Speech Acts of Disagreeing in American and Vietnamese - A Pragmatics Analysis

GRADUATE ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
Nguyn Th Ngng
SEMANTICS ASSIGNMENT
Major: English Language

Instructor: Ho Ngoc Trung Assoc. Prof. Dr.
HANOI, 2017
GRADUATE ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
Nguyn Th Ngng
Semantics Assignment
SPEECH ACTS OF DISAGREEING IN AMERICAN AND

VIETNAMESE - A PRAGMATICS ANALYSIS
Major: English Language

Instructor: Ho Ngoc Trung Assoc. Prof. Dr.
HANOI, 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page number
Introduction 1
1.1. Rationale
1.2. Aim(s) of the Study
1.3. Scope of the Study
1.4. Research Methods
Development
2.1.
2.2.

Conclusion
3.1. Recapitulation
3.2. Concluding Remarks
References
Appendices (optional)
Page 0
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
The most precious gift given to human is language, with the help of
which they exchange their ideas, feelings and transmit information. In the past
few decades, the rapid development of technology and communication
systems has greatly shortened the distance between countries and offered
more chance for inter-cultural interactions besides intra-cultural interactions.
However, successful communication requires not only pure linguistic
competence but also knowledge of social norms, social values and relations
between individuals known as communicative competence. Communicative
competence presupposes ability to use the language correctly and
appropriately. This pragmatic competence seems as crucial as linguistic
competence. The lack of it may lead to impoliteness, misinterpretation,
culture shocks or even communication breakdown.
The Speech acts of disagreeing in American and Vietnamese
cultures has been chosen for investigation in this assignment as it is of great
interest to the researcher, a teacher of English.
1.2. Aims of the Study
The purpose of this study is to find out differences between American
and Vietnamese cultures in using politeness strategies of disagreeing in order
to avoid culture shocks.
In addition, this study is conducted with the hope of contributing to the
reduction of pragmatic failures of the researcher and anyone concerned.
1.3. Scope of the Study
This study is limited to study on some politeness strategies in conversations
between American and Vietnamese people which is taken from an earlier
research by Kieu Thi Thu Huong (an unpublished research in 2006). She
Page 1
gathered information from 200 native speakers of American and Vietnamese,
in which 100 people are American and another 100 are Vietnamese. The
informants are asked to provide their disagreeing responses to the prior
evaluative tokens Miss X is getting too fat (Situation 1), Tax increase a
really cool idea (Situation 2) and That party you and I went to was very
boring (Situation 3). The informants can either create their own replies or
choose from a set of utterances selected from the pretests and literature.
1.4. Research Methods
To achieve these aims, both descriptive, comparative, analytic methods
will be exploited in this assignment. A comparison of the ways used to realize
disagreeing by American and Vietnamese is considered essential and valuable
in the teaching career of the researcher.
DEVELOPMENT
2.1. Theoretical back ground
2.1.1. Speech act
Since its initiation by Austin a few decades ago, the notion of speech
acts has become one of the most compelling notions in the study of language
use. Speech acts have been central to the works by many other philosophers
and linguists like Grice (1957, 1975), Hymes (1964), Searle (1969, 1975,
1979), Levinson (1983), Brown & Yule (1983), Mey (1993, 2001), Thomas
(1995) and Yule ([1996] 1997). Their common assumption is that when
conversing people use grammatical and lexical units not only to produce
utterances, but also to perform actions. In saying something the speaker (S)
does something (Austin 1962).
Generally, the actions that are produced via utterances to communicate
are called speech acts (Yule 1996: 47). These SAs, considered the basic or
minimal units of linguistic communication.' (Searle 1969: 16), are performed
Page 2
in authentic situations of language use. In English, SAs are specifically
labeled as compliment, apology, request, disagreeing or promise. These terms
for SAs are used to name the S's communicative intentions and the hearer (H)
is expected to correctly interpret the S's intentions via the process of
inferences.
As introduced by Oxford philosopher J.L. Austin (How to Do Things
With Words, 1962) and further developed by American philosopher J.R.
Searle, speech-act theory considers the levels of action at which utterances are
said to perform:
Locutionary Acts (phonetic act + a linguistic act + a referring act)
Illocutionary Acts
Perlocutionary Acts
Not being completely happy with Austin's original classification of
illocutionary acts into five basic categories of verdictive, expositive,
exercitive, behavitive and commissive, Searle (1976: 10-16) develops an
alternative taxonomy of the fundamental classes of illocutionary acts. The
taxonomy consists of five categories or five types of general functions
performed by speech acts: 1) Declarations: e. g. declaring, christening, (2)
Representatives: e. g. asserting, disagreeing (my emphasis), (3)
Expressives: e.g. thanking, apologizing, (4) Directives: e.g. ordering,
requesting, and (5) Commissives: e. g. promising, offering.
2.1.2. Disagreeing
According to Wierzbicka (1987: 128) disagreeing can be defined as a
dual act, an act of saying 'what one thinks' and indicating 'that one doesn't
think the same as the earlier speaker'. In the case of disagreeing, the act of
showing that the second speaker does not think the same or he/she has a
different view or opinion seems to be much more important than the prior.
Page 3
It is observable that the act of disagreeing, like any other SA, possesses
both illocutionary force and propositional content. These two properties of
SAs are realized syntactically, and the correct understanding of the intended
illocutionary force is inevitably dependent upon the context. In terms of
syntax, there is no necessary correlation between structural forms and
illocutionary forces. Practically, disagreements can be performed in
declarative, interrogative and imperative forms respectively.
It is normally easier to agree with the prior S than to disagree with
him/her. Wierzbicka (1987: 128) assumes, 'Disagreeing is a fairly forceful and
self-confident act, more than agreeing'.
As a matter of fact, Ss need more stamina and more self-confidence to
express their disagreement than to express their agreement. Especially in the
case of American culture, Ss are expected to express their disagreement
implicitly or tacitly, rather than to perform it explicitly or frankly, as they
would in the case of agreement. It is advisable that one should hedge one's
disagreement or avoid outright disagreement to maintain relationships with
others.
Fraser (1990: 229) proposes that disagreeing is among those SAs (such
as complaining, criticizing, etc.) named FTAs (face threatening acts), as they
are inherently threatening to the Hs desire to be appreciated and approved of
(Brown & Levinson 1987). When faced with FTAs, Ss may choose between
various strategies to reduce or eliminate the seriousness of the threat by either
softening their communicative tokens or implicitly expressing them. The
choice of politeness strategies is said to be affected by three variables relative
power (P), social distance (D) and ranking of imposition (R) (Ibid.).
By and large, from the view of SA theories, disagreeing which belongs
to representatives that make the words fit the world of fallacy or truth, and
Page 4
which is an FTA that needs to be hedged to weaken the potential threat, is a
communicative illocutionary act.
2.1.3. Culture
The term culture, as we will be using it, refers to the customs and
expectations of a particular group of people, particularly as it affects their
language use.
The term culture has a wide range of meanings today, because it has actually
changed in meaning over time. Goddard (2005:53 ff.) provides an excellent
account of some of these changes. In its earliest English uses, culture was a
noun of process, referring to the tending of crops or animals. This meaning
(roughly cultivating) is found in words such as agriculture, horticulture and
viviculture. In the sixteenth century culture began to be used about
cultivating the human body through training, and later about cultivating the
non-physical aspects of a person. In the nineteenth century the meaning was
broadened to include the general state of human intellectual, spiritual and
aesthetic development (roughly comparable to civilisation), giving rise to
the artistic works and practices meaning that which is associated with music,
literature, painting, theatre and film. Goddard reports that the
anthropological usage of culture was introduced into English by Tylor in the
late nineteenth century in his book Primitive Culture. Tylor defined culture as
that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law,
custom and other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of a
society (Tylor 1871:1).
Goddard (2005:58) makes the point that the anthropological use
typically related to people living in other places; however, in contemporary
expressions such as youth culture, gay culture, kid culture the principle of
Page 5
differentiation has shifted entirely to the notion of different people. Even so,
Tylors definition of culture seems to us to still be very relevant.
Research on intercultural communication often relates to cultural
groups
at the level of nations and national languages; however, we need to be aware
that many of the major languages of the world such as German, English,
Spanish and Arabic are spoken by people of different nationalities, often in
geographically distant areas and that each national variety of these
pluricentric languages will have at least some of its own codified norms
(Clyne 1992; Clyne, Fernandez & Muhr 2003).
Research on cross-cultural communication typically compares
communication practices of one language/cultural group with another, while
studies on intercultural communication focus on features of the shared
communication between speakers from different language/cultural
backgrounds.
Most modern research on cross-cultural and intercultural
communication takes into account that communication is affected by different
aspects of the context, including cultural expectations, social relations and the
purpose of the communication.
2.1.4. Geert Hofstedes and Halls cultural dimensions:
2.2.4.1. Geert Hofstedes models:
The model of national culture consists of six dimensions. The cultural
dimensions represent independent preferences for one state of affairs over
another that distinguish countries (rather than individuals) from each other.
The country scores on the dimensions are relative, as we are all human and
simultaneously we are all unique. In other words, culture can be only used
Page 6
meaningfully by comparison. The model consists of the following
dimensions:
Power Distance Index (PDI)
This dimension expresses the degree to which the less powerful members of a
society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. The
fundamental issue here is how a society handles inequalities among people.
People in societies exhibiting a large degree of Power Distance accept a
hierarchical order in which everybody has a place and which needs no further
justification. In societies with low Power Distance, people strive to equalise
the distribution of power and demand justification for inequalities of power.
individualism versus Collectivism (IDV)
The high side of this dimension, called individualism, can be defined as a
preference for a loosely-knit social framework in which individuals are
expected to take care of only themselves and their immediate families. Its
opposite, collectivism, represents a preference for a tightly-knit framework in
society in which individuals can expect their relatives or members of a
particular in-group to look after them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty. A
society's position on this dimension is reflected in whether peoples self-
image is defined in terms of I or we.
Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS)
The Masculinity side of this dimension represents a preference in society for
achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material rewards for success. Society
at large is more competitive. Its opposite, femininity, stands for a preference
for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life. Society at
large is more consensus-oriented. In the business context Masculinity versus
Femininity is sometimes also related to as "tough versus tender" cultures.
Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI)
Page 7
The Uncertainty Avoidance dimension expresses the degree to which the
members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity. The
fundamental issue here is how a society deals with the fact that the future can
never be known: should we try to control the future or just let it happen?
Countries exhibiting strong UAI maintain rigid codes of belief and behaviour
and are intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas. Weak UAI societies
maintain a more relaxed attitude in which practice counts more than
principles.
Long Term Orientation versus Short Term Normative Orientation
(LTO)*
Every society has to maintain some links with its own past while dealing with
the challenges of the present and the future. Societies prioritize these two
existential goals differently.
Societies who score low on this dimension, for example, prefer to maintain
time-honoured traditions and norms while viewing societal change with
suspicion. Those with a culture which scores high, on the other hand, take a
more pragmatic approach: they encourage thrift and efforts in modern
education as a way to prepare for the future.
In the business context this dimension is related to as "(short term) normative
versus (long term) pragmatic" (PRA). In the academic environment the
terminology Monumentalism versus Flexhumility is sometimes also used.
Indulgence versus Restraint (IND)
Indulgence stands for a society that allows relatively free gratification of basic
and natural human drives related to enjoying life and having fun. Restraint
stands for a society that suppresses gratification of needs and regulates it by
means of strict social norms.
2.2.4.2. Edward T. Halls factors
Page 8
Edward Hall's theory tells about important cultural factors or dimensions.
They are context, time, space and information
Context
High context
In a high-context culture, there are many contextual elements that help people
to understand the rules. As a result, much is taken for granted.
This can be very confusing for person who does not understand the 'unwritten
rules' of the culture.
Low context
In a low-context culture, very little is taken for granted. Whilst this means that
more explanation is needed, it also means there is less chance of
misunderstanding particularly when visitors are present.
Time
People from monochronous cultures usually do one thing at a time. Careful
planning and scheduling is often present. Members of monochronous cultures
have difficulties with starting something new, when they still have not
finished another activity. Germany, USA, Scandinavian countries are among
countries with such kind of cultures.
In polychronous cultures human interaction is valued over time and material
things. Being punctual is not that important in these cultures. People from
such cultures pay more attention to human relations and do not mind doing
several things at the same time.
Space
Hall was the first scientist, who started to categorize cultures by their attitude
to personal space.
In cultures with low territoriality people have less ownership of space and
boundaries are less important to them. They are ready to share territory with
Page 9
little thought. Individuals from high territoriality cultures tend to show more
concern for ownership. They seek to mark up the territory in their possession.
Information
Information and the ways it is treated in cultures is the fourth dimension
described by Hall. Cultures with slow flow of information plan information
carefully and structure it. They would tend to portion information, not to give
more than absolutely necessary. Cultures with fast flow of information think
that the more quickly the information is spread, the better it is for all.
2.2 Conversation Situation
Could you please consider the utterances you would use when conversing
with your co-participants, define the level of politeness of your responses
and tick () the appropriate box?
Prior assess-Your co- Politeness level of your

ment by your participant Your response response
co- Polit Non- Impo-
participant e polite lite
(Neu-
tral)
Grandmother 1. Shes all

1 right, I
suppose.
Miss X is
getting Mother 2. How fat is
too fat. too fat?
Colleague, same 3. Fashions

age & gender change,
you know.
Page 10
Boss, older 4. Were very
much in
agreement,
but.
2 Father 5. Not me, I

Tax increase totally
a really cool disagree.
idea. Someone you 6. Its pretty
dislike good.
Acquaintance, 7. That may be

older so, but.
Boss, younger 8. Really?
3 Grandfather 9. No,
grandpa, no,
That party no, youre
was very wrong.
boring. Close friend 10. Boring
people get
bored.
Colleague, same 11. Do you

age, different really
gender think so?
Acquaintance, 12. Sorry, but I

younger think it was
interesting.
Xin qu v cn nhc nhng pht ngn sau v nh gi mc

lch s ca tng pht ngn theo cc cp : Lch s
Bnh thng Bt lch s. Xin nh du () vo
thch hp.
Page 11
Nhn xt Mc lch s
ca ngi ca cu p
i thoi Ngi i Cu p ca
vi qu v Lc Bnh Bt
thoi vi qu v h thng lc
s h
qu v s
1. B 1. Chu thy c
y bnh th-
C X y ng.
qu M 2. M cho th
no l qu
bo. bo ?
ng 3. Mt i ri.
nghip,
cng tui
& gii tnh
Cp trn, 4. Vng, nh-

hn tui ng.
2.Tng B 5. Khng, con

thu thu hon ton
nhp - Mt phn i.
tng
tuyt vi. Ngi ght 6. Ci kh
hay y.
Ngi quen, 7. Cng c th

hn tui nh th y
, nhng.
Cp trn, 8. Tht th
km tui sao?
Page 12
3. ng 9. Khng, ng
i, khng,
Bui lin khng, ng
hoan nhm ri .
tht t nht.
Bn thn 10. Ngi bun
thy g
chng t.
ng 11. Cu ngh
nghip, th tht ?
cng tui,
khc gii
tnh
Ngi quen, 12. Xin li, nh-

km tui ng ti/
thy n hay.
2.3 Result
Five cases out of ten in each situation are taken to further investigation
provided that they are proved to be statistically significant across situations.
Below are the outputs of 15 cases marked c, d, e, h and j, where the
informants are supposed to be in disagreement with their close friends, people
they dislike, colleagues (same age & gender), older acquaintances and older
bosses as regards the prior evaluative tokens.
Sit. 3.1c. Miss X
is getting too fat. Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend Total
Bald-on- On- Off-
First Language record record record No FTA
English Count 41 14 42 3 100
English % 41.0% 14.0% 42.0% 3.0% 100.0%
Vietnamese
19 35 45 1 100
Count
Vietnamese % 19.0% 35.0% 45.0% 1.0% 100.0%
Page 13
Table-1: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend
(Miss X is fat)
Sit. 3.2c. Tax Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend Total
increase a cool
idea.
Bald-on- On- Off-
English % 28.0% 44.0% 25.0% 3.0% 100.0%
Vietnamese Count 18 27 55 0 100
Vietnamese % 18.0% 27.0% 55.0% .0% 100.0%
(Tax increase)
Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend: The English respondents are likely
to be straightforward in expressing their disagreements conversing with close
friends by their frequent abiding by bald-on-record and on-record strategies.
The Vietnamese respondents seem to be careful in overtly stating their
opposing stances, which reflects in their using more off-record strategies with
the exception of 3.1c, where 35% of them deploy direct strategies with redress
compared to 14% of the English. The low proportion of silence across three
situations is worth noting. All respondents are likely to be responsive and co-
operative, especially the Vietnamese. In 3.1c and 3.3c only one Vietnamese
respondent out of 100 refuses to reply and in 3.2c the percentage is zero,
which suggests the existence of some socially-ethical sanction concerning
being responsive in interpersonal interaction to establish and keep solidarity
and rapport in the target culture.
Sit. 3.3c. Boring
party. Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend Total
Bald-on- On- Off-
English % 16.0% 59.0% 21.0% 4.0% 100.0%
Page 14
Vietnamese
14 39 46 1 100
Count
Vietnamese % 14.0% 39.0% 46.0% 1.0% 100.0%
(Boring party)
Sit. 3.1d. Miss X Disagreeing Strategies to Someone You
is getting too fat. Dislike Total
Bald-on- On- Off-
English % 49.0% 6.0% 37.0% 8.0% 100.0%
Vietnamese
13 26 52 9 100
Count
Vietnamese % 13.0% 26.0% 52.0% 9.0% 100.0%
Table-4: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You
Dislike (Miss X is fat)
Sit. 3.2d. Tax Disagreeing Strategies to Someone you
increase dislike Total
Bald-on- On- Off-
English % 31.0% 33.0% 29.0% 7.0% 100.0%
Vietnamese
23 15 52 10 100
Count
Vietnamese % 23.0% 15.0% 52.0% 10.0% 100.0%
Dislike (Tax increase)
Disagreeing Strategies to Someone You Dislike: Normally, it is
embarrassing and inconvenient to interact with people with whom you do not
get on well, let alone to disclose your negative views. The English Ss seem to
be direct in their disagreements, and they appear to be most eager to defend
Miss X in 3.1d with 49% of them clinging to bald-on-record strategies.
Almost half of the Vietnamese informants are inclined to be less direct and
imply their disagreement tokens via off-record strategies. In addition, the
number of informants who opt out of performing the act, i.e. who do no FTA
at all, is quite high in both groups.
Page 15
Sit. 3.3d. Boring Disagreeing Strategies to Someone you
party dislike Total
Bald-on- On- Off-
English % 20.0% 39.0% 34.0% 7.0% 100.0%
Vietnamese
13 34 49 4 100
Count
Vietnamese % 13.0% 34.0% 49.0% 4.0% 100.0%
Dislike (Boring party)
Sit. 3.1e. Miss X Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague
is getting too fat. (same age & gender) Total
Bald-on- On- Off-
English % 23.0% 17.0% 54.0% 6.0% 100.0%
Vietnamese
16 51 30 3 100
Count
Vietnamese % 16.0% 51.0% 30.0% 3.0% 100.0%
Table-7: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same
age & gender (Miss X)
Sit. 3.2e. Tax
increase - a cool Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague
idea. (same age & gender) Total
Bald-on- On- Off-
English % 14.0% 50.0% 33.0% 3.0% 100.0%
Vietnamese % 8.0% 19.0% 73.0% .0% 100.0%
age & gender (Tax)
Sit. 3.3e. Boring Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague
party. (same age & gender) Total
Bald-on- On- Off-
English % 7.0% 57.0% 33.0% 3.0% 100.0%
Page 16
Vietnamese
13 43 44 0 100
Count
Vietnamese % 13.0% 43.0% 44.0% .0% 100.0%
age & gender (Party)
Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague (same age & gender): The Vietnamese
show greater tendency to abide by off-record strategies in 3.2e and 3.3e,
which can be traced back to their emphasis on community-based solidarity,
while the high proportion in English on-record strategies in these two cases
might be the manifestation of American focus on freedom from imposition
and of action. However, the English in 3.1e are likely to be indirect in
disagreeing with their colleagues by adhering to off-record strategies, while
the Vietnamese Ss seem to prefer direct strategies with 16% of the
respondents opting for bald-on-record strategies and 51% of them using on-
record.
Sit. 3.1h. Miss X
is getting too fat. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Acquaintance Total
Bald-on- On- Off-
English % 24.0% 13.0% 55.0% 8.0% 100.0%
Vietnamese
13 38 42 7 100
Count
Vietnamese % 13.0% 38.0% 42.0% 7.0% 100.0%
Table-10: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older
Acquaintance (Miss X is fat)
Sit. 3.2h. Tax
increase - a cool Disagreeing Strategies to Older
idea. Acquaintance Total
Bald-on- On- Off-
English % 9.0% 52.0% 36.0% 3.0% 100.0%
Page 17
Vietnamese % 2.0% 34.0% 60.0% 4.0% 100.0%
Acquaintance (Tax increase)
Disagreeing Strategies to Older Acquaintance: It is of great interest to see
the reciprocal influence of age and intimacy in the Vietnamese choice of
strategies compared to the English. The preference for intimacy is visible in
on-record strategies in 3.1h, whereas the emphasis on age is reflected in the
adherence to off-record strategies in 3.2h and 3.3h. The high percentage of
bald-on-record by the English informants implies that age is recognized but
lightly treated in their culture. Also, their deployment of off-record strategies
in 3.1h consistent with their choice of indirect strategies to colleagues in 3.1e
may serve as evidence for English usage of indirectness as a means to express
politeness.
Sit. 3.3h. Boring Disagreeing Strategies to Older
party. Acquaintance Total
Bald-on- On- Off-
English % 10.0% 62.0% 26.0% 2.0% 100.0%
Vietnamese % 13.0% 37.0% 45.0% 5.0% 100.0%

Acquaintance (Boring party)
Sit. 3.1j. Miss

X is getting
too fat. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss Total
First Bald-on- On- Off-
Language record record record No FTA
English % 13.0% 12.0% 60.0% 15.0% 100.0%
Vietnamese
11 27 44 18 100
Count
Page 18
Vietnamese % 11.0% 27.0% 44.0% 18.0% 100.0%
Table-13: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss

(Miss X is fat)
Sit. 3.2j. Tax

increase - a cool
idea. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss Total
Bald-on- On- Off-
English % 10.0% 52.0% 31.0% 7.0% 100.0%
Vietnamese % .0% 26.0% 66.0% 8.0% 100.0%

(Tax increase)
Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss: Although the present number of

informants who opt out of responding to their older bosses evaluative tokens
is the highest across situations, the disparity in their use of direct and indirect
strategies is of paramount significance. While the English exploit more off
strategies in 3.1j, and on-record strategies in 3.2j and 3.3j, the Vietnamese
would rather allude to their negative responses by using off-record strategies
or stop voicing them. In Vietnamese culture, where interpersonal relationships
are vertically structured, age and status are institutionalized respected and
valued. Thus, one should act in caution in proffering disagreements to ones
older boss. The asymmetrical role relationships provide persuasive
explanations for the low percentage of direct strategies by Vietnamese Ss,
especially bald-on-record, the use of which seems to potentially damage the
norms of social hierarchy. In 3.2j, for instance, none of 100 Vietnamese
informants choose bald-on-record strategies.
Sit. 3.3j. Boring Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss Total
Page 19
party.
Bald-on- On- Off-
English 6.0% 51.0% 34.0% 9.0% 100.0%
Vietnamese
3 32 49 16 100
Count
Vietnamese % 3.0% 32.0% 49.0% 16.0% 100.0%
(Boring Party)
3.2.2.2. Comments
The two groups of informants demonstrate considerable differences in their
deployment of politeness strategies to express their disagreement tokens to
the early stated assessments. In general, the English informants do not pay
much attention to such factors as age, status or gender of their interlocutors,
and they seem to be direct in situations where these factors reciprocally
influence (e.g. disagreeing with colleagues, same age & gender; older
acquaintances or bosses). They are inclined to forthrightly speak out their
different evaluations no matter the Hs are their close friends or those they
dislike. Also, they tend to directly disagree with others on non-personal topics
like economics, politics and social issues (taxes or social get-togethers, for
instance).
In contrast, the Vietnamese informants attach significant importance to age
and status in accordance with their socially normative ethics. Thus, instead of
acting quite freely according to individual wills, they have to make their
personal choices of strategy in conformity to institutionalized norms of
behavior, which stress community-based solidarity and intimacy. They are
likely to abide by direct strategies in safe settings where role relationships
are symmetrical, for example, talking with close friends or colleagues. In
cases where there is little possibility of balancing personal choices and social
Page 20
norms, they opt for indirect strategies so as to avoid sounding too critical or
aggressive. The reasonable account for the differences in Ss choice of
politeness strategies can be made via due consideration of the differences in
their assessment of social parameters and situations (cf. findings in Chapter
1). After all, they are just surface manifestations of the deep-level differences
in the socio-cultural structures.
2.4. Comment
In general, the English informants do not pay much attention to such
factors as age, status or gender of their interlocutors, and they seem to be
direct in situations where these factors reciprocally influence (e.g. disagreeing
with colleagues, same age & gender; older acquaintances or bosses). They are
inclined to forthrightly speak out their different evaluations no matter the Hs
are their close friends or those they dislike. Also, they tend to directly
disagree with others on non-personal topics like economics, politics and
social issues (taxes or social get-togethers, for instance).
In contrast, the Vietnamese informants attach significant importance to age
and status in accordance with their socially normative ethics. Thus, instead of
acting quite freely according to individual wills, they have to make their
personal choices of strategy in conformity to institutionalized norms of
behavior, which stress community-based solidarity and intimacy. They are
likely to abide by direct strategies in safe settings where role relationships
are symmetrical, for example, talking with close friends or colleagues. In
cases where there is little possibility of balancing personal choices and social
norms, they opt for indirect strategies so as to avoid sounding too critical or
aggressive. The reasonable account for the differences in Ss choice of
politeness strategies can be made via due consideration of the differences in
their assessment of social parameters and situations. After all, they are just
Page 21
surface manifestations of the deep-level differences in the socio-cultural
structures.
CONCLUSION
3.1. Recapitulation
The findings have provided strong evidence for the differences in strategic
choice made by American and Vietnamese in proffering disagreement tokens.
Being less constrained by socially normative practices, the American
informants are observed to flexibly adjust themselves to different interactive
contexts and frequently deploy direct strategies according to their personal
wants. Their local socio-cultural context which is much less hierarchical takes
as its main concern the individual and his/her freedom of action and from
intrusion. This clearly explains Hoffstedes models that American culture
belongs to individualism, weak uncertainty avoidance dimensions as well as
the short-term orientaion. Besides, this also clarifies Halls cultural factors
that American belong to Low Context Culture which also means there is less
chance of misunderstanding particularly when visitors are present.
In contrast, The Vietnamese might generally be judged as more indirect
than their American counterparts in performing disagreements. However, as
native Ss of a speech community, they cannot stay independent of the
indigenous system of social norms determining linguistic and behavioral
manners, which stresses hierarchy. It comes as no surprise that the Vietnamese
tend to sound less direct when facing asymmetrical relationships which need
some compromise or reciprocity in linguistic expressions. This clearly proves
Hoffstedes models that Vietnamese culture belongs to collectivism, strong
uncertainty avoidance dimensions, and long-term orientation. Besides, this
also explains Halls cultural factors that Vietnam belongs to Low Context
Culture which can be very confusing for person who does not understand the
Page 22
'unwritten rules' of the culture.
It is the wider socio-cultural contexts that serve as good grounds for all
these differences in the Ss assessment of socio-cultural parameters and
situations and choice of strategies.
3.2. Concluding Remarks
From the results conversation analysis, we can see that both American
and Vietnamese use hedging words, but they are more frequently used by the
Vietnamese. Speakers of American and Vietnamese differ in choosing
politeness strategies to realize disagreement attributes. The American
preference for direct strategies with redress and the Vietnamese tendency to
use indirect strategies have proved Leech (1986) and Brown & Levinsons
assumption (1987[1978]) that cultures may differ in terms of precedence and
significance given to each strategy in spite of having the same sets of
strategies. This has also coincided with Kieu T. T. H.s finding (2001: 86) of
Americans favorite use of on-record and Vietnamese deployment of off-
record strategies in disagreements.
The empirical study shows that indirectness does not always correlate
with politeness. The deployment of indirectness varies across cultures, across
speech acts and across contexts of a speech act of a culture. Thus, linguistic
indirectness is both culturally and contextually dependent and colored, and
the Vietnamese exploitation of indirect strategies in different contexts ranging
from intimacy to asymmetrical role relationships should be interpreted in
consideration of social factors and norms of behavior. Politeness in the
Vietnamese socio-cultural framework, which is strongly anchored in
Confucian ethics, is essentially motivated by the maintenance social harmony
and community solidarity via individual observance of institutionalized
practices. On the contrary, American culture with its primary focus on
Page 23
individualist non-imposition tends to leave more free space for speakers to
make their own choice of politeness strategies.
3.3 Implications for teaching and learning English in Vietnam
The fact that native speakers sometimes do not accept non-native
speakers different way of speaking as a marker of cultural identity because
they come from different cultures leads me to the teaching and learning
implications as follows:
Vietnam belongs developing country, so most classrooms do not have

ideal environment for communicating. It is suggested for the teacher that
different integrative tasks should be designed for classroom practice which
enhance learners productive and receptive skills because one skill cannot
be performed without others in real communication. In additions, teachers
should provide learners with knowledge of culture of the target language
because people use different languages and symbolical interactions when
interacting with each other and when engaging one another in a friendly or
professional discourse. Besides, culture colors our communications. Cultural
knowledge by the speaker/teacher/worker/visitor also makes things either
clearer because he/she can tailor his /he materials in such a way as to make
these more practicable and easier to appreciate, according to a certain target
cultural people/group. Last but not least, the world gets smaller; chances for
the Vietnamese young people to become global citizens will be greater. This
means we will have more and more contact with people who are culturally
different. Therefore, based on the current study, in foreign language
classrooms by teaching authentically the target language cultural norms in
the production of disagreeing as the most face threatening speech act,
students will earn the required pragmatic competence and avoid
misunderstanding and misinterpretation in real life situations. We all
Page 24
understand that learning how to agree is much easier than learning how to
express disagreement.
Page 25
REFERENCES
English
1. Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech
Acts. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London: MIT Press.
2. Brown, P. & Levinson, S. Politeness: Some universals in language usage.
Cambridge University Press, 1987.
3. Larry A. Samovar. , et al. (2010). Communication between cultures.
Canada: Lyn Uhl
4. Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p's and q's.
Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society
(pp. 292-305). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
5. Yule G. (1996), Pragmatics, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Vietnamese
6. Nguyen, Van Do (1996). Politeness phenomena in Vietnamese and English
cultures and some implications in teaching language Evidence from
forms of requests. Unpublished M. A. Thesis. Hanoi Foreign Studies
University.
7. Trung H. N (2013), Lectures on Discourse Analysis, Hanoi: Vietnam
Education Publisher.
Unpublished Reference
8. Kieu, Thi Thu Huong. (2001). Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese.
Unpublished M. A. Thesis. C. F. L, Vietnam National University, Hanoi.
9. Kieu, Thi Thu Huong. (2003). Conversation Analysis and Disagreeing in
English and Vietnamese. Unpublished paper submitted for a credit of
Conversation Analysis. Department of anthropology. university of
Toronto, Canada.
Web page
10.https://geert-hofstede.com/national-culture.html
Page 26

Speech Acts of Disagreeing in American and Vietnamese - A Pragmatics Analysis

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Speech Acts of Disagreeing in American and Vietnamese - A Pragmatics Analysis

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

GRADUATE ACADEMY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES

FACULTY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

Major: English Language

SPEECH ACTS OF DISAGREEING IN AMERICAN AND

Major: English Language

Prior assess-Your co- Politeness level of your

Grandmother 1. Shes all

Colleague, same 3. Fashions

2 Father 5. Not me, I

Acquaintance, 7. That may be

Boss, younger 8. Really?

Colleague, same 11. Do you

Acquaintance, 12. Sorry, but I

Xin qu v cn nhc nhng pht ngn sau v nh gi mc

Cp trn, 4. Vng, nh-

2.Tng B 5. Khng, con

Ngi quen, 7. Cng c th

Ngi quen, 12. Xin li, nh-

Table-12: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older

Sit. 3.1j. Miss

Table-13: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss

Sit. 3.2j. Tax

Table-14: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss

Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss: Although the present number of

Vietnam belongs developing country, so most classrooms do not have

Anda mungkin juga menyukai