Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
DISAGREEING
IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE:
A PRAGMATICS AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE
By
HANOI - 2006
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
Except where the reference is indicated, no other persons work has been used
without due acknowledgment in the text of the thesis.
Hanoi - 2006
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am indebted to many people without whose help the present thesis could not have been
completed. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hoang Van Van and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Phan Van Que for their invaluable
guidance, insightful comments and endless support.
I wish to express my deep indebtedness to Prof. Dr. Luong Van Hy, the chair of the
Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Canada for his brilliant scholarship,
demanding teaching and supervision. His unending help greatly encouraged me before
and during my one-year study at this university. I am most grateful to Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Sidnell, who worked at UCLA for some time with Schegloff, one of the founders of
conversation analysis, for his productive course of conversation analysis, his kindness
and generosity in providing naturally occurring data and responding literature.
I am deeply thankful to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Quang for his invaluable suggestions,
and helpful advice. I have greatly benefited from his scholarship, encouragement and
generosity. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Hoa for
his discerning comments, knowledgeable suggestions and kind-heartedness. My sincere
thanks go to all my teachers at CFL VNU for their profound knowledge and
outstanding teaching during my long study at the Department of Graduate Studies (DGS)
from 1998 to 2005.
My special thanks are due to Ms Sandra Harrison, the country director of ELI Vietnam
for her kind support and valuable correction of all this work in manuscript. But for her, I
would not have had any access to ELI teachers working in Vietnam.
My thanks are also extended to all my informants in Hanoi and North America, my
friends and students, my colleagues at Hanoi-Amsterdam High school, the school
principal Mr. Do Lenh Dien, and all the people who have assisted my research work,
especially Dr. Ngo Huu Hoang and the DGS staff. To Assoc. Prof. Dr. Le Hung Tien, the
chair of the DGS, I extend my enormous gratitude for his scholarship and sincerity.
I sincerely thank Dr. Vu Thi Thanh Huong at the Institute of Linguistics for her efficient
assistance, intellectual support and continual encouragement.
I especially express my heartfelt gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tran Huu Manh, who
supervised my MA thesis, which is considered the very first step to the present Ph.D.
dissertation, for his distinctive guidance, constant encouragement and benevolence.
Finally, I owe the completion of this dissertation to my parents and my siblings, my
husband and my two children, who have always given me their love, understanding and
encouragement throughout my study.
To all mentioned, and to many more, my heart extends the warmest thanks.
ii
ABSTRACT
This thesis takes as its main objective the description of the native perception and
realization of the speech act of disagreeing in English and Vietnamese within the
theoretical frameworks of pragmatics and conversation analysis and the help of SPSS,
version 11.5, a software program for social sciences. It aims at yielding insights into such
issues as politeness, its notions and relations with indirectness, strategies and linguistic
devices used to express disagreement tokens in the English and Vietnamese languages
and cultures. Linguistic politeness is carefully examined in its unity of discernment and
volition on the basis of the data obtained from elicited written questionnaires, folk
expressions, interviews and naturally occurring interactions. The meticulous and
miraculous methods offered by conversation analysis are of great help in describing and
exploring the structural organization of disagreement responses in preferred and
dispreferred format, the relationships between disagreements and the constraint systems,
and negotiation of disagreements by native speakers.
The findings exhibit that the differences in choosing politeness strategies to perform
disagreements by speakers of English in North America and speakers of Vietnamese in
Hanoi result from the differences in their assessment of socio-cultural parameters and
social situations. Although indirectness might be used in some contexts as a means to
express politeness, there is no absolute correlation between politeness and indirectness in
the two languages and cultures under investigation. Despite the English general
preference for direct strategies and the Vietnamese tendency to indirect strategies, the
former may be indirect in some contexts and the latter are prone to be direct or even very
direct from time to time. Consequently, the study of politeness should be conducted in
iii
close relation to the study of the speakers wider socio-cultural milieus with systems of
local norms, beliefs and values. In proffering disagreements to the prior evaluations or
ideas, native speakers not only deploy individually volitional strategies but also observe
socially determined norms of behavior, especially in the choice of formulaic expressions,
speech levels, address terms, deference markers etc. Therefore, the deployment of the
normative-volitional approach to politeness study is appropriate and reasonable.
Conversation analysis sheds light on disagreements as dispreferred seconds to first
assessments and opinions, and as preferred seconds to self-deprecations. English and
Vietnamese speakers adopt the same strategies in regards to preference organization,
compliment responses and negotiation of disagreements. On the whole, disagreements are
inclined to be hedged or delayed by a variety of softeners and/or other devices. However,
they tend to be overtly stated in responses to self-denigrations. It is of interest to explore
the conflicting effects caused by the correlation between preference organization and selfcompliment avoidance in responses to compliments. The English informants show a trend
towards compliment acceptance and appreciation, while the Vietnamese prefer to refuse
and negate prior complimentary tokens in spite of their similar strategies in adopting midpositions. The accounts for this phenomenon can be found in the Vietnamese communitybased solidarity and the Anglophone individualistic satisfaction. Conversation analytic
tools help highlight the use of address terms (in Vietnamese), intensifiers (in English and
Vietnamese) and other supportive means. By and large, the combined pragmatics and
conversation analysis perspective is strongly recommended to speech act study as this
integration maximizes the strengths and minimizes the weaknesses of each approach.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................................................................I
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................III
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................V
LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS..................................................................................X
ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS..............................................................XIII
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1
1. RATIONALE.................................................................................................................1
1.1. NECESSITY OF THE STUDY.......................................................................................1
1.1.1. Problem statement.............................................................................................1
1.1.2. Society, culture and language............................................................................2
1.2. MERITS OF THE STUDY............................................................................................3
1.2.1. Academic merits................................................................................................3
1.2.2. Practical merits.................................................................................................4
2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND..................................................................................4
3. RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY.........................6
3.1. RESEARCH QUESTION..............................................................................................6
3.2. GROUNDS FOR RESEARCH HYPOTHESES................................................................6
3.2. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES.........................................................................................6
4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY..............................................................................................7
5. METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................9
5.1. METHODS.................................................................................................................9
5.2. PRAGMATICS AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS .......................................................10
5.2.1. Choice of conversation analysis......................................................................10
5.2.2. Combination of pragmatics and conversation analysis..................................10
5.2.3. Combination of pragmatics and CA in other studies.......................................11
6. CREATIVITY..............................................................................................................12
6.1. SYNTHETIC APPROACH PRAGMATICS AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS .............12
6.2. DATA FROM QUESTIONNAIRES AND NATURALLY OCCURRING CONVERSATION ..12
6.3. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN DISAGREEING .............................................12
7. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY.........................................................................13
CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................................................14
DISAGREEING A COMMUNICATIVE ILLOCUTIONARY AND SOCIAL ACT
...........................................................................................................................................14
1.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES...............................................................................14
1.1.1. Speech Act Theory...........................................................................................14
v
vi
2.2.3. Summary..........................................................................................................81
2.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS..........................................................................................81
CHAPTER THREE.........................................................................................................83
STRATEGIES OF POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING...............................................83
3.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES................................................................................83
3.1.1. Brown & Levinsons Model of Strategies........................................................83
3.1.2. Manipulation of Strategies..............................................................................84
3.1.2.1. Bald-on-record strategies..........................................................................84
3.1.2.2. On-record strategies..................................................................................86
3.1.2.3. Off-record strategies.................................................................................89
3.1.2.4. No FTA.....................................................................................................94
3.1.3. Indirectness in Disagreeing.............................................................................95
3.1.3.1. Notion of indirectness...............................................................................95
3.1.3.2. Factors governing indirectness.................................................................97
3.1.3.3. Indirectness and politeness.......................................................................98
3.1.4. Summary........................................................................................................102
3.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY................................................................................................103
3.2.1. Aims and Methodology..................................................................................103
3.2.1.1. Aims........................................................................................................103
3.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents...............................................103
3.2.2. Choice of Strategies by Respondents.............................................................104
3.2.2.1. Data results.............................................................................................104
3.2.2.2. Comments...............................................................................................115
3.2.3. Summary........................................................................................................115
3.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS........................................................................................116
CHAPTER FOUR..........................................................................................................118
STRATEGIES CONCERNING PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION......................118
4.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES..............................................................................118
4.1.1. Preferred Second Turns.................................................................................118
4.1.1.1. Markedness.............................................................................................118
4.1.1.2. Structural organization............................................................................119
4.1.1.3. Dispreferred second turns in disagreeing...............................................121
4.1.2. Preferred Sequences......................................................................................125
4.1.2.1. Repair apparatus.....................................................................................125
4.1.2.2. Repair apparatus in disagreeing..............................................................130
4.1.3. Summary........................................................................................................133
4.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY................................................................................................134
4.2.1. Aims and Methodology..................................................................................134
4.2.1.1. Aims........................................................................................................134
4.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents...............................................134
4.2.2. Strategies for Disagreements as Dispreferred Seconds................................137
4.2.2.1. English corpus........................................................................................137
4.2.2.2. Vietnamese corpus..................................................................................141
4.2.2.3. Comments...............................................................................................148
vii
APPENDIXES....................................................................................................................I
APPENDIX 1................................................................................................................... I
TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS........................................................................................I
APPENDIX 2................................................................................................................. III
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES..............................................................................................III
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................XIII
ENGLISH.....................................................................................................................XIII
VIETNAMESE........................................................................................................XXVIII
ix
Table 3-6: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring
party)........................................................................................................................108
Table 3-7: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age &
gender (Miss X).......................................................................................................109
Table 3-8: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age &
gender (Tax).............................................................................................................109
Table 3-9: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age &
gender (Party)..........................................................................................................109
Table 3-10: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X
is fat)........................................................................................................................111
Table 3-11: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax
increase)...................................................................................................................111
Table 3-12: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring
party)........................................................................................................................112
Table 3-13: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat)
.................................................................................................................................112
Table 3-14: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase)
.................................................................................................................................113
Table 3-15: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Boring Party)
.................................................................................................................................114
Table 4-1: Correlations of content and format in adjacency pair second........................121
Table 4-2: The preference ranking of the repair apparatus (Based on Levinson 1983: 341)
.................................................................................................................................127
Table 5-1: Interrelatedness between acceptances/agreements and rejections/disagreements
.................................................................................................................................160
Chart 2-1: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.1. 'She's all right, I suppose.'.....................71
Chart 2-2: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.3. 'Fashions change, you know.'................72
Chart 2-3: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.4. 'We're very much in agreement, but ....' 73
Chart 2-4: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.5. 'Not me, I totally disagree.'...................74
Chart 2-5: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.6. 'That's pretty good.'...............................75
Chart 2-6: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.7. 'That may be so, but....'..........................75
Chart 2-7: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.8. 'Really?'.................................................76
Chart 2-8: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.9. 'No, grandpa, no, no, you're wrong.'.....77
Chart 2-9: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.10. 'Boring people get bored....................78
Chart 2-10: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.11. 'Do you really think so?'....................79
Chart 2-11: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.12. 'Sorry, but I think it was interesting.'.80
Chart 3-1: Possible strategies for doing FTAs...................................................................83
Chart 3-2: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Miss X is fat)
.................................................................................................................................104
Chart 3-3: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Tax increase)
.................................................................................................................................105
Chart 3-4: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Boring party)
.................................................................................................................................106
xi
Chart 3-5: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Miss
X is fat)....................................................................................................................106
Chart 3-6: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Tax
increase)...................................................................................................................107
Chart 3-7: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring
party)........................................................................................................................108
Chart 3-8: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age &
gender (Miss X).......................................................................................................108
Chart 3-9: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age &
gender (Tax).............................................................................................................109
Chart 3-10: Choice of Politeness to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Party)
.................................................................................................................................110
Chart 3-11: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X
is fat)........................................................................................................................110
Chart 3-12: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax
increase)...................................................................................................................111
Chart 3-13: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring
party)........................................................................................................................112
Chart 3-14: Choice of Disagreeing Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat)
.................................................................................................................................113
Chart 3-15: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase)
.................................................................................................................................114
Chart 3-16: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Boring Party)
.................................................................................................................................114
xii
Number
&
and
CA
Conversation analysis
CCSARP
CP
Cooperative Principle
Relative distance
DCT
EFL
FSA
FTA
Hearer
Relative power
Rating/Raking of imposition
Speaker
SA
Speech act
S/F
Second or foreign
SA
Speech act
SDCT
Sig.
SPSS
VFL
xiii
INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
1.1. Necessity of the study
1.1.1. Problem statement
Humans are endowed with language, a very special gift, with the help of which they
communicate their ideas, feelings and transmit information. 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.
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. It is English that has
become the most international and the most widely used language. Colleges and
schools in Vietnam have witnessed a sharp increase in the number of people teaching
and learning English. The evolving situation of Vietnamese economics and politics
demands a change in how to teach and learn foreign languages in general, and English
in particular. There is an urgent need to improve students communicative competence
besides grammatical knowledge. Recently, verbal communicative competence has been
taken into consideration in any English teaching program.
The emphasis on speaking, one of the early forms of mans communication, has
resulted in an awareness of developing a sense of socio-cultural factors in learners to
help them become successful in interaction. Thus, this study is conducted with the hope
Social acts or speech acts (Austin, 1962) are thought to be performed via strategies
which are mainly the same in all cultures (Fraser, 1985). However, this universalistic
view is doubted and rejected by some researchers who contend that different cultures
conceptualize speech acts differently according to differences in cultural norms and
values as well as social constraints (Wierzbicka, 1990).
It has been said that language of a community is part or a manifestation of its culture,
which is viewed as the system of ideas and beliefs shared by members of a community
(Bentahila & Davies, 1989). Society, culture and language are closely related and
interact between themselves. Their relationship and interaction have been researched
into and focused on in prior papers. Sapir (1963: 166) states that language is a cultural
or social product. Consequently, the interpretation of the social meaning of a certain
2. Historical background
Conversing with each other, people frequently proffer evaluative assessments of things,
events or people they know. These assessments may include opinions, praises,
compliments, complaints, boasts or self-deprecations. Given that their interlocutors are
co-operative, they may support or reject prior assessments by either agreeing or
disagreeing.
Since the 1970s of the twentieth century, Pomerantz has paid attention to the way
second assessments are made. Her 1975 Ph.D. dissertation can be considered her first
step. In this paper, she carefully examines the major features of disagreeing and
agreeing.
Later
on,
she
takes
into
consideration
the
construction
of
The present study focuses on the description of the perception and realization of the
speech act of disagreeing in English and Vietnamese within the theoretical frameworks
of the theories of speech acts (henceforward SA) and politeness and CA.
3.2. Grounds for research hypotheses
To find out the answer to this research question, a number of hypotheses are proposed
on the basis of the assumptions and suggestions made by some prestigious
pragmaticians and conversation analysts. Brown & Levinson (1987[1978]) and Leech
(1986) propose that despite having the same strategies, cultures may differ in terms of
priorities and values given to each strategy. Blum-Kulka & House (1989: 137) believe:
members of different cultures might differ in their perceptions of social situations as
well as in the relative importance attributed to any of the social parameters.
Differences on both dimensions, in turn, might be linked to differences in behavior.
Both Levinson (1983) and Pomerantz (1978, 1984) agree that disagreements as
dispreferred seconds tend to be delayed while disagreements as preferred seconds to
self-denigrations are immediate and outright. Pomerantz (1978) investigates how
Americans reply to compliments and notices that many English compliment responses
are placed somewhere between agreements and disagreements because of the constraint
systems concerning preference organization and self-compliment avoidance. Agreeing
with the prior compliments may implicitly mean praising self, but disagreeing may lead
to the use of dispreferred format. Having compared the way native speakers of Japanese
and English negotiate their disagreements, Mori (1999: 138) comes to a conclusion:
An opinion-negotiation sequence develops until the participants find a middle
ground, acknowledge co-existing multiple perspectives, or change the topic to terminate
the discussion.
Hypothesis 2:
Hypothesis 3:
Hypothesis 4:
Hypothesis 5:
The database of this study consists of elicited written questionnaires and audio-tapings
of natural conversations. However, the investigation is mainly done on the basis of
vocalized disagreement tokens, and prosodic features and paralinguistic factors are
rarely referred to in spite of their importance.
This thesis is motivated and conducted within the frameworks of the theories of SA and
politeness (Austin 1962; Grice 1975; Hymes 1964; Searle 1969, 1975, 1979; Lakoff
1973, 1977, 1989; Levinson 1983; Brown & Levinson 1987 [1978]; Leech 1983; Mey
1993, 2001; Thomas 1995; Yule [1996] 1997 etc.) and conversation analysis (Sacks
1963, 1972a-b, 1984; Schegloff 1972, 1979a-b; Jefferson 1974, 1978, 1979; Pomerantz
1978, 1984a-b; Levinson 1983; Psathas 1995; Cameron 2002 etc.). In addition, the
empirical study in some chapters is carried out with the help of SPSS 11.5.
5. Methodology
5.1. Methods
Quantitative and qualitative methods are both used in this paper with priorities given to
the quantitative. In other words, all the conclusions and considerations are based on the
analysis of the empirical studies and statistics processed on SPSS 11.5, a software
program commonly used in social sciences. In addition, such methods as descriptive,
analytic, comparative and contrastive are also utilized to describe and analyze, to
compare and contrast the database so as to bring out similarities and differences in
expressing disagreements by English and Vietnamese speakers.
To collect data for the empirical study, the following methods are deployed:
- Written survey questionnaires
- Tape recording of naturally occurring talks
- Interviews with native speakers of English and Vietnamese
- Reference to publication
Conversation analytic approach has become most influential for its contributions to
provide deep insights that can unravel many linguistic problems (Levinson 1983: 364).
Its strictly data-centered principle may be the object of arguments among the
researchers, but no one can deny the magnitude of what it offers language study. The
helpful microscope (Cameron 2002: 89) of conversation analytic research reveals the
intricate patterns in the structural organization of mundane verbal exchanges. What
ordinary people use every day to express themselves and exchange information turns
out to be structurally complex and remarkable. The contingent nature and the
continuously shaped and reshaped development of talk by participants draw much
analytic attention.
The analytic studies of conversation seem to be quite relevant to the study of speech
acts and other issues in pragmatics. The orderly properties of speech acts are normally
unfolded in the process of meticulous analysis and conscientious observation offered by
conversation analysis. Also, the intensive studies of the sequential structure of
utterances can make significant contribution to the interpretation of utterance meaning.
Thus, Levinson (1983: 284) proposes the use of CA to the study of pragmatics:
It is not hard to see why one should look to conversation for insight into pragmatic
phenomena, for conversation is clearly the prototypical kind of language usage, the form
in which we are all first exposed to language - the matrix for language acquisition.
Conversation analysis, in its strict sense, takes very little notice of such socio-cultural
parameters as age, gender, social status of co-conversants, or the relationship between
them, which have influence on interactions (Brown & Levinson [1978]1987), Blum-
10
Kulka et al. 1989, Yule 1996, Cameron 2002 among others). Its primary concern is the
discovery, description, and analysis of how conversation is produced and understood.
One of the weaknesses of a strictly CA-oriented approach is that those societal aspects of
conversation have no place to go in a framework that primarily studies co-text, and which
allows for the context to appear only as a function of the conversational interaction.
Cited from Mey (2001: 135)
Meanwhile, the theories of SA and politeness take into consideration the socio-cultural
parameters mentioned above, although they do not seem to pay enough attention to
mundane interactions in natural settings. Thus, the synthetic approach which combines
CA and theories of SA and politeness applied to the study of disagreeing helps to make
use of the advantages and limit the disadvantages of each perspective. In addition, the
use of more than one approach increases objectivity and reduces the risk of being
simple in examining cultures as in Maynards 1997 warning:
Defining cultures in simple terms is a trap one must avoid. Careless descriptions of
societies can and often do result in negative stereotyping. Overemphasizing differences
may breed ethnocentrism; ignoring them may lead to cultural colonialism.
Cited in Mori (1999: 15)
CA with its strength of using data from naturally occurring talk has long been deployed
in combination with other theoretical perspectives. To investigate the realization of
thanking by Americans and learners of English, Eisenstein and Bodman (1993) use a
range of data types including written questionnaires and naturalistical exchanges, under
the impact of which differences between native and nonnative expressions of thanking
are set off. With the help of CA and pragmatics, Aston (1993) persuasively displays
how native and nonnative speakers negotiate comity, set up and maintain friendly
relationships in everyday mundane conversations. Impressed by the strength of
interactional sociolinguistics, Kasper & Blum-Kulka (1993: 13) advise combining
methods from this perspective with those from contrastive and interlanguage
11
6. Creativity
6.1. Synthetic approach pragmatics and conversation analysis
This is the first study of a speech act conducted on the basis of pragmatics and CA in
English and Vietnamese. The combination of pragmatics and CA takes advantage of the
strengths and reduces the limitations of each approach.
6.2. Data from questionnaires and naturally occurring conversation
For the first time, a comparative study of disagreeing has been conducted on the data
collected from both written questionnaires and natural speech in English and
Vietnamese. Elicited data and recorded excerpts of mundane everyday talks have been
investigated and analyzed within the frameworks of pragmatic theories and CA.
6.3. Similarities and differences in disagreeing
12
13
CHAPTER ONE
DISAGREEING A COMMUNICATIVE
ILLOCUTIONARY AND SOCIAL ACT
1.1. Theoretical Preliminaries
1.1.1. Speech Act Theory
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 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. The circumstances surrounding the utterances are of great help to
both the S and the H in successful communication. These circumstances are known as
14
15
and unpredictable. The H may correctly understand the S's intention and does what
his/her interlocutor wants, or he/she may deliberately ignore the S's want or desire. Of
the three acts the illocutionary act appears to be the most crucial and discussed. The
term 'speech act' is used to mean the same illocutionary act (Thomas 1995: 51), and
illocutionary act is 'the basic unit of human linguistic communication' (Searle 1976: 1).
In conclusion, an action created via an utterance is made of three acts or dimensions:
locution, illocution, and perlocution. The speech act theory, in fact, has focused on
illocutionary acts to such an extent that the term speech act has predominantly come to
mean illocutionary act, or communicative illocutionary act (Bach & Harnish 1979).
Direction of fit
S = speaker
X = situation
Declarations
Representatives
Expressives
Directives
Commissives
S causes X
S believes X
S feels X
S wants X
S intends X
Table 1-1: The five general functions of speech acts (Yule 1996: 55)
16
Searle (1976), Hatch (1992), Mey (1993) and Yule (1996) point out that representative
SAs carry the true or false values, i.e. they can be judged for truth or falsity. In using
them the S makes words fit the world of belief, as Hatch (1992: 127) suggests:
Representatives may vary in terms of how hedged or aggravated the assertion might be.
'Darwin was partly correct' is, obviously, not as strong as 'Darwin was right' or 'Darwin
was
wrong.'
It is the lexical hedges like a little, a little bit, maybe, kind of/kinda, just,
approximately, very, almost, extremely, seem, appear, etc. that help strengthen or
weaken, qualify or soften the assertions, claims or statements. Hatch (1992: 127)
believes:
Hedges ... also serve as a ritual function. They may act like disfluencies in smoothing
over a disagreement with a conversational partner.
(My emphasis)
We can see this very clearly in his example (Ibid.) given below:
(3) Maybe she just feels kinda blue.
An act of disagreeing seems to be an almost exact opposite of an act of agreeing. The
person who disagrees responds to somebody else's expressed opinion or assessment.
Most of the time, an overtly expressed opinion or assessment can be considered as an
implicit expectation/invitation to get the same opinion or assessment from the
conversational partners. The person who performs an act of disagreeing does not take
care of the earlier S's expectation, saying that his/her opinion is different or opposite.
He/she may also say that he/she thinks the first S is wrong or that his/her opinion or
assessment is neither good nor right.
In everyday interactions, the same utterance, the same linguistic act can express
different illocutionary forces. Let us consider the following example by Pomerantz
(1978: 97):
17
18
the same or he/she has a different view or opinion seems to be much more important
than the prior. This can be seen in the utterance by Pomerantz (1978: 87) given below:
(6) H: Gee, Hon, you look nice in that dress.
W: Do you really think so? Its just a rag my sister gave me.
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 as in:
(7) Not very solid though.
(8) Do you really think so? Its just a rag my sister gave me. (Ibid. 87)
(9) No way!
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'. Let us consider the utterances below:
(10) J: Ts- tsuh beautiful day out isnt it?
(Ibid. 98)
The recipient in (10) exhibits a strong display of agreeing with the proffered evaluation,
whereas the recipient in (11) seems to delay his/her disagreeing response by starting it
out with Yee. The use of agreement marker in (11) helps to frame the disagreement
token as a weak disagreement or partial disagreement (Pomerantz 1978, 1984a; Mori
1999), and mitigate its disaffiliative force. As a matter of fact, Ss need more stamina
19
and more self-confidence to express their disagreement than to express their agreement.
Especially in the case of Anglo-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 which is an
FTA that needs to be hedged to weaken the potential threat, is a communicative
illocutionary act.
20
21
The descriptive nature of the field reflects its interests in studying of interaction itself,
discovering and depicting its structures and allowing occasional conceptualizations and
general theories. CA, at the onset, with the works by Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson,
Pomerantz and others, tends to avoid preformulated theory construction. It examines
the details of the temporal organization and various contingencies of the unfolding
development of interaction. Recurring patterns found by essentially inductive methods
are the results of many records of naturally occurring interactional exchanges. Also,
intuitive judgments, which are assumed unreliable guides, are unlikely to resort to,
although it may be utilized in other fields of linguistics. The main strength of CA, as
Levinson (1983: 287) states, is in its ability to provide by far the most substantial
insight that has yet been gained into the organization of conversation.
As aforementioned in the introductory part, CA pays very little attention to the
contextual particulars commonly believed to have influence on interpersonal
interactions. Such personal characteristics of the participants as age, gender, social
status, their relationship, or the formality/ informality of the settings etc. are likely to be
neglected (Levinson 1983: 295; Psathas 1995: 36, 49-50). Their primary concern, as
mentioned, is the discovery, description, and analysis of how social conduct, including
interactional practice, is accomplished and perceived.
22
context for the next action. Thus, co-text is constantly shaped and renewed by parties
within interactional activities (Heritage 1989). Co-text is significant in that it provides
Ss with a local resource upon which they draw to design their utterances, and
correspondently, it gives Hs sufficient clues necessary to interpret what is said.
However, the immediate local co-text in CA seems to be a restricted framework for
such a wealth of data obtained from naturally occurring interactions. To understand
peoples linguistic behaviors, it is necessary to look further, and go beyond the co-text
of the talk by extending the limited border of the conversational co-text, and taking into
account the whole societal environment, relevant and surrounded the language
production. It is believed that the very desire to look at the SA of disagreeing from the
pragmatics and CA perspective is found here. CA purist stance (Cameron 2002: 88),
based on the data and nothing but the data seems to be insufficient in providing
adequate grounds for the proper and all-sided interpretation of interactions. The
meaning of a social action could not adequately be understood without consulting the
on-going context within which the action takes place: who talks with whom, in what
setting, when, in what language(s), on what topic, as well as the wider socio-cultural
context of which interactional talk is considered and analyzed as part and parcel. As
Cameron (2002: 53) puts it:
Any given instance of language use is analysed as part of a whole social situation; more
generally, ways of using and understanding language are analysed in relation to the wider
culture in which they occur.
The wider cultural context in which mundane interactions occur involves a range of
cultural beliefs, practices, and values. What is assumed to be good in one culture may
not count as such in other cultures. As aforementioned, social parameters like social
status, gender, age etc. of co-participants are generally of little interest in conversation
analytic studies. Seldom do conversation analysts pay a close attention to them,
23
providing they are made explicit issues by participants in the data (Ibid. 88). Some
analysts, however, argue that cultural factors affect natural interaction. Zimmerman &
West (1975) and Fishman (1983), for instance, suggest that men seem to dominate talk
involving both genders.
All in all, it is high time CA adopted an interdisciplinary approach, and went beyond its
traditionally strict border by considering social actions in relation to the wider sociocultural environment in which they take place. This is suggested as a way of refining
conversation analytic processes to compensate their having no place for societal factors
to go in the framework that primarily study co-text (Mey 2001: 135).
(My emphasis)
The finding of turn, considered the basic unit of conversation (Sacks 1995), is one of
the important discoveries in the development of this analytic approach. Interactive talk
is assumed prototypically a joint enterprise that involves more than one S (Cameron
2002: 87). Studying recorded interchanges, Sacks (1995: II, 223) recognizes that in
normal, civilized interactions, conversationalists follow a certain kind of rules: they
take turns to speak rather than speak in overlap. A central feature [of conversation]
is that exactly one person at lease one and no more than one talks at a time (Sacks
1995: II, 223).
24
Simultaneous speaking (two or more speakers speak at the same time) is calculated as
little as five per cent, and there is very little gap between one co-conversant talking and
another starting (Ervin-Tripp 1979, Levinson 1983). Speaker changes occur normally at
certain points called transition relevant places (TRPs). The initiation and completion
of a TPR can syntactically, semantically and intonationally be projected or predicted.
Consequently, the conversant that currently has the right to speak, or the floor, may
choose the next S, as well as self-select or any other party may self-select (Sacks,
Schefloff, and Jefferson 1974, 1978; Levinson 1983).
In some cases, a S may ignore an upcoming TRP and hurry past it, leaving no space for
other parties to jump in. Herein, overlap and interruption may take place as in excerpts
by Sacks et al. (1978: 16) given below:
(12)
(13)
Yeah.
Detailed study reveals it is a prevalent fact that turn taking is structurally organized
(Sacks et al. 1974, 1978). And in most cases, one party speaks at a time, although the
turn order and turn size vary, and speakership transfer as well as overlap occur. Also,
the turn-taking organization is assumed to be both context-free and context-sensitive
(Sacks et al. 1978: 10). It may remain unaffected by variations parties bring into talk on
the one hand, and partly and locally changed under the influence of social facets on the
other. The one party talking rule, for example, may be invariant in almost all contexts,
and the speaker change rule could relatively be sensitive with some social aspects of
contexts.
25
26
second part may lead to the repetition of the first part by the prior S (Schegloff 1972a).
The painful silence, as it is in Meys wording (2001: 158), on the part of the
sequential S may sometimes make the prior feel totally embarrassed. A question raised
here is that the so-called painful silence would differently be interpreted in intracultural and across-cultural interactions by different identities. As a result, first Ss
would have a variety of subtle nuances of feelings when facing second Ss silences, not
just embarrassment.
27
The first Ss evaluative comments, which are considered their claims of certain
knowledge about the referents, can trigger and engender second assessments by the
recipients who may want to demonstrate their access to the same referents, as below:
(16)A: God izn it dreary.
(0.6)
A: //Yknow I dont thinkB: .hh- Its warm though,
CA practitioners like Pomerantz (1978, 1984a) and Sacks (1987) point out that second
assessments subsequent to the first in form of agreements tend to immediately be
delivered, as in (17), and sometimes, in some overlap with the prior. On the contrary,
disagreements seem to be withheld, delayed or mitigated by pauses, hedges, prefaces
and other non-linguistic devices to downplay the seriousness of the opposing stance, as
in (16). In this extract, Bs withholding an answer leads to As self-selecting to continue
the turn. Bs in-breathing before speaking and her using though downgrade the
contrast between the two assessments, making hers sound like a weak disagreement.
In most cases, the producers of the initial assessments probably want their evaluations
or opinions to be approved of. Disagreements on the part of the recipients would upset
them. In addition, it might not be easy for the second Ss to forthrightly disclose their
opposition. Hence, the softening or hedging of disagreements becomes a matter of
common experience. A quick and outright answer might make the disagreement token
too explicit and unpleasant, causing undesired tensions. Thereby, the first Ss wish to be
indirect by prefacing their disagreements with agreement tokens or/and downgrading
them as in excerpt (15) given above, or they may choose to tacitly imply their different
28
ideas, or be silent altogether. However, when it comes to responding to selfdeprecations, disagreements are likely to be direct and explicit. Conversely, agreements
seem to be variously softened or muted, as they may sound critical. Pomerantz clearly
illustrates this point in her 1984a work. Below is one of her examples (Ibid. 74):
(18) L: Im so dumb I dont even know it hhh! heh!
W: Y-no, y-youre not du:mb,
In short, most disagreement turns tend to be structured so as to minimize occurrences of
overtly stated disagreements, but the organization of turns seems to work in the
opposite direction in self-denigrations so as to maximize immediate and explicit
disagreements.
1.1.3. Summary
Disagreeing as a communicative illocutionary and social act is theoretically examined
within the speech act theories and CA in this part. The key notions of each approach are
re-examined, applied to and highlighted by disagreeing tokens. In socio-communicative
interactions, disagreements are often seen to be softened by means of hedges to qualify
the negative force of the act on the one hand, and tend to be strengthened to intensify
overt disagreements with prior self-deprecation tokens on the other.
The assessment of socio-cultural parameters and some social situations by the English
and Vietnamese informants is investigated in the following part.
1.2.1.1. Aims
This empirical study aims at getting the sufficient proof for the following hypotheses:
29
1. Native speakers of English and Vietnamese may differ in assessing such sociocultural parameters as age, length of time (familiarity), manner, occupation,
setting, gender, and social status, which affect interactive talk.
2. Speakers of English and Vietnamese may have different assessments of social
situations.
Selection of regions
30
The empirical data were selected in two places: North America and Vietnam. These two
places were deliberately chosen due to the present researchers ability to access the
respondents, which saved her a considerable amount of time, energy and expenses.
North America is internationally known as a region with rapid development in the
domains of economy, science and technology. It includes Canada and Northern States
of the USA. Although English and French are legitimated official languages of Canada,
the Canadian respondents are native speakers of English, either living in Toronto or
coming there for their research or study. Toronto is the biggest city in Canada and
belongs to Anglophone cultures. Some respondents of English are from other cities of
Canada and US Northern states. North America is assumed a complex speech
community that belongs to less hierarchical societies where status is allegedly far less
marked in verbal and non-verbal interaction (Bargiela-Chiappini 2003: 1463) and
where individualism is assumed to be the basis of all interaction (Ide 1989: 241).
Hanoi, the political, economic and cultural center of Vietnam, situated in the North of
Vietnam, has been famous for its historical and cultural traditions. From the sociocultural point of view, Hanoi with its one thousand years of history, feudalist dynasties
followed by communist regime, and the present open-door policy offers abundant
corpora for any researcher who attempts to go further afield the pure linguistic
boundary to examine linguistic issues in relation to the wider socio-cultural context.
Having undergone great socio-cultural and economic changes, the social structure of
the Vietnamese has still been vertically hierarchical with emphasis on moral conduct
and community-oriented solidarity (Nguyen D. H. 1995, Vu T. T. H. 1997, among
others). As the home for many people coming from different parts of the country, Hanoi
can be considered a conjunction of or meeting place for cultures and sub-cultures, and
an ideal place to obtain data in terms of socio-linguistic representativeness.
31
Selection of respondents
The respondents, native speakers of English and Vietnamese, either indigenous
inhabitants or permanent/life-time residents, are assumed to share the same sets of local
socio-cultural norms, values and beliefs. They all have tertiary education and are
ranked as middle-class citizens in regards to socio-economic conditions. This study
takes as its chief objectives the perception and realization of disagreeing by native
speakers of English and Vietnamese in their speech communities, therefore, the sample
should be balanced and comparable in terms of age, gender and level of education, as
Bauman & Sherzer (1974: 17) insist,
Linguistic descriptions must achieve both psychological and sociological validity. They
must reflect the perspective not only of single individuals but also of social groups,
networks or communities.
32
supposed to belong to two homogeneous speech communities and possess the same sets
of shared social norms, beliefs and values (Hymes 1974a-b, 1995), and be comparable
and balanced in terms of education, economic condition, age, and gender. All of them
have tertiary education or higher, MA or PhD, and they are ranked as middle-class
citizens, aged from 18 to 72.
GENDER
First Language
English Count
English %
Male
40
40.0%
Total
Female
60
60.0%
100
100.0%
Vietnamese Count
50
50
100
Vietnamese %
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
The age groups were divided into two: Less than 30 and 30 or above, with the former
consisted of 62 English and 50 Vietnamese, and the latter contained 38 English and 50
Vietnamese. The audio-taping data were gained from 8 tapes by 30 speakers of
Vietnamese, and 6 tapes by 16 speakers of English. In addition, a number of English
excerpts of mundane everyday speech used in this study are taken from the second
source available in the literature owing to their availability and convenience.
AGE GROUP
Total
First Language
English Count
English %
Less than 30
62
62.0%
30 or above
38
38.0%
100
100.0%
Vietnamese Count
50
50
100
Vietnamese %
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
Table 1-3: Age group correlation between English and Vietnamese respondents
Even though the researcher is aware of the ideal balance as for gender and age group
among the two groups of respondents, she should be satisfied with the present sample
as after all it has offered a set of valid and reliable corpora for the empirical studies.
Written questionnaires
Written questionnaires have effectively been used in linguistic research by researchers
like Ervin-Tripp (1969), Blum-Kulka (1982, 1989), Bayraktaroglu & Sifianou (2001),
33
Bharuthram (2003) etc. as they help to collect a significant amount of data of controlled
manner in rather a short time. The questionnaire in the form of Discourse Completion
Task (DCT) used in the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) has
been chosen and modified (called Semi-Discourse Completion Task - SDCT) to adjust
the purpose and limitation of the paper. The present author also makes use of the
written questionnaire developed by Nguyen Q. in his 1998 Ph.D. dissertation (in
Vietnamese). The English elicited data were obtained in Toronto, Canada in 2003, and
the Vietnamese data were collected in Hanoi, Vietnam in 2003-4.
Like any other kind of written questionnaires, DCTs have the disadvantage of being
unable to capture variables like hesitation, pauses, fillers, etc., which are typical
features of spoken discourse responses. In addition, the respondents have more time to
consider and reconsider their replies in writing than in spontaneous speaking, and they
may provide more elaborate responses than those made in natural speech. Last but not
least, it does not always seem to be an easy task to check the accuracy of elicited data,
for people may wish to be seen and judged in a good light (Ackroyd & Hughes 1981:
83). Audio-taping data are used to make up for the drawbacks of written questionnaires.
Audio-taping
Some researchers tend to overestimate the advantages and underestimate the
disadvantages of approaches or methods to explain their preference for the one, which
they believe the most appropriate. However, the present researcher proposes to deploy
more than one approach, i.e., to combine several approaches and methods so as to make
good use of the advantages and minimize the disadvantages (Nguyen D. H. 1995,
Cohen 1996, Gass 1996, Vu T. T. H. 1997, Lee-Wong 2000). By so doing the database
used in this research can be considered quite sufficient for the empirical studies. It
consists of the data collected from SDCTs, audio-taping of natural interactions by
34
native speakers of English and Vietnamese, and excerpts from the recorded data
deployed in the works by Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974, 1978); Schegloff,
Jefferson, and Sacks (1977); Sacks & Schegloff (1979), Heritage & Drew (1979),
Pomerantz (1975, 1978, 1984a-b), Levinson (1983), Goodwin & Goodwin (1987),
Heritage (1997, 2002, forth.), Maynard (2003) and others. When necessary, the field
notes taken by the researcher on the spot are referred to in order to make up for the
inability to use videotaping.
One of the advantages of CA is that conversation analysts can use data from any
available source to describe and analyze social actions provided that they are naturally
occurring data. Analysts can deploy other researchers recordings together with their
original for specific purposes of study. Psathas (1995: 53) asserts:
Because the researchers must make available, in transcripts and published extracts, the
data on which their studies are based, other researchers may then examine the same, as
well as additional, materials, and either replicate or extend the analyses first presented.
Confidentiality
The database used in CA is recordings, whether audio or video, and may be collected
from any available source, provided that they should be mundane everyday talks
occurring in natural settings. Protection of privacy and participants identities is
essential, and as a result, permissions for recording should be obtained, and
conversationalists anonymized (Psathas 1995, Drnyei 2003). Aware of confidentiality
as an important criterion in audio-taping and questionnaire administration, the
researcher has used a different name or a letter to replace the Ss real name to
anonymize all the respondents and coded the excerpts chose from the recorded data.
Data analysis
Central to this research is the speech act of disagreeing, its perception and linguistic
realization. Hence, the data analysis methods are chosen to highlight issues involving
35
disagreeing and its construct of form, function and meaning. The data analysis focuses
on: (i) the structure of disagreeing and the use of honorifics, address terms, and other
particles (form); (ii) the use of strategies in correlation with politeness (function); and
(iii) (combination of (i) & (ii) in essence) contextual interpretation of disagreeing in
relation to social variables and local cultures (meaning). As aforementioned, two
theoretical frameworks have been adopted: pragmatics and CA. The extent to which
each framework is utilized varies according to the purpose and size of the immediate
issue under investigation. Generally speaking, the recorded data is examined on the
basis of CA to clarify (i); (ii) is investigated on the basis of Brown & Levinsons model
concerning politeness strategies, theories of politeness as regards indirectness and
elicited data processed on SPSS; and (iii) is studied within volition-discernment
integration and SPSS outputs. CA has long been proved to be of great help in
discovering, describing and analyzing organizational structure of conversation. It
focuses on the expression of disagreements in preference organization. To provide
intelligible information of what and how co-interactants speak in everyday occasions,
the excerpts from transcripts in this study are given on the basis of the transcriptionnotation system originally suggested and evolved by Jefferson, and later elaborated by
Maynard (2003). Emphasis, for instance, is displayed by underscoring, and sound
stretching/latching is marked by colon (::::). A question mark (?) expresses rising
intonation while a comma (,) indicates continuing intonation. The system in full detail
is given in Appendix 1.
The database for the assessment of socio-cultural parameters by English and
Vietnamese informants in this chapter is from mini-questionnaire #1, and the data for
the assessment of social situations are obtained from mini-questionnaire #2. All the
questionnaires are given in Appendix 2.
36
The English corpus is examined and processed on SPSS 11.5 in comparison to and
contrast with the Vietnamese. The outputs of data-processing are carefully investigated
and only those, whose significance of chi-square results (sig. henceforth) is below 0.05,
i.e. they are statistically worth noting, are selected and taken into further consideration.
50
40
30
20
Count
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
1.00
Greatest
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Importance
7.00
Least
Greatest
Least
1.00
11
13.3%
2.00
16
19.3%
3.00
24
28.9%
4.00
12
14.5%
5.00
12
14.5%
49
12
10
62.8%
15.4%
12.8%
5.1%
6.00
Total
7.00
7
8.4%
1
1.2%
83
100.0%
78
1.3%
2.6%
.0%
100.0%
Age: A close look at chart 1-1 and table 1-4 reveals the striking difference between the
respondents of the two languages and cultures under study. Among 78 Vietnamese
37
30
20
First Language
Count
10
English
0
Vietnamese
1.00
2.00
Greatest
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Importance
7.00
8.00
Least Other
Greatest
Least
Other
First Language
English - Count
English - %
1.00
31
36.5%
2.00
21
24.7%
3.00
9
10.6%
4.00
14
16.5%
5.00
4
4.7%
6.00
4
4.7%
7.00
1
1.2%
8.00
1
1.2%
85
100.0%
19
13
17
12
75
12.0%
25.3%
17.3%
22.7%
16.0%
5.3%
1.3%
.0%
100.0%
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Total
Manner & Setting: Native Ss of English in North America are inclined to prefer
factors Manner (chart 1-2, table 1-5) and Setting (chart 1-3, table 1-6) more than native
38
Ss of Vietnamese in Hanoi: 31 mark Manner #1, 21 mark it #2, and 9 mark it #3, which
accounts for more than 70%; and in regards to factor Setting, 19 rate it the most
important, 18 rate it the second, and 15 rank it third, which constitute a high percentage
of nearly 60.
Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Setting
20
Count
10
First Language
English
Vietnamese
1.00
2.00
3.00
Greatest
4.00
5.00
6.00
Importance
7.00
Least
Greatest
2.00
18
22.5%
3.00
15
18.8%
4.00
11
13.8%
5.00
11
13.8%
10
14
4.8%
9.7%
16.1%
22.6%
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Least
1.00
19
23.8%
6.00
Total
7.00
4
5.0%
2
2.5%
80
100.0%
11
15
62
17.7%
24.2%
4.8%
100.0%
In contrast, about 50% of the Vietnamese informants rank Manner first, second and
third in the continuum of importance (vs. 70% of the English rating), and about 30%
attach importance to Setting (vs. 60% of the English rating). It is also worth explaining
that 08 in charts 1-2, 1-4 and tables 1-5, 1-7 (and in chart 1-5, table 1-8) represents
other factors suggested by the respondents themselves such as education, topic,
religion belief, relationship, intimacy, attractiveness and intellectual ability.
Importance
First Language
English - Count
Greatest
1.00
1
Least
2.00
1
3.00
7
4.00
8
5.00
7
6.00
14
7.00
19
Other
8.00
1
Total
58
39
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
1.7%
1.7%
12.1%
13.8%
12.1%
24.1%
32.8%
1.7%
100.0%
10
14
13
60
8.3%
16.7%
23.3%
11.7%
21.7%
6.7%
11.7%
.0%
100.0%
10
Count
First Language
English
0
Vietnamese
1.00
Greatest
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Importance
7.00
8.00
Least Other
Gender: The informants in chart 1-4 and table 1-7 seem to differ greatly in their
evaluation of the role of Gender in social interactions. Whereas almost 50% of the
Vietnamese respondents abide by columns 1, 2, and 3, only 15% of the English
respondents opt for these columns. Presumably, it is not necessary for them to pay
attention to Gender of their interlocutors when they disagree with the prior evaluative
opinions. They would probably proffer the same disagreeing tokens to their interactants
regardless of their gender. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese seem to take notice of this
factor. I would be less aggressive in my expressing of disagreement if I talked with
representatives of the opposite gender, said one of the Vietnamese respondents.
Importance
First Language
Greatest
1.00
Least
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Other
Total
8.00
40
English - Count
English - %
6
9.5%
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
9
14.3%
7
11.1%
9
14.3%
9
14.3%
9
14.3%
14
22.2%
0
.0%
63
100.0%
17
16
11
68
25.0%
23.5%
8.8%
16.2%
11.8%
5.9%
7.4%
1.5%
100.0%
Social Status: Chart 1-5 and table 1-8 show a really considerable difference in the
respondents estimating Social Status. The majority of the Vietnamese informants (50
out of 68) adhere to the first four columns, constituting almost 70%. Contrary to this
high proportion, only 31 English informants (almost equal 40%) mark these columns. It
is worth taking notice of the Vietnamese consistent tendency to rate Status first and
second in the continuum of importance. On the other hand, the high percentage among
the English informants choosing columns 6 and 7 (14.3% and 22.2%, respectively) may
reflect the low incidence of Status in social communication in Anglo-American culture.
10
Count
First Language
English
0
Vietnamese
1.00
Greatest
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Importance
6.00
7.00
8.00
Least Other
41
30
20
First Language
Count
10
English
0
Vietnamese
1.00
2.00
Greatest
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Importance
7.00
Least
Chart 1-6: Assessment of Socio-cultural factors: Length of time you know your co-conversants
Length of Time: Chart 1-6 and table 1-9, which demonstrate the output of the
respondents assessment of factor Length of time (you know your co-conversants, i.e.
familiarity), are intentionally selected although the sig. is 0.208, which is not worth
paying attention to as regards statistics. Except for the difference in column 1, where
41.3% of the rating belongs to the group of English informants and the Vietnamese
informants constitute only 22.5%, the total percentage of the first four columns shows a
slight difference with 93.5% of the English respondents versus 87.4% of the
Vietnamese respondents marking them. It is suggested that Ss of two languages and
cultures are almost similar in their considering the influence of this factor, concerning
the familiarity with their co-conversants when expressing negative responses to the first
evaluations.
Importance
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Greatest
1.00
38
41.3%
Least
2.00
23
25.0%
3.00
18
19.6%
4.00
7
7.6%
5.00
6.00
3
3.3%
Total
7.00
1
1.1%
2
2.2%
92
100.0%
16
21
15
10
71
22.5%
29.6%
21.1%
14.1%
5.6%
4.2%
2.8%
100.0%
Table 1-9: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Length of time you know your co-conversants
42
1.2.2.2. Comments
The respondents of English and Vietnamese give almost the same weight to factor
Length of time (you know your co-conversants), and this might be a manifestation of
the same psychological feature in human beings. People seem to be more relaxed when
talking with someone they know for long, and they often have a feeling of inhibition
conducting talk with strangers, let alone having to state their disagreements.
The empirical results also exhibit remarkable differences pertaining to factors Age,
Status, Manner and Setting. The Vietnamese respondents attach great importance to
Age (with 62% of the informants rating it #1) and Status (with 25%), while their
English counterparts highly value Manner and Setting (with 36.5% and 23.8%,
respectively). The Vietnamese significant preference for the socio-cultural determinants
Age and Status can be a reflection of the strictly hierarchical order of the Vietnamese
socio-cultural life, where old-aged people are socially given respect to, and social
subordinates are subjected to superior personae. On the contrary, factors Manner and
Setting are estimated of primary concern by the English informants. This result has
testified the assumption that native Ss of English in North America live in a less
hierarchical society, where Age and Status are recognized but slighted in interpersonal
communicative interactions.
All in all, the native Ss of English and Vietnamese are empirically proved to differ in
terms of the relative weight given to socio-cultural parameters governing their
linguistic choice in expressing disagreeing responses. In the following section, the data
results concerning the informants assessment of social situations are examined to bring
out the shared or unshared features between the two languages and cultures under
investigation.
43
Strongly
disagree
3
3.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
2
10
15
2.0%
10.0%
15.0%
Total
Be silent
70
70.0%
100
100.0%
11
19
14
32
24
100
11.0%
19.0%
14.0%
32.0%
24.0%
100.0%
Table 1-10: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A1. Praise on Nice-looking Spouse
In contrast with the Vietnamese tendency to be direct in objecting to the prior Ss (5%
strong disagree and 28% disagree), 33 % of the English respondents in Sit. A2 (table
1.11) avoid sounding too critical in their proffering disagreements (vs. 31% of the
Vietnamese respondents) by adhering to Implicitly disagree and 35% of them opt for
silence (vs. Vietnamese 24%), and only 10% of them provide apparent disagreements.
It is clear that the Vietnamese informants in situations A1 and A2 appear to be more
direct than their English counterparts in performing the act of disagreeing.
44
Strongly
disagree
2
2.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
8
22
33
8.0%
22.0%
33.0%
Total
Be silent
35
35.0%
100
100.0%
28
12
31
24
100
5.0%
28.0%
12.0%
31.0%
24.0%
100.0%
Table 1-11: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A2. Self-praise on New Hairstyle
Sit. A3. New Italian
Shoes
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Strongly
disagree
19
19.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
44
16
10
44.0%
16.0%
10.0%
Total
Be silent
11
11.0%
100
100.0%
17
27
30
21
100
17.0%
27.0%
5.0%
30.0%
21.0%
100.0%
Table 1-12: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A3. Disparagement of New Italian Shoes
The output of situation A3 is given in table 1-12 reveals a reverse trend of expressing
disagreements compared to that of the two previous ones. While over 60% of the
English informants overtly exhibit their claim of disagreement with 19% strong
disagree and 44% disagree, only 17% of the Vietnamese strongly disagree with their
interlocutors and 27% disagree. The Vietnamese informants seem to minimize
occurrences of explicitly articulated disagreements by frequently abiding by the last
two columns: Implicitly Disagree and Be Silent: 30% and 21%, respectively.
Sit. A4. Miss X Is
Getting Too Fat
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Strongly
disagree
36
36.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
40
8
11
40.0%
8.0%
11.0%
Total
Be silent
5
5.0%
100
100.0%
13
42
20
16
100
13.0%
42.0%
9.0%
20.0%
16.0%
100.0%
Table 1-13: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A4. Miss X Is Getting Too Fat
Despite having similarity in column 3 of table 1-13, the two groups of informants
display a great difference in their ways of proffering disagreements. 76 out of 100
English informants make explicit their disagreeing tokens, while only 55 Vietnamese
informants choose to do so. However, it is worth noting that 36 of the English
45
informants boldly assert their opposite stance, whereas only 13 Vietnamese Ss strongly
exhibit their disagreements. The number of those who soften their disagreeing or cancel
doing the act verbally is greater in the Vietnamese group (20 and 16 informants,
respectively) than in the English group (11 and 5 informants, respectively).
Sit. B2. Bigger
Pensions
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Strongly
disagree
22
22.0%
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
46
18
10
46.0%
18.0%
10.0%
Total
Be silent
4
4.0%
100
100.0%
20
32
13
13
22
100
20.0%
32.0%
13.0%
13.0%
22.0%
100.0%
Strongly
disagree
15
15.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
32
28
9
32.0%
28.0%
9.0%
Total
Be silent
16
16.0%
100
100.0%
14
32
12
24
18
100
14.0%
32.0%
12.0%
24.0%
18.0%
100.0%
Table 1-15: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. C1. Mr. Y's Promotion
Table 1-15 exhibits similarities between the informants in columns 1, 2 and 5. The
distinction in percentage is clearly seen in columns 4, where 9% of the English
46
Strongly
disagree
28
28.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
32
20
9
32.0%
20.0%
9.0%
Total
Be silent
11
11.0%
100
100.0%
21
29
10
25
15
100
21.0%
29.0%
10.0%
25.0%
15.0%
100.0%
Table 1-16: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. C4. Voting for Mr. X
The informants in C4 (table 1-16) show the same trend as in C1. They seem to act in
almost the same ways in columns 1, 2, and 5. Although more English Ss choose to
strongly disagree with their interlocutors (28 English Ss vs. 21 Vietnamese Ss), the total
number of those who tend to overtly deliver their disagreements (concerning columns 1
& 2) in the two languages is the same: 50 and 50. The high percentage of Vietnamese
implicit disagreements may be the result of the low percentage in column 3.
Sit. D1. Car Expert
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Strongly
disagree
2
2.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
12
40
27
12.0%
40.0%
27.0%
Total
Be silent
19
19.0%
100
100.0%
16
27
17
17
23
100
16.0%
27.0%
17.0%
17.0%
23.0%
100.0%
Table 1-17, presenting the output of Sit. D1. Car Expert, displays a striking difference
between the two groups: 42% of the Vietnamese informants are in favor of the direct
expression of disagreements (with 16% strongly disagree and 27% disagree), whereas
47
only 14% of the English informants prefer overt disagreeing responses (with 2%
strongly disagree and 12% disagree). Even though more English informants choose to
implicitly disagree rather than be silent (27% vs. 19%) and more Vietnamese
informants prefer silence over implicit disagreement (23% vs. 17%), the distinction in
the informants choice of Implicitly Disagree and Be Silent appears to be
inconsiderable.
Sit. D2. Favorite
Team's Failure
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Strongly
disagree
24
24.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
37
24
9
37.0%
24.0%
9.0%
Total
Be silent
6
6.0%
100
100.0%
31
35
11
17
100
31.0%
35.0%
6.0%
11.0%
17.0%
100.0%
Table 1-18: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. D2. Favorite Team's Failure
To defend their favorite teams, the respondents in Sit. D2. Favorite Teams Failure act
in the same way. Half of each group chooses to forthrightly disclose their opposition to
the prior critical opinion: 24 English and 31 Vietnamese strongly disagree, 37 English
and 35 Vietnamese disagree with the prior Ss. In addition, they are similar in their ways
of expressing disagreements in columns 4 and 5 in spite of the Vietnamese higher
percentage, which can be explained by the greater number of Not Sure English Ss.
1.2.3.2. Comments
As aforementioned, the 12 sub-situations concerning several fields of socio-cultural life
are assessed and evaluated by the informants and 8 of them are selected for further
investigation to highlight the common and specific features in the ways to perform
disagreeing tokens.
The English and Vietnamese Ss under study exhibit similarities in the direct expression
of their opposite stances by either strongly disagreeing or disagreeing in 3 situations:
B2- Mr. Ys Promotion, C4 - Voting for Mr. X and D2- Favorite Teams Failure. On the
48
other hand, the English Ss show a high consistency in the avoidance of sounding too
direct by implicitly disagreeing or being silent in such situations as A1- Praise on Nicelooking Spouse, A2- Self-praise on New Hairstyle, and D1- Car Expert. On the
contrary, the Vietnamese Ss tend to overly manipulate their disagreements as regards
these situations. The converse tendency occurs in situations A3- Disparagement of New
Italian Shoe and A4- Miss X Is Getting Too Fat. While the Vietnamese abide by
implicitly disagreeing or being silent, the English demonstrate their forthright
disclosure of disagreements.
All in all, the informants provide quite a rich set of ways to voice their disagreeing
responses. They seem to act in a similar way in some social situations, but they are
observed to be greatly different in their demonstration of disagreements in other
situations. In some cases, the English respondents overtly state their negative
evaluations. In others, however, they avoid being too aggressive by either alluding to
their opposite stances or canceling performing the act with words altogether. To obtain
an overall view of how the respondents express their disagreements in all situations
chosen for the database, the empirical findings are represented in chart 1-7 and table 119 below.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Strongly
disagree
3
3.0%
Total
Be silent
70
70.0%
100
100.0%
11
19
14
32
24
100
11.0%
19.0%
14.0%
32.0%
24.0%
100.0%
Value
47.660(a)
df
4
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.000
200
49
60
40
First Language
Count
20
English
0
Vietnamese
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Not sure
Be silent
Implicitly disagree
SUMSI
The sig. in the chi-square .000 indicates that the difference between the two groups of
informants is of paramount importance. Almost all of the English informants do not
deliver outright disagreements: 3 of them choose column #1 and 2 column #2.
Instead, 70% of them opt for silence and 15% abide by implicitly disagreeing. Quite
conversely, 24% of the Vietnamese Ss are silent and 32% of them would rather imply
their disagreements. The percentage of Vietnamese choosing Strongly disagree and
Disagree is 11% and 19% respectively, much higher than that of English.
1.2.4. Summary
The findings in this section have empirically proved the hypotheses of differences
between native Ss of English and Vietnamese in assessing socio-cultural parameters
and social situations and confirmed Brown & Levinsons hypothesis (1987[1978]) that
cultures may differ in the relative weight given to social factors in determining
behavioural variation.
While the English attach significant importance to Manner, Setting and Length of time
the Vietnamese highly value Age, Status and Length of time. The Vietnamese focus on
Age and Status might be a manifestation of the social ideology in the target culture
50
which appreciates ethics and hierarchy. Anglo-American culture which places greater
emphasis on freedom from intrusion may provide good grounds for its stress on
Manner and Setting. Length of time is of almost the same importance to the English and
Vietnamese respondents, which suggests the existence of some shared features in
human psychology.
The English are inclined to implicitly disagree when the Vietnamese may resort to
overt/less overt disagreements and vice versa. The differences in the Ss assessment of
social factors and situations may lead to the differences in their choice of strategies.
51
CHAPTER TWO
POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING
2.1. Theoretical Preliminaries
Linguistic politeness, or politeness for short, has become central to a great many of
searches for examining the right way to get successful in interaction. Pioneering works
on politeness by Lakoff (1973), Grice (1975), Searle (1975), Brown & Levinson
(1987[1978]), Back and Harnish (1979), Leech (1983) have given impetus for a number
of publications on the same issue such as Hill et al. (1986), Blum-Kulka (1987, 1989,
1990, 1992), House (1981, 1989), Wierzbicka (1985), Ide (1982, 1987, 1989, 2001),
Lee-Wong (2000) among others. Researchers are interested in the interpretation of
politeness, its linguistic realization in different cultural frameworks, and the
universality of the politeness theory.
Personal strategies or volition is observed to be preferable in the West (Leech 1983,
Brown & Levinson 1987[1978], Yule 1996 among others), where individualism is the
main concern, whereas discernment seems to be emphasized in those cultures where
group or community solidarity is central (Doi 1973, Wierzbicka 1985, Matsumoto
1988, Gu 1990, Ide ibid., Blum-Kulka 1987, 1992). However, it is not necessary for
one and the same kind of politeness to be utilized in every language or culture. The
emphasis on discernment or/and volition differs across languages and cultures, and
across speech acts in a given culture. When studying verbal politeness some researchers
tend to focus just on one of its compositional elements (cf. Brown & Levinson
1987[1978], Leech 1983, Yule 1996, Doi 1973, Masumoto 1988, Gu 1990, Blum-Kulka
1992 among others), and very often, they are criticized by their abiding by the onesided picture of politeness (Held 1992, Nguyen D. H. 1995, Vu T. T. H. 1997, Lee-
52
considered polite in one language and culture is not comprehended as such in other
languages and cultures. Let us have a look at the two requests (Mum to son):
(1)
(2)
Vu T. T. H. (1997, 2000) assumes that the notion 'lch s' in Vietnamese culture
contains four aspects 'l php', 'ng mc', 'kho lo' and 't nh',
which are interwoven. While 'l php' (respectfulness) and 'ng mc'
(propriety) are understood as social norms that should be followed to show respect to
interlocutors hierarchy, status, age etc., 'kho lo' (tact) and 't nh' (delicacy)
can be interpreted as individual strategies chosen to please co-participants in order to
gain the highest effects in communication.
54
In the Vietnamese language 'lch s' appears to be the closest equivalence to English
word 'politeness'. It is defined in A Vietnamese Dictionary as: '...having elegant manners
and observing properness in conformity with social rules and expectations in
interactions' (Hoang P. et al. 1988. Translated by Nguyen D. H. 1995).
The issues of politeness are so crucial and thrilling that much effort has been made by
philosophers, linguists, socio-linguists, and anthropologists to establish universal
research framework for investigating the key problems in politeness. The main
approaches are now briefly discussed.
this
approach
encompasses
two
different
sub-perspectives,
namely,
conversational-maxim view with the works by Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983), and the
face-saving view postulated by Brown & Levinson (1987[1978]). Apart from some
methodological
differences,
the
two
sub-perspectives
are
similar
in
their
55
Grice's 1975 article 'Logic and Conversation' is deserved to be credited the starting
point in almost all of the works concerning the questions of politeness. The fact that
Gricean paper had been circulating among many linguists and philosophers in its
manuscript form long before it was finally published suggests that his ideas had certain
effects on the works by Lakoff (1973, 1977, 1989), Leech (1983), Brown & Levinson
(1987[1978]) and others. Grice associates with the CP a set of maxims and sub-maxims
that are named as Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner. The CP is claimed to govern
most human conversational interactions and rational participants abide by the maxims
in so far as they are able in the process of the efficient conveying of messages.
When Ss observe all the maxims, saying precisely what they want, obviously, there is
no difficulty in getting the intended meaning of the utterance. But there are many
occasions when people fail to observe the maxims. Conversation normally works on the
assumption that Ss, being co-operative, adheres to the maxims as far as they can and do
not break the maxims by lying, sarcasm, etc. Therefore, any violation of the maxims
can be a signal for the H to seek a suitable interpretation of the utterance by a sequence
of inferences.
(3)
56
57
58
uttering something to lessen the potential threat is called a face saving act (FSA).
Brown & Levinson work on how to reduce FTAs, and suggest a set of strategies said to
be exploited in conversation by Ss in regards to the degree they want to preserve their
interlocutors face, and in some cases, their own face.
It is the notion of face, commonly thought to be originated in the Chinese and
American Indian concepts of face, developed by Brown & Levinson on the basis of
Goffmans 1967 elaboration and reference to Durkheims 1915 work that generates a
great number of debates among politeness researchers as to its Western individualistic
and ethnocentric assumptions. It is argued that the dualistic notion of face with negative
and positive politeness does not find correspondence in Goffmans or Durkheims
work. According to Bargiela-Chiappini (2003), their concept of face and the rational
person radically departs from Goffmans understanding of interaction in which not the
individual and his psychology, but rather the syntactical relations among the acts of
different persons mutually present to one another (Ibid. 1967: 2). In addition, in spite
of Brown & Levinsons statement of their borrowing the distinction between negative
and positive politeness from Durkheims distinction between negative and positive
rites (Brown & Levinson 1987: 43), there seems to be no such similarity between
them. Durkheims negative cult is one means in view of an end: it is a condition of
access to the positive cult (Ibid, 1915: 309), and further on, he submits that normally,
the negative cult serves only as an introduction and preparation for the positive one
(Ibid. 311). However, Brown & Levinsons negative politeness and positive politeness
are mutually exclusive, and their ideal rational Model Person is mostly concerned with
the protectiveness of his personal territory from face-threatening interpersonal contact.
The individualistic comprehension of face and the model of a predominantly rational
actor with face-threatening intentions engender further resistance in research in many
59
non-Anglosaxon cultures (Matsumoto 1988, Ide 1989, Mao 1994, de Kadt 1998,
Rathmayr 1999, Hernndez-Flores 1999, to name just a few), leading to the need to
seek for a version of politeness that accommodates both strategic and socially
prescribed norms of behavior.
60
[T]he latter by far the older, being found in ancient literature. Mien had acquired a
figurative meaning referring to the relation between ego and society as early as the
fourth century B. C. Lien is a more modern term, the earliest reference cited in the
Kang-shi Dictionary dating from the Yuan Dynasty (1277-1367).
Cited from Hsien (1944: 45)
Li, the notion of which was formulated by Confucius (511 B. C. - 479 B. C.), is used in
at least nineteen compound nouns involving the concept of politeness as part of
extensive and elaborate rituals in ancient China (Lee-Wong ibid.). The rich lexicon of li
in Chinese displays the crucial role of rituals in Chinese culture and society of the old
days. Limao (manners, courtesy and politeness) should be construed in a cultural milieu
where rituals were both socially and ethically motivated and encoded in fossilized
linguistic expressions of gestures to be used in visits, funerals or weddings.
Focusing on the extended-family structure of the old China, Shih (1975: 31) points out,
China was traditionally a family-based society the principle holding the family
peacefully together was also the principle behind the social order. In his view, Chinese
society today is still distinctly hierarchical and vertically structured, and this basic
principle is deeply embedded in the mind and social life of the Chinese despite the
changes in their social structure. According to Lee-Wong (2000: 24), the Chinese
modern day dictionary provides mianzi (face, reputation, and prestige) as the closest in
meaning to Hsiens mien. The rich vocabulary of the notional construct of mianzi such
as ai mianzi (love face), you mianzi (to have face), gei mianzi (give face) etc. in
Chinese reflects an overt concern with face maintenance. As social members, Ss should
avoid face loss and try to maintain face if they love their face, and it is necessary that
they look after others face while looking after their own. All in all, Chinese limao is
apprehended as socially determined etiquette of behavior expected of social members
who share the same conventions of politeness in the speech community.
61
Gu (1990: 242) considers Chinese politeness a phenomenon which belongs to the level
of society, which endorses its normative constraints on each individual and is mainly
deployed to enhance social harmony, and to defuse interpersonal tensions and
conflicts.
Searches by other Chinese scholars (Ho 1994, Chang 1999, Ji 2000) come to the same
conclusion of a more public and more positive concept of face firmly embodied in
interpersonal relations and applicable to such cultures belonging to the so-called
Confucian Civilization as Japanese and Vietnamese.
Nakane (1970) believes that Japanese people are hierarchically related and mainly
concerned about how to become and remain accepted in the group or community. Thus,
Japanese wishes to maintain face as a dynamic governing politeness do not appear to be
consistent with Brown & Levinsons claim of the universality of face. Ide (1989: 241)
says,
In a Western culture where individualism is assumed to be the basis of all interactions,
it is easy to regard face as the key to interaction. On the other hand, in a society where
62
group membership is regarded as the basis for interactions, the role or status defined in
a particular situation rather than face is the basis of interaction.
63
image of the group. Consequently, as a group member, the S has to follow the norms of
behavior defined by the group/community. The concept of politeness in the target
culture, which is claimed to be more appropriately portrayed from the normative
perspective, seems to deviate from Brown & Levinsons model, which focuses upon the
individual self-image.
In formal interactions, native Ss of Russian take into account their interlocutors status
for it is considered a basic societal norm existing alongside the Russian politeness or
authentically Russian politeness coming from the heart (Rathmayr 1999: 76, BargielaChiappinis translation from French original 2003: 1462).
Although face is observed to operate in Spanish casual interactions, its contents are
not the same as those polarized by Brown & Levinson. Such notions as selfaffirmation (similar to positive face) and confianza - sense of deep familiarity
(similar to negative face), which refer to the acceptance of the individual inside the
group, are actually independent elements in Spanish socio-communicative talks
(Hernndez-Flores 1999: 41).
A close look at volitional and normative approaches reveals that each focuses on a
different aspect of one and the same notion commonly termed as politeness. Politeness
with its two structuring components volition and discernment calls for a synthetic
approach which integrates personal choices and conventional practices into an
adequately theoretical framework capable of highlighting the study of politeness
considered both a socially prescriptive and personally motivated phenomenon.
64
Confucianism, the dissemination of which from China to Vietnam dated back more than
2,000 years ago. Fundamental to Confucianism is L (rituals), which required people
to behave in accordance with their places in the social hierarchy, as Quang Dam (1994:
149) states:
L requires people to follow exactly all the rituals and principles advocated by
Confucianism . If one does not do so, one does not have l. If one does not have l,
one has no right to look, to hear, to talk or do things. Speaking, greeting, eating, etc. all
need to be done in accordance with rites.
Cited in Vu T. T. H. (1997: 47-48)
65
politeness
in
Vietnamese
culture,
namely,
normative/social
politeness
and
occupation.
The face in Vietnamese culture, according to Vu T. T. H. (Ibid.), thought as an
integration of the personal side consisting of the internal self and the social side
covering the relationships between self and alters, suggests a deviation of the
universality of Brown & Levinsons notion of face (interpreted as a self-image of the
personal self), and proposes an investigation of cultural variations in the notion of face
and its underlying socio-cultural values on the basis of non-Western languages and
cultures. Nguyen D. H. (1995), who is in favor of using volition-discernment as the
analytic framework for his examining politeness markers in Vietnamese, also argues the
concept of negative face in Brown & Levinsons model and emphasizes the social
aspect of face, and hence politeness, in Japanese and Chinese cultures, which he thinks
identical to that in Vietnamese culture.
The empirical results in section 1.2.2.1 of the present study show that social attributes
like age and status are of paramount concern in the Vietnamese socio-cultural
environment, and Vietnam belongs to the so-called hierarchy-based societies in which
interpersonal relationships are hierarchically stratified. However, the vertical
relationships in Asian cultures in general and Vietnamese culture in particular, seem to
be distinctive and specific in the sense that they are collectively oriented, reciprocal and
interdependent. Younger or lower-status people are supposed to show respect to older
or higher-status people in conformity to the maxim knh trn (respect super-
66
ordinates), and meanwhile, the superiors should take good care of the inferiors, which
is relevant to the maxim nhng di (yield to subordinates).
Vietnamese politeness theorists, deploying the synthetic approach, arrive at the same
assumption that the notion of face connoting negative and positive face-wants seems to
have no counterpart in the Vietnamese socio-cultural milieu, which orients itself to
hierarchy, solidarity and interdependence in upward-downward relationships, and that
both personally strategic politeness and socially conventional politeness do exist in this
culture. The co-existence and interplay between these two kinds of politeness are
distinctive and complex, and so is the degree to which each operates. Normative
politeness or discernment, which is reflected in Ss passive adherence to the social
norms and practices, is mainly manifested in the exploitation of address terms,
particles, formulaic expressions, etc. As discussed earlier, volition or volitional
politeness, which tends to conceptualize politeness as individual strategies to avoid
social conflicts or/and achieve communicative goals, is subjected to personal choices.
And although group/community norms are socially institutionalized, they are optional
and open to Ss strategic manipulations. It is Ss that decide to abide by certain
conventions to be polite or impolite.
In addition, social norms of behavior may be the ultimate consequences of long-term
repetition of strategic choices. For instance, quite a few honorific expressions whose
deployment is said to implicitly comply with conventions/discernment might be
originally strategic manipulations (Brown & Levinson 1987: 23). Therefore, it is
logically deduced that politeness is both normative and volitional. Stated otherwise,
discernment and volition are the two sides of one unity, i.e. politeness, and one cannot
be thoroughly analyzed or fully understood without taking the other into careful
consideration. Along this line and for this very reason, came into being the synthetic
67
approach to politeness which takes as its analytical framework volitional and normative
approaches.
To shed light on the notion of politeness in Chinese culture and society, Lee-Wong
underlines the significant difference between the Western concept of the individual as a
68
social unit and the Chinese focus on society as a social unit, which has long been
proved in cross-cultural studies (Nakane 1970, Doi 1973, Matsumoto 1988 among
others). Her research, which is conducted within the framework of normative-volitional
approach and on the basis of data from questionnaires, interviews and naturallyoccurring interaction, confronts the Western concepts of politeness with great emphasis
on non-imposition with the Chinese concept with intense focus on ethics.
2.1.5 Summary
This section looks at different views on and research into politeness by Western and
non-Western scholars. Theoretical concepts or rules of politeness put forth by Grice,
Lakoff, Leech, as well as Brown & Levinson seem incomplete and universally
inapplicable because they do not sufficiently accounts for discourse behaviors in
cultures other than Anglo-American where group or community solidarity, not
individualism, is of prime importance. Politeness can only be properly interpreted and
explored on the basis of the larger socio-cultural structure, the matrix of
institutionalized norms of behavior within the framework of normative-volitional
approach. Politeness involves socio-cultural norms can be observed in linguistic forms
and analyzed on the basis of linguistic data, as these norms affect language and leave
behind traces visible in the lexicon and grammar systems.
To achieve their goals, Ss show deference and respect to others through behavioral
conventions and petrified formulae that reflect value judgments and beliefs of a given
culture and society. However, Ss do not passively adhere to native socio-cultural
contexts. As creative representatives of a language community they are prone to deploy
contextually defined strategies to ease the process of interpersonal communication.
Collective norms/discernment, and individual strategic manipulations/volition are
found to exist, to different extents, in almost all languages and cultures (Hill et al. 1986,
69
Ide 1987, 1989, among others). The degree to which discernment or volition is focused
on varies greatly from culture to culture and from language to language.
In the following section, politeness is empirically examined by means of elicited data in
disagreeing by English and Vietnamese speakers processed on SPSS.
2.2.1.1. Aims
This empirical study tends to yield findings to testify:
1. If there are any differences in the assessment of politeness level of disagreement
responses by native speakers of English in North America and Vietnamese
speakers in Hanoi.
2. If these differences are manifestations of the differences underlying the systems
of socio-cultural norms, values and beliefs which determine local perceptions of
politeness.
70
Polite
58
58.0%
Neutral
38
38.0%
Total
Impolite
4
4.0%
100
100.0%
22
76
100
22.0%
76.0%
2.0%
100.0%
Table 2-20: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.1. 'She's all right, I suppose.'
60
40
First Language
Count
20
English
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-1: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.1. 'She's all right, I suppose.'
71
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-2: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.3. 'Fashions change, you know.'
4.3.
Level of Politeness
Total
First Language
Polite
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
27
27.0%
Neutral
52
52.0%
Impolite
21
21.0%
100
100.0%
57
40
100
3.0%
57.0%
40.0%
100.0%
Table 2-21: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.3. 'Fashions change, you know.'
The negative evaluation Fashions change, you know (Mt i ri.) (to a colleague,
same age and gender) yields a big contrast in columns #1 (polite) and column #3
(impolite) between the Ss of the two languages under investigation. 27% of the English
Ss assume it to be polite compared to 3% of their Vietnamese counterparts, and 21% of
the first group see it as impolite opposed to 40% of the second. The low percentage in
politeness and the high percentage in impoliteness rated by the Vietnamese can be the
result of zero-address form usage. Address terms are normatively deployed to express
solidarity and deference in the corresponding culture. Without it, the Vietnamese
version may insinuate some sarcasm or/and threat. The proportion of neutralization
reveals a marginal difference that is worth taking no notice of.
4.4
Level of Politeness
Total
72
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Polite
72
72.0%
Neutral
18
18.0%
Impolite
10
10.0%
100
100.0%
45
50
100
45.0%
50.0%
5.0%
100.0%
Table 2-22: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.4. Were very much in agreement, but .'
The native speakers of English substantially differ from their Vietnamese counterparts
in evaluating 4.4. Were very much in agreement, but. (Vng, nhng.), a
negative assessment to older boss. The majority of the English Ss (70%) take it polite
and some of them (18) get it neutral, whereas 45% and 50% of the Vietnamese find it
polite and neutral. This suggests that the former attach greater importance to
indirectness in expressing such FTAs as disagreeing, while the latter do not seem to
share the same assumption. In spite of the particle/deference marker Vng and the
sentence incompleteness, the version in Vietnamese is not judged as polite as the
English version. This is possibly due to the weightiness of two factors age and status,
assessed in section 1.2.2.1 as the most influential socio-cultural parameters governing
interpersonal communication in Vietnamese society.
Assessment of Politeness Level
4.4. "We're very much in agreement, but...."
(To Older Boss)
80
60
40
Count
First Language
20
English
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-3: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.4. 'We're very much in agreement, but ....'
73
Cou
nt
30
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-4: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.5. 'Not me, I totally disagree.'
The impact of age and status on the Vietnamese addresser can also be seen in
disagreeing attribute 4.5. Not me, I totally agree (Khng, con hon ton phn
i), where the addressee is Father. In such less hierarchical societies as the northern
European and the North American these factors might be considered as far less
marked in verbal and non-verbal interaction (Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003: 1463). As a
result, the percentage observed in the English column Polite is much higher than that in
the Vietnamese: 34% vs. 11%.
4.5
Level of Politeness
First Language
English Count
English %
Polite
34
34.0%
Neutral
53
53.0%
Impolite
13
13.0%
100
100.0%
11
66
23
100
11.0%
66.0%
23.0%
100.0%
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Total
Table 2-23: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.5. 'Not me, I totally disagree. '
4.6
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Level of Politeness
Polite
43
43.0%
Neutral
40
40.0%
Total
Impolite
17
17.0%
100
100.0%
27
60
13
100
27.0%
60.0%
13.0%
100.0%
74
First Language
Cou
nt
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-5 and table 2-5 unravel a sensitive nuance of socio-communicative interaction
by Ss of English and Vietnamese. The disagreement to the person the S hates, Thats
pretty good (Ci kh hay y), which may sound diplomatically pleasing, is
marked considerably different: 43 and 40 English informants find it polite and neutral
in comparison to 27 and 60 Vietnamese. The slight difference between the two groups
of informants in column # 3 is statistically negligible.
Assessment of Politeness Level
4.7. "That may be so, but...."
(To Older acquaintance)
70
60
50
40
30
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-6: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.7. 'That may be so, but....'
75
Level of Politeness
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
66
33
1
66.0%
33.0%
1.0%
Total
100
100.0%
40
48
12
100
40.0%
48.0%
12.0%
100.0%
Table 2-25: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.7. 'That may be so, but....'
The non-correlation between politeness and indirectness is clear looking at the results
in chart 2-7 and table 2-7, where status affects the Ss saying Really? (Tht th
sao?) to his/her younger boss. Obviously, indirectness in Vietnamese is not always
rated polite.
Assessment of Politeness Level
4.8. To Younger Boss, "Really?"
60
50
40
30
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
While the informants appear to be similar in their marking column #3, estimating the
disagreeing evaluation No, grandpa, no, no, youre wrong (Khng, ng i,
76
Polite
Level of Politeness
Neutral
Impolite
47
43
10
47.0%
43.0%
10.0%
Total
100
100.0%
16
53
31
100
16.0%
53.0%
31.0%
100.0%
40
30
Count
First Language
20
English
10
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-8: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.9. 'No, grandpa, no, no, you're wrong.'
4.9
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Level of Politeness
Polite
Total
36
36.0%
Neutral
23
23.0%
Impolite
41
41.0%
100
100.0%
17
47
36
100
17.0%
47.0%
36.0%
100.0%
Table 2-27: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.9. 'No, grandpa, no, no, you're wrong.'
77
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-9: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.10. 'Boring people get bored.
4.10.
First Language
English Count
English %
Level of Politeness
Polite
14
14.0%
Neutral
31
31.0%
Impolite
55
55.0%
100
100.0%
17
65
18
100
17.0%
65.0%
18.0%
100.0%
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Total
Table 2-28: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.10. 'Boring people get bored.'
The difference in the findings demonstrated in chart 2-9 and table 2-9 might be the
consequence of non-equivalence of the English and Vietnamese versions (cf. Boring
people get bored and Ngi bun thy g chng t). While most of the
Vietnamese rate it as neutral or polite, more than half of the English (55%) see it as
impolite. In English the response may allude to certain irony, mockery or even disgrace.
Thus, indirectness is not always equal to politeness, even in the Anglo-American
culture.
4.11
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Level of Politeness
Polite
43
43.0%
Neutral
56
56.0%
Total
Impolite
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
24
67
100
24.0%
67.0%
9.0%
100.0%
78
Table 2-29: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4. 11. 'Do you really think so?'
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-10: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.11. 'Do you really think so?'
Unlike utterance 4.10, the disagreeing token in 4.11 (to colleague, same age different
gender) is believed to be linguistically equivalent in the two languages (cf. Do you
really think so? Cu ngh th tht ?). The assessment of politeness level is,
however, apparently dissimilar. The English preference for indirectness as a polite
means of behavior is reflected in columns Polite with 43%, Neutral with 56% and
Impolite with 1%. The Vietnamese resort more to Neutral with 67%, Polite with 24%
and Impolite with 9%, which is in conformity to the local trend towards solidarity and
intimacy. The reason for the low degree of politeness in Vietnamese may lie in the
implication of the interrogative form which seems to question the reliability and
truthfulness of the prior assessment, and thus, might allude to first Ss inability.
4.12
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Level of Politeness
Polite
54
54.0%
Neutral
39
39.0%
65
65.0%
Total
Impolite
7
7.0%
100
100.0%
30
100
30.0%
5.0%
100.0%
Table 2-30: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.12. 'Sorry, but I think it was interesting.'
79
The negative assessment to the prior evaluation Sorry, but I think it was interesting
with its Vietnamese version Xin li, nhng ti/ thy n hay is chosen on
purpose despite its statistic insignificance (its sig. is 0.283). First, it has high percentage
of politeness in both English and Vietnamese: 54% and 65% respectively. Second, the
rating of impolite level is almost the same, 7% in English and 5% in Vietnamese. In
addition, the English and the Vietnamese versions are quite similar in terms of wording
and meaning. This means that the use of an apology token as a mitigation device for
disagreement appears to work well in both languages and cultures.
Assessment of Politeness Level
4.12. "Sorry, I can't share the same idea."
(To Younger Acquaintaince)
70
60
50
40
30
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-11: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.12. 'Sorry, but I think it was interesting.'
2.2.2.2. Comments
The English informants seem to considerably differ from the Vietnamese informants in
their assessment of politeness level. The English rating of politeness is much higher in
10 tokens (4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11) in comparison with the
Vietnamese. In several English disagreements indirectness seems to correlate with
politeness, except for 4.10 Boring people get bored, where indirectness may imply
irony. The important role of markers vng and , and appropriate address terms in
expressing politeness in Vietnamese is noteworthy. Also, it is of interest to see the
80
2.2.3. Summary
Of 2400 disagreeing tokens assessed by 200 English and Vietnamese Ss and processed
on SPSS, 2200 are selected for further study. Except for 200 tokens of utterance # 4.12,
which yield identical usage of apologies in English and Vietnamese as softeners, 2000
tokens display striking differences in the respondents evaluating and perceiving
politeness. The rating of politeness level by English and Vietnamese Ss seems to go in
reverse directions in almost all cases. Impoliteness marking by the Vietnamese Ss can
be traced to the absence of deference markers like , vng, or appropriate address
terms or other formal semantic items. The deployment of politeness devices in
Vietnamese should be made in compliance with and negotiation of such determinants as
age and status which have strong impact on interactive communication. The English Ss
are inclined to see strategic indirectness as a primary means to express politeness,
whereas the Vietnamese Ss tend to attach higher level of politeness to such disagreeing
expressions in which deference markers, addressing terms, etc. are deployed in
interrelation to socio-cultural factors (age, status, etc.). This is similar to the finding by
Nguyen D. H. (1995) concerning the Vietnamese frequent use of discourse indirectness
vs. the Australian extensive exploitation of form indirectness.
81
82
CHAPTER THREE
STRATEGIES OF POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING
3.1. Theoretical Preliminaries
Brown & Levinsons 1987 model of politeness strategies for speech act realization is
adopted for the examination of disagreeing in this chapter. The first part of the chapter
discusses the main theoretical points of the model concerning such issues as individual
strategies and the relationship between politeness and indirectness. The second part
empirically investigates these issues as regards disagreeing tokens by native Ss of
English and Vietnamese.
2. positive politeness
Do the FTA
with redressive action
4. off record
3. negative politeness
83
Greater
Chart 3-12: Possible strategies for doing FTAs
In Brown & Levinsons view, when facing an FTA, Ss can choose from five
possibilities which constitute three sets of on-record strategies: producing the FTA
without any redress (bald-on-record), producing the FTA using positive politeness,
producing the FTA using negative politeness) and one set of off-record strategies. It is
the Ss assessment of the size and weightiness of the FTA in relation to the three
parameters P, D & R (mentioned in 2.1.2.3.) that forms the basis of their appropriate
strategy choice. If the weightiness of the FTA is too great they may decide not to
perform the FTA at all. However, as mentioned in Chapter 2, the notion of negative face
raised in Brown & Levinsons model is quite controversial and does not seem to fit into
non-Anglophone socio-cultural contexts. Consequently, the series of strategies adopted
and deployed in this study encompasses: (i) bald-on-record strategies, (ii) on-record
(with redress) strategies, (iii) off-record strategies, and (iv) no FTAs. Each type of
strategies is in turn explored on the basis of disagreeing tokens.
84
seem to focus on the maximum efficiency of the message. In other cases, Ss are socially
expected to hedge their disagreeing. There are, however, many striking examples of
bald-on-record utterances falling into none of the categories mentioned by Brown &
Levinson. The S then intentionally chooses to be maximally offensive, as in:
(2) Mr. Tam Dalyell, M. P., in the British House of Common (referring to the then Prime Minister,
Margaret Thatcher)
85
has to be obeyed and respected, and social subordinates are expected to show deference
and respect to superiors in accordance with the social constraints of polite language use.
Particles like no, g, u, bo, c, c, lm, sao, ch... and so on,
used to differentiate the speech acts (Nguyen D. D. 1998: 16), may combine with one
another to express an opposite assessment or view to the prior.
Interestingly, disagreeing is not always seen as an act that threatens the Hs face
(Levinson 1983, Pomerantz 1984, Sacks 1987, Nofsinger 1991). Conversely, it is
considered a face saving act that takes care of the H. This happens when the first
assessment contains a self-deprecation, and the speaker abases himself/herself, or
underestimates his/her belonging. The bald-on-record disagreement on the part of the
second S in (4), found in my tape-recorded data, is surely a FSA, whereas the
agreement token given in (5), taken from Nofsinger (1991: 75), is assumed an FTA:
(4)
(T is Ls husband)
(It is not your mistake, and the problem is in each individuals consciousness.)
(5)
B: (I suppose),
Pomerantz (1974, 1984a), Sacks (1987) and Nofsinger (1991), among other
researchers, discover and discuss this interesting point of disagreeing. The case when
the S humbles himself/herself on purpose to wait for the H's disagreement is known as
a strategic self-deprecation. If he abases himself/herself without any intention we have
a genuine self-deprecation (Nofsinger ibid.).
86
Aiming at maintaining the harmony Vietnamese Ss can make their disagreement less
offensive by asking for reasons or source of information:
V03.9.56.
(8)
V03.8.45
(9)
87
L: Ai bo th?
(Who said that)
3. Hedges:
In general, hedges are divided into strengtheners (act as emphatic hedges) and
weakeners (those that soften or mitigate what they modify). In English, disagreement is
often hedged to minimize the threat to the H as in the excerpt by Pomerantz (1978: 93):
(10)
4. Apologizing:
S may describe his reluctance to impose on H's face by apologizing for performing an
FTA as in Wierzbicka (1987: 127):
(11)
'Before I disagree with our speaker', he said 'I should like to apologize to
him...'
5. Impersonalizing S and H:
S may avoid using 'I' and 'you' to indicate the distance between him and H:
(12)
6. Indicating deference:
Deferential markers (sir, madam...) are used to convey social hierarchy and rank. In
utterances of this kind S often, in Brown & Levinsons words, 'humbles and abases'
88
himself, at the same time, the ' hearer's wants to be treated as superior' is raised and
satisfied (Brown & Levinson 1987: 178). In a formal setting one may express one's
disagreement, saying:
(13)
The use of deference markers, address terms and other particles also helps to lessen the
threat to the H's face want. In Vietnamese this strategy seems to be employed very often
to show that Ss try to take care of Hs. Ss may also abase or deprecate themselves and,
therefore, raise or exalt their interlocutors before expressing their disagreements. A
number of lexico-modal markers are used to soften Ss disagreeing. The most common
hedges are: c l l, c th, i loi l, kiu nh l, cht t, cht xu, t to, hi
(hi), gn nh l, tng i, kha kh, kh l, hnh nh, c v, hon ton, tuyt i,
qu tht l, rt, v cng, v vn, lm, ti cho l/ngh l/ cm gic l etc .
89
Brown & Levinson suggest a set of off-record strategies that will be highlighted in
relation with the speech act of disagreeing. S may invite conversational implicatures by
violating the Gricean Maxims. He decides to do an FTA indirectly through hints.
1.
Violating the Maxim Relevance S invites H to look for a suitable interpretation of the
utterance by making explicitly irrelevant utterances and giving hints:
(14)
2.
a.
Understating:
The violation of the Quantity Maxim makes Ss inevitably say something less than or
different from what they intend to convey. The disagreeing token thus seems to be soft
and weak, as in an example by Pomerantz (1978: 97):
(15)
b.
Overstating:
Ss can violate the Quantity Maxim by saying more than is necessary. An act of
disagreeing can be performed through an overstatement as in (Ibid. 1978: 93):
B. She seems like a nice little lady.
[
A.
Awfully nice little person.
Using tautologies:
(16)
c.
By using tautology S encourages H to seek for an informative interpretation of the noninformative utterance. Tautology may be understood as an act of disagreeing as in:
(17)
3.
90
Ss express their intended meaning indirectly by saying the opposite of what they want
to convey. By giving two contradictory statements Ss show that they cannot be telling
the truth. It is Hs that have to look for a suitable interpretation which implies
disagreement:
(18)
b.
Using metaphors:
Metaphors may be marked with hedges like real, regular, sort of/sorta, as it was, etc.
(19)
A. So he- so then, at this- ysee, --I dont like to brag but see he sorta like
backed outta the argument then.
c.
4.
91
b. Being incomplete:
S may leave the implicature hanging in the air by leaving an FTA half done. S can use
one of the following structures to express his disagreement (Blundell et al. 1996):
a) I see what you mean, but ..., b) To a certain extent, yes, but ..., c) Yes, maybe/perhaps,
but ..., d) I couldn't agree more, but ..., e) I see your point, but , f) Agreed, but ..., g)
Yes, up to that point, but ..., h) That's one way of looking at it, but ..., i) There's a lot in
what you say, but ..., j) OK, but ..., k) Yes, but ..., l) Mm, but ..., m) Granted, but ..., etc.
No longer can these structures retain the force of vagueness or ambiguity if they are
followed by argumentative utterances.
c. Using backchannels:
In real life interactions, disagreeing is often softened or hedged so as to lessen the threat
to H's positive face. It is observed that backchannels are used frequently to help with
creating vagueness or ambiguity as in the following extract by Pomerantz (1978: 92):
(23)
B's Mm hm makes his interlocutor seek for a suitable interpretation which is either
agreement or disagreement, and helps to maintain the harmony of their relation. Thus,
the researcher would like to suggest this strategy an additional one.
In Vietnamese off-record strategy may be deployed when the S wants to tacitly disagree
with his/her conversational partner as in:
(24)
hairy.)
92
B uses a proverb to express his/her disagreement, and frankly speaking, the utterance
sounds more offensive than a direct expression of disagreement as it contains certain
insinuation of irony or criticism. In some cases Ss are inclined to say the opposite to
show that they are not in full agreement with their conversational participants (Nguyen
D. D. 1996: 297):
(25)
studies.)
B: Cn chng em th km.
R: Chng my hi lm.
(You smell bad.)
F: Cn c h nh my th thm.
(And your whole clan smells good.)
Unlike English backchannels such as 'uh-uh', 'mmm', 'mm-hmm' etc. are rarely used in
Vietnamese. In stead, particles like d, vng(), th //sao, th c /, tht (vy)
sao/// h, () (tht) th (kia) / /sao/h, ng th //chng
show that the speech is being followed. At the same time they increase the haziness of
the utterance and hide the S's disagreement.
(27)
boring.)
E: Tht th sao?
(Really?)
93
Theoretically, by making the utterance ambiguous the speaker avoids being responsible
for what is said and still shows respect to social hierarchy and solidarity. The empirical
study in Chapter 2, however, does not prove this to be true. Chart 2-7 and table 2-7
unveil a very low level of politeness rated by the Vietnamese Ss in comparison to their
English counterparts: 16%, 53% and 31% of the Vietnamese respondents assess Es
reply polite, neutral and impolite, respectively vs. 47%, 43% and 10% of the English.
Thus, it is proposed that off-record strategies do not always work well in the
Vietnamese context where politeness is primarily performed by means of deference
markers, appropriate deployment of address terms and clearness.
3.1.2.4. No FTA
In Brown & Levinsons model of politeness strategies, the fifth strategic choice Dont
do the FTA appears to be neglected, as it has no interesting linguistic reflexes
(1978:77). It might be as such in other speech acts like requesting, ordering, offering or
complaining when the S is the initiator or trigger of the act. He/she may choose not to
perform the act at all because of the seriousness of the act. Nevertheless, there are acts
when the prior Ss utterance makes it relevant and necessary for the present S to voice a
reply, i.e. to perform the act. It is the case of disagreeing. By proffering assessments or
evaluations first Ss invite their interlocutors to respond. Second Ss have to verbally
utilize socially determined norms and/or certain individual strategies to give their own
assessments which may be the same or different from the priors. In such nonAnglophone cultures as Vietnamese, second Ss would be alleged to be inexplicably
impolite if they chose to abide by Brown & Levinsons fifth strategy by being quiet
(one way not to do the FTA). Silence in conversation (mentioned earlier in 1.1.2.3.)
might imply unsaid disagreements, inability to hear or even scorn, and sometimes it
may result in costly consequences of misunderstanding or relationship breakup.
94
95
(29)
(30)
Dascal (1983) assumes that indirectness is costly and risky. It is 'costly' as the S has to
spend more time to produce an indirectness speech act, and it takes the H longer to
process. It is 'risky' in the sense that the S's intended meaning may not be precisely
interpreted. In the following situation, the first S's indirect strategy, obviously, does not
work. His utterance is understood as an information-seeking question and he fails to
convey what he really wants.
96
(31) A wants to turn off the TV program, asking B, who is watching it excitedly:
It would be a mistake if one assumed that a language just employs direct strategies or
only indirect strategies. The realization of language depends on the kind of cultural
thought patterns that are different from culture to culture.
Kaplan (1972) posits four discourse structures to show the differences in cultural
thought patterns. Native Ss of English, according to Kaplan, tend to use direct
expression and thought patterns; conversely, Asian people, including the Vietnamese,
are likely to adhere to indirect patterns.
The pattern of talk, according to Nguyen Q. (1998), seems to be different in English
and Vietnamese. Vietnamese Ss might be considered rude, impolite or too practical if
they mention the purpose of their talk at the very beginning of the conversation.
Conversely, Americans are likely to put the purpose of their conversations at the initial
stage.
Ss are presumably more direct when dealing with safe issues such as weather, and good
news, and more indirect when tackling sensitive topics like gender, religion, money and
bad news. Individuals and cultures widely vary in how, when, why, to whom and what
they apply indirect strategies. Factors affecting the degree of indirectness exploitation
will be discussed in the following section.
97
98
(v) Intellectual abilities: people may be more or less direct in speaking as regards
their intellectual abilities.
All these suggestive factors, however, need to be empirically tested across speech acts
and cultures.
In many circumstances, indirect speech acts are often used instead of their more direct
counterparts as being indirect, according to Brown & Levinson, is one important way
of being polite or tactful in conversation. Yule (1996: 56) shares the same, Indirect
speech acts are generally associated with greater politeness in English than direct
speech acts. Brown & Levinson (1987: 142) even go so far as to state the universality
of indirectness, [I]ndirect speech acts are universal and for the most part are probably
constructed in essentially similar ways in all languages.
It might be the case of English, where indirectness is commonly accepted to correlate
with politeness. In languages other than English indirectness does not necessarily imply
99
politeness. Contrary to the idea that indirectness and politeness are correspondent,
research into languages other than English shows that these two notions are not
necessarily parallel. Tannen (1981) believes that Americans are more indirect in their
speech behaviour than Greeks. But this does not mean that Americans are more polite
than Greeks. When examining requests in Hebrew and English in terms of politeness
and indirectness, Blum-Kulka (1987, 1992) states that the most indirect request
strategies (hints) are not judged as the most polite. It is the conventional indirectness
that receives the highest ratings for politeness. Wierzbicka (1985) argues that the
association of politeness with indirectness is the reflection of an ethnocentric
Anglophone cultural point of view, for the results of her research show that in Polish
direct requests and offers are not considered impolite.
In an attempt to shed light on the notion of linguistic politeness, Upadhyay (2003:
1651-1677) revisits the link between indirectness and politeness by using naturally
occurring conversational data in Nepali. The findings show that there is no definite
evidence for the link between indirectness and politeness, and such socio-cultural
determinants as status and age which set up a strong motivation for politeness,
honorifics and person-referring terms are important linguistic devices to indicate
politeness in Nepali. Gu (1990) and Lee-Wong (2000) assume that directness with a
high degree of imposition can be used as a means to increase the level of politeness in
intrinsically threatening acts of inviting and requesting made by speakers of Mandarin
who prefer in-group solidarity and closeness in interpersonal relations and explicitness
and clarity in language expressions.
The interrelationships between indirectness and politeness have also drawn attention of
Vietnamese researchers. Nguyen D. H. (1995) finds out the contrast in politeness
realization reflected in the low degree of form directness in requests by Vietnamese Ss
100
101
(33)
A literal translation of the utterance into Vietnamese (by Mai X. H. 1996: 197) would
embarrass H as it sounds too formal, superfluous and strange to his/her ears:
(34)
nh vy.
It is suggested that English and Vietnamese may be different in the way they realize
formality/ informality of language use. In his research into politeness, Nguyen V. D.
(1996) points out that although modifications are exploited to make polite requests by
both Vietnamese and English Ss, the degree to which they are deployed greatly varies.
While modifiers make significant contribution to the elaboration and formality of
requests in English, they are used with care by Vietnamese Ss, who hold dear intimacy
and warm relations, for fear of creating too much distance in communicative contact.
All in all, indirectness and politeness are universal in the sense that they occur to some
degree in all languages and cultures. However, the correlation between them needs to
be empirically tested. Different cultures and languages may vary in the perception and
realization of indirectness and politeness, and indirectness is not necessarily associated
with politeness, i.e., the generally assumed link between indirectness and politeness
should be reconsidered.
3.1.4. Summary
The study in this chapter, which adopts the model of politeness strategies suggested by
Brown & Levinson, provides a thorough descriptive account of the speech act of
disagreeing in light of politeness and indirectness. Some minor modification is done to
better adjust the model to the size and scope of the study. Out of 5 sets of strategies 4
are chosen, namely, bald-on-record and on-record (direct strategies), off-record and no
102
FTA (indirect strategies). Also, the distinction between negative politeness and positive
politeness is not made due to their controversial issues.
Brown & Levinsons model of politeness strategies, where indirect strategies are put at
a greater level of politeness, insinuates that the more direct a strategy is the less polite it
becomes, triggers off numerous arguments. Despite the existence of politeness and
indirectness in cultures and languages the interrelationships between them are not
simple by any means. To gain insight into the relationship between politeness and
indirectness in disagreeing in English and Vietnamese, a survey has been distributed
among speakers of English and Vietnamese. The issues concerning data analysis are
presented in the following part.
3.2.1.1. Aims
The present empirical study is planned to attest to the following hypotheses:
1. Native speakers of English and Vietnamese may differ in their choice of
politeness strategies used to perform the act of disagreeing.
2. The differences in English and Vietnamese choice of politeness strategies are
likely to be the consequences of the differences in assessment of socio-cultural
parameters and social situations which can be traced back to the differences in
the socio-cultural structures.
103
identical in terms of age, gender, status, familiarity and closeness. In other words, the
informants and their co-participants are put in symmetrical and asymmetrical role
relationships. 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. Each informant has a set of 30 disagreements,
classified as bald-on-record, on-record, off-record strategies and no FTA (based on
Brown & Levinsons model of politeness strategies), to write down or mark. A total of
6000 disagreement tokens (3000 in English and 3000 in Vietnamese) are loaded into
and processed on SPSS. The English corpus is investigated in comparison to and
contrast with the Vietnamese. The most significant cases are chosen and brought to
further discussion.
104
40
30
20
First Language
Count
10
English
Vietnamese
Bald on record On record
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-13: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Miss X is fat)
Sit. 3.1c. Miss X is
getting too fat.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
On-record
14
14.0%
Off-record
42
42.0%
19
35
19.0%
35.0%
Total
No FTA
3
3.0%
100
100.0%
45
100
45.0%
1.0%
100.0%
Table 3-31: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Miss X is fat)
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Bald on record On record
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-14: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Tax increase)
105
On-record
44
44.0%
Off-record
25
25.0%
18
27
18.0%
27.0%
Total
No FTA
3
3.0%
100
100.0%
55
100
55.0%
.0%
100.0%
Table 3-32: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Tax increase)
106
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Bald on record On record
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-15: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Boring party)
Sit. 3.3c. Boring
party.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
On-record
59
59.0%
Off-record
21
21.0%
14
39
14.0%
39.0%
Total
No FTA
4
4.0%
100
100.0%
46
100
46.0%
1.0%
100.0%
Table 3-33: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Boring party)
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Bald on record On record
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-16: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Miss X is fat)
Sit. 3.1d. Miss X is
getting too fat.
Total
107
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Bald-onrecord
49
49.0%
On-record
6
6.0%
Off-record
37
37.0%
No FTA
8
8.0%
100
100.0%
13
26
52
100
13.0%
26.0%
52.0%
9.0%
100.0%
Table 3-34: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Miss X is fat)
Sit. 3.2d. Tax
increase
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
On-record
33
33.0%
Off-record
29
29.0%
Total
No FTA
7
7.0%
100
100.0%
23
15
52
10
100
23.0%
15.0%
52.0%
10.0%
100.0%
Table 3-35: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Tax increase)
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Bald on record On record
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-17: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Tax increase)
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,
108
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.
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Bald on record On record
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-18: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring party)
Sit. 3.3d. Boring
party
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
On-record
39
39.0%
Off-record
34
34.0%
Total
No FTA
7
7.0%
100
100.0%
13
34
49
100
13.0%
34.0%
49.0%
4.0%
100.0%
Table 3-36: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring party)
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Bald on record On record
Off record
No FTA
109
Chart 3-19: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Miss
X)
Sit. 3.1e. Miss X is
getting too fat.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
On-record
17
17.0%
Off-record
54
54.0%
Total
No FTA
6
6.0%
100
100.0%
16
51
30
100
16.0%
51.0%
30.0%
3.0%
100.0%
Table 3-37: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Miss X)
Sit. 3.2e. Tax increase
- a cool idea.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
On-record
50
50.0%
Off-record
33
33.0%
Total
No FTA
3
3.0%
100
100.0%
19
73
100
8.0%
19.0%
73.0%
.0%
100.0%
Table 3-38: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Tax)
60
40
First Language
Count
20
English
0
Vietnamese
Bald on record On record
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-20: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Tax)
Sit. 3.3e. Boring
party.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
On-record
57
57.0%
Off-record
33
33.0%
Total
No FTA
3
3.0%
100
100.0%
13
43
44
100
13.0%
43.0%
44.0%
.0%
100.0%
Table 3-39: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Party)
110
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 AngloAmerican 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 offrecord 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.
Choice of Politeness Strategies
Sit.3.3. Boring Party
60
50
40
30
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Bald on record On record
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-21: Choice of Politeness to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Party)
111
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Bald on record
On record
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-22: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X is fat)
Sit. 3.1h. Miss X is
getting too fat.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
On-record
13
13.0%
Off-record
55
55.0%
Total
No FTA
8
8.0%
100
100.0%
13
38
42
100
13.0%
38.0%
42.0%
7.0%
100.0%
Table 3-40: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X is fat)
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Bald on record On record
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-23: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax increase)
Sit. 3.2h. Tax increase
- a cool idea.
Total
112
Bald-onrecord
9
9.0%
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
On-record
52
52.0%
Off-record
36
36.0%
No FTA
3
3.0%
100
100.0%
34
60
100
2.0%
34.0%
60.0%
4.0%
100.0%
Table 3-41: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax increase)
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Bald on record On record
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-24: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring party)
Total
113
First Language
English Count
English %
Bald-onrecord
10
10.0%
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
On-record
62
62.0%
Off-record
26
26.0%
No FTA
2
2.0%
100
100.0%
13
37
45
100
13.0%
37.0%
45.0%
5.0%
100.0%
Table 3-42: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring party)
Sit. 3.1j. Miss X is
getting too fat.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Total
Bald-onrecord
13
13.0%
On-record
12
12.0%
Off-record
60
60.0%
No FTA
15
15.0%
100
100.0%
11
27
44
18
100
11.0%
27.0%
44.0%
18.0%
100.0%
Table 3-43: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat)
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Bald on record On record
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-25: Choice of Disagreeing Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat)
Sit. 3.2j. Tax increase
- a cool idea.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
On-record
52
52.0%
Off-record
31
31.0%
Total
No FTA
7
7.0%
100
100.0%
26
66
100
.0%
26.0%
66.0%
8.0%
100.0%
Table 3-44: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase)
114
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 baldon-record strategies.
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Bald on record On record
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-26: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase)
115
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Bald on record On record
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-27: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Boring Party)
Sit. 3.3j. Boring
party.
First Language
English Count
English
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
6
6.0%
On-record
51
51.0%
Off-record
34
34.0%
32
3.0%
32.0%
Total
No FTA
9
9.0%
100
100.0%
49
16
100
49.0%
16.0%
100.0%
Table 3-45: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (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
116
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 (cf. findings in Chapter 1). After all, they are just
surface manifestations of the deep-level differences in the socio-cultural structures.
3.2.3. Summary
The findings have provided strong evidence for the differences in strategic choice made
by native speakers of English and Vietnamese in proffering disagreement tokens. Being
less constrained by socially normative practices, the English 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. The Vietnamese might generally be judged as more indirect
than their English 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. It is the wider socio-cultural contexts that serve as good grounds for all
117
118
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, Anglo-American culture with
its primary focus on individualist non-imposition tends to leave more free space for Ss
to make their own choice of politeness strategies. The following chapter provides a
thorough investigation of the organizational structure of disagreeing to bring out the
shared and unshared strategies deployed in English disagreement tokens in comparison
to Vietnamese ones.
119
CHAPTER FOUR
STRATEGIES CONCERNING PREFERENCE
ORGANIZATION
4.1. Theoretical Preliminaries
4.1.1. Preferred Second Turns
4.1.1.1. Markedness
Typical adjacency pairs, as earlier mentioned, consist of two parts: a first pair part and a
second pair part. Once the first part is given, there is a set of potential seconds to it.
However, not all second parts are of equal structural complexity and status. Some are
very simple, made of one or two words (Yes, Fine, thanks), others are constructed of
several long utterances (like long explanations, elaborate accounts etc.). In general, all
second alternatives can be distinguished as either preferred or dispreferred responses.
In spite of its original connotation, the concept of preference organization has nothing
to do with psychological preference of the speakers or hearers. It is merely a structural
notion similar to the concept of markedness in linguistics, which was first proposed and
developed by the Prague School, and later, by Jakobson and others (Levinson 1983:
333). The concept of markedness in linguistics can be understood as follows:
The intuition behind the notion of markedness in linguistics is that, where we have an
opposition between two or more members, it is often the case that one member is felt
to be more usual, more normal, less specific than the other (in markedness terminology
it is unmarked, the others marked).
Cited from Comrie (1976: 111)
120
R: Its wonderful.
(2)L: Maybe its just ez well you dont know
(2.0)
The preferred second in (1) is immediately produced after the first evaluative token,
whereas the delivery of the dispreferred second is deliberately delayed in (2). After a
two-second silence, W starts speaking, prefacing his disagreeing with well and other
delay components. Other kinds of dispreferred seconds like rejections of requests,
refusals of offers, denials of blames etc., are normally done in this marked manner, as
Levinson (1983: 308) puts it:
[I]n contrast to the simple and immediate nature of preferreds, dispreferreds are
delayed and contain additional complex components; and certain kinds of seconds like
request rejections, refusals of offers, disagreements after evaluative assessments, etc.,
are systematically marked as dispreferreds.
By and large, the marked actions are likely to be avoided in interpersonal conversations
due to the complexity of their marked formats.
121
1992) realize the salient and essential differences in structural organization between
preferreds and dispreferreds.
The specific characteristics of such complex-structured responses are examined and
generalized in the works by Atkinson and Drew (1979), Pomerantz (1975, 1978, 1984ab), Levinson (1983), Yule (1996), Mey (1993, 2001) among others. The main features
include: (i) delay tokens: silences/ pauses, hesitations and hedges (false starts Er,
expletives Yes), repairs, or insertion sequences, (ii) prefaces: dispreferred markers
like Well and Uh, appreciations, apologies, qualifiers and mitigations I dont know
for sure, but, and (iii) accounts or explanations for uttering dispreferreds. Some
other prosodic features like speed of delivery, articulation, stress, irregular breathing, as
well as non-linguistic factors (head nods/shakes, smiles, facial expressions, body
movements etc.) may create certain impact on the quality of dispreferred seconds. On
the whole, the production of such wordy and elaborate responses takes time and
requires a great effort on the part of conversationalists. Moreover, they may bring
unpleasant feelings to whatever parties involved in interchanges. Consequently,
dispreferred seconds are likely to be avoided due to their complex-structural format and
communicative ineffectiveness.
Conversation analytic work also focuses on the correlation of the content and the
sequential structure of preference. Quite interestingly, there is an organic relationship
between the content and its format, to wit, some patterns seem recurrently occur in
fixed structures. For instance, agreements with evaluative assessments tend to appear in
unmarked/preferred format, whereas almost all of disagreements are delivered in
marked/dispreferred structures. The notion of preference may be applied to the actions
that are produced in either preferred or dispreferred constructions, i.e., preferred actions
are normally done in preferred format, and dispreferred actions in dispreferred format.
122
Request
Offer/
Invite
Assessment
Question
Blame
Acceptance
Acceptance
Agreement
Denial
Refusal
Disagreemen
t
Expected
answer
Unexpected
answer of
non-answer
Dispreferred Refusal
Admission
A close look at the sequential structure reveals that the concept of correlation also
involves the first pair parts. Let us take an example from Levinsons work (1983: 337):
(3)C: I wondered if you could phone the vicar so that we could ((in breath))
do the final on Saturday (0.8) morning o:r (.) afternoon or (3.0)
R: Yeah you see Ill Ill phone him up and see if theres any time free
(2.0)
C: Yeah.
R: Uh theyre normally booked Saturdays but I dont- it might not be
Actually, Cs first turn is full of places potential for R to perform a preferred second
(breathing, pauses, silences, and latching), and this wordiness is resulted from Cs
delayed uptake. Had it not been for Rs delay of a compliance response right after Cs
request I wondered if you could phone the vica, C would not have had to prolong and
elaborate his first part. As clearly shown, preferred and dispreferred seconds, by nature,
may systematically influence the structural design of their corresponding first parts.
123
(2.0)
B: (hhhhh) well, they do, but
124
(6)C: .hh a :n uh by god I can even send my kid tuh public school bcuz
theyre so god damn lousy.
The long silence after As turn signals an upcoming negative response in Bs next turn.
The prolonged breathing and dispreferred marker well delay the main act of
disagreeing too. The same strategy is employed in (6) where D shows his hesitation by
prefacing his dispreferred answer with Well. Disagreements that are displayed after
assertions or qualifiers are called weak disagreements or weak agreements (Pomerantz
1984a).
Disagreements, however, are not always considered dispreferred seconds in
interactions. In case the first S self-denigrates or self-deprecates, the responders
agreement may be understood as implicit criticism. Conversely, a strong disagreement
on the part of the next S is actually a preferred second. Pomerantz (1975, 1978, 1984a),
Levinson (1983), Sacks (1987) and Nofsinger (1991) among others pay close attention
to this interesting point. In the example by Pomerantz (1984a: 85) exhibited below, the
disagreement token is combined with a complimentary evaluative attribute:
(7)A: I mean I feel good when Im playing with her because
feel like uh her and I play alike hehh
In comparison with other dispreferreds, disagreements that occur in response to selfdeprecations tend to be stronger and more straightforward, perhaps, because they are
done for the sake of alter not ego. On the contrary, agreements are like to be delayed,
withheld, or hedged to mitigate the confirmation of the prior. In the following example
(Pomerantz 1984a: 90) a suppositional is exploited to weaken the conformation:
(8)W: Do you know what I was all that time?
125
L: (No)
W: Pavlovs dog.
(2.0)
L: (I suppose),
As clearly seen, the agreement produced in the sequence above has typical features of
dispreferred seconds: delayed by a long pause of two seconds, and mitigated by a
qualifier. The answers subsequent to self-denigrations may be accompanied with
disaffiliation with, or favorable reformulation of the prior self-critical assessments, as
in:
(9)R: .hh But Im only getting a C on my report card in math.
C: Yeh but thats passing Ronald.
Pomerantz (1984a: 87)
In the response to Rs complaining about getting a C in math, C points out that C is a
passing grade although it is below A and B. Cs reformulating the grade scale
undermines Rs self-deprecating attribute and comforts him. Conversationalists
sometimes undermine the validity of the prior self-deprecatory formulations by
suggesting that the actions or qualities are common and normal, as in another example
by Pomerantz (Ibid.)
(10) W: Yet Ive got quite a distance tuh go yet.
As shown, the two different kinds of preference organization seem to work in opposing
directions in excerpts containing self-denigrations, and this phenomenon creates more
complexity in conversation analytic work.
Another question concerning the structural complexity is raised in relation to the
performance of second parts in response to compliments. The preference for
126
A: I hadda hard time, but I didnt think they were too good,
In (11) the receiver downgrades the agreement token in response to the compliment,
and in (12) he shifts the praise by returning it to the giver. By so doing, the receiver can
avoid praising himself, but still make good use of the preference format.
127
74 & 1984a: 71), the next S provides the prior S with a chance to elaborate his
assessment by repeat his evaluation. Given this other-initiation of repair, the prior S
confirms his assessment, resulting in a dispreferred answer.
(13) A: Why whhatsa mattuh with y-Yih sou//nd HA:PPY, hh ((assessment))
B:
Nothing.
B: I sound ha:p//py?
((repair initiator))
A:
((re-assessment))
Ye:uh.
(0.3)
B: No:,
((dispreferred seconds))
Finally, the dispreferred second comes after a pause that is treated as a second chance
for A to reformulate his assessment in the first turn. As clearly demonstrated, preference
organization affects and spreads all over the sequence, from the first turn to the last
turn. On the whole, the repair mechanism works on the basis of preference for selfinitiated repairs over other-initiated repairs, and preference for self-repairs over otherrepairs (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). The remedial work can be done in a
three-turn (or more) sequence: (i) Turn 1 (includes the repairable), first opportunity for
self-initiated self-repair, and transition space (between two first turns), second
opportunity for self-initiated self-repair, (ii) Turn 2, third opportunity for other-repair or
other-initiation of self-repair, and (iii) Turn 3, fourth opportunity for other-initiated selfrepair. The following examples by Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks (1977: 364-366)
illustrate self-initiated self-repair (opportunity 1 & 2):
(14) N: She was givin me a:ll the people that were go:ne
Yeah
128
B: Quail, I think.
B: What?
A: Have you ever tried a clinic?
A: The who?
Most frequently
used
Number of
Preference
1
2
3
4
Other-initiation of Self-repair
Other-initiated Other-repair
Self-initiated Self-repair
Self-initiated Self-repair
Number of
Opportunity
1
2 (transition
place)
3
4
Table 4-2 reveals that the preference ranking spills over a continuum from the most
frequently used (# 1) to the least frequently used (# 4), and there is a clear trend for
129
self-initiated self-repair. Also, substantial delays are at work in the third opportunity if
self-initiated self-repair is not accomplished in the first two opportunities. In the
following example by Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks (1977: 370), B waits for As selfrepair, and only after a pause of one minute does A signal the problematic issue, leading
to As successful self-remedy.
(19) A: Hey the first time they stopped me from sellin cigarettes
was this morning.
(1.0)
B: From selling cigarettes?
A: From buying cigarettes.
In naturally occurring sequences, there are many other ways of doing repair work, such
as (partial) repetitions of problematic items, echo-questions, lengthening sounds, etc. In
addition to this, in many occasions, when the other parties can do other-repair, they still
prefer the first Ss to self-repair by indicating the repairable in their turns subsequent to
the prior as follows:
(20) K: E likes that waiter over there,
A: Wait-er?
K: Waitress, sorry,
A: Ats better,
Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks (1977: 377)
Given the rare case when other-repair is done, it is often accompanied with such
phrases as I think used in (16), or ymean, or somehow marked, as in:
(21) L: But yknow single bedsr awfully thin to sleep on.
S: What?
L: Single beds. // Theyre-
130
E:
Ymean narrow?
(Ibid. 378)
((offer))
C: Oh Id love one.
In his work on telephone conversation openings, Schegloff realizes that preference
organization finds its manifestation in the callers provision of minimal cues in their
turns subsequent to the receivers first turns, as shown below (Schegloff 1979a: 52):
(23) R: Hello:,
C: Hello Ilse?
R: Yes. Be:tty.
Cs try on the name of the receiver should be produced with a low-rise intonation
contour, for a high-rise contour would show a far higher degree of uncertainty about the
recipients identity (Ibid. 50). The preference machinery makes dispreferred the callers
self-identification and preferred the receivers recognition of the callers. Callers selfidentification is often withheld to leave room for other-recognition. In the example
above, Cs Hello plus name act as an invitation for R to recognize who the caller is.
Callers self-identification, in general, runs the risk of having to deploy dispreferred
131
Hi,
(ii)
Hello,
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
As discussed, preference organization influences not only turns (of a pair and other
subsequent pairs), but also sequences and sequence types.
Self-initiated self-repairs can occur in the third turn of the sequence within the delivery
of disagreements as in the fragment by Pomerantz (Ibid. 74) exhibited below:
(26) W: The-the way I feel about it i:s, that as long as she cooperates,
132
Yeah,
Recipients of the compliments are inclined to disagree with prior complements. They
may treat the first positive assessments as exaggerated or overdone, therefore leading to
their remedial work in form of undermining or qualifying, as in:
(27) A: youve lost suh much weight
Sometimes, second Ss may prefer to allude that the first assessment is problematic by
delaying their turn, or asking prior Ss to reconsider initial evaluations, as given below:
(29) A: You sound very far away.
(0.7)
B: I do?
A: Meahm.
B: mNo? Im no:t,
133
In other cases, the recipients long pauses or silences yield the prior Ss modification or
elaboration work. Hoping to get approvals from the co-conversants, the first Ss may
carry on explaining, clarifying and elaborating things, resulting in spilling the remedial
work over the whole sequence, as in another example (Ibid. 70-71). Chances for repair
work or places of repair work are notated with (), and disagreements with (D):
(31) 1. A: ( ) cause those things take working at,
2. (2.0)
(D)
5. B: No, they take working at, But on the other hand, some people are
6. born with hhm (1.0) well a sense of humor, I think is something yer
7. born with Bea.
8.A: Yes, or its c- I have the-eh yes, I think a lotta people are, but then I
134
(D)
10. (1.0)
11. B: Yeah, but // theres12. A:
Any-
4.1.3. Summary
As it is clearly shown, preferred/unmarked pair parts are structurally less complicated
and linguistically simpler in comparison with dispreferred/marked. The latter are likely
to go with delay devices, prefaces, or explanations apart from the structural complexity,
and thus tend to be avoided in interpersonal interaction because of their complexstructural format and communicative ineffectiveness. Disagreement tokens in English
and Vietnamese are seen to be performed in both marked/dispreferred structures as
dispreferred seconds and unmarked/preferred formats as preferred seconds. Also, three
kinds of repairs, namely, self-initiated self-repairs, other-initiated self-repairs, and
other-initiated other-repairs, functioning as delay devices are found to operate in
various ways in the structural organization of turns and sequences in disagreeing.
The next part compares and contrasts the English corpus and the Vietnamese corpus on
disagreeing obtained from conversations recorded in everyday casual settings within
the framework of conversation analytic studies earlier discussed and exhibited.
135
4.2.1.1. Aims
This empirical study aims at finding evidence for the following hypotheses:
1. Disagreement tokens made by native speakers of English and Vietnamese may
be similar in terms of preference format pertaining to the minimization of
disagreements as dispreferred seconds and maximization of disagreements as
preferred seconds.
2. The English informants are inclined to take advantage of devices like back
channels, partial repeats, repair initiators and turn prefaces to hedge their
disagreements while their Vietnamese are prone to deploy address terms and
particles in conformity to their social norms.
136
women. They used to be classmates at school and have been in close contact since then.
They exchange ideas about their families, children, and individual lifestyle. All the
conversationalists in the second and third conversations are in their early forties. The
fourth and the fifth conversations are between a group of first-year college students and
their schoolteacher. They talk about their school days, studies, exams, fashions, as well
as teacher-student and student-student relationships. They assess the school activities
they once took part in, and many other things. The sixth tape contains a conversation
between a four-member family and an old friend of the mother. Both the parents, aged
around 50, are officers and their children, aged between 20 and 26, are college students.
The familys friend, who is in her forties, is close to the family and they have a good
relationship. They exchange information about daily activities, their childrens heath,
studies and the like. During the talk, the daughter and the son seem to be quiet
compared to their parents. Maybe, the presence of the guest inconveniences them in
some way, although they know her well. Or maybe, it is a reflection of the norms of
Vietnamese behavioral manners: children do not actively engage in conversations
among adults until they are asked to.
The seventh conversation is about preparations for college entrance exams between two
mothers and two students. The mothers, who are actually cousins, are in their forties.
One of the students is a first-year college boy, and the other is a twelfth-grade girl, who
is preparing for the up-coming competitive college-entrance exams. The last
conversation is between an old-aged man, who used to be a middle-ranked official of
the government, his son and a female school classmate of the son, who are about 40.
Being friends for more than 20 years, the son and his friend understand each other quite
well, and find it comfortable to talk about different issues. At that time, the son was still
single and this was one of the concerns of the father.
137
The English corpus consists of 6 tapes, two of which have been recorded in Hanoi and
four in Toronto. All the 16 informants are native speakers of English from North
America and have college/university degrees. The first tape contains a conversation
between two mid-aged women who come from New York. They used to be good
friends and just met again in Hanoi after a long time of no contact. The second tape is
made with the help of 4 American English teachers working in Hanoi, aged from 24 to
30, one male and three females. They didnt know each other until they came to teach
in Vietnam. However, they had some time working together and were frequently
engaged in interaction. The first Toronto tape is between 2 mid-aged Ph.D. students, a
man and a woman and both are native speakers of English. The second is a
conversation between a Canadian old-aged couple and the husband is a graduate
student in the Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto. This kind man
recorded the conversation between him and his oldest son, a mid-aged man, making the
third tape for the researcher. The fourth Toronto tape records two young MA students
doing their research at University of Toronto. All the informants are asked to freely talk
about their daily activities, hobbies and friends and provide assessment of things they
do and of people they know.
However, for the particular purpose and size of the present paper, a major part of the
English corpus is taken from excerpts and extracts used by respected researchers in the
field of conversation analysis like Heritage and Drew (1979), Pomerantz (1975, 1978,
1984a-b), Levinson (1983), Heritage (2002, forth.), Goodwin and Goodwin (1987) and
others. These data are claimed to come from actual interactions between native
speakers of English in natural everyday settings. Generally, they are transcribed on the
basis of the conventions used in CA. This, according to Psathas (1995: 45) is
appropriate and allowable in CA, as Data may be obtained from any available source,
138
the only requirement being that these should be naturally occurring, rather than
produced for the purpose of study.
The present researcher has the respondents permission to use the tapes, although some
of the informants were recorded without being informed earlier. The majority of the
tapes were collected after the informants agreed to be recorded. The recordings were
done only when the informants got so involved in the talk that they forgot about the
recorder and the researcher herself. By and large, the data can be assumed to consist of
naturally occurring interactions, and are very much similar to those happen in everyday
exchanges between native speakers.
Being audio-taped, both kinds of data lack visual documentation. The prosodic features
may fully be incorporated in the English corpus, but not in the Vietnamese due to the
shortage of adequate technologies. And although the researcher is aware of the
significance and contribution of participants gestures, body movements, gazes, and
other facial expressions, she cannot address such body behaviors. The field-notes taken
by the researcher herself are employed for reference only when necessary and
appropriate. On the whole, the study focuses on the basic vocal features of the talk
while analyzing preference organization in English and Vietnamese on the grounds of
disagreeing data. One of the main concerns of the present paper is to examine the
preference structures in disagreeing turns and sequences. Thus, some translations from
Vietnamese into English may lack naturalness as the researcher would like to maintain
the main features of talk-in-progress in Vietnamese.
139
responses are agreements. According to the data, English Ss tend to delay or withhold
stated disagreements and avoid early delivery of negative answers within turns and
sequences. Such markers as partial repeats (e.g. I do), repair initiators (e.g. I mean),
turn prefaces (e.g. Well, Er), requests for clarification (e.g. What?, Hm) and so
on so forth are frequently employed to signal the special turn shapes for disagreements
as dispreferreds. The following fragments can be good examples:
(32) A: Why whhatsa mattuh with y-Yih sou//nd HA:PPY, hh
B:
Nothing.
B: I sound ha:p//py?
A:
Ye:uh.
(0.3)
B: No:,
(33) Angel: I dont think Nick would play such a dirty trick on you.
2. Silences: Pomerantz (1984a) and Goodwin & Goodwin (1987) assume that pauses
and silences following the prior assessments are comprehended as second Ss signals of
yet-stated disagreements. In the example by Goodwin & Goodwin (1987: 43) given
below, Curts forthright disagreement finally comes after two pauses leading to Mikes
prolonging his turn and the whole sequence:
(34) Mike: Well I cant say theyre ol: clunkers- eez gotta Co:rd?
(0.1)
Mike: Two Co:rds.
(1.0)
Mike: //And
140
(0.6)
A: //Yknow I dont think-
(D)
Not completely agreeing with and not wishing to publicly be opposite to the coconversant, M chooses the strategy of downgrading levels of first assessments. Quite
similarly, the second S in another example by Pomerantz (1984a: 68) lessens the
strength of the prior evaluative token by providing a scaled-down or weakened
assessment:
(37) A: Shes a fox.
English Ss can also make use of such downtoners as kind of, sort of, a bit, nearly,
almost, slightly, somewhat etc., which will be examined in Chapter five, to qualify their
disagreements, as in an extract by Pomerantz (Ibid.):
(38) A: Oh it was just beautiful.
141
C:
Disagreements might also be delayed within the turn construction. Ss may preface
disagreement components with uhs, wells (as in the above extract) and so on,
expressing discomfort or inconvenience.
The interesting and mysterious combination of agreeing and disagreeing in this format
is worth noting. In essence, agreements and disagreements are contrastive elements,
and in theory, they should go in opposing directions. In this special format, however,
they go together and form a type of weak or partial disagreements, as in the two
fragments below by Pomerantz (1984a: 73):
(40) R: Butchu admit he is having fun and you think its funny.
B: No, they take working at but on the other hand, some people
Supposing that the agreement tokens in the excerpts above were left out, the
disagreements would then be judged as strong, as the evaluation components would be
directly contrastive with the prior.
142
H. Ai bo bn l c bp?
Who say you be muscle
(Who told you [hes just used his] muscle?)
143
The use of first person pronoun in the prior turn is worth noting. The first S, a mid-aged
man named B, uses t in talking with H, his female classmate at school, and this
exhibits their friendship and closeness. This term for self-reference is exploited in
informal talk between peers and sometimes, in downward speech, from the superior to
the inferior. The talk, assumed to be intimate and open, takes place in Bs house, when
H comes to visit B. Perhaps, all these things affect the way in which the two
conversationalists word their ideas and evaluations.
H does not agree with B in his assessment of N, their mutual friend at school, and she
uses Nhng m (But) to point out the fact that N can still make a lot of money. When
B insists on his view, H prefaces her request for reason with an agreement element ,
sao li khng tt? (Yeah, why isnt it good?). Her asking about the source of
information Ai bo? (Who told?) is deployed as a way of expressing
disagreeing, and it deserves to be mentioned. It provides the second S with a chance to
better understand her partners stance, and at the same time, it helps her avoid
producing an outright disagreement, which might make her sound too critical or
aggressive. Vietnamese Ss in my data are inclined to make frequent use of this way to
perform their disagreement.
In the fragment below, L requests evidence of the information source as she talks with
her classmate about the college entrance exams they just sat.
V03.8.45
(43) T: Cn bn l khi A nm nay kh hn.
essential be block A year present difficult more
(Essentially, group A is more difficult this year.)
L: Ai bo th?
Who tell that
144
145
B: (4.0)
H: ng khng thch nhng ngi khc thch.
Grandfather not like but people other like
(You dont like but other people do.)
B. T quan im khc.
I point of view different
(I have a different point of view.)
It is of interest to talk about the use of reference terms in this recording. H, a female
friend of B, addresses him as ng (grandfather), which is a typical kinship term used
among friends and peers. ng in this case indicates that the gender of the interlocutor
is male, and its equivalent for a female is B (grandmother). When used in this way,
these kinship terms do not demonstrate the normal relationship between relatives. B in
this extract, however, does not make use of B. He uses T, a first person pronoun
used in informal talk between peers. The utility of person reference terms in this
fragment exhibits an informal and friendly atmosphere.
3. Downgrading prior assessments: The second Ss in the Vietnamese data may
disagree with the first Ss by softening and rewording prior assessments. In the excerpt
given below, T qualifies the frequency of the action mentioned by the first S, leading to
a weakened disagreement within his turn:
V03.8.46.
146
day go up net
T: Thnh thong.
Sometimes (Sometimes.)
In other cases, second Ss make use of the preferred format by initially agreeing and
then downgrading prior assessments, thereby producing weak disagreements. The
following fragment may serve as an example:
V03.9.55
(46) B: Nc y n c::ng (0.5) K thut ca n cng mnh pht
y.
Country that it a:::lso technology of it also strong intensifer particle
(That country is also (0.5) its technology is also very powerful.)
H: , k thut ca n th: (1.0) cng kh.
Yeah technology of it be also good
(Yeah, its technology is also good.)
B: Cng siu pht y. Nht l nng nghip ca n (1.0)
rt gii.
Also super intensifier particle especially agriculture of it very good
(Its excellent. Especially its agriculture (1.0) is really good.)
As clearly seen, after agreeing with Bs assessment, H qualifies it by proposing a lower
level of evaluation. Her so doing causes her co-conversant to reaffirm his position,
adding more turns to the sequence to strengthen his point. B seems to adhere to
emphasizers like rt, pht make clear his stance.
147
utilized in upward speech from the inferior to the superior or from the junior to the
senior (Vu T. T. H. 1997, 2000) to express respect and deference; therefore, they are
called politeness/deference markers or honorifics (cf. Nguyen D. H. 1995). Let us have
a look at the following example:
V03.6.21
(48) H: Con giai l cha:: cha theo qu o (1.0) cho nn l b
phi rn
Classifier boy be not yet follow orbit for need be father must train
nhiu ((ci))
much ((laughs))
(Boys arent very obedient, so fathers have to pay more attention.)
N: Khng phi th .
No must that particle-
148
149
for colleges.
4.2.2.3. Comments
The proffering of disagreements as dispreferred seconds is produced in turns and
sequences typically characterized by delaying the overtly stated contrastive components
and performing weakened or qualified assertions. Such turns and sequences are
exploited to express disagreements as unfavorable, and at the same time, they are
oriented to in talk-in-progress to minimize explicitly stated disagreement tokens.
The data show that Vietnamese Ss construct their disagreements within turns and
sequences in nearly the same ways as the English Ss do. Vietnamese Ss may exploit (i)
delay devices such as asking for more elaboration or evidence to hedge or withhold
their opposite opinion, (ii) silences and pauses to inform interlocutors of upcoming
disagreements. They can sometimes indicate unwillingness or reluctance not to be in
accord with co-participants by (iii) downgrading or modifying/softening prior
assessments, or they may utilize (iv) agreement plus disagreement format.
Intensifiers including emphasizers, amplifiers and downtoners (Quirk et al. 1972) are
observed to be exploited in both English and Vietnamese disagreements.
150
The striking differences that emerge are in the pervasive use of pronouns and particles
in Vietnamese. Unlike English, Vietnamese is full of personal pronouns and kinship
terms (both fictive and non-fictive use) deployed for self-reference or address. It is the
appropriate use of particles, as well as person-referring terms that contribute much to
the production of polite and socially acceptable disagreements. English Ss probably
make more use of repair work, turn prefaces and backchannels (hm, mh and the
like) compared with their Vietnamese counterparts.
(D)
151
Such negations as no, hm-mh, and not may occur in initial spaces in turns
containing answers to self-deprecatory formulations. The following extracts by
Pomerantz (1984a: 84) might be good examples of this kind:
(51) R: Did she get my card?
C: Yeah she gotcher card.
R: Did she tink it was terrible?
A:
Given that a self-deprecatory formulation is produced the next Ss response is made due
and relevant in the subsequent turn. The mechanism of preference organization in this
case is the reverse of the normal case. Agreements turn out to be dispreferred seconds
and disagreements preferred seconds. The reason is simple: agreements with selfcritical assessments are interpreted as criticisms, and disagreements are conceived as
favorable, positively evaluative tokens. As a result, disagreements with selfdenigrations are performed in preferred-action turns and sequences.
152
3. Undermining self-denigrations:
Recipients
may criticize
self-deprecatory
153
B: Ci khng phi u L . Ci vn l=
Classifier that no must particle L particle- classifier problem be.
(Thats not true, L. The problem is)
N: Khng phi u.
No must particle
(No, its not.)
L criticizes herself for spoiling her husband by taking over almost all of the family
duties. Her school classmates directly disagree with her, saying that it is not her fault.
154
l B cng l
Also not be mistake of uncle particle particle. Perhaps be B also be
(1.0) cng khng mun ngh n ci chuyn y cho
n au u.
also not want think about classifier story that for it less headache
(Its not really your fault, uncle. Perhaps, B doesnt want to think
about this to avoid a headache.)
The person mentioned by Mr. BB is B, who is Hs old school classmate, and the
society cell in Mr. BBs wording is his family. The old man blames himself for the
fact that his son B, a mid-aged man, is still single. H defends both him and his son, and
perhaps, that is why her disagreement token does not sound really forthright. Had she
155
been more aggressive, she would have been interpreted as in favor of the father while in
opposition to the son.
The use of anh (older brother) by Mr. BB in this fragment has nothing to do with
relative links. It just means he in English, a third person singular pronoun. While
talking Mr. BB refers to himself as bc (uncle), and H, addresses him bc too.
Similar to other kinship terms, bc is utilized to show respect and solidarity with coconversants and the fictive use of the kin-term bc here imply that they are as close
as family members. Also, Hs deployment of polite marker in her response to Mr.
BBs self-deprecating assessment demonstrates her respect to him.
2. Complimentary components: Native Ss of Vietnamese may combine strong
disagreements with complimentary attributes. In the following fragment, the coparticipants talk about whether one should be thin or fat. H, the oldest, seems to bother
herself about her weight and keeps making self-critical assessments. The other Ss, D
and T, on the contrary, disagree with her by indicating that her body build is normal at
her age. In the previous sequence, D says that her mother wants to gain weight to be
plumper. Thus, H wishes that they could exchange their body builds. The
disagreement tokens in this fragment are made with partial repeats of the prior
assessments. Apart from showing that H is normal compared to other women T
includes complimentary evaluative terms in his response to Hs self-denigration.
V03.8.51.
(61) H: Ch b cho c::
No compensate for aunt
(May she and I make an exchange.)
D: Nhng c lm g m bo.
But aunt do what particle fat
156
D. n tui c th ny th bo g.
come age aunt that this be fat what
(Youre not considered fat at this age.)
T. C th ny l bnh thng ri y n, cn i
aunt this be normal particle plump well-proportioned
(You look normal this way... Plump and well-proportioned.)
H uses c (aunt) to address herself, and the same kinship is exploited by other parties
taking part in the ongoing conversation. Of course, the address term c here does not
mean that they are relatives. As mentioned above, kinship terms are the most widely
used among person reference words (Luong 1987, 1990), and c in this fictive use
has the meaning of Miss - female teacher.
3. Undermining self-denigrations: Second Ss may sometimes undermine the prior selfdeprecations by demonstrating that they are irrational or unreasonable, as in the
following excerpts:
V03.8.41
(62) D: Trnh ca mnh by gi ch dy c cp mt
thi
Level of we now only teach particle elementary level particle
(At our present level, we can only teach elementary students.)
157
T: Vn g.
Cross-examine what
(What can they cross-examine.)
In another extract, T concludes that they cannot teach primary school students math, as
it seems to be hard. Being in disagreement with T, D criticizes him, therefore
disaffiliating with his self-denigrating attribute:
V03.8.44
(64) T. Cp hai khng dy c u. Khng dy c u.
Level two not teach particle particle not teach particle particle
(We cannot teach primary school students. We cannot.)
158
purity changes. In contrast, H points out that his account is a bit weird, as his purity has
already gone. In her turn, she repeats Ts key word purity and thus, invalidates it.
V03.8.54.
(65) T: Nm 12 con hc v vn Chc l ang tui dy th
((Ci))
year 12 son study foolish maybe present age purity ((laughs))
(I was inattentive in studies in grade 12Maybe because of purity)
4.2.3.3. Comments
When disagreements are shaped as preferred seconds to self-deprecations, they seem to
be explicitly verbalized with such negations as no and not, and may occupy the
entire turn/sequence shapes. They may be accompanied with partial repeats or
complimentary evaluative terms. Recipients can undermine prior self-critical
assessments by re-categorizing, reformulating or criticizing them.
159
The Vietnamese in the data seem to be direct and outright in their disagreements with
prior self-deprecations. Like the English Ss, they are inclined to produce (i) immediate
disagreements, combine disagreement tokens with (ii) complimentary components, or
they may abide by disaffiliating with or (iii) undermining self-denigrations. Unlike
English Ss, Vietnamese Ss can make effective and polite disagreements to achieve
communicative goals, basing on the rich vocabulary of person-referring terms,
particles, and other supportive markers of politeness.
4.2.4. Summary
The English and Vietnamese corpora have persuasively proved the hypotheses of
similarities between English and Vietnamese in terms of preference format concerning
the speech act of disagreeing. While disagreements as dispreferred seconds tend to be
delayed or hedged disagreements to self-denigrations as preferred seconds are
inclined to overtly and forthrightly articulated. Disagreements as dispreferred
seconds are characterized by softeners and hedges, questions or requests for more
information to invalidate earlier stated evaluative attributes. Second Ss may produce
weak disagreements by using agreement plus disagreement format (Yes, but.),
qualify or downgrade prior assessments. In addition, pauses and silences are considered
signals imminent negative responses in both languages.
The English informants prefer to exploit such delay devices as partial repeats, repair
initiators, turn prefaces or back channels whereas the Vietnamese make use of the rich
repertoire of person referring terms, particles although all of them deploy emphasizers
or downtoners to upgrade or downgrade their disagreements.
160
disagreeing, which is structurally marked and thus dispreferred because of its structural
complexity and counter-productive effects, is often softened or hedged. However,
disagreements to self-denigrations, which are structurally unmarked and thus preferred,
are prone to be forthrightly proffered. The two kinds of disagreements seem to work in
absolutely opposing directions so that they can minimize the negative effects of
common disagreements and maximize the positive impacts of disagreement tokens to
prior self-deprecations.
The two groups of informants are inclined to express weak disagreements via
agreement plus disagreement or downgrading constructions apart from requests for
further clarity or pauses and silences. The significant difference is found in the
Vietnamese preference for deployment of address terms and particles and English
tendency to utilize repair-work, turn prefaces or back channels. In the next section, we
have a look at the strategies utilized in English and Vietnamese conversational
exchanges to adjust to the constraints systems of preference format and self-praise
avoidance, and to negotiate disagreements. As aforementioned, native speakers of
English and Vietnamese can create more or less impact in their disagreement attributes
by using intensifiers including emphasizers, amplifiers, and downtoners. Possessing the
elaborate system of address terms and a wide range of particles, the Vietnamese seem to
express with ease both normatively and strategically polite disagreements. Therefore,
the following chapter also takes into consideration the English system of intensifiers
and Vietnamese system of person referring terms and particles.
161
CHAPTER FIVE
STRATEGIES FOR CONSTRAINT SYSTEMS AND
NEGOTIATION OF DISAGREEMENTS
5.1. Theoretical Preliminaries
5.1.1. Constraint Systems
According to the organization of preference, compliments should be accepted or agreed
with. In contrast, recent research into English shows that quite a large proportion of
compliment responses are not performed as preferred seconds, and most of them are
situated in the middle of a continuum ranging from acceptances/agreements to
rejections/disagreements (Pomerantz 1975, 1978, 1984a; Levinson 1983; Heritage 2002
among others). In the following table, Pomerantz (1978: 88) presents the
interrelatedness between acceptances/agreements and rejections/disagreements with
respect to compliment responses.
PRIOR COMPLIMENTS
For Acceptances
For Rejections
(P) Appreciation tokens
(S) Agreements
Note:
(P) Disagreements
162
with these constraint systems, Ss may disagree with initial complimentary assertions in
a various ways that are examined in detail in the empirical study. They may, for
instance, express appreciation first, and then qualify prior compliments as can be seen
in the excerpt by Pomerantz (1978: 85) given below:
(1)L: Thoser jus beautiful. (Theyre great.)
[
E:
WellE: Thank- Its juh- this is just the right (weight)
163
((q 2))
A: No.
((a 2))
B: No.
((a 1))
In a similar vein, a second pair part may be held, which creates a spatial and temporal
distance within the pair, as in another example by Levinson (1983: 304):
(3)B: U :hm (.) whats the price now eh with V.A.T. do you know eh ((q 1))
A: Er Ill just work that out for you=
((hold))
B: =thanks.
((accept))
((a 1))
Strict adjacency pairs, according to Levinson (Ibid.), are normally assumed to have
strong effects or requirements in comparison to their embedded counterparts.
Nonetheless, insertion sequences, which are pervasively employed in natural language
usage to construct interesting interactions, are worth intensive studies.
164
(5)
((summons))
B: Yeah?
((answer))
As clearly seen from the above interactional excerpts, summons-answer sequences are
commonly deployed not only in telephone talks, but in other everyday face-to-face
conversations too. In (5), Schegloff (1979a) proposes to treat Cs ringing the phone as a
summons/the first move in the interaction, Rs Hello - an answer and display of
identity, Cs Hi first greeting and recognition, and Rs Oh hi second greeting and
recognition. Thus, the process of identification and recognition (Schegloff ibid.),
which seems potentially problematic in three-turn sequences, turns out to be
immediately relevant in the environment of telephone interactions.
165
5.1.2.3. Pre-sequences
Utterances like Hey, You know something?, What?, Excuse me etc. are usually
deployed as prefaces or precursors (Mey 2001: 144) to other utterances or sets of
utterances. In other words, pre-sequences are those, which function as precursors to
other utterances. There are different kinds of pre-sequences including summons,
attention getters (some are listed above), pre-invitations, pre-requests, preannouncements, pre-disagreements and many others. Before actual invitations, Ss may
produce pre-invitations, as in the excerpt by Atkinson and Drew (1979: 253) given
below:
(6)A: Whatcha doin?
B: Nothin
A: Wanna drink?
The requester can make use of a pre-request to check out if the co-conversant is
available or willing to accept his request, as in Merritts example (1976: 324):
(7)C: Do you have the blackberry jam?
S: Yes.
C: Okay. Can I have half a pint then?
S: Sure. ((turns to get))
The pre-requests can be used to see if the grounds for refusal are present, otherwise the
actual request sequences are immediately cancelled, as in (Ibid. 325):
(8)C: Do you have Marlboros?
S: Uh, no. We ran out.
C: Okay. Thanks anyway.
S: Sorry.
166
Normally, it is not easy to announce bad news, and perhaps, that is the reason for Betty,
who has to inform Fanny of Evas death, makes long stretches of pre-announcements,
as in the excerpt by Maynard (2003: 132) cited below:
(9)
Betty:
[.hhhhh]
(.)
167
The above death announcement is full of pauses, delays, hesitations, sound stretching,
and breathing. Instead of making a straightforward announcement, Betty just produces
pre-announcements. By specifically designing her speech, Betty, step by step, invites
guesses from Fanny. After quite a few pre-announcements, she succeeds in obtaining
her interlocutors guess of Evas death, the very message she wants to transfer.
Obviously, the special structure of pre-sequences seems to be effective in helping Ss
obviate the need to perform undesirable actions at all.
168
(.)
C: Well thats right
Cs customers complaint makes her decide to cut and sell the fruitcakes by halves, but
M is not in agreement with Cs decision. M states that fruitcakes are not cheap, and
they are not so big. However, Cs one-second silence makes M reconsider her position,
and she rapidly reverses her prior view. By saying a little piece goes a long way, M
enlarges the size of the cakes and insinuates her new stance. Only after a pause does Cs
positive response come. And it is prefaced by Well. In another extract by Pomerantz
(1984a: 87), the second S makes clear the view of the first S before criticizing it, adding
more turns to the sequence:
(11) C: I have no dates. I dont go: there // no sense in hanging onto the clothes,
J:
(Are you-)
((high pitch))
((low pitch))
169
170
In some cases, the S may use a more direct way to frame his/her disagreement by using
intensifiers to strongly rebut the prior Ss assessment or opinion, as in the following
interaction taken from Heritage (2002: 222):
(2)Mike: Let me ask a guy at work. Hes got a bunch of old clunkers.
I cant say theyre old clunkers. Hes got two Cords and
Curt: Not original?
Mike: Oh, yes, very original.
Intensifiers are found to demonstrate quite frequently in the English corpus of the
present study, as in the conversation given below between S, B and R:
(3)S. Yeah, its pretty (.) But I like The Quiet American. Its a very good movie.
B. Not an A.
S. Right, not an A.
R. Its a B type.
S. I really like that movie but I didnt recommend anyone to see it.
(13) R: The film that film was so exciting.
B: Uhm, well, its its kinda scary.
A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics by Crystal (2003: 237) defines intensifiers as
a class of adverbs which have a heightening or lowing effect on the meaning of
another element in the sentence. Quirk et al. (1972: 438-453) divide intensifiers into
three semantic classes, namely:
(I) emphasizers: actually, certainly, clearly, definitely, indeed, obviously, plainly, really,
surely, for certain, for sure, of course, frankly, honestly, literally, simply, fairly, just
(II) amplifiers: absolutely, altogether, completely, entirely, extremely, fully, perfectly,
quite, thoroughly, totally, utterly, in all respects, most (maximizers); badly, bitterly,
deeply, enormously, far, greatly, heartily, highly, intensely, much severely, so, strongly,
terribly, violently, well, a great deal, a good deal, a lot, by far (boosters)
(III) downtoners: kind of, sort of, quite, rather, enough, sufficiently, more or less
(compromisers); mildly, moderately, partially, partly, slightly, somewhat, in part, in
171
some respect, to some extent, a little, least (of all) (diminishers); a bit, barely, hardly,
little, scarcely, in the least, in the slightest, at all (minimizers);
almost, nearly,
Dinh V. D. (1986: 218) takes notice of the frequent appearance of a class of words in
Vietnamese which he calls tnh thi t and emphasizes their active usage in
different types of acts depending on communicative purposes. Below is the list of these
words:
, , nh, nh, (nh, nh) a, , y, vi, th, no, u, vy, hn,
chc, chng, m, c, (kia), ch (ch) u, thi, , i, h, h (h),
i, i, sao, vy , m thi, th/c , c m, etc
It is worth noting that intensifiers are not restricted to intensification. The scale that is
shown by intensifiers fluctuates upwards and downwards. Emphasizers normally
indicate a heightening level. Amplifiers upgrade the evaluative tokens compared to the
commonly assumed norms, whereas downtoners carry a lowering effect.
172
Vietnamese, used to designate the S, the H and the third party, projects their significant
importance in the Vietnamese system of socio-cultural beliefs and values, as Fowler
(1985: 65) puts it, Whatever is important to a culture is richly lexicalized.
The amply source of alternates as well as the multiplicity of pragmatic functions
(Luong V. H. 1990) has made the Vietnamese system of person reference the object of
many studies. Among the three classes of person referring terms common nouns
(including kinship, and status terms), proper nouns and personal pronouns, the most
widely used is kinship terms (fictive and non-fictive usage) (Ibid.). In Vietnamese
culture, the kinship hierarchy is rigidly observed in the family and patrilineage realm,
regardless of age and status, but in other domains age and status are taken into
consideration together with factors like the setting, speech style, intimacy, purpose of
the talk etc. in the choice of appropriate person-referring terms (Bui M. Y. 1996, Vu T.
T. H. 1997, Nguyen V. K. 2000 and Nguyen T. T. B. 2001).
It is possible to say that in Vietnamese deictic categories of the S, addressee and other
people are more complex and elaborated compared to those in English, as they involve
the notions of age, status, relations (by marriage and by law) etc. The term honorifics
is used to denote expressions indicating people of a higher status than ego such as qu
ng, qu b, ngi and so on. According to Do H. C. (2003), personal pronouns
(first and second person) in Vietnamese are: ti, t, ta, tao, (I), mnh (I/you),
my, bay (you), chng ti, chng my, chng ta, chng mnh, bn
mnh, bn ta (we) etc. The use of these pronouns depends on personal relations,
emotional feelings and other factors, and probably, none of them can be as neutral as
English I and you. Thus, the S should be very careful in choosing the right pronoun
for the right addressee and context. Vietnamese also makes use of proper nouns and
kinship terms in certain cases. Kinships in Vietnamese can be divided into three groups:
173
(nephew
/niece/
grandson/
granddaughter),
con
(son/daughter)
(ii) anh h, ch h (cousin),
ng ni (paternal grandfather), du
illness?)
Sometimes the old forms like c b, c chnh, ng l etc. involving the feudal
times can be seen. The archaic forms such as ngi, trm, qu nhn, tin sinh,
thn, khanh, ngu , hin , ngu huynh, hin huynh, ti h, tin
sinh, b nhn etc. have a very limited range of use.
Wierzbicka (1996) asserts that all languages make a distinction between I (the
speaker) and you (the addressee) although some may have just one word for he and
she. Many languages, especially those spoken in South-east Asia, possess a wide
range of elaborate substitutes for I and you (Cook 1968, Wierzbicka 1996), and the
basic forms of I and you do not seem as appropriate as their substitutes. The
Vietnamese my (I) and tao (you), for example, may be interpreted as either very
intimate or very rude depending on the context.
174
Apart from personal pronouns (I, he/she/it, you, we, they), English also makes use of
proper names, professional terms (professor, master, etc.) and titles (Mr., Mrs., Miss.,
etc.), which is similar to Vietnamese.
(5)Dr. Dixon, could I ask you a question?
It is of interest to talk of multi-person pronouns in Vietnamese like ngi ta, and
mnh used as first and second person pronouns. Proper names, most of kinship
terms can be functioned as first, second and third person ones. To avoid confusion,
particles y, ta are often put in combination with second-group kinship terms when
they are used as third person pronouns, eg. c y, c ta (she).
(6)C mun con lm li bi tp ny. (c first person)
(I want you to do this exercise again)
(7)C i, c gip con vic ny nh. (c second person)
(Aunt, help me with this work.)
(8)Ti khng thch c ta/y. (c - third person)
(I dont like her.)
Third person forms which is by nature distal can replace second person ones for irony,
humor, accusation or criticism as in:
(9)Each person should wash his/her dishes.
Third person forms help to make the potential accusation less direct and aggressive, and
the personal aspects seem impersonal. It is also the case in Vietnamese when third
person forms are used in indirect criticisms and accusations:
(10) Con phi quan tm n mi ngi ch.
(Son/Daughter, you have to take care of everyone.)
175
'mi ngi (alluding to the S and/or his spouse) is used to avoid using the first person
pronoun, which seems to be too direct in Vietnamese in this case. It is possible to use
the first person plural we to speak out the rules generally applied to people as in:
(11) We dont smoke in here.
Vietnamese possesses two forms chng ti (exclusive we) and chng ta
(inclusive we), while English has only one first person plural form we. Presumably,
non-native addressees may encounter the ambiguity of the practical usage of we, and
it is not very easy for them to decide if they are included or excluded in the group. The
distinction between the two forms can be seen in these expressions: Lets go
(addressee included), and Let us go (addressee excluded).
Working on politeness and requests in Vietnamese, Vu T. T. H. (2000) notices that
person deixis especially kinship terms, are exploited to make a request more polite
because they help to demonstrate hierarchical relations and intimacy (cf. Luong V. H.
1987, 1990).
The use of Vietnamese kinship terms does affect face-to-face interaction. Basing on
talks recorded in some families in Ho Chi Minh City, Phan T. Y. T. and Luong V. H.
(2000) pay attention to this phenomenon and hypothesize that the frequent use of
kinship terms in conversation between mothers-children and grandmothersgrandchildren creates a more intimate and friendly atmosphere than that between
fathers-children and grandfathers-grandchildren .
5.1.4. Summary
Intensifiers used in disagreeing attributes help increase, emphasize or qualify the force
of second assessments. While intensifiers including emphasizers, amplifiers and
downtoners are seen to be deployed in both English and Vietnamese disagreements the
pervasive exploitation of person referring terms with their 3 subclasses (1) common
176
nouns (including kinship terms, professional terms, titles, etc.), (2) proper nouns, and
(3) personal pronouns is found mostly in Vietnamese. According to many researchers,
person reference words are of great help in expressing hierarchy and solidarity which
are held significant in Vietnamese culture.
The turn-by-turn sequential organization of talk-in-interaction is carefully examined.
Insertion sequences, which require relative understanding of adjacency, demonstrate the
mechanism to interpret natural talk. Prototypical adjacency pair format consisting of
two turns does not seem to fit into telephone interaction, which leads to the summonanswer sequences containing the process of identification and recognition. Different
kinds of pre-sequences such as summons, attention getters, pre-invitations, predisagreements etc. are effectively made use of to avoid performing undesirable acts.
In addition, the negotiation of disagreeing may result in a series of disagreements and
long string of turns and sequences. To pursue agreements on the part of second Ss prior
Ss qualify their stated views or adopt new stances.
Theoretically, compliments should be accepted or agreed with in regards to preference
organization. However, quite a few compliment responses in English are not performed
as preferred seconds. Most of them are placed somewhere between agreements and
disagreements. And this is considered the consequence of the constraint systems
pertaining to preference organization and self-compliment avoidance.
5.2.1.1. Aims
This empirical study aims at finding proofs for the followings:
177
178
G: Thats fantastic.
D:
E:
179
good rower. Although J does not verbally disagree with R, his praising the boat very
easy to row and very light implicitly demonstrates his partly disagreement:
(19) R: Youre a good rower, Honey.
(Ibid. 105)
180
H: , . Nhng m nh th th gy qu.
Ah yeah but particle like that be thin very
(Ah, yeah, but shes too thin.)
L talks about P, a girl who used to be fat. That girl got rid of overweight by using
certain kind of medicine, and consequently, shes lost about twenty kilos. H constructs
her disagreement turn by using the agreement + disagreement format, prefaced with a
recognition signal Ah. The conjunction but is deployed in this structure to initiate
the disagreement. The combination of agreements and disagreements in responses
subsequent to compliments weakens or qualifies disagreements despite the presence of
contrastive elements (Pomerantz 1978). In addition to this, this format is typical of
disagreement turns and sequences. It is not utilized in producing agreements.
2. Downgrading prior compliments: In the data, Ss of Vietnamese seem to often
qualify or downgrade first Ss complimentary tokens, especially when the referents are
their relatives or they themselves. In the following fragment, H and L talk about
education system in Vietnam. H praises Ls niece, a girl with a special gift in math:
V03.2.5
(23) H: con y hc gii tht
daughter that study well truth
L: N hc nhn
She study easy
hard.)
In her positively evaluative assessment, H emphasizes the excellent study results of the
girl. Although L is not the object of the praise, she downgrades Hs compliment on her
nieces intellectual ability. The discrepancy between the prior compliment and the
181
Here, H does not directly negate the compliment, since she is not the one who is being
praised but she avoids acknowledging it verbally. For her agreement to the prior
assessment might be interpreted as an implicit compliment token on her husband,
which is normally assumed as an unfavorable action in the local culture. By shifting
credit from her husband to his older brother, she has a good strategy: she can maintain
the harmonious atmosphere but does not violate the socially accepted norm of behavior.
4. Reciprocal compliments: No reciprocal compliment is found in the tape-recorded
data obtained for this study, possibly because of the limit and size of the data. However,
according to Nguyen Q. (1998), the Vietnamese respondents utilize this strategy more
often than their American counterparts. In his research, Nguyen Q. pays close attention
182
to second Ss returning compliments to first Ss, and calls this strategy khen phn hi.
In response to the teachers compliment, for instance, the student may say:
(25) D, cng l nh c thy dy d y .
Particle that also be thanks to teacher teach that particle
(That is thanks to your teaching.)
(Ibid. 45)
5. Negating compliments: The preference for negating the prior compliment tokens
seems to be common in the Vietnamese corpus. Second Ss regularly treat positive
evaluations as overdone or exaggerated, and they tend to qualify and soften them, as in:
V03.8.51
(26) T: C th ny l bnh thng ri y n, cn i
aunt this be normal
particle plump
well-proportioned
H: Gii i, cn cn i na ((Ci))
God particle particle well-proportioned particle ((Laughs)).
Cn i ci ni g ((Ci)).
Well-proportioned particle particle what ((Laughs)).
(My god, well-proportioned ((laughs)) Im not.) ((Laughs))
H partially repeats the prior compliment elements with the use of two particles cn
and ni, prefacing her response with an exclamatory token Gii i (gosh/god). She
explicitly disagrees with the compliment. Her laughter, however, tacitly shows that she
is happy with the prior positive assessment. Unlike English Ss, Vietnamese Ss
demonstrate a tendency to reject or obviate prior complimentary attributes, especially,
if ego is the object of credit, as in the excerpt given below:
V03.2.4.
(27) L: H , tao cng nhn mygii qu: c:: tht.
183
In this excerpt, H tries to downplay the compliment given by her close friend. The use
of particles ci, ni and Gm is effective in downgrading the evaluative
components in the first turn. H also points out that she just does the normal things that
others might do in the same situations. By showing that what she has achieved is
nothing special, she can avoid self-praising. The first person singular pronoun tao
and second person singular pronoun my are employed in Ls wording exhibit their
close friendship and solidarity. The particle is used in Ls addressing H does not
demonstrate any respect or deference. In this case, it has the same meaning as particles
or vocatives ny or i, which often go with person-referring words for address.
184
Ye:uh.
(0.3)
A: No:,
B: N:o:?
A: No.
(0.7)
Bs initial opinion is received with a long silence that implies an unstated disagreement
on the part of the second S. B then decides to make a change, and overtly states her new
stance. Eventually, she gets the positive answer from her co-conversant.
185
G: Thats marvelous.
186
(0.1)
Mike: Two Co:rds.
(1.0)
Mike: //And
Curt: Not original,
(0.7)
Producers of initial evaluative attributes are observed to overwhelmingly utilize ohprefaced disagreement format as effective weapons to attack second Ss disagreeing
responses (Heritage 2002: 215). In the example above, Mike resorts to the oh-prefaced
turn shape to intensify and escalate his prior stance, and fight back Curts disagreement.
N: Ci
187
188
(But she [the boys mother] said her older boy isnt.)
H: Th:: .
Particle (Really.)
Profferers of prior evaluative statements may soften their first views to some extent, but
are still consistent with their earlier stated point of views, as T does in the next extract
from the Vietnamese corpus:
V03.8.36
(37) T: Gy qu trng s lm
Thin much look afraid very
H: Gy qu nh bn L trng vn xinh.
Thin very like friend L look still pretty (Very thin like L still looks pretty.)
Also depend look particle pretty but(It still depends, looking pretty but)
2. Adopting new stances: Vietnamese Ss may change their prior point of view, offer
new assessments of other aspects of the same things or people in addition to those
already stated, as exemplified:
(38) T: Thy hay,
Teacher interesting (The teacher is interesting.)
L: Thy (0.5) c:::ng vui.
Teacher also fun (Hes also fun.)
T: Nhng m nh th lp mnh li h.
But particle like that class we particle spoiled (But our class became spoiled)
L: .
Yeah (Yes.)
189
T and L talk about their former teacher at school. T first assumes that the teacher is
hay, but he does not get Ls full agreement, then he poses another evaluation
concerning their teachers teaching results Nhng m nh th lp mnh li h. Only
by adopting a new stance can T be successful in negotiating with his co-conversant.
3. Insisting on prior assessments: When first Ss find themselves in disagreement with
second Ss stances, they may wish to reassert their prior opinions, and the reaffirmation
process may result in adding more turns and sequences to the talk, as exemplified in the
excerpt below:
V03.8.48
(39) L: Nhng con thy n xinh hn ngy trc bao:: nhiu
But daughter see she pretty more day before how much
Xinh hn l hi n bo.
Pretty more be then she fat
(But I see she is much prettierPrettier than when she was fat.)
H: , . Nhng m nh th th gy qu.
Ah yeh but particle like that be thin very
(Ah, yeh, but shes too thin.)
L:
Nhng mt ngi m bt u gp
But one person particle start meet
190
rt gii
Also powerful intensifier particle specifically agriculture of it so excellent
(Also very powerful, especially its agriculture (1.0) so excellent)
Ss may finally arrive at some kind of compromise after a range of disagreements. They
settle down with their own views and respect their interlocutors stances, as below:
V03.9.57
(41) H: M n b th cng l gii ri ng i.
particle woman that also be good grandfather vocative
(And women like that are good.)
191
B: Nhng m ti ni b // nghe
But
n b ... th l qu gii ri
Woman that be extremely good particle
(And women like that are really good.)
B: T quan im khc.
I point of view different.
H: ng quan im l g?
Grandfather point of view be what.
192
(The wife must take very good care of housework, and business
is for the husband.)
H: , th nhng m (1.0) lm th no c. Chng n li lo
khoa hc.
Yeah particle but do how particle husband she still worry science
(Yeah, but (1.0) what to do. Her husband cares for science.)
B: hhhhh
Two mid-aged Ss named H and B talk about one of their mutual friends at school, who
is now a chief sale executive in a big foreign company. In her first turn, H assumes
women like the mentioned female friend are good, and she intensifies her evaluation
by adding really in her next turn. On the contrary, B does not share her stance.
However, he stops verbally expressing his different view, and mutes himself after a set
of successive disagreements. As a result of disagreement-negotiation, both friends
implicitly acknowledge each others co-existing different perspectives.
When conversing with B, H addresses him as ng (grandfather) and she is addressed
as b (grandmother). These two kin terms for address, as aforementioned, are
commonly used in interaction between friends and peers. Sometimes, B uses t for
self-reference. T is a popular form of first person singular pronoun used in talk with
peers and close friends or in downward speech.
5.2.4. Summary
The hypotheses raised have empirically been proved. Conversationalists in the English
data show a tendency to choose middle positions to avoid the dispreferred
organization of disagreeing and self-praise in response to compliments. They may use
the agreement + disagreement format to produce (i) scaled-down disagreements,
elaborate complimentary components with qualifiers or (ii) downgrade prior
193
compliments, deploy the (iii) credit shift strategy, or provide (iv) reciprocal
compliments.
The Vietnamese data exhibit a similar organization of turns and sequences in
performing disagreements under the influence of the constraint systems. Vietnamese
compliment recipients are observed to make use of the agreement + disagreement
format, and they also downgrade the scale of prior complimentary assertions, shift the
credit referent to a certain third party, or return compliments to first Ss. However, the
Vietnamese Ss in the data do not demonstrate active utility of delay components such as
mhs, hms, and the like. As well, they show careful and delicate usage of kinship
terms, and pronouns for self-reference and address. In addition, acceptance and
appreciation tokens seem to be common in English while they are rare in the
Vietnamese corpus; maybe, it is the manifestation of the common trend in Vietnamese
culture to disagree with/reject prior compliments to show modesty or humbleness rather
than to agree with/accept and express appreciations.
Native Ss of English and Vietnamese also have similar strategies in their negotiation of
disagreements. Given the case of potential or overtly articulated disagreements, they
may elaborate or (i) downgrade prior evaluations or positions, (ii) adopt new stances
that are less opposite to second Ss to pre-empt imminent disagreements, or they may
go on with defending or (iii) insisting on prior views, often by escalating and
intensifying them. The negotiation of disagreements in these cases is normally shaped
in sequences consisting of more than two turns.
At the same time, we can see the salient role of person-referring terms and particles in
the construction of disagreements in Vietnamese. The appropriate usage of terms for
self-reference and address, as well as particles makes important contribution to the
effectiveness and politeness of disagreements. Not having such rich systems of address
194
terms and particles, Ss of English make good use of devices like emphasizers,
amplifiers, downtoners, delay components etc. in expressing disagreements
195
CONCLUSION
1. Major Findings
1.1. Politeness strategies in disagreeing
So far, we have had a close analysis of the elicited written questionnaires and recorded
disagreements by native Ss of English in North America and Vietnamese Ss in Hanoi
within the frameworks of pragmatics and CA. The findings have proved the hypotheses
of differences between Ss of English and Vietnamese in choosing strategies to realize
the act of disagreeing, which have resulted from the differences in the Ss assessment of
socio-cultural parameters and social situations. The English Ss are observed to
frequently deploy direct strategies while the Vietnamese tend to sound indirect,
especially in contexts of asymmetrical role relationships, and this has statistically
proved Leech (1986) and Brown & Levinsons assumption (1987[1978]) that cultures
may differ in terms of priorities and values given to each strategy even though they may
share the same sets of strategies. The findings have also provided sufficient proof for
Blum-Kulka and House's hypothesis (1989: 137) that differences in the understanding
of social situations and in the relative significance attached to any socio-cultural
parameter may lead to differences in linguistic behavior.
In most situations, the assessment of social situations by English and Vietnamese Ss
appears to go to opposing directions. The Vietnamese focus on Age and Status reflects
their hierarchical social structure, while the English emphasis on Manner and Setting is
a manifestation of the less hierarchical society, where Age and Status are recognized but
deemphasized. While knowing the (relative) age of interlocutors is useful to the
Vietnamese in making the right choice of address terms, asking about age may rapidly
bring conversation to a halt in Anglo-American culture (Wanning 2000: 155). Calling
it the no-status society, Wanning (Ibid.) goes on explaining about American society:
196
In a status society, people learn their places and gain some dignity and security from
having a place in the social order. Americans, however, are taught not to recognize
their places and to constantly assert themselves.
Politeness has been testified to be both normative and volitional in the sense that
discernment in form of socially institutionalized norms is open to volitional choices and
the frequent use of strategic manipulations may lead to community conventions.
Therefore, the two sides of politeness - discernment and volition need to be combined
to make the analytical framework for politeness research across cultures and languages
(Hill et al. 1986, Kasper 1990, Ide 1993, Nguyen D. H. 1995; Vu T. T. H. 1997 & 2000,
Lee-Wong 2000) especially for politeness research in status-based societies like
China, Korea and Vietnam as Bargiela-Chiappini (2003: 1463) suggests:
Socially stratified societies where normative politeness is dominant (e.g. Mexico
and the Zulu in South Africa) can be contrasted to face and status-based societies
such as China and Korea, where both normative and strategic politeness are present.
Finally, in less hierarchical societies such as the northern European and the North
American ones, status is allegedly far less marked in verbal and non-verbal interaction,
and normative politeness is therefore much less in evidence.
The outputs of the empirical study do not support the assumption of consistent
correlation between politeness and indirectness, i.e., indirectness does not always mean
politeness. Native Ss of English in North America seem to be direct in their
disagreements while their Vietnamese counterparts tend to be indirect. This finding by
no means implies that the latter are more polite than the former. As a result, the
relationship between politeness and indirectness should be examined in relation to the
local perception and interpretation of politeness and the wider context of socio-cultural
beliefs and values, for cultural beliefs and values have significant bearings on
communicative styles and interpretive strategies (Gumperz 1978). Vietnamese culture,
which is deeply rooted in Confucian ethics, is mainly aimed at social harmony and
197
198
199
(Ibid. 151)
The English frequent use of direct strategies could be explained via the Ss need to be
non-intrusive and free of action (Brown & Levinson 1987[1978]). Wanning (2000: 154)
notices that giving and accepting compliments seem to be popular in Anglo-American
culture and found to give rise to further communication:
Compliments are always in order. We keep the compliments flowing even with close
friends and family. The recipient should accept the compliment graciously by looking
very pleased and saying, Oh, thank you. The tale of the item in question often
provides further talk.
It is obvious that any linguistic study should not be separated from the study of the
larger socio-cultural context with its norms, beliefs and values since language is
assumed to be rooted, and embedded in the reality of its responding culture.
2. Implications
2.1. EFL & VFL implications
200
competence is more than grammar and lexicon, which includes formulaic expressions.
It compasses the ability to use linguistic forms correctly and appropriately, known as
pragmatic knowledge. Not all native Ss who gain in-born communicative capability in
the context of their mother tongue through the process of language socialization are
successful in communication in their native language and culture, let alone cultural
outsiders who lack knowledge of the local socio-cultural norms. Unfortunately, the
teaching of second/foreign languages is mostly left unrelated to socio-cultural context
(Stern, 1983: 253). This is quite true in the context of Vietnam, where the teaching of
English is essentially based on grammar patterns. Since the Open-door Policy was
started and motivated, English teaching and learning has gained pride of place in the
Vietnamese Education System. Not only does it serve as a lingua franca in international
communication, it is a must in job finding and job promotion, too. It is high time
language learners were provided with pragmatic knowledge parallel with linguistic
bulk. Informed of the dos and the donts in the culture of the target language,
learners can eliminate, or at least, reduce culture and communication gaps. Being illprepared for intercultural interactions in a world that is shrinking in distance like ours is
careless and risky. Thus, linguistic as well as pragmatic input should be included in
textbooks and syllabus (Richards, 1983). The findings of this study may be a reminder
for textbook writers and syllabus builders, and a guide for teaching English as S/F
language to the Vietnamese and Vietnamese to North American English Ss.
2.2. Pragmatics and CA perspective in speech act study
As clearly seen, conversation analytic studies have so much to contribute to the study
of language in general, and speech acts in particular. Relying on the frameworks of
pragmatics and CA this paper provides thorough an analysis of the speech act of
disagreeing and its related issues by comparing and contrasting the elicited written
201
202
each approach. Seeing the sound reason for CA to be applied to the study of speech acts
within and across languages and cultures in combination with other linguistic
approaches and methods, Levinson (1983: 285) proposes:
Nearly all the pragmatic concepts claimed to tie in closely with conversation as the
central or most basic kind of language usagethe proper way to study conversational
organization is through empirical techniques, this suggests that the largely
philosophical traditions that have given rise to pragmatics may have to yield in the
future to more empirical kinds of investigation of language usage.
Basing on its findings, the present research strongly recommends the synthetic
approach of pragmatics and CA to the investigation of speech acts within and across
languages and cultures.
203
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX 1
Transcription Conventions
Overlapping speech The convention used in this paper in examples from cited sources
(except for those from Merritt 1976) are mostly those developed by Jefferson, and
deployed in Schenkein (1978: xi-xvi), Levinson (1983: 369-70), Atkinson & Heritage
(1984: ix-xvi), and Maynard (2003: 255-56). It is adapted for the particular purpose of
the paper and applied to the Vietnamese data.
1.
Left hand brackets indicate a point of overlap, and right hand brackets mark
the ending:
A: Oh you do? R[eally
B:
[Um hmmm]
Missing speech
Dotted lines indicate the place where certain utterances are left out:
A: Are they?
B: Yes because
4.
Lengthened syllables
Colon(s) indicate prolonged sounds. More colons, more stretching:
A: Ah::::
5.
Emphasis
Underscoring marks emphasis. Capital letters indicate increased stress.
A: I sex yknow WHY, becawss look
6.
7.
Explanatory material
Double parentheses indicate non-verbal actions:
A: Well ((cough)) I dont know
8.
Uncertain material
Single parentheses mark uncertain verbal phenomena:
A: (Is that right?)
9.
Intonation
A period . indicates a stopping fall in tone, a comma , indicates a continuing
intonation, and a question mark ? indicates a rising intonation.
A: A do:g? enna cat is different.
10.
Sound cutoff
Dashes indicate an abrupt cutoff of sound:
A: this- this is true.
11.
Latching
Equal signs indicate latched utterances, with no gap. They also link different
parts of a speakers utterance:
A: I am absolutely sure.=
B: =You are.
A: this is one thing [that I=
B:
[Yes?
A: =really want to do
12.
Attention
Arrows draw attention to location of phenomenon of direct interest to discussion:
C:
How ya doin=
=say whatr you doing?
APPENDIX 2
Survey Questionnaires
This questionnaire is specially designed for research purposes. It is intended to
investigate how native speakers of English express their disagreement to an
assessment or evaluation. Any information you provide will be highly appreciated and
confidentially treated in such a way that you will not be identified.
Thank you very much.
Please tick () where appropriate.
* State/ Province:
* Age:
* Occupation:
* Gender:
Male
* Education:
Primary
College/Uni.
* Place where you have spent most of your time:
Female
Secondary
Urban setting
Rural setting
* Your first language: .
- Language(s) other than your first language:
(i). ................... (ii)(iii)
- How often do you use it/them
Daily
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Rarely
Rarely
Rarely
1. Which factor(s) from the parameters listed below do you generally consider when
you disagree with someone in English? Please put them in order of importance: 01
is the most important. If the factor is of no importance please make a cross (x).
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Age
Length of time you have known him/her
Manner of communication (formal, informal)
Occupation
Setting (at home, at work)
Gender
Social status
Other (Please specify)
Order of importance
i.
None
2. Please read the following situations. How do you express your disagreement with
the person you talk with in each of the situations (given on the next page) if you
have a different evaluation? Please tick () the appropriate answer.
Column 1: Strongly disagree
Column 2: Disagree
A.
Column 3: Unsure
Column 4: Implicitly disagree
Situations
Column 5: Silent
1 2 3 4 5
Appearance
-
B.
C.
D.
How do you state your different evaluation when one of the following persons (next page)
mentions Miss X, an acquaintance of yours, saying, Shes getting too fat? You can choose one
of the utterances provided below or you can compose your own and write it in the appropriate
place.
9. Is she?
10. Really?
11. (Silence)
Your response
a. Your grandfather/grandmother
b. Your mother/father
c. Your close friend
d. Someone you dislike
e. Your colleague (same age, same gender)
f. Your colleague (same age, different
gender)
g. Your acquaintance (younger than you)
h. Your acquaintance (older than you)
i. Your boss (younger than you)
j. Your boss (older than you)
7. Granted, but.
2. Im afraid I disagree.
9. Hmm.
11. (Silence)
6. It is and it is not.
Your co-participant
Your response
a. Your grandfather/grandmother
b. Your mother/father
c. Your close friend
d. Someone you dislike
e. Your colleague (same age, same gender)
f. Your colleague (same age, different
gender)
g. Your acquaintance (younger than you)
h. Your acquaintance (older than you)
i. Your boss (younger than you)
j. Your boss (older than you)
3.3. Situation three:
What do you say if you disagree with one of the following persons when he/she comments,
That party both you and I went to was very boring? You can choose one of the utterances
provided below or you can compose your own and write it in the appropriate place.
1.
2.
Thats nonsense.
I strongly/totally disagree with
you.
6.
7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
Uh-uh.
10.
Was it?
11.
(Silence)
12.
5.
Your co-participant
a. Your grandfather/grandmother
b. Your mother/father
c. Your close friend
d. Someone you dislike
e. Your colleague (same age, same gender)
f. Your colleague (same age, different
gender)
g. Your acquaintance (younger than you)
h. Your acquaintance (older than you)
i. Your boss (younger than you)
Your response
Prior
assess-
ment by
your coparticip
ant
Polite
Grandmother
Mother
Boss, older
Father
1
Miss X
is
getting
too fat.
2
Tax
increase
a
really
cool
idea.
3
Politeness level of
your response
Nonpolite
(Neutral)
Boss, younger
8. Really?
Grandfather
That
Close friend
party
was very
boring.
Colleague, same
age, different gender
Acquaintance,
younger
Impo
-lite
Cu hi kho st
Cu hi kho st ny phc v cho ti nghin cu v Cch biu
t s bt ng kin v mt nh gi trong ting Anh v
ting Vit ca chng ti. Xin qu v bt cht thi gian tr li gip
chng ti nhng cu hi ny. Chng ti cam oan s khng nu danh
qu v trong bt c trng hp no hoc di bt k hnh thc no.
Xin chn thnh cm n qu v.
Xin qu v nh du () vo nhng ch ph hp:
* Tnh/thnh ph:
* Tui tc:
* Gii tnh:
* Hc vn:
thch)
* Ngh nghip:
Tiu hc
i hc/cao ng
Nam
* Ngoi ng 1: ...................................
Hng ngy
Hng tun
Hng thng
* Ngoi ng 2: ...................................
Hng ngy
Hng tun
Hng thng
* Ngoi ng 3: ...................................
Hng ngy
Hng tun
Hng thng
N
Trung hc
Nng thn
Mc s dng:
Him khi
Mc s dng:
Him khi
Mc s dng:
Him khi
g. a v x hi ca ngi i thoi
i.
Cc tnh hung
A. Dng v bn ngoi:
Ngi lun ni rng v/chng ca mnh a
nhn.
- Ngi ht li khen kiu tc mi ca mnh.
- Ngi nhn k i giy Italia mi mua ca
qu v v ni rng trng chng nh c.
- Ngi ni rng c X, mt ngi quen ca qu
v, trng qu bo.
Cuc sng vt cht, iu kin kinh t
-
B.
C
.
1 2 3 4 5
D
.
3. Nghin cu cc trng hp c th
3.1. Trng hp 1: Qu v chn cu no trong nhng cu gi di
y nu qu v bt ng kin vi ngi i thoi khi h nhn xt
v c X, ngi quen ca qu v: C y trng qu bo? Qu v cng
c th vit cu ca ring mnh vo ch trng thch hp nu cch
ni ca qu v khc vi cc cu gi .
1. Ti/thy c y hon ton
bnh thng.
2. Anh/ nhm ri. C y
khng h bo cht no.
5. Th ! Vy m ti/ khng
bit y.
8. Tht vy ?
4. C l l anh/ ni hi qu.
9. Theo m/ th no l qu
bo ?
10.
gy.
Cn ch/bn th
11.
(Im lng)
Cu p ca qu v
(Im lng).
Cu p ca qu v
a. ng/b ca qu v
b. B/ m ca qu v
c. Bn thn ca qu v
d. Ngi qu v ght
e. Bn ng nghip ca qu
v (cng tui, cng gii
tnh)
f. Bn ng nghip ca qu
v (cng tui, khc gii
tnh)
g. Ngi quen ca qu v
(km tui qu v)
h. Ngi quen ca qu v (hn
tui qu v)
i. Cp trn ca qu v (km
tui qu v)
j. Cp trn ca qu v (hn
tui qu v)
3.3 Trng hp 3:
Qu v chn cu no trong nhng cu gi pha di p li mt
trong s nhng ngi sau y khi h ni: Bui lin hoan m chng ta
cng tham gia tht t nht. Qu v c th a ra cu tr li ca ring
mnh v vit vo ch trng thch hp.
1. Anh/ nhm ri . N u
c t nht.
2. u c. Ti/ thy rt vui.
7. Th /sao/h?
3. C th l b/ i hi hi
cao.
10.
11.
T th no c?
(Im lng)
Cu p ca qu v
b. B/ m ca qu v
c. Bn thn ca qu v
d. Ngi qu v ght
e. Bn ng nghip ca qu v (cng
tui, cng gii tnh)
f. Bn ng nghip ca qu v (cng
tui, khc gii tnh)
g. Ngi quen ca qu v (km tui
qu v)
h. Ngi quen ca qu v (hn tui
qu v)
i. Cp trn ca qu v (km tui
qu v)
j. Cp trn ca qu v (hn tui
qu v)
4. 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.
Nh
n
xt
ca
ngi
i
thoi
vi
qu
v
Mc lch s
ca cu p
Ngi i
Cu p ca qu v
thoi vi qu
v
1.
1. Chu thy c y
bnh thng.
C X
y
2. M cho th no l
qu bo ?
ng nghip,
cng tui & gii
tnh
3. Mt i ri.
Cp trn, hn
tui
4. Vng, nhng.
qu
bo.
Lc
h
s
Bnh
thng
Bt
lch
s
2.Tn
g
thu
thu
nhp
- Mt
tng
tuyt
vi.
Ngi ght
6. Ci kh hay y.
Ngi quen,
hn tui
7. Cng c th nh th
y , nhng.
Cp trn, km
tui
8. Tht th sao?
3.
ng
9. Khng, ng i,
khng, khng, ng
nhm ri .
Bn thn
ng nghip,
cng tui, khc
gii tnh
Ngi quen,
km tui
Bui
lin
hoan
tht
t
nht.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ENGLISH
Ackroyd, S. & Hughes, J. A. (1981). Data collection in context. London: Longman.
Agha, Asif. (1994). Honorification. Annual Review of Anthropology 23, 277-302.
Aston G. (1993). Notes on the Interlanguage of Comity. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.),
Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 244-250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atkinson, J. M. & Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court. London: Macmillan.
Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (eds.) (1984). Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. New York: Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and London: MIT Press.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction Process Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy
together. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Monograph
Series Vol. 7). Urbana-Chanpaign, USA: University of Illinois, Intensive English
Institute.
Barker, R. G., & Wright, H. F. (1955). Midwest and its Children. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Bauman, R., & Sherzer, J. (eds.) (1974). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bayraktaroglu, A., & Sifianou, M. (eds.) (2001). Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The
Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatics transfer in ESL refusals. In
R. C. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & Stephen, D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing
communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-74). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Bentahila, A., & Davies, E. E., (1989). Culture and language use: a problem for foreign language
teaching. University Fez Morocco. IRAL, vol. XXVII/2, May 1989.
Berlin, B. & Kay, P. (1969). Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Bernard, R. H. (2002). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches (3rd ed.). Altamira Press.
Blount, B. G. (ed.) (1995). Language, Culture, and Society. A Book of Readings. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Snow C. E. (eds.) (2002). Taking to Adults: The Contribution of Multiparty
Discourse to Language Acquisition. LEA, Publishers.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different? Journal of
Pragmatics, 11, 145-160.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In S. BlumKulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and
apologies (pp. 37-70). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1992). The Metapragmatics of Politeness in Israeli Society. In R. J. Watts, S.
Ide, & K. Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and
Practice. Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 255-80.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner Talk: Cultural Patterns of Sociability and Socialization in Family
Discourse. LEA, Publishers.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Kasper, G., (eds.) (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B., & Gerson, R. (1985). The language of requesting in Israeli society.
In J. Forgas (Ed.). Language and social situation (pp. 113-141). New York: Springer
Verlag.
Blundell, J., Higgens, J. & Middlemiss N. (1996). Function in English. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bouton, L. F. (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be
improved through explicit instruction? A polite study. In L. F. Bouton, & Y.
Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Monograph Series Vol. 5).
Urbana-Chanpaign, USA: University of Illinois, Intensive English Institute.
Bouton, L. F. (1996). Pragmatics and Language Learning. (Monograph Series Vol. 7). UrbanaChampaign, USA: University of Illinois, Intensive English Institute.
Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the
Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Cecil. (1985). Polysemy, Overt Marking, and Function Words. Language Sciences 7/2:
283-332.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1989). Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. (2002). Everyone Has to Lie in Tzeltal. In S. Blum-Kulka & C. E. Snow (eds.),
Taking to Adults The Contributions of Multiparty Discourse to Language
Acquisition (pp. 327-342). LEA.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. (1978). Universals of Language Usage: Politeness
Phenomena. In E. N. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness Strategies in Social
interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Button, G. & Lee, J. R. E. (eds.) (1987). Talk and Social Organization. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human studies, 8, 3-55.
Cameron, D. (2002). Working with Spoken Discourse. Sage Publications.
Campbell-Kibler, K., Podesva, R., Roberts S. J., & Wong, A. (2002). (eds.). Language and
Sexuality: Contesting Meaning in Theory and Practice. CSLI Publications.
Chang, Hui-Ching. (1999). The well-defined is ambiguous indeterminacy in Chinese
conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 535-56.
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.
Coates, J. (1996). Women Talk: Conversation between Women Friends. Blackwell Publishers.
Coates, J., & Cameron, D. (eds.) (1989). Women in Their Speech Communities: New Perspectives
on Language and Sex. Longman Group UK Limited.
Cohen, A. (1996). Investigating the production of speech act sets. In S. M. Gass, & J. New,
(Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second
language. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cole, P., & Morgan, J. L. (eds.) (1975). Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts. Academic
Press.
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: an Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comrie, B. (1989) (2nd ed.). Language Universals and Language Typology: Syntax and
Morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Coupland, J. (ed.) (2000). Small Talk. Longman.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (ed.) (2003). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (5th ed.). Blackwell.
Dascal, M. (1983). Pragmatics and the philosophy of mind 1. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Davis, W. A. (1998). Implicature: Interaction, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of
Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Kadt, E. (1998). The concept of face and its applicability to the Zulu language. Journal of
Pragmatics 292, 173-91.
Doi, Takeo. (1973). The anatomy of dependence. [Translated by J. Bester]. Tokyo: Dodansha.
Drnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: construction, administration,
and processing. LEA Publishers.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (eds.) (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duncan, S. & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face to Face Interaction: Research, Methods and Theory.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Duncan, S. (1974). Some Signals and Rules for Taking Speaker Turns in Conversations. In S.
Weitz (ed.). Nonverbal communication. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 298311.
Duranti, A. (1981). The Samoan Fono: A Sociolinguistic Study. Pacific Linguistics
Monographs, Series B, Vol. 80. Canberra: Australian National University, Dep. of
Linguistics.
Duranti, A. (1985). Lauga and Talanoaga: Two Speech Genres in a Samoan Political Event. In
Brenneis & Myers (eds.), Dangerous Words Language and Politics in the Pacific, pp,
217:37. New York: New York University Press.
Duranti, A. (1988). Intentions, Language and Social Action in a Samoan Context. Journal of
Pragmatics 12: 13:33.
Duranti, A. (1992). Language in Context and Language as Context: The Samoan Respect
Vocabulary. In Another Context. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking
Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. (pp. 77-99). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A. (1993). Intentions, Self, and Responsibility: An Essay in Samoan Ethnopragmatics.
In J. H. Hill and J. T. Irvine (eds.), Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse
(pp. 24-47). Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A. (1996). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A. (ed.) (2001a). Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Blackwell Publishers.
Duranti, A. (ed.) (2001b). Key Terms in Language and Culture. Blackwell Publishers.
Durkheim, E. (1915). The elementary forms of the religious life. George Allen & Unwin Ltd,
London.
Eisenstein M. & Bodman J. (1993). Expressing Gratitude in American English. In G. Kasper &
S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 64-81). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, C. (1996). Culture Shock! Vietnam. Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company. Portland,
Oregon.
Ellis, R. (1991). Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1979). Childrens Verbal Turn-taking. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (eds.)
Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. pp. 391-414.
Finegan, E. (2004). Language: its structure and use. 4th ed. Thomson Corp. Warsworth.
Fishman, P. (1983). Interaction: the Work Women do. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley
(eds.), Language, Gender, and Society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Pp. 89-101.
Foley, W. A. (1984). Nature versus Nurture: The Genesis of Language. A Review Article.
Comparative Studies in Society and History (1984): 335-44. Society for the
Comparative Study of Society and History (U.S.)
Ford, E. C., Fox, A. B., & Thompson A. S. (eds.) (2002). The Language of Turn and Sequence.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fowler, R. (1985). Power. In van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London:
Academic Press.
Fox, B. A., Hayashi, M. & Jasperson, R. (1996). A cross-linguistic study of the syntax and
repair. In E.Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, and S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and
grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 185-237.
Fraser, B. (1985). On the universality of speech act strategies. In S. George (Ed.), From the
linguistic to the social context (pp. 43-49). Bologna, Italy: CLUEB.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspective of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236.
Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic forms.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27: 93-109.
Furo, H. (2001). Turn-Taking in English and Japanese: Projectability in Grammar, Intonation,
and Semantics. Routledge: New York and London.
Gardner, R. (2001). When Listeners Talk. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
(Paperback edition. 1984. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK; Polity
Press.)
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In H. D.
McKinney and E. A. Tiryakian (eds.), Theoretical Sociology, pp. 337-66. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Garrett, P. B., & Baquedano-Lpez, P. (2002). Language Socialization: Reproduction and
continuity, Transformation and Change. Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 339-61.
Gass, S. M. & Neu, J. (eds.) (1996). Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication
in a Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter.
Gass, S., M. (1996). Introduction. In Gass, S. M., & Neu, J. (eds.), Speech Acts Across
Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter.
Geis, M. L. (1995). Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gillham, B. (2000). The research interview. Continuum: London and New York.
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford;
New York: Oxford University Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor
Books.
Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and Responses. Language in Society 5: 257-313.
Goodenough, W. (1957). Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics. In P. L. Garvin (ed.),
MonoGraph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 9: 167-173. Washington, DC:
Institute of Languages and Linguistics.
Ha, Cam Tam. (1998). Requests by Australian native speakers of English and Vietnamese
learners of English. Unpublished M. A. Thesis, La Trobe University.
Hall, K., & Bucholtz, M. (1995). (eds.). Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially
Constructed Self. Routledge: New York and London.
Hare, R. M. (1979). Social Being: A theory for social psychology. England: Basil Blackwell.
Harold, W. S. (1976). The Meaning of Kinship. In Basso, K. & Shelby, H. (eds.), Meaning in
Anthropology, pp. 57-91. University of New Mexico Press.
Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hatim, B. (1997). Communication across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text
Linguistics. University of Exeter Press.
Held, G. (1989). On the Role of Maximization in Verbal Politeness. Multilingua 8: 167-206.
Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (1984b). A change-of-state Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement. In J. M.
Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation
Analysis, pp. 299-345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced Responses to Inquiry. Language in Society 27(3): 291-334.
Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced Responses to Assessments: a Method of Modifying
Agreement/Disagreement. In C. Ford, B. Fox and S. Thompson (Eds.), The
Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 196-224.
Heritage, J. (forthcoming). The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and
Subordination in Talk-in-interaction.
Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M. (1994). Constituting and Maintaining Activities across Sequences
And-prefacing as a Feature of Question Design. Language in Society 23: 1-29.
Hernndez-Flores, N. (1999). Politeness ideology in Spanish colloquial conversation: the case of
advice. Pragmatics 91, 37-49.
Hester, S. & Eglin, P. (eds.) (1997). Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization
Analysis. International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis &
University Press of America, Washington, D. C.
Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., & Ogino, T. (1986). Universals of Linguistic Politeness:
Quantitative Evidence from Japanese & American English. Journal of Pragmatics
10: 347-71.
Hill, J. H., & Irvine, J. T. (eds.) (1993). Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hill, J. H., & Mannheim, B. (1992). Language and World View. Annual Review of
Anthropology 21: 381-406.
Ho, D. Y-F. (1994). Face dynamics: from conceptualization to measurement. In: Ting-Toomey, S.
(Ed.). The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues. State
university of New York Press, Albany. Pp. 3-13.
Hockett, C. F. (1960). The Origin of Speech. Scientific American 203.3: 88-96.
Hornby, A. S. (1988). Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ehlich (eds.) Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice.
Mouton de Gruyter.
Jackson, H., & Stockwell, P. (1996). Investigating English language nature and function of
language. Stanley Thornes Publishers Ltd.
Jefferson, G. (1974). Error Correction as an Interactional Resource. Language in Society, 2:
181-99.
Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential Aspects of Story Telling in Conversation. In J. N. Schenkein
(ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York:
Academic Press, pp. 219-48.
Jefferson,
Ji, Shaojun. (2000). Face and polite verbal behaviors in Chinese culture. Discussion note.
Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1059-62.
Johnson, S., & Meinhof, U. H. (1997). (eds.). Language and Masculinity. Blackwell Publishers.
Jones, L. (1981). Functions of English (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, J. (1972). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. In Language Learning
16, 1-20.
Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics: An Introduction. In G. Kasper
& S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 3-17). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic Politeness: Current Research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14:
193-218.
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (eds.) (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Mouton de Gruyter.
Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kiesling, S. F. (2001). Now I Gotta Watch What I say: Shifting Constructions of Masculinity in
Discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(2): 250-73.
Kieu, Thi Thu Huong. (2001). Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese. Unpublished M. A.
Thesis. C. F. L, Vietnam National University, Hanoi.
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.
Kieu, Thi Thu Huong. (2003). Politeness and Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese.
Unpublished paper submitted for a credit of Advanced Topics in Linguistics.
Department of Anthropology. University of Toronto, Canada.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. 1987. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall
International (UK) Ltd.
Kroger, R. O. (1892). Explorations in Ethogeny. With special reference to the rules of address.
In American Psychologist, vol. 37, #7: 810-820.
Kummer, M. (1992). Politeness in Thai. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (eds.) Politeness in
Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the
Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
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.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper and Row.
Leech, G. N. (1980). Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(The chapter 'Language and tact' first published by the Linguistic Agency University
of Trier, Series A, Paper 46, University of Trier, 1977).
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Lee-Wong, S. M. (2000). Politeness and Face in Chinese Culture. Peter Lang.
Levine, D. R., Baxter, J., & McNulty, P. (1987). The culture puzzle: Cross-cultural
communication for English as second language. Prentice Hall Regents.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Relativity in Spatial Conception and Description. In J. J. Gumperz & S.
C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 177-202). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lightbown, P. M. & N. Spada. 1999. How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Littlewood, W. T. 1984. Foreign and second language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lucy, J. A. (1997). Linguistic Relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 291-312.
Luong, Van Hy (1987). Plural Markers in Vietnamese Person Reference: An Analysis of
Pragmatic Ambiguities and Native Models. Anthropological Linguistics 17: 49-70.
Luong, Van Hy (1990). Discursive Practices and Linguistic Meanings: The Vietnamese System of
Person Reference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lyon, J. [(1977), 1987] Semantics. Vol. 1 & 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malinowski, B. (1923, 1946). The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Language. Supplement to
C. Ogden & A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning, pp. 296-336.
Mao, Lu Ming Robert. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: face revisited and renewed. Journal of
Pragmatics 21, 451-86.
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associaties, Publishers.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the Universality of Face: Politeness Phenomena in
Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12 (1988), pp. 403-426.
Maynard, D. W. (2003). Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and
Clinical Settings. University of Chicago Press.
Maynard, S. K. (1997). Japanese Communication: Language and Thought in Context. Hololulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
Merritt, M. (1976). On Questions Following Questions (in Service Encounters). Language in
Society, 5.3: 315-57.
Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers.
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishers.
Mey, J. L. (2003). Introduction: About Face. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003), p. 1451.
Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture: ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese: Connective Expressions
and Turn Construction. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Nakane, Chie. (1970). Japanese society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Nash, T. (1983). American and Chinese politeness strategies; 'It sort of disturbs my sleep' or
'Health is important.' University of Hawaii Working Papers, 2, 2: 23-39.
Nguyen, Duc Hoat. (1995). Politeness markers in Vietnamese requests. Unpublished Ph. D.
Thesis, Monash University.
Nguyen, Phuong Suu (1990). A Cross-cultural Study of Greeting and Addressing Terms in
English and Vietnamese. Unpublished M. A. Thesis, University of Canberra.
Nguyen, Thi Thanh Binh (2001). The Diversity in Language Socialization: Gender and Social
Stratum in a North Vietnamese Village. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. University of
Toronto, Canada.
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.
Nofsinger, Robert E. (1991). Everyday Conversation. SAGE Publications.
Nwoye, Onuigbo G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of
face. Journal of Pragmatics 18, 309-328.
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing Gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context:
Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 335-58). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic Resources for Socializing Humanity. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C.
Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 407-37). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E. (1997). Narrive. In T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse
Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (pp. 185-207). London: Sage
Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). When I Come Down Im in the Domain State:
Grammar and Graphic representation in the Interpretive Activity of Physicists. In E.
Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 32869). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (eds.) (1996). Interaction and Grammar.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Park, Y. (1999). The Korean connective nuntey in conversational discourse. In N. Akatsuka, S.
Iwasaki, and S. Strauss (Eds.), Japanese Korean Linguistics 5. Stanford: CSLI
Publication, pp. 131-147.
Pittenger, R. E., Hockett, C. F., & Danehy, J. J. (1960). The First Five Minutes. Ethaca, NY: P.
Martineau.
Polanyi, L. (1985). Conversational Storytelling. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse
Analysis Vol. E: Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press.
Pomerantz,
Sorjonen, M. (1997). Recipient activities: particles nii(n) and joo as responses in Finnish
conversations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.
Sperber, D., & Wilson. D. [1995(1986)]. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. London. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Storry, M., & Childs, P. (eds.) (1997). British Culture Identities. Routledge.
Stross, B. (1973). Acquisition of Botanical Terminology by Tzeltal Children. In Meaning in
Mayan Languages. (ed.). M. Edmonson, pp. 107-42. The Hague: Mouton.
Sturtevant, W. C. (1964). Studies in Ethnoscience. In A. K. Romney & R. G. DAndrade (eds.),
Transcultural Studies in Cognition [Special issue, part 2]. The American
Anthropologist 66(3): 99-131.
Sudnow, D. (ed.) (1972). Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press.
Svennevig, J. (1999). Getting Acquainted in Conversation: A Study of Initial Interactions. John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Takahara, K. (1986). Politeness in English, Japanese, and Spanish. In cross-cultural
communication: East and West. J. H. Koo & R. N. St. Claire (Eds.), 181-194.
Tannen, D. (1981). Indirectness in discourse: Ethnicity as conversational style. Discourse
Processes, 3 (4), 221-38.
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. (1999). The Argument Culture: Stopping Americas War of Words. The Ballantine
Publishing Group.
Tannen, K. (1990). You Just Dont Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York:
William Morrow and Co.
Tarone, E. E., Gass, S. M. & Cohen, A. D. (1994). Research Methodology in Second-Language
Acquisition. LEA, Publishers.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics, 4, 91-112.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. USA, England:
Longman.
Ton, Nu My Nhat. (2005). A discourse analysis of travel advertisements in English and
Vietnamese. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. College of Foreign Languages, VNU.
Tracy, K. (2002). Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities. The Guilford Press. New
York London.
Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, Convert Prestige and Linguistic Change in the Urban British English of
Norwich. Language in Society I: pp. 179-195.
Upadhyay, Shiv R. (2003). Nepali requestive acts: Linguistic indirectness and politeness
reconsidered. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003): 1651-77.
Valdes, J. M. (1987). Culture bound: Bridging the culture gap in language teaching, (2nd
printing). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
VIETNAMESE
Hu Chu & Bi Minh Ton. (2002). i cng Ngn Ng Hc (Tp I). Nxb
GD.
Hu Chu & Bi Minh Ton. (2003). i cng Ngn Ng Hc (Tp I). Nxb
GD. (Ti bn ln th 2)
Hu Chu. (1995). Gio trnh gin yu v ng dng hc. Nxb GD. Hu.
Hu Chu. (2003). i cng Ngn Ng Hc (Tp II). Ng Dng Hc. Nxb.
GD. (Ti bn ln th 1)
inh Trng Lc. (1998). Ting Vit. Nxb. H Ni.
inh Vn c (1986). Ng php ting Vit T loi. Nxb. H & THCN.
Bi Minh Yn. (1996). Xng h trong gia nh ngi Vit. Trong Nguyn Vn
Khang (Ch bin), ng x giao tip trong gia nh ngi Vit, tr. 83157. Nxb. Vn ho thng tin.
Cao Xun Ho. (1991). Ting Vit: S tho ng php chc nng (Quyn 1).
Nxb KHXH.
Cao Xun Ho. (1998). Ting Vit: My vn ng m ng php t
vng. Nxb. GD.
Dip Quang Ban & Hong Vn Thung. (2003). Ng php ting Vit (Tp I).
Nxb GD. (Ti bn ln th 7)
Dip Quang Ban. (2004). Ng php Ting Vit (Tp II). Nxb GD. (Ti bn ln
th 7)
Hong Ph (Ch bin). (1988). T in ting Vit. Nxb. X hi.
Hong Trng Phin. (1991). Nghi thc li ni ting Vit Nam. Trong Nghin
cu Ngh thut v Vn ho, 42.
Hong Vn Vn. (1999). Dng hc vi vic dy ngn ng giao tip: Thun li
v kh khn. Trong Nhng vn ng dng hc - K yu Hi
tho khoa hc 'Ng dng hc' ln th nht H Ni (tr. 210-219). 41999. HNN-HQG.