Vinh university Department of foreign languages ADDRESS FORMS IN “WUTHERING HEIGHTS”AND THEIR VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENT TRANSLATION A CROSS-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE TỪ XƢNG HÔ TRONG “ĐỒI GIÓ
Rationale of the study
To use a language properly, we have to know not only the grammatical structures and forms of the language and their meanings but also the culture of the nation speaking that language
According to Sapir (1921), language and culture have such an extremely close relationship that we can not understand and appropriate this correctly without having knowledge about that”
English and Vietnamese, each has its individual culture and grammatical structures For instance, the way we talk to our friends is different from the way we do to our supervisor and it is different from the way the English do It is more interesting when we compare the two languages to find out the differences and similarities between them in order to use language appropriately in different situations in both languages
Address forms play an important role in communication, especially in conversation where request is one of the main kinds of speech act We cannot translate address forms (especially personal pronouns I-You) properly without considering the role and relationship between participants, the grammatical structures and forms, their meaning and culture of English and Vietnamese
All of the above ideas are the reasons why we choose address forms of English and Vietnamese to study.
Aims of the study and research questions
The study is hoped to serve as a vivid instance of how the relationship between the speaker and the addressee, the speaker‟s attitude towards the addressee is achieved, and the culture is reflected in the way they use address forms
The study is aimed to find answer to the following research questions:
1 What are structures and major factors affecting giving requests?
2 How are address forms used in the original and the equivalent translation?
Scope of the study
We wish to study relations of interlocutors in a close system Hence, we choose relations of characters of a novel to analyze because literature is a mirror reflecting life “Wuthering heights” is considered a diamond of English literature and we think it is appropriate to study
Due to thesis limitation, we mainly focus on address forms “I-YOU” in request in conversations of “Wuthering heights” written by Emily Bronte and its Vietnamese equivalent translation by Duong Tuong.
Methodology and analysis procedure
Methodology
Analysis procedure
The study is carried out, relying on the following procedure
1 State all of requests of the work and their equivalence in the Vietnamese translation
2 Range examples in relationships of the interactants
3 Note down and select some notable sentences to analyze
4 Compare the translation with the original version.
Design of the study
The study is structured into three parts and two chapters, which are organized as follows:
State the reasons of the study, the aims, the scope, methodology and analysis procedure
Chapter 1: Theoretical preliminaries Chapter 2: Data analysis
Give the conclusion of the study and implications for further studies.
PRELIMINARIES
Speech act
When you express yourself, you do not only produce utterances containing grammatical structures and words, you perform actions via those utterances In other words, when you say something, you are doing something We, for example, making an utterance:"Would you like a cup of tea?”, do not intend to make a question only We want to convey more than that In here, we want to perform an invitation
According to Yule, G (1996:47), "actions performed via utterances are generally called speech acts" An utterance as a functional unit in communication There are many different kinds of speech acts, such as requests, orders, commands, complaints, promises
Eg: Greeting: "Hi, Eric How are you going?"
Request: "Could you please open the door?"
Compliment: "Hey, I really like your tie"
According to Austin, a speech act consists of three related acts: locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act
A locutionary act is the saying of something that is meaningful and can be understood For example, saying the sentence "Close the door" is a locutionary act if hearer understands the words close, the, door and can identify the particular door referred to
An illocutionary act is using a sentence to perform a function For example,
"Close the door" may be intended as an order or a piece of request
A perlocutionary act is the results or effects that are produced by means of saying something For example, closing the door would be a perlocutionary act
Yule, G (1996:349) argues that the most discussed dimension is illoctionary force There is a great deals of possible illocutionary act Many people attempt to classified them into a small number of types but that is very difficult because speaker's intention is not always clear
In every day conversation, people perform many kinds of speech acts and requesting is one of those
According to Trosborg (1995), "a request is an illocutionary act whereby a speaker (requester) conveys to a hearer (requestee) that he/she wants the requestee to perform an act which is for the benefit of the speaker The act may be a request for non-verbal goods and services, i.e a request for an object, an action or some kind of service, etc., or it can be a request for verbal goods and services, i.e a request for information”
Trosborg (1995) thought that there are three request strategies, namely indirect, conventionally indirect and direct request (quoted by Jorda: 1995)
Indirect request strategies are the ways employed by the requester when opting for not showing his/ her intention explicitly For example, the utterance
"It's cold in here, isn't it?" implies that the requester would actually be asking his interlocutor to close a window
Conventionally indirect strategies are classified by Trosborg into hearer- oriented and speaker-oriented The former refers to the hearer's ability and willingness to perform the action requested Ability usually take the form of a question and they include the modal verbs "can", "could" or "may" as in the expression "Could you please tell me the time?"
When the speaker refers to hearer' willingness to do an action, he usually uses proposition as the following:
(2) Will you do that for me?
(3) I‟d appreciate it if you would tell me about it that later
(4) I‟d be grateful if you wouldn‟t mind photocopying this document
The requester may also ask permission of his/her interlocutor when requesting (eg: Can I borrow your pen?) or using of suggest formulae for the same purpose (eg: How about lending me your pen?)
Direct-request expresses the requester‟s illocutionary intent by means of performatives, imperative or obligation statement (quoted by Jorda:1995)
A request is made up of two main parts: the core or head of the request, which performs the function of requesting, and its peripherical elements, which initiate or aggravate the force of the request
There are many different linguistic forms that can convey a request act Focusing the core or head of the request, interrogatives, imperatives, declaratives forms are seen as possible linguistic realization
Interrogative form: In English: “Can you close the door?”
In Vietnamese: “Em có thể đóng hộ tôi cánh cửa đƣợc không?”
Imperative form: In English: “Close the door.”
In Vietnamese: “Đóng cửa lại.”
Declarative form: In English: “I ask you close the door.”
In Vietnamese: “Tôi yêu cầu anh đóng cửa lại”
In terms of peripherical elements, Sifianou (1999) distinguishes between external and internal modification in request realizations Internal modification may be means of openers, hedges and fillers, while external modification is realized by what the author terms‟commitment seeking devices and reinforcing devices‟ as illustrated in Table 2.2
Miscellaneous Tag question Fillers Intensifiers
Hesitators Cajolers Appealers Attention-getters External
Disarmers Expanders Please Table 2.2 Classification of peripherical elements in request realization
In Vietnamese, a verb of a request is often preceeded by modality markers such as hãy, đừng, chớ or followed by đi, nhé, nào, thôi…
Eg: Hãy trả lời chúng tôi!
Chớ có nói gì bây giờ! Đừng đánh thức nó dậy, đừng đánh thức nó dậy!
(Nguyễn Minh Châu, Người đàn bà trên chuyến tàu tốc hành) Ngủ thôi các cậu! Mai còn chạy
(Nguyễn Minh Châu, Mảnh trăng, tr.39)
Thế nào, kể tiếp đi
(Nguyễn Minh Châu, Mảnh trăng, tr.34)
Politeness
In language study, politeness is defined "(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, J.C et al., 1985, p 281)
Lakoff sees politeness as "a system of interpersonal relations designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange"
Leech (1983) defines it as "strategic conflict avoidance, which can be measured in terms of the degree of effort put into the avoidance of a conflict situation, and the establishment and the maintenance of comity"
1.2.2 Brown and Levinson's politeness theory
An approach to politeness that has become very influential is proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) They emphasize politeness as strategies employed by a speaker to obtain a variety of objectives such as promoting or maintaining harmonious relations Face is the central concept in Brown and Levinson' theory of politeness
Face is a person's public self image It refers to the positive image or impression of oneself that one shows or intends to show to the other participants in communication between two or more persons
Brown and Levinson classified two kinds of face:
Positive face is the "want of every competent adult member his actions be unimpeded but others"(p.62)
Negative face is "the want of every member that his wants be desirable to at least some others" (p.62)
Generally, in social interactions, everyone acts in such a way: "you respect my public self-image and I'll respect yours" (quoted by Locastro.V,) Usually people avoid making the participants embarrass or feel uncomfortable Thus, Brown and Levinson propose the notion of the acts that threaten the face wants of the speaker, the hearer, or both They call them "face threatening acts" (FTAs)
Brown and Levinson present strategies of FTAs as follow:
1 without redressive action, baldly on record 2 positive politeness
Do the FTA with redressive action 3 negative politeness
4 off record Don‟t do the FTA
The first way is to use the FTAs directly without redressive action For example, "Go away"
The second is to use the FTAs on record with redressive action of positive politeness That is making the action less undesirable by emphasize to show the speaker's interest in other's benefits and a desire to satisfy their wants For example, "Let's go out"
The third is to use the FTAs on record with redressive action of negative politeness, i.e the speaker can not avoid use the FTAs and he shows that he does not want to imposed to others‟ freedom in actions and in not being imposed For instance, “Could you please post me a letter when you are go out? I‟m very busy”
The forth is to do the FTAs off record if the speaker produces a statement with a suggestion indirectly For example, “I forgot my pen”
The fifth is to say nothing like in such a situation: One is smoking cigarette and you are not standing with the smoke Then you do not say anything and leave there
We have just mentioned an overview on politeness Here-in-after, we will discuss factors influencing the choice of strategies of the FTAs
1.2.2.2 Factors influencing the choice of strategies
There are many factors affecting politeness in interaction such as physical identity, psychological identity, geographical identity, ethnic and national identity, social identity, contextual identity (Crystal, 1992, 17-48) However, a lot of scientists agree with Brown and Levinson that three major factors , namely relative power (P), social distance (D), absolute ranking of impositions (R) in the particular culture are the most important ones influencing the choice of politeness strategies
The relative power is the power of S with respect to H In effect, this is the degree to which speaker can impose his or her own plans and self evaluation (face) at the expense of hearer‟s plan and self evaluation P will effects on the way interlocutors make conversation, on dealing with a question directly or indirectly, on using address forms appropriately, on using body language, etc In the same question and setting, if interlocutors are equal in power, they use politeness strategies different from when they converse with participants with higher or lower power For example, the way an employee talking to a boss will not be the way he doing with his colleges
The social distance refers to similarity/ differences within which S and H stand for the purposes of this act And in effect, it shows the degree of familiarity and solidarity S and H share as represented through in-group or out-group membership Usually the less the social distance is, the less politeness strategies and the more indirectness are used and vice verse
The absolute ranking of imposition is the imposition in the culture, in terms of the expenditure of goods and/ or services by H, or the obligation of S to perform the act
Nguyen Quang (2004:19) considers P and D as interactant-oriented factors, and R as interaction-oriented one He realizes that the concept “ranking of imposition” has a connection with the FTAs and the beneficiality of S or H It is possible that with the same H, when requesting him to do something which is benefit for the H (the FTA is high), the S must use indirectness, redress and signals of modality in order to decrease the FTAs.
Address form
In any act of communication, addressing is unavoidable Address form not only plays an important role in scientific, legal and commercial documents but also performs pragmatic function Address form or a vocative, according to Quirk, R and Greenbaum, S (1987:182) is a nominal element added to a sentence or clause optionally, denoting the one or more people to whom it is addressed The study is aimed to find answer to the following research questions:
1 What are structures and major factors affecting giving requests?
2 How is address form used in the original version and the equivalent translation?
One element added to a sentence or clause optionally, denoting the one or more people to whom it is addressed
Address forms are used in calling, especially used to address They may be nouns, pronouns, or adjective, in which a person or thing is addressed (from the welter‟s revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1993) For example, I, you, (personal pronouns), Peter (noun), dear (adjective), etc
There are many systems of address form in different languages and cultures
Some show democracy and equality in communication, some express hierarchy and patrialism
Brown and Gilman (1962) point out that using personal pronouns and equivalent forms is defined by power semantic and solidarity semantic
According to Wardhaugh (1986), the choice of address forms depends on particular situation, interlocutors‟ social status, sex, age, family relation or hierarchy relation in occupation, race or degree of solidarity
In terms of power semantic, it is usually acceptable that the older often have higher power than the younger In some certain society, men are more powerful than women In family relation, grandparents and parents are more powerful than children For example, in Vietnamese address forms, Ông-Bà Bố-mẹ Cháu (con) con
In terms of solidarity semantic, solidarity is defined as sharing common ground between interlocutors on the level intimacy and closeness In power semantic, those who have lower power will use “V” (VOS- Latin term shows deference) to address the higher-power-person and give “T”, (“TU” pronoun expresses solidarity) In French, English and some certain languages, they use the pairs such as IA-VƯ, JE-VOUS In solidarity semantic, usually an interlocutor will put forward using “T” and changing one-way T/V into “T” mutually However, according to Brown and Gilman, if interlocutors equal in power but unclosed, they will still keep “V”
1.3.2 Use of address forms in Vietnamese as seen from politeness theory
In comparison with languages in the world, Vietnamese is rich in address forms
Diep Quang Ban (2005:519), Nguyen Thi Trung Thanh (2007) and others claim that Vietnamese address forms consist of:
Eg: Khi nào tôi hô thì kéo nhá!
(Nguyễn Đình Tú, Chuông ngân cửa Phủ, VNQD, tháng 2-2007, tr
2 Kinship term Eg: Em lớn bằng anh, em cũng tự đi đƣợc nhƣ anh mà
(Sơn Tùng, Búp sen xanh, Nxb Kim Đồng, tr.91)
3 Nouns referring social status Eg: May quá thầy giáo ạ Mƣa bất ngờ làm chúng tôi không kịp trở tay
(Bùi Nguyên Khiết, Chuyện một con bê, tuyển tập truyện viết cho thiếu nhi từ sau cách mạng tháng Tám, Nxb GD 1999, tr.191)
4 Proper names Eg: Hồng,l ại đây cậu bảo
(Nguyên Hồng, Những ngày thơ ấu, TTVHVN, tr.81)
5 Some other phrases Eg: Cậu thằng Hồng vẫn còn thức đấy ƣ?
(Nguyên Hồng, Những ngày thơ ấu, TTVHN, tr.78)
Ban, Diep Quang (2005:520) expounds authentic personal pronouns in the chart as table 1
In this study, we concentrate on the pair of 1 st person and 2 nd person
In Vietnamese, kinship terms with equal function with I-You in English express age, gender, social power, family relation, attitude, feeling and etc The pair I-You in English does not show that
A Vietnamese interlocutor must get hearer‟s information such as occupation, age, relationship in society, family, etc to avoid embarrassment when addressing The right choice of address forms expresses S‟s competence, politeness, and deference to H
Tôi, tao, tớ , (ta), mình
Chúng tôi, chúng tao, chúng tớ, (1 st plural exclusive pronoun)
Chúng ta, chúng mình (1 st plural inclusive pronoun) Listener
Mày, mi Chúng mày, bay, chung bay
Nó, hắn, y Chúng nó, chúng
Nguyen Quang (2004: 73) investigates kinship terms as address forms in real life as follow:
Order Kinship terms as address forms
In short, the system of Vietnamese address forms is diversified and much more complex than that of other languages
1.3.3 Use of address forms in English as seen from politeness theory
It is thought that the system of English address forms only consists of the pair I-You but in fact, it is not simple
According to Quirk and Greenbaum (2003:183), a vocative may be:
1 A single name with or without title: John, Mrs Johnson, Dr Smith
2 The personal pronoun you (markely impolite); eg: Behave yourself, you Or indefinite pronoun; eg: Get me a pen, somebody
3 Standard appellatives, usually nouns without pre- or postmodification (not even the possessive pronoun);
Family relationship: mother, father, uncle
Endearments: (my) darling, dear, honey
Title of respect: sir, madam, My Lord
Markers of profession or status: Doctor, Mr/Madam
4 A nominal clause (very occasionally): whoever said that, come out here
5 Items under 1., 2.or 3 above with the addition of modifiers or appositive elements of various kinds:
1 My dear Mrs Johnson; young John
2 You with the red hair; you boys
3 old man/fellow (familiar); young man/woman Nguyen Quang classified English address forms into basic categories as follow:
1 Title alone-T: Professor, Dr, Mr, Miss, etc
2 Title with last name-TLN: Professor Brown, Dr Smith, etc
3 Last name-FN: Peter Smith, Gordon Brown, etc
4 First name -FN: Peter Smith, Gordon Brown
5 Multiple names-MNs: According to Brown and Ford (1964:238), MNs means that with the same interlocutor, sometimes we address TLN, sometimes
FN or FN or nickname
However, The English often use FN and TLN If the English want to show solidarity, they use FN and if they express formality and deference, they use TLN
FN and TLN can be classified into three groups of relation:
Wardhaugh (1996) said that TLN shows inequality in power, mutual exchange of TLN does equality and uncloseness, and mutual exchange of FN does equality and closeness between interlocutors It is clear that using TLN becomes a form of politeness in English
In terms of nonreciprocal TLN/Fn relationship, Brown and Giman consider that parents‟ power prevents children from addressing those older than their parents too familiarly
It is usually agreed that MNs is more intimate than FN However, it is a complex matter Fasold (1990) thinks that using TLN and Ln in MNs should not be considered as formality and distance
There is another form in English, namely “Address form avoidance-AFA”
According to Wardhaugh (1986), when people do not know how to address, they can use no Address forms For instance, instead of saying “Good morning, Smith”, they say: “Good morning” However, this form in some certain language like Vietnamese can be considered as impolite
1.3.4 Address form and its identity
Culture in address forms in Vietnamese is known as category of politeness Pham Thanh Vinh sees some similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese address forms as below:
1 Kinship terms: This is the greatest difference between English and Vietnamese because frequency of using kinship terms in Vietnamese is much higher than that in English
2 Personal pronouns: Both use but in English, personal pronouns does not often show shade of politeness clearly (polite or impolite) but those in Vietnamese transparent For instance, Tôi (neutral), tao (familiar), nó (neutral)
3 Title and occupation: In English, title and occupation are mainly used in vocative In Vietnamese, they are used in request, vocative and declarative
4 Proper name: In 1 st person, the Vietnamese can call himself his proper name but the English does not
5 Other phrases: The Vietnamese use demonstrative pronoun to address more than the English
Eg: Đây nói cho đằng ấy biết
Tran Ngoc Them assumes that Vietnamese address forms are abundant That is proved through kinship terms clearly This system has three main features: intimate, collective and hierarchy Vietnamese people address according to the principle: call self modestly and address other respectfully Whereas, English address forms seem to show democracy and equality more
In short, address forms of a language express more or less their culture‟s features.
ADDRESS FORMS IN “WUTHERING HEIGHTS” AND
Summary of “Wuthering heights”
“Wuthering Heighs (1847) – the story is narrated by Lockwood, a gentleman visisting the Yorkshire where the novel is set, and of Mrs Dean, housekeeper to the Earnshaw family, who had been witness of the interlocked destinies of the original owners of the Heights It is a series of flashbacks and time shifts, Bronte draws a powerful picture of the enigmatic Heathcliff, who is brought to Heights from the street of Liverpool by Mr Earnshaw, Heathcliff is treated as Earnshaw‟s own children, Catherine and Hindley After his death, Heathcliff is bullied by Hindley, who loves Catherine, but she marries Edgar Linton Heathcliff‟s destructive force is unleashed, and his first visit victim is Catherine, who dies giving birth to a girl, another Catherine Isabella Linton, Edgar‟s sister, whom he had married, flees to the south Their son Linton and Catherine are married, but always sickly Linton dies Hareton, Hindley‟s son, and the young widow became close Increasingly isolated and alienated from daily life, Heathcliff experiences visions, and he longs for the death that will reunite him with Catherine”
(http://www.online-literature.com/bronte/wuthering/)
Major groups of characters‟ relationships
There are about 16 dominent characters in the work The relationships of the characters are arranged into 8 major groups as follow:
wife and husband (Mr and Mrs Earnshaw, Mr and Mrs Linton, Hindley and Frances Earnshaw, Edgar and Catherine Linton, Isabella Hethcliff and Heathcliff),
parent and child (Mr Earnshaw and his daughter - Catherine Earnshaw, Edgar linton and his daughter - Catherine Linton)
servant and master/mistress (Ellen Dean and Catherine Earnshaw, Ellen Dean and little Catherine, Nelly Dean and Hindley Earnshaw, Heathcliff and Hindley Earnshaw, Joseph and Edgar Linton)
uncle and niece/nephew (Edgar Linton and Linton Heathcliff, Heathcliff and little Catherine )
cousins (little Catherine and Hareton Earnshaw, little Catherine and Linton Heathcliff)
friends (Heathcliff and Cathetine Earnshaw, Mrs Dean and Heathcliff, Mrs Dean and Cathetine Earnshaw, Mrs Dean and Mr Lockwood)
sisters-in-law (Cathetine Linton and Isabella)
3 Address forms in “Wuthering heights” and their Vietnamese equivalent translation
The relationship between lovers is very close and intimate Therefore, relative distance of interlocutors plays an internal role in making politeness of requests
If the speaker is male, the hearer is female, I-YOU are translated ANH-EM This pair of kinship terms is used commonly in Vietnamese even if the male is younger than the female and it expresses intimate on high level
In the requests of the work, the politeness marker “please” is not often used but endearment such as “dear, my darling” is intensified
Participants address interlocutors by first names
The relationship mutual FN shows solidarity and closeness between interlocutors
Eg: I thought he wished it Heathcliff, dear! You should not be sullen now Do come to me, Heathcliff! (XV)
Mình nghĩ là chàng muốn thế, Heathclif thân yêu! Anh không nên giận dỗi thế Lại đây với em đi nào, Heathclif (200)
However, in here, the male character Heathcliff calls himself “TÔI” in the Vietnamese translation and addresses his lover by “EM” We regard it as a very good translated address form because it is appropriate for Heathcliff‟s personality (he is a haughty person) He both loves and has hatred for Catherine
“TÔI-EM” expresses something dear as well as distant more or less
Eg: Hush, my darling! Hush, hush, Catherine! I‟ll stay If he shot me so, I‟d express with a blessing on my lips (XV)
Suỵt, em yêu! Suỵt, suỵt, Catherine! Tôi sẽ ở lại mà Nếu anh ta bắn tôi khi ôm em như thế này, tôi sẽ thở hơi cuối cùng với một lời ban phước trên môi (203)
Since the distance here is a little, the speaker, when requesting, often uses the FTA on record and directly by imperative statements in English as well as in Vietnamese
Eg: „Let me alone Let me alone‟ sobbed Catherine If I‟ve done wrong,
I‟m dying for it It is enough! You left me, too, but I won‟t upbraid you I forgive you Forgive me! (XV) Để cho em yên Để cho em yên, Cathơrin nức nớ Nếu em đã làm sai thì em đáng chết vì lỗi lầm đó Thế là đủ! Anh cũng đã bỏ em, nhƣng em không trách móc giày vò anh! Em tha thứ cho anh Vậy anh hãy tha thứ cho em (201)
If both wife and husband are old, the husband calls himself “TÔI” and addresses his wife “BÀ NÓ” in the Vietnamese translation In requests, he can add the word “wife” to address his wife in order to show intimate And “wife” is translated “BÀ NÓ” addressing on the child‟s behalf It expresses closeness and familiarity clearly
Eg: See here, wife! I was never so beaten with anything in my life but you must take it as a gift of God, though it‟s as dark almost as if it came from the devil.(IV)
Xem này, bà nó! Đời tôi chƣa bao giờ bị cái gì dằn vặt dến thế Nhƣng dù sao, bà cũng phải coi nó nhƣ một món quà của Chúa ban, tuy nó đen đến độ tưởng như ở chỗ quỷ chui ra (49)
Similar to the relationship of lovers, wife and husband use endearment such as “love, dear, darling” and first names frequently The husband often uses imperative form to give requests This form does not change in the translation
The translation of this kind of address forms is quite diversified The husband addresses his wife “EM, EM YÊU” and calls hímself “ANH”
Eg: 1 Don‟t stand there, love! Bring the person in if it be anyone particular (X) Đừng đứng đấy, em yêu! Đưa khách vào nhà nếu đó là người thân (120)
2 Frances darling, pull his hair as you go by, I heard him snap his fingers (III)
Frances em yêu quý, hãy rứt tóc nó khi em đi ngang qua, anh vừa nghe thấy nó bật móng tanh tách (30)
3 Oh, my dear Mary, look here! Don‟t afraid, it is but a boy (VI) Ồ, Mary thân yêu, nhìn này! Đừng sợ, đó chỉ là một thằng bé thôi (65)
One form that is quite special between husband and wife is the pair of interchangeable addressing “MÌNH-EM” It is an interesting phenomenon rarely occurring in languages The wife addresses her husband “MÌNH” and calls herself “EM” This form implies an extremely intimate relationship The speaker and the hearer seem to be one
In another example, grounder “I know you didn‟t like him Yet for my sake
…” expresses a causal clause supporting a request Initial statements of reasons instead of more direct requests, serve as a means for the speaker to find out whether the hearer finds his/her grounds for asking acceptable Grounder and modal verb “must” mitigate the force of the request and restrict the possible potential refusal on the part of the hearer
Eg: I know you didn‟t like him! She answered repressing a little the intensity of her delight.‟ Yet, for my sake, you must be friends now Shall I tell him to come up?‟ (X)
Em biết mình không thích anh ấy, cô đáp, nén lại chút ít cường độ niềm vui sướng của mình Nhưng vì em, bây giờ hai người phải là bạn của nhau đấy Em gọi anh ấy lên nhé? (121)
Will that please you, dear? Or must I have a fire lighted elsewhere? (X)
Thế có vừa ý mình không? Hay là em phải đốt một lò sưởi ở chỗ khác? (121)
When the speaker request the hearer to do something benefit for speaker, or in other words, the FTA is high and benefit belongs to the speaker, he uses more indirect speech and redress by means of questions The translation “MÌNH- EM” is efficient for decreasing the FTA and reinforcing agreement
When the speaker is angry, the way he requests the interlocutors is much different from that when his mood is happy/glad The speaker will call self
“TÔI” and address the other “ANH” (husband) or “CÔ” (wife) Performative verbs are often used in requests such as “require, demand, and tell” which have the high FTA The speaker usually utters requests with the FTA on record by means of imperative or declarative statements with performative verbs in both English and Vietnamese Addressing forms “TÔI- ANH” and “TÔI-CÔ” here do not show formality but express a far distance in relation
Eg: „Well, well‟, cried her husband, crossly, „don‟t strange me for that!
He never struck me as such a marvelous treasure There is no need to be frantic!‟ (X)
Thôi nào, thôi nào, chồng cô bực dọc kêu lên Đừng có vì thế mà làm tôi chết ngạt! Chƣa bao giờ tôi nghĩ hắn nghĩ là một kho báu kỳ diệu đến thế Không việc gì phải mê cuồng lên (120)
„I require to be let alone.‟ exclaimed Catherine furiously.‟I demand it! Don‟t you see I can scarcely stand? Edgar, you-you leave me (XI)