972, P 278-279; Brown and Yule, 1989, P.).
233) For exam ple, the speech act o f apology can be realized through the following: “I apologize for breaking your vase” or “Pardon me It w on’t happen again, I promise”.
Language curricula are shifting from an exclusive preoccupation with form to a focus on content and communicative value in course design Appropriateness is valued more than mere correctness, emphasizing that language should function with real communicative purpose It is clear that mastering a language cannot happen without its cultural background, and culture influences all communicative activities—both verbal and non-verbal As Nguyen Quang (1997, p 2) notes, culture makes itself strongly felt in every act of communication.
1.1.1 The important role of the English language in global socio-economic interaction today
English is the dominant language in Britain, the United States, Australia, and many other countries More than 300 million people speak it as their first language, and millions more learn it worldwide as a foreign language (Hawkins, 1990) It has become the official language for international aviation, shipping, business, science, medicine, and computing, making English the most widely used language in global socio-economic interaction today Consequently, mastering English has become highly popular worldwide, including in Laos.
1.1.2 Teaching and learning English in Laotian environment
The Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) is a land-locked country located in
South East A sia (SEA) Laotian is the national language O ther languages used arc French,
English, Chinese, Thai and Vietnamese.
Over the past several years, English language teaching and learning in Laos have become a focal point for researchers and educators Since Laos adopted its open-door policy in 1986, more people have sought English to communicate with foreigners, driving notable progress in English education nationwide However, the Lao English teaching and learning effort still tends to prioritize pure language function—grammar and vocabulary—over practical language use Consequently, students may be grammatically proficient yet struggle to communicate effectively because they are less familiar with sociolinguistic norms and the linguistic realization rules needed to convey their intended communicative acts.
To help Laotian students communicate effectively in foreign languages such as English, we must emphasize communicative competence, which includes not only knowledge of linguistic forms but also awareness of when and to whom those forms are appropriate A cross-cultural examination of apology as a speech act in Lao and English can address this gap and improve practical interaction Kasper (1996) argues that in any speech community, participants need to be able to perform remedial verbal action—specifically apologizing—after committing an offense By focusing on how apologies are realized across cultures, this approach supports learners in navigating intercultural communication and resolving misunderstandings more smoothly.
This section examines English language teaching and learning in Laos, focusing on how learners realize and use the routinized speech act of apology in everyday communication The following section presents cross-cultural studies on apologizing to illustrate how politeness is realized through the apology speech act across different cultures.
1.1.3 Overview on the latest developments in research of a cross-cultural communication in the world and in Laos (with the focus mainly on the speech act of apology)
Numerous studies have examined cross-cultural perspectives on polite behavior and language use Much of this work relies on normative frameworks rooted in the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP), which codifies how different cultures realize speech acts in polite interaction For example, Trosborg's 1987 analysis of modality markers highlights both similarities and differences in how native and non-native speakers realize modality across cultures These findings demonstrate how cultural norms shape speech act realization and how pragmatic transfer can affect intercultural communication Ongoing cross-cultural research continues to deepen our understanding of politeness strategies and modality choices across linguistic communities.
Blum-Kulka’s cross-cultural analysis, as presented in Olshtain’s 1989 study, reveals both similarities and differences in how the speech act of apology is realized across four languages The work compares native speakers of British English (NSBE) and Danish (NSD), showing how cultural norms and linguistic choices shape apologetic expressions, strategies, and mitigation across languages in multilingual communication.
Following the 1989 study, Phuong (2000) conducted a parallel investigation that emphasizes cross-cultural comparisons of the apology realization as a speech act in Vietnamese and English, detailing the similarities and differences in how apologies are realized across these languages and the cultural norms shaping their use.
In Laos, researchers commonly focus on language, culture, and society, exploring how linguistic practices intersect with social life Nick Enfield, a linguistics candidate at the University of Melbourne, is currently conducting grammar-focused work in Laos Evans (1999) discusses Lao culture and society, while Sila Vilavong (1935) is cited in related scholarly discussions.
This study fills a gap in cross-cultural communication in Laos by examining apologizing as a speech act in English and Laotian Grounded in prior Lao linguistic scholarship—Lao grammar; Lao language and orthography and its links to the languages and cultures of various minority groups; and the broader question of what language is—the research notes that the speech act of apology has not been previously explored It offers a pioneering look at how apologizing operates across English and Laotian contexts in Laos, with the aim of contributing to a clearer understanding of this speech act, raising awareness among Lao teachers and learners about the similarities and differences in apologizing shaped by English and Laotian cultural norms, and providing Lao researchers with valuable insights for further study of cross-cultural interaction.
As seen above, issues related to speech acts, sociolinguistic competence, and their implications for foreign language teaching and learning are broad in scope; this study narrows its focus to the speech act of apology from a cross-cultural perspective, with the aims to examine cross-cultural variation in apologizing, identify the linguistic and pragmatic strategies used to express apologies, and derive practical implications for foreign language teaching and learning to enhance learners’ pragmatic competence.
British apologies are realized through pragmatic variation driven by social factors such as age, social status (power), and social distance within a relationship, with these dimensions guiding speakers’ choice of linguistic politeness strategies in the situations studied The analysis shows that age influences the level of formality and directness in an apology, as younger speakers often opt for lighter, less formal expressions, while older speakers lean toward more formal mitigations Power differentials shape deference and indirectness: higher-status speakers may prefer hedges and implicit apologies to maintain face, whereas lower-status speakers may use more explicit or straightforward apologies within the relational context Social distance also modulates apology construction: closer relationships permit quicker and clearer admissions of fault, while distant or professional relationships require more cautious, politeness-driven formulations to preserve harmony and status Across the studied scenarios, the interplay of age, power, and relationship distance yields systematic patterns in the deployment of apology strategies, underscoring how social factors condition British pragmatic choices and politeness behavior.
Scope of the study
The study will limit itself to the speech act of apology within educational environments Paralinguistic and non-verbal factors that may influence on the realization of apologies are ignored.
This study concentrates on the investigation of the speech act of apology in English and Laotian languages.
This study compares how English and Laotian speakers realize the speech act of apology, focusing on social factors—social power, social distance, and the addressee’s age (H)—and how these factors shape apology strategies It highlights both similarities and differences in the realization of apologies across the two languages under these conditions.
An assessment of English-speaking and Laotian respondents on the topic under investigation is presented through survey questionnaires administered by the author, with the participation of both Laotian and English subjects The collected data enable a cross-cultural comparison of perspectives, capturing responses from both linguistic groups and highlighting similarities and differences in their views on the issue.
Methods
In order to achieve the aims of study, the research questionnaires of MPQ and DCT will be conducted to find:
English and Laotian speakers realize apologies through a suite of strategies that include direct and indirect forms, reinforced by remedial support such as taking responsibility, offering repair, and seeking forgiveness, and adjusted by internal and external linguistic modifications to mitigate face threat This realization varies with context-external factors—namely power (P), social distance (D), and the addressee’s age—as well as context-internal factors related to the speaker’s stance, relationship, and communicative goals Understanding how these elements interact explains cross-linguistic differences in apology realization between English and Laotian and helps designers of cross-cultural communication craft more effective apologetic language.
This article compares how Laotian and English speakers realize apologies, focusing on strategy, remedial support, internal modification and external modification as these choices vary with context-external factors (Power, Distance, and age) and the context-internal factor of the offender’s face loss The findings show that both groups use direct and indirect apology forms, but Laotian speakers tend to rely more on elaborate face-saving sequences and explicit acknowledgment of fault in high-face-threat situations, while English speakers favor more concise expressions of regret and a quicker shift to remedial offers when warranted Remedial support—the signals that accompany an apology—differs in degree and type between the two groups, with Laotian acts often packing in more social ritual and reciprocal courtesy, and English acts showing a stronger emphasis on practical remedies and fault negotiation Internal modification (tone and stance toward the hearer) and external modification (formality, address terms, and linguistic register) adjust to variations in P, D, age, and the level of face loss, producing cross-cultural parallels in acknowledging fault alongside distinct preferences for strategy and remedial conventions across contexts Together, these patterns reveal both universal concerns about face and culturally specific practices in how much remedial effort to offer and how to modulate speech to protect or repair social relationships.
[ii] Analyses, description and comparison of the data collected from the conducted questionnaires will be resourced.
Consultation with my supervisor, along with personal observations and discussions with Laotian and international colleagues, provides essential inputs that help shape the author’s remarks and the conclusions drawn in the thesis.
Outline of the thesis
This study is divided into five chapters:
Chapter I: INTRODUCTION - Introduces in three points of the background and statement as: (1) the important role of the English language in global socio-economic interaction to day, (2) some views on teaching and learning English in Laos, and (3) an overview of the latest development of research in cross-cultural communication in the world, and in Laos (with the focus mainly on the speech act of apology) The aims and scope of the study, the methodology and the outline of the thesis will also be presented.
Chapter II: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews the theoretical issues and findings of previous works pertaining to this study, focusing mainly on the three main points: (1) the relationship between culture and language, (2) an overview theories about speech acts and the speech act of apology, (3) an overview of politeness, politeness interaction, social valuables affected such as relative power, social distance, age, and imposition of offence as well.
Chapter III: METHODOLOGY - This chapter will discuss the research design included (1) the subjects; (2) data collection instrument, (3) research questionnaire, (4) procedure, (5) preliminary results The result of the apology strategies in English and Laotian presents in the analytical framework section.
Chapter IV: FINDING AND DISCUSSION - This chapter includes (1) the apology strategies, (2) remedial support, (3) internal and (4) external modification in the realization of apologizes in British and Laotian in the contexts studied.
Chapter V: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS - Offers an overview of major findings and an interpretation of the implications to foreign language teaching in Laos Some suggestions for further research will also be presented.
LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 The Relationship between Language and Culture
Concept of culture
Culture is a broad domain that researchers define in many ways, yet a widely cited characterization comes from Emmitt and Pollock (1990:39), who describe culture as “the ideas, customs, skills, arts, and tools, which characterize a given group of people in a given period time.” This view emphasizes culture as the shared patterns of thinking, behaving, and creating that distinguish a group within a specific era.
Culture consists of the knowledge and behaviors individuals acquire through systematic learning or by absorbing the practices of their group It comprises beliefs, values, and norms that shape how people think and act Beliefs are ideas about the world that people take to be true; values are the desired characteristics of a culture; and norms are the shared expectations for appropriate behavior These cultural patterns are shared within a group and provide the foundation for maintaining culture, guiding most members to respond in similar ways when they encounter comparable situations.
Carroll (1987) argued that culture is logic, a logic that manifests in how we behave, speak, and care for those around us, as well as in our facial expressions, voice, sounds, colors, smells, and touch This cultural logic is learned through many channels: the stories shared by others, the books we read, the schooling we experience, and the relationships we witness, along with the comments we hear and the aesthetic values we recognize everywhere, even in dreams In short, education, socialization, and sensory experience together shape our understanding of culture as a guiding logic that orders daily life.
According to Lustig and Koester (1996), culture is a learned set of shared perceptions about beings, values, and norms that shape the behaviors of a relatively large group of people People learn their culture through everyday interactions with parents, other family members, friends, and even strangers who belong to the same culture Cultures exist both in the minds of people and in external, tangible expressions such as objects and observable behaviors.
Cross-cultural Communication
Language has always been central to human communication, culture, and knowledge across the history of humankind, and no society can develop fully without it Saussure (1911) describes language and culture as abstract social institutions that are gradually formed and developed with the growth of Homo sapiens, with the value of acquiring them shaped by a given environment and era Building on this view, Larry, Richard, and Stefani (1998) note that culture is learned, transmitted, preserved, and acted out through communication.
Lusting and Koester (1996) offered the definition of cross-cultural communication:
Cross-cultural studies examine ideas across multiple cultures, using intercultural analysis to compare cultural attributes and practices Intercultural communication, meanwhile, compares interactions among people from different cultures, revealing how social norms shape conversation and understanding Cross-cultural comparisons are valuable for identifying and understanding cultural differences Language learning is, in essence, culture learning: learners must be taught speech acts and socialized, because different cultures define social situations in distinct ways.
Basic English and Laotian characteristic
English culture values personal distance, independence, democracy, and privacy Traditionally reserved, English people tend to view overt emotion and self-promotion as ill-bred A modest demeanor and a dry sense of humor are characteristic of the English, and they often expect those traits in others.
Many English people tend to be reserved about personal details, so you might work with someone for a long time without ever learning much about their background, family, or interests This privacy-first vibe is a common part of UK etiquette and small-talk norms On public transport, people often try to secure a seat on a bus or an empty compartment on a train, and if they must share with a stranger they may avoid conversation When conversations do occur, topics are usually light—age or name are rarely asked, and personal questions such as where you bought your earrings or how much you earn are typically off-limits even among colleagues or acquaintances.
In short, English people seem to be polite and tentative in addressing people both inside and outside groups Thus, the language that they use tends follow etiquette and formulae.
Lao culture centers on three social dimensions—distance, status, and age—that together shape a complex social hierarchy rooted in Theravada Buddhist practice Respect from younger to older people permeates daily life, prompting the Laotian language to develop a rich repertoire of honorifics and polite forms to navigate interactions across generations, statuses, and unfamiliar people A handbook from the Laotian Union of Boricomxay Province (2003) notes that young people must be careful in how they act or speak to elders, those with higher social status, or strangers, underscoring the central role of respectful communication in Lao society.
This is an old Laotian saying that goes like this “(riatJiuang'io jjiatejiousngitinij)Giliya bork saad, malayaad bork skoon ” which translates roughly “your behaviors determine your origin (nationality, culture, etc ) and your etiquettes determine your family line ” Your action reflects to who you are and therefore who you are (implicitly), to greater or less extent, is based on how you’re brought up This emphasize the importance of knowing own background of Laotian in order to fully understand who you are as a person Changes in voice quality, rate of delivery, and intonation also accompany different styles in Laos When speaking to the elder or supervisor, strangers’ forms are more frequent, the voice is lowered, and a slower style of speaking is used The significance of contrasts between the systems of speech levels used in English and many Asian languages are related to differences in how much social power is attributed to particular social roles in different societies.
Speech Acts
The speech acts have been studied and defined by many researchers in different ways as Austin (1962), Grice (1975), Hymens (1994), Searle (1969), Brown and Levinson Speech act theory has led to the design of the notional functional syllabus in English teaching, and speech act analysis has offered a valuable way to look at language function and the connection between function and grammar forms.
2.2.1 B ack grou nd o f speech acts
Austin (1962) launched the linguistic theory of speech acts by showing that language can do more than describe; an utterance can perform an action, a notion he called a performative He distinguishes performatives from constatives, noting that performatives express the illocutionary force of the sentence and commit the speaker to an act He further divides performatives into explicit performatives, which contain verbs like promise, warn, or deny, and implicit performatives, which convey action without a performative verb These distinctions mark the initial steps in building the theory of speech acts.
In analyzing a speech act we study how utterance affects the behavior of the Speaker and the Hearer.
Austin’s 1962 framework defines a speech act as a single utterance that unfolds through three related components The locutionary act is the actual act of speaking a meaningful, well-formed sentence The illocutionary act captures the speaker’s communicative force—what is being accomplished by the utterance, such as promising, denying, or warning The perlocutionary act concerns the effect on the listener, which may range from amused to persuaded or cautioned Together, these three acts show how language both conveys meaning and performs actions in social interaction.
After Austin, there are a lot of researchers who inherited, refined and advanced the speech act theory Searle’s (1969, 1975, and 1979) system included the following.
1 Representatives: Describing states or events in the world such as an assertion, a claim, a report.
2 Directives: Getting the hearer to doing something They express what they want such as commands, orders, requests, and suggestions.
3 Commissives: Committing S to do something in the future such as promises, threats, refusals, pledges, etc.
4 E xpressives: A re speech acts that express the Speaker’s feelings or m oods such as apologies, congratulations, thanks, etc.
5 Declarations: Are speech acts where S alters the external status or condition of an object or situation such as resignations, declarations, baptism, etc.
Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) argue that the propositional content of an utterance is not the only factor shaping interpretation; more important are the contextual implications that show speakers often intend to convey more than what is said, using language to negotiate face and mitigate face threats in interaction They define face as the public self-image that every member of society wants to claim for himself, and they distinguish two types of face.
• Negative face is “the want of every competent adult member that his actions be unimpeded by others ” (p.62)
• Positive face is “the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others " (p.62)
Face, in the sense used by politeness theory, is the shared notion of what people want and what others desire within a society Because these basic wants are universally understood, every member has an interest in partially satisfying them in everyday interactions.
Wierzbicka (1987), one of the sociolinguists and pragmatists, believed that illocutionary acts indirectly affect one’s action For example, in the case of an apology:
“We apologize for any inconveniences that this decision may have caused you”, it is the effects of the decision not the decision itself that is bad for that people.
Apology is not simply a social obligation; it is a deliberate attempt to obtain forgiveness by admitting responsibility Fillmore (as cited in Wierzbicka, 1987) describes the core illocutionary point of apology as “I am saying this because I think I should say it to you.” Relative to thanking, the illocutionary point of apology is less addressee-oriented, emphasizing a broader social duty Wierzbicka (1987) also notes that offenses prompting apologies tend to range from trivial to medium in weight, while the things one can thank for span from trivial to great, suggesting that apologizing foregrounds social convention in interpersonal relations.
Apology is a universal speech act found in all societies, cultures, and languages, sitting at the heart of communication as one of the most sensitive aspects of politeness in human interaction It serves to provide support for the hearer who was affected by the offender’s violation, making apology a basic form of communicative action In Brown and Levinson’s framework, apologizing is face-saving for the hearer and face-threatening for the speaker According to Leech, apology is a convivial speech act that benefits the hearer while costing the speaker to some degree.
In everyday life, people routinely use apology phrases like "I am sorry" and "I apologize" to express remorse when they believe they have wronged someone or may do so in the future Laotian speakers have their own equivalents, such as saej/ueye'iejs'tmo and seVtujui , which perform the same function of acknowledging fault and seeking forgiveness An apology signals remorse and represents an effort to compensate or make amends, helping to repair relationships and restore trust in social interactions.
Apologies are directly connected to face-saving, arising from a complaint or situation that motivates the speaker to apologize and shaping how the apology is performed Kasper and Bergman (1993) regard apologies as compensatory actions for an offense in which the speaker is casually involved and which imposes a cost on the hearer, with the apology speech act defined to encompass the potential range of apology strategies Regarding apology strategies, Kasper and Bergman divide them into five major categories and summarize them within the constitutive framework of the apology speech act set (Alshtain and Cohen, 1983; Blum-Kulka, 1989).
(i) IFID, specifying the force of apologv
(ii) Upgrading, increasing apologetic force and taking on responsibility.
(iii) Downgrading responsibility or severity of offence comprised of utterances reducing S’s accountability for the offence or severity of offence.
(iv) Offer of repair, S offering to remedy damage.
Apologizing often puts the apologizer in control by taking responsibility, and this willingness to own up to a fault signals strength to others An apology can help smooth over relationships by reducing tension and rebuilding trust When the speaker chooses to apologize verbally, they may use one of several defined strategies or a combination of them to convey accountability and repair the relationship.
Apology, as defined by Trosborg (1987), is an act comprising actions or utterances intended to set things right, involving two participants: the apologizer and the apology recipient When a complaint is received, the recipient (S) perceives a challenge to social competence, while also recognizing that their behavior may imply a denial of the complainer’s social standing Based on Trosborg (1996), apology strategies are grouped into eight moves, including five strategies of apology and three remedial supports, ordered from least to most direct Within this framework, Blum-Kulka (1989) can be situated—Strategy 1, opt-out, where S does not take on responsibility.
(ii) Strategy 2: minimize, S distracting from the offense.
(iv) Strategy 4: explain the accountability for the offense
(Strategies of apology, with one strategy 5 is direct)
(vi) Strategy 6: offer repair, S offering to remedy damage.
(viii) Strategy 8: show concern for H
Strategies of remedial support come into play when a speaker’s act or utterance offends another person, creating a need to apologize When a remark or behavior fails to meet the other person’s expectations, the speaker may be held responsible and should issue an apology To strengthen the apology, offer deeper support to the harmed party and demonstrate greater humility on the part of the speaker, then select from the predefined remedial strategies to address the wrongdoing and begin repairing the relationship.
Within an interaction, the concept of face—defined as the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p 61)—is a crucial consideration; a face-threatening act (FTA) occurs when a speaker says something that threatens another person’s self-image, while a face-saving act (FSA) is used to lessen that threat and safeguard the other person’s face.
According to Brown & Levinson’s notion of the acts in which threaten face wants from S, and H or both They propose 4 kinds of FTAs:
(i) Acts threatening to the H’s negative face such as ordering, advising, threatening, warning;
(ii) Acts threatening to the H’s positive face such as complaining, criticizing, disagreeing, and raising taboo topic;
(Hi) Acts threatening to the S’s negative face such as accepting an offer, accepting thanks, promising unwillingly;
(iv) Acts threatening to the S’s positive face such as apologizing, accepting compliments, and confessing
2.2.3 Speech acts in different cultures and languages
According to Lakoff, cited in Yule (1997, p 106), every conversation starts with a personal desideratum—ranging from the desire to be likable to subtler aims guiding one’s conduct As a result, a speaker may have to tell someone something the other person does not want to hear, refuse a request, or end the exchange before the other is ready These dynamics raise the risk of insult and can lead to the conversation breaking down.
Cross-cultural communication reveals that diverse societies express themselves through distinct communicative practices that mirror their ways of life, and the same speech act can carry different meanings across cultures due to varying language patterns and social norms As Trudgill (1974, p.16) notes, differences in the syntactic treatment of the addressee can reflect an agent’s goals within a society, and social change can drive corresponding linguistic changes For example, English speakers generally avoid asking strangers about age, wealth, or salary at a first meeting because these topics are personal, whereas Laotian greetings often differ in their syntactic properties, signaling different meanings (Dixon 1985).
Politeness
Politeness has been scrutinized by many linguistic scholars, and this section offers a concise survey of key theories in the field It discusses the contributions of Lakoff (1990), Brown and Levinson (1978), Weirzbicka (1986), and Even-trip (1976) to politeness theory, highlighting how each framework interprets face, strategies, and social context in ordinary speech.
Politeness strategies and their influences on performance of speech acts, especially the relationship between politeness interaction and social valuables affected.
Politeness, according to Lakoff, is a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange Lakoff (1990, p.32) also describes three rules that speakers must follow when choosing polite ways, providing a framework for how language is shaped to sustain cooperative communication across different social contexts.
(a) Don't impose: mitigating, avoiding or asking permission of apologizing for making the addressee (A) doing anything which A does not want to do.
(b) Offer options: expressing oneself in such a way that one’s option or request can be ignored without being contradicted or rejected.
(c) Encourage feelings of camaraderie: Assuming that with a close friend, one should be able to discuss everything Almost any topic of conversation is fair game.
Politeness in communication is guided by three core rules The first rule links distance and formality, shaping how formal or intimate the language should be to reflect social distance The second rule involves deference, where politeness markers may be used to leave the choice to the addressee, often through hedges or markers of hesitation that soften a request The third rule focuses on making the addressee feel liked and wanted, using supportive language and positive phrasing to foster affinity Together, these rules help speakers adapt tone to context, balance authority with consideration, and build rapport with the audience.
Politeness is often treated as a fixed cultural concept of polite social behaviour (Yule, 1996) Brown and Levinson's linguistic theory centers on “face”—an emotionally invested self that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced and must be actively managed in interaction, because face is delicate and its protection benefits both participants In contexts of mutual vulnerability, rational interlocutors tend to avoid face-threatening acts or mitigate them with politeness strategies aimed at reducing face-threats and at preserving or enhancing face Brown and Levinson (1987, p 69) outline five politeness strategies for performing face-threatening acts: bald on-record, positive politeness, negative politeness, off-record (indirect), and not performing the act This framework helps explain how speakers navigate social interaction to protect face while achieving communicative goals.
On record co 4 off record 3 negative politeness
Brown and Levinson (1987) outline a taxonomy of politeness strategies used to manage face in communication: on-record acts with no mitigation (performing the act boldly), positive politeness designed to make the addressee feel valued and aligned with the speaker’s goals, negative politeness that hedges, apologizes, and offers to reduce imposition, and off-record (implicature) used when the face threat is greater, allowing the addressee to ignore or opt out of the act altogether The choice among these strategies depends on three independent, culturally sensitive variables—social distance (D), relative power (P), and the absolute ranking of imposition (R)—which shape how directly or indirectly a message is conveyed Brown and Levinson discuss these variables in depth, and they are revisited in section 2.3.2 to analyze politeness in interpersonal interaction.
Once Wierzbicka (1986) became highly knowledgeable in verbal communication, she found that language was not simply a means of conveying information, but equally important as a means of establishing, maintaining, or even terminating social relationships and social interaction In her terms, the culture script surrounding information functions as a framework that shapes how people use language to connect with others, manage social bonds, and navigate interpersonal dynamics.
I feel something bad because of this
1 say: I have done something bad
I want you to say to me: you do not need to feel something bad about this
I want you to say to me: nothing bad will have happened to you because of this
Wierzbicka (1987) describes that many speech act verbs can be used ‘performatively’
Illocutionary force denotes the intended function of an utterance within its context An order can be enacted either with a bare imperative such as “Stop it” or with a performative frame like “I order you to stop it.” Polite interaction reveals the speaker’s illocutionary intent through verb choice and formulaic expressions In particular, the illocutionary point of requests is often formal or politeness-oriented—a phenomenon described as a “politeness directive” by Wierzbicka (1987).
Apologizing is one of the most sensitive areas of communication in terms of politeness
Politeness and social norms dictate that apologizing should occur at the right time and place, and failing to do so can irritate people who expect an apology Politeness in apologizing can be expressed directly or indirectly, reflecting different conversational strategies Ervin-Tripp highlighted that the timing and manner of an apology can carry as much meaning as the apology itself, shaping how it is received.
Ervin-Tripp (1976) and Wierzbicka (1985) contend that indirectness does not necessarily imply politeness, and that adopting an indirect strategy is not always the most polite option Directness and indirectness both influence how politeness is expressed in interaction, but greater indirectness does not automatically equate to higher politeness Both direct and indirect speech acts are generally associated with politeness, depending on the context Ervin-Tripp (1976) adds that rapid routinized interpretations arise from the predictability of a large part of human interaction.
2.3.2 Politeness interaction and social variables affected
Language use in social interaction is shaped by a complex mix of factors that reveal our multiple faces in society, and any linguistic exchange is itself a social act governed by these dynamics (Yule, 1996) According to Brown and Levinson (1978), three core factors—power relations, social distance, and the degree of imposition—systematically affect how speakers choose polite expressions when performing face-threatening acts within a given social context.
The relative power (P) of S and H (a symmetric relation)
The social distance (D) of S and H (an asymmetric relation)
The absolution of imposition in the particular culture.
- On the other hand, the factor of age is also phenomenon of politeness interaction in the social context.
Brown & Levinson view relative power (P) as an asymmetric dimension of social interaction, capturing how much one party (H) can impose its plans and its own face on another party (S) at the expense of S’s plans and face Leech adds that relative power manifests as the authority one participant holds over another According to Brown & Levinson, P arises from two potential sources—material control, including command over economic distribution and physical force, and metaphysical control, exercised through the beliefs or commitments that others accept—and each source can be either authorized or unauthorized.
Leech (1983, p 126) identifies social distance, denoted as D, as a central determinant of politeness behavior and linguistic tact He argues that D can be inferred from stable social characteristics and mirrors the degree of social closeness, typically reflected in the reciprocal exchange of positive face In our view, D plays a particularly important role in Laotian culture, influencing how interlocutors gauge politeness and select suitable apology strategies Consequently, a nuanced understanding of D helps explain which apology strategies are most appropriate in different social contexts.
Across cultures, age and status shape how people speak In Lao language, age-based address forms encode the speaker’s relationship to the listener: neutral terms are used when both parties are the same age or share the same level of status; terms of deference appear when the speaker is younger or holds less power; and more respectful forms are chosen when the speaker is older or holds greater authority These distinctions reflect social hierarchy in Lao culture and guide everyday interactions, making it important to choose the right form to convey respect and avoid offense.
R (rank of imposition) is situationally and culturally defined, reflecting how troublesome or difficult an act is within a given culture Brown and Levinson (1987, p 77) regard R as the agent’s wants for self-determination or approval, i.e., the negative and positive face wants of S and H Proponents of face-threatening act theory argue that the R of an act involves assessing the amount of pain inflicted on H’s face, based on the discrepancy between H’s desired self-image and the face-threatening act being presented.
Studies of apologies categorize the factors influencing the choice and realization of a speech act within politeness interaction into external contextual factors and internal contextual factors (Blum-Kulka, 1985; Kasper, 1993) Kasper further subdivides internal factors into four: the severity of the offense, the offender’s obligation to apologize, the likelihood that the apology will be accepted, and the potential loss of face for the offender In contrast, Olshtain and Weinbach (1987) propose the notion of a socio-pragmatic set that captures the social and contextual factors shaping the speaker’s selection of a particular apology strategy When applied to apology, these social factors regulate the choice of appropriate linguistic politeness strategies in a given context Broadly, the evidence aligns with Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory, which explains how contextual factors influence speech-act realization.
(1987) claim that the three sociological factors (P, D and R) are crucial in determining the level of politeness in the linguistic realization of speech act in context.
METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN
Data collection instruments
To examine how social and contextual characteristics relate to strategy selection, we conducted a Discourse Completion Test and discuss the findings in section 3.1.1 The contextual factors—social distance (D), social status (P), H’s age, severity of offence (R), and the offender’s face loss (F)—were correlated with apology strategies as well as remedial support, internal modification, and external modification The factors P, D, and R align with Brown and Levinson's framework for face-threatening acts. -**Support Pollinations.AI:** -🌸 **Ad** 🌸Powered by Pollinations.AI free text APIs [Support our mission](https://pollinations.ai/redirect/kofi) to keep AI accessible for everyone.
(1978, p 76) Severity of offence (R) was selected as an independent variable because of
“the representative contextual factor in the socio - pragmatic set of the apology”, (Kasper,
Apologies involve more than admitting fault; the offender’s face loss is a central concern because expressing responsibility for the act of apologizing directly affects the cost and face the speaker incurs, which in turn can influence how the apology is delivered and the form of address used This face-threat dynamic shapes the delivery and perceived sincerity of the apology, as the social weight of responsibility can alter the degree of politeness and formality chosen In Laotian communication, apology strategies vary depending on whether the addressee is older, a peer, or younger, reflecting the language’s highly complex system of honorifics and address terms.
This cross-language study examines apologies in English and Laotian by analyzing social dimensions across different situations Four factors underpin the MPQ scenario design, with a variation in the offender’s loss of face as a central dimension The remaining three factors are integrated into the MPQ situation descriptions, and together these variables define the contexts used to compare apologetic behavior between English and Laotian speakers.
(2) Relative power (P): + P is S higher power than H, = P is S and H have equal power and - P is S Lower power than H
(3) The Severity of offence or ranking of imposition (R) as only high severity of offence
Through the situations P & D have varied systematically, but R was only kept a high constantly So, there were 6 constellations assumed to underline the situations:
1 -D -P: Low power, familiar 4 +D -P: Low power, unfamiliar
2 -D =P: Equal power, familiar 5 +D =P: Equal power, unfamiliar
3 -D +P: High power, familiar 6 +D +P: High power, unfamiliar
Age variation is added to the Discourse Completion Test (DCT) to elicit apology performance from subjects To identify the most reliable conditions for analysis, two questionnaires are used: a Pragmatic Questionnaire (the DCT or an open-ended questionnaire) and a Metapragmatic Questionnaire (MPQ) Sixteen situations are selected to ensure a broad diversity of subjects' opinions on how social factors influence the selection of apology strategies.
The questionnaire included an open-ended response discourse completion test (DCT) which consists of different described situations followed by the elicitation words “You say ” This open-ended response DCT is one kind of the DCTs supported by many researchers Beebe (1985, p 10) found some advantage of the DCT as follows:
(i) Gathering a large amount of data quickly;
(ii) Creating an initial classification of semantic formulas and strategies that will occur in natural speech;
(Hi) Studying the stereotypical perceived requirements for a socially appropriate
(though not only polite) response;
(iv) Gathering insight into social and psychological factors that are likely to affect speech and performance, and
Researchers seek to ascertain the canonical forms of refusals, apologies, and other politeness strategies as they exist in the minds of speakers of a given language However, these canonical templates are not natural speech and do not accurately reflect how people actually speak in everyday conversations.
(cited from Wolfson, Marmor, and Jones, 1984; in Blum - Kulka, J.H and G K 1989, pp 183 - 184)
However, there were some disadvantages when using a DCT We cannot elicit natural speech, which means some important factors cannot be taken into account such as:
(i) Paralinguistic factors: intonation, pause, speed of speech
(ii) Non - linguistic factors: gestures, eye contact
(iii) Mood factors: informant's present mood and manner: happy, unhappy, etc
Due to time and resource constraints, the Discourse Completion Task (DCT) proved to be the most suitable data‑collection method for this study To address reliability concerns associated with the DCT, the project will proceed in two main phases: validity and reliability testing using the MPQ, and a language-elicitation questionnaire to elicit the speech act of apologizing via the DCT The details of these two instruments will be discussed in the next section.
This questionnaire is designed for our research into “Apologies in English and Laotian languages ” The purpose is to find out how subjects assess the social factors (D,
P, R, and F) reflected by the apology situations which included 16 situations Each situation was followed by four questions which subjects were asked to rate these situations on a three-point rating scale for two contexts-intemal factors (severity of offence and offender’s face - loss) (for a full version of MPQ see in appendix I).
3.1.1.2 Discourse Completion Test Questionnaire (DCT)
This Discourse Completion Test (DCT) questionnaire supports our study of apologies in English and Laotian languages It includes six situations selected from the MPQ’s original set of sixteen and is designed to reveal what participants would naturally say when addressing a younger person, a peer, or an older person in each context The design also balances the addressee’s sex, with three male and three female addressees distributed across the six situations, as described in Appendix II.
To obtain the necessary data one set of the two questionnaires was designed in English for the English subjects, and another set in Laotian for the Laotian subjects.
The subjects
CCSARP’s proposed models and scenarios guide the study, with a brief opening section of the questionnaire designed to elicit key subject-background information For English subjects, the data include place of birth, occupation, gender, level of education, second language, and the area where the participants spend most of their time.
The participants are native British English speakers aged 18 to 60, with the majority working in educational settings as teachers, language instructors, educational workers, or students on holidays and in exchange programs, including roles at the British Council in Vietnam and volunteers with Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO) in Laos and Vietnam The sample comprises 40 subjects in total, with an equal gender distribution of 50% male and 50% female.
Laotian participants include men and women within the same age range as the English participants, with a comparable gender‑age composition They comprise teachers at the National University of Laos (NUOL), university students, and educational workers.
Procedure
Apology choices in this study are drawn from the foundational works of Trosborg (1996), Kasper and Bergman (1993), and Olshtain and Cohen (1983) First, MPQ results are used to specify how participants evaluate the social factors associated with each apologetic situation Next, the Laotian participants’ assessments are employed to compare similarities and differences in their selection of politeness strategies during apology performance Finally, the DCT results, drawn from MPQ, are described within the analytical framework in section 3.6 The following section discusses the MPQ findings.
Preliminary results
Section 3.2 defines R as the most severe offence across all constellations of P and D Based on MPQ analysis, the offence severity R was selected as the representative contextual factor in the socio-pragmatic apology framework Consequently, situations 3, 7, 2, 10, 13, and 14 from each constellation of P and D were chosen because they exhibited higher rates of R (see Table 2) Forty respondents (LS and ES) were provided with full descriptions of these apology situations and asked to indicate their valuations on the survey scales.
* Social distance (D) from 1 to 2 (+ D = 1 S and H are not fam iliar, D — 2 S and
H are familiar, D = 3 is not included).
* Social Power on a sale from 1 to 3 (- P = 1 S lower than H, = P = 2 S and H are equal, +P = 3 S higher than H).
* Severity of offence on a scale of + R = 2 and 3 considered as serious or very serious (- R = is not included)
* The score of offender’s face-loss is not included It is used for later analysis.
To compare how Laotian and English speakers view and perform the act of apologizing, this study analyzes similarities and differences in their responses Six Discourse Completion Tasks (DCTs) drawn from the MPQ are discussed to illustrate cross-cultural perspectives on apology and the strategies people use in different contexts.
A teacher broke an expensive vase of department head.
Student lost the classmate’s book.
A head of department erased some important information in the computer.
Student copied notes in examination.
Teacher driving in a parking lot backs up into another car.
A teacher spilled coffee on a guest’s suit.
It was necessary, therefore, to establish levels of agreement on assessment of these variables by two groups The rated responses in Laotian and English are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 The rating of social factors by English and Laotian (n = 40)
D = Social distance F = Offender’s Face-loss
Summary
First, I am highly mindful of Sit 3 (teacher) in the six social situations For Lao speakers, addressing a teacher in this context is a very serious offense, where social factors and status are paramount and tensions arise from the older, ornate Buddhist traditions In contrast, English speakers tend not to treat this as seriously, since age and rank are less central to politeness, and they may respond with “I apologize” or use a repair strategy to mitigate any damage.
Sit 14 (guest) is regarded by English speakers as a serious etiquette violation because it breaches proper manners toward a guest When the guest is important, the host must be especially careful not to display ostentation or mismanage seating, since such missteps can cause the host to lose face Because this offense is considered major, apologies from the host may not be readily accepted In contrast, Lao observers typically view the act as less serious, interpreting it as an accident and noting that the host did not intend the action, particularly when the guest is important.
Ultimately, the offender's face loss factor was endorsed by both Laotian and English speakers in Sit 14, recording the highest frequency (F) as shown in Table 2 This factor will be analyzed in depth, and the collected data were coded using the analytical framework.
Analytical framework
This study analyzes apology behavior in English and Laotian using the discourse completion questionnaire from the CCS ARP, collecting responses to six apology situations drawn from the 16 MPQ scenarios (see Appendix I and II) It investigates similarities and differences in how Laotian and English speakers apologize, with offence responses coded by LS and ES according to the same scheme used for other languages (Blum-Kulka & Olstain, 1984), enabling a cross-cultural comparison of the main speech-act strategies and the situation-specific strategies The speech-act set (Trosborg, 1996) comprises five main apology strategies—one direct and four indirect—and the next section discusses the major strategy’s response to the offence, noting that not all strategies are included.
An apology occurs when a speaker acknowledges that an offense has occurred and explicitly expresses remorse, either through direct IFIDs—Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices—such as I apologize, sorry, excuse me, I regret, or pardon, or through indirect strategies that take responsibility, lessen the severity of the offense, or offer an explanation IFIDs cover a range of explicit apology expressions based on apology speech act verbs, forming the core of how apologies are communicated According to Torborg (1995) as cited in Owen’s (1983) framework, explicit apology expressions are divided into three groups, illustrating the different ways speakers articulate remorse—from direct, explicit formulations to indirect, mitigating approaches.
To examine the similarities and differences in how apologies are expressed in English and Laotian, the explicit apology forms in Laotian appear to align with Torborg’s framework Yet Blum-Kulka et al (1989, p 20) observe that each language exhibits its own scale of conventionality in the realization of IFIDs (Illocutionary Force Indicating Devices).
Apart from conveying remorse, apology is used to express sympathy as in "I'm sorry to hear that," to voice a complaint such as "I'm sorry, but you added up the hill incorrectly," and to indicate disagreement like "I'm sorry, but I'm doing it the way I wanted." In cross-linguistic terms, Lao data introduce a subformula for coding requests for sympathy that has no equivalent in English apologies, and when the Lao data are translated into English this is coded as group four Lao apologies are not direct equivalents of English expressions; they are rendered back in English with the underlying meaning preserved Table 3 presents the coding categories for English and Lao apologies of IFIDs, showing that items with similar meaning are grouped together, though their structure differs, and Lao adds a category for requesting sympathy that is not present in English.
Table 3 The structure of explicit IFIDs for apologies in English and Laotian
1 Expression of regret (Be) sorry gtyio
2 Offer of apologies Apologize ê'tUlO/SS'l'EUJ
3 Request for forgiveness a Excuse slrno b Forgive S ù ẽẽ mo a-n'Eiu 9ôi'taj'ấỹi(D c Pardon SrTtyin s'i'i m D 9,ri'Euj£jfc!'!ino
4 Requesting sympathy e ttncmxi i.-'ù oQ k u Q gfioiunK aui