A VIETNAMESE ENGLISH CROSS CULTURAL STUDY OF PROMISING

25 Table 3: Strategies realized in promising ……… 26 Table 4: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of age ……… 42 Table 5: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of g

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT

I hereby certify that the thesis entitled

A VIETNAMESE-ENGLISH CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervior, Assoc Prof Dr Nguyen Quang, for his useful guidance, insightful comments, and encouragement without which my thesis would not have been completed

My special thanks go to all my lecturers in Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Post Graduate studies Department for their precious assistance, scholarly knowledge and enthusiasm

I am grateful to Miss Collen and Mr John, English teachers at Aseam centrer, Nghe An colleage for their assistances in my data collection

Especially, I am indebted to my friend, Bui Thanh Mai, for her great support

Last but not least, I would like to express my indebtedness to my family, especially my husband, my grand parents who have given me constant support and love during the completion of the thesis

Dinh Thi Be

ABBREVIATIONS

CUP: Cambridge University Press

D: Social Distance

FTA: Face Threatening Act

FSA: Face Saving Act

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: The five general functions of speech acts ( Yule: 1996)……… 7

Table 2: The informants’ status parameters ……… 25

Table 3: Strategies realized in promising ……… 26

Table 4: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of age ……… 42

Table 5: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of gender ……… 43

Table 6: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of marital status ……… 44

Table 7: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of living area ……… 45

Figure 1: Possible strategies for doing the FTAs ( Brown and Levinson, 1987)……… 15

Figure 2: Politeness strategies in promising to close friend ……… 32

Figure 3: Politeness strategies in promising to brother/ sister……… 33

Figure 4: Politeness strategies in promising to colleague ( same age, same sex)……… 34

Figure 5: Politeness strategies in promising to colleague( same age, opposite sex)…… 34

Figure 6: Politeness strategies in promising to accquaintance ……… 35

Figure 7: Politeness strategies in promising to boss (5 years younger)……… 36

Figure 8: Politenes strategies in promising to boss (5 years older)……… 37

Figure 9: Politeness strategies in promising to subordinate……… 38

ABSTRACT

This thesis focuses on cross-cultural similarities and differences in promising in Vietnamese and English Politeness strategies realized for promising are analysed with data taken from two questionnaires for the Vietnamese and the English informants

The thesis falls into two major chapters:

Chapter I : “Theoretical preliminaries” deals with the notion of culture, cross-culture, speech acts, classifications of speech acts, politeness, politeness principles and politeness strategies Chapter II : “Data analysis and findings”: Questionnaires are used to collect data for the study Making promises which resorts to various strategies of politeness is a flexibly and effectively communicative act in both Vietnamese and English cultures

TABLE OF CONTENTS

* Certificate of originality of study project report ……… i

* Acknowledgements ……… ii

* Abbreviations ……… iii

* List of tables and figures ……… iv

* Abstract ……… v

* Table of contents ……… vi

PART A: INTRODUCTION ……… 1

I Rationale ……… 1

II Aims of the study ……… 1

III Scope of the study ……… 1

IV Methodology ……… 2

V Design of the study ……… 2

PART B: DEVELOPMENT……… 3

CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES……… 3

I.1 I.1.1 Culture ………

What culture ………

3 I.1.2 What cross-culture? ……… 4

I.1.3 Culture-shock ……… 4

I.1.4 Relation of language and culture ……… 5

I.2 Speech acts ……… 5

I.2.1 What a speech act? ……… 5

I.2.2 I.2.3 Classifications of speech acts………

Promising as a speech act ………

7 8 I.3 Politeness ……… 10

I.3.1 What politeness ?……… 10

I.3.2 Politeness principles……… 11

I.3.3 Social factors affecting politeness strategies ……… 15

I.3.4 Politeness strategies ……… 16

I.3.4.1 Positive politeness strategies ……… 16

I.3.4.2 Negative politeness strategies ……… 20

CHAPTER II: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS……… 24

II.1 Comments on the survey questionnaires ……… 24

II.2 Comments on the informants ……… 24

II.3 Strategies realized in promising ……… 25

II.4 Promising as seen from communicating partners’ parameters………

32 II.4.1 Data analysis ……… 32

II.4.2 Cross-cultural similarities and differences ……… 39

II.4.2.1 Similarities ……… 39

II.4.2.2 Differences ……… 40

II.5 Promising as seen from informants’ parameters ………… 42

II.5.1 Data analysis ……… 42

II.5.2 Cross-cultural similarities and differences ……… 45

II.5.2.1 Similarities ……… 45

II.5.2.2 Differences ……… 46

PART C: CONCLUSION……… 47

1 Summary of major findings ……… 47

2 Suggestions for further research ……… 47 REFERENCES

APPENDICES

PART A: INTRODUCTION

I RATIONALE

Language plays an important role in our life Language is not only for communication but also for cultural exchange among nations It is difficult to imagine what our lives would be like without language Language is a sign that makes human different from all other species in the animal Kingdom People use it to communicate their ideas and thoughts to express their feelings, (anger, love, hate, or friendship) and to convey their hopes and dreams

Cross-cultural communication is interesting and attractive field for us to find out the similar and different language when studying speech acts such as: greeting, advising, promising, among countries in the world

There are many ways to make promises in Vietnamese and English But to “promise”

in an effective way is by no means easy People often have difficulties in making appropriate promises in another language It is exactly the case to many students of English in Vietnam, especially students from the thesis author’s training institution

This leads the author to the decision to conduct a research into “Vietnamese-English cross-cultural study of Promising” to find out the similarities and differences in making promises in Vietnamese and English

II AIMS OF THE STUDY

The aims of the study are:

- To investigate ways of promising in Vietnamese and English

- To compare and contrast the use of politeness strategies in the two languages and cultures to point out similarities and differences in the ways the Vietnamese and the English promise in given situations

- To contribute to raising language teachers’ and students’ awareness of cross-cultural differences in the speech act of promising

III SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study is limited within the verbal aspects of the act of promising, in the light of the politeness theory by Brown and Levinson Although others factors such as paralinguistic and extralinguistic ones are important, they are beyond the scope of the thesis

IV METHODOLOGY

The following methods are resorted to:

- Conducting survey (with questionnaires as a data collection instrument)

- Consulting the supervisor

- Reading relevant publications

- Conducting personal observations

V DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The thesis consists of three parts

Part A: INTRODUCTION

This part includes the rationale, aims, scope of the study, methodology and design of the study

Part B: DEVELOPMENT

This part is divided into two chapters

Chapter I: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES

In this chapter, theories of culture, cross-culture, culture-shock, language-culture interrelationship, speech acts, classifications of speech acts, politeness, politeness principles and politeness strategies are critically discussed

Chapter II: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

In this chapter, data analysis and findings of the study are presented with the illustration

of tables and charts The similarities and differences in promising between Vietnamese and English languages and cultures are drawn from detailed and critical analysis of data

Part C: CONCLUSION

Summary of the major findings and suggestions for further research are presented in this part

PART B DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES I.1 CULTURE

I.1.1 What is culture?

Culture is often thought of as shared behavior and beliefs, but in any society, even the simplest one, all individuals never think and act exactly the same Different authors have different definitions of culture

According to Block (1970:1), “Culture, in its broadest sense, is what makes you a stranger when you are away from home It includes all beliefs and expectations about how people should speak and act which have become a kind of second nature to you as a result of social learning When you are with members of a group who share your culture, we or you do not have to think about it, for you are all viewing the world in pretty much the same way and you all know, in general terms, what to expect

of one another”

Hoopes (1979:3) defines that: “Culture is the sum of ways of living, including valuablness, beliefs, esthetic standards, linguistic expression, patterns of thinking, behave norms, and styles of communication which a group of people develop to assume its survival in a particular physical and human environment Culture and the people who are part of it interact So culture is not static Culture

is the response of a group of human beings to valid and particular needs of its members It, therefore, has an inherent logic and an essential balance between positive and negative dimensions”

Levine and Alelman (1993) consider culture as “a shared background (for example national, ethnic, religious) resulting from a common language and communication style, customs, beliefs, art, music and all the other products of human thought made by a particular group of people at

a particular time It also refers to the informal and often hidden patterns of human interactions, expressions and view points that people in one culture share”

Culture is always the result of human intervention in the biological processes of nature

It is the product of socially and historically situated discourse communities, created and shaped by language So culture is always changing because culture consists of learned patterns

of behavior and belief, cultural traints can be unlearned and learned a new as human need change Obviously, language cannot occur alone and is never separated from social activities and its culture

I.1.2 What is cross-culture?

Cross-culture can be understood as “the meeting of two cultures or languages across the political boundaries of nation-states” (Kram, 1998: 81)

The term “cross-culture” or “interculture” usually refers to the meeting of two cultures” They are predicated on the equivalence of one nation-one culture-one language and

on the expectation that a “culture-shock” may take place upon crossing national boundaries cross-culture seeks ways to understand the other on the other side of the border

According to Richards (1985: 92), “cross-cultural communication is an exchange of ideas, information, etc…between persons from different backgrounds There are more problems in cross- cultural communication than in communication between people of the same cultural background Each participant may interpret the other’s speech according to his or her own cultural conventions and expectations If the cultural conventions and misunderstandings can easily arise, even resulting in a total break down of communication This has been shown by research into real life situations, such as job interviews, doctor-patient encounters and legal communication”. Thus, cross-cultural communication is the exchange and negotiation of information ideas, feelings and attitudes between individuals who come from different cultural backgrounds

I.1.3 Culture-shock

According to Wikipedia, culture-shock is a term used to describe the anxiety and feelings (of surprise, disorientation, confuse, etc.) felt when people have to operate within an entirely different cultural or social environment, such as a foreign country It grows out of the difficulties in assimilating the new culture, causing difficulty in knowing what is appropriated and what is not This is often combined with strong disgust about certain aspects of the near or different culture Harries and Moran (14: 226) state “culture shock is neither good or bad, and necessary or unnecessary” It is a reality that many people face when in strange and unexpected situations

Foster (1962: 87) assumes that “culture-shock is mental illness, and is true of much mental illness, the victim usually does not know he is affected He finds that he is irritable, depressed, and probably annoyed by the lack of attention shown him”

Valies states that “culture-shock is a common experience for a person learning a second language in a second culture Culture-shock refers to phenomena recognizing from mild irritability to

deep psychological panic and crisis Culture-shock is associated with felling in the learners of estrangement, anger, hostility, homesickness and even physical illness”.

I.1.4 Language-culture interrelationship

In the “Oxford advanced learner’s Dictionary” (Encyclopedic edition, 1992: 506), language is defined as “system of sounds, words, patterns etc used by human to communicate thoughts and feelings” Thus, it is clear that whether we talk about food, colors, love, science, religion, all the meanings are conveyed in not only one language but different languages of the world

Language is the principal means whereby we conduct our social lives It is used in contexts of communication, it is bound up with culture in multiple and complex ways Thus, language is a system of signs that is seen as having itself a cultural value

According to Sapir (1970: 207), “Language does not exist apart from culture, that is, from the socially inherited assemblage of practices and beliefs that determines the texture of our lives He defines culture as “what society does and thinks” and language is “a particular how of thought”

In all in, culture influences the way language is used And in its turn, language plays an essential role in expressing cultural values and perceptions, as well as preserving and breeding culture from generation to generation Language and culture are, thus, interrelated and inclusive of one another

I.2 SPEECH ACTS

I.2.1 What is a speech act?

Speech act is a term taken from the word of philosophers of language, John Searle and John Austin in particular who assumes that in saying something, a speaker also does something

Making a statement may be the paradigmatic use of language, but there are sort of other things we can do with words We can make requests, ask questions, give orders, make promises, give thanks, offer, apology and so on Morever, almost any speech act is really the perform of several acts at once, distinguished by different aspects of the speakers’ intention: there is the act of saying something, what one does in saying it, such as exclaiming, requesting, promising and how one is trying to affect one’s audience

Factually, speech act theory was first formulated by the phylosopher John Austin (1962) According to him, all utterances should be viewed as actions of the speakers, stating or describing is only one function of language He points out that the declarative sentences are not only used to say things or describe states of affairs but also used to do things

John Austin (1962) defines speech acts as the actions performed in saying something When people produce utterances, they often perform actions via those utterances These actions are called speech acts: such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, or request A speech act is part of a speech event The speech act performed by producing an utterance, consists of three related acts, namely locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act

• Locutionary act is the basic act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression.The locutionary act is performed with some purposes or functions in mind

• Illocutionary act: is an act performed via the communicative force of an utterance In engaging in locutionary acts we generally also perform illocutionary acts such as informing, advising, offer, promise, etc In uttering a sentence by virtue of conversational force associated with it

• Perlocutionary act is what we bring about or achieve by saying something, such as convincing, persuading, deterring perlocutionary acts are performed only on the assumption that the hearer will recognize the effect you intended

Speech act is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force

of an utterance The illocutionary act can account as a prediction a promise or a warning

The two other famous linguistic researchers are Schmidt and Richards who reaffirm that: Speech act theory has to do with the functions of languages, so in the broader sense we might say that speech acts are all the acts we perform through speaking, all things we do when

we speak The theory of speech acts is partly taxonomic and partly explanatory It must systematically classify types of speech acts and the ways in which they can succeed or fail It must reckon with the fact that the relationship between the words being used and the force of their utterance is often oblique

Generally speaking, speech acts are acts of communication To communicate is to express a certain attitude, and the type of speech act being performed corresponds to type of attitude being expressed For example, a statement expresses a belief, an exclamation expresses a feeling, a request expresses a desire, and an apology expresses a regret As an act

of communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience identifies in accordance with the speaker’s intention, the attitude being expressed

I.2.2 Classification of speech acts

Searle (1976) classifies speech acts into 5 types

• Declaration: these are words and expressions that change the world by the utterance, such as

I bet, I declare, I resign…I hereby pronounce you husband and wife

• Representatives: These are acts in which the words state what the speaker believes to be the case such as describing, claiming, hypothesis, insisting and predicting

It was a warm sunny day

• Commissives: This includes acts in which the worlds commit the speaker to future action, such as “promising, offering, threatening, refusing, vowing and volunteering

I promise you that I will clean up the kitchen

• Directives: are speech acts that speakers use to get someone else to do something.They are commands, orders, requests and suggestions: Oh ! It is five, you had better leave now

• Expressive are speech acts that state what the speaker feels They may be statements of pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, or sorrow: The meal was delicious!

Similarly, Yule, G (1996: 55) presents the five general types of speech act which are shown in the table below:

Representatives Make words fit the word S believes X

Table 1: The five general functions of speech acts ( Yule, 1996)Speech acts may be either direct or indirect speech acts depending on the direct and indirect relationships between their structures and functions

Discussing the aspect of direct and indirect speech act, Searle [40] agrees that the simplest cases of meaning are these in which the speaker utters a sentence and means exactly and litterally what he says and defines indirect speech acts as cases where an illocutionary act

is perform directly by way of performing another

More simply, Yule [54] writes: “Wherever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function, we have direct speech act Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure and a function, we have an indirect speech act”

Different structure can be used to accomplish the same basic function

Let us take a look at the following sentences:

a How thoughtful her grandmother is! c I don’t refuse to solve that problem for you!

b How many things he knows! d What a silly boy he is! Such a big fool!

The basic function of all utterances is exclaiming but only structure in (a) represents a direct speech act, the negative structure in (b) and (d) are indirect speech act and the affirmative structure in (c) are also indirect pieces of promising

I.2.3 Promising as a speech act

When one promises to do something one says, essentially, one is going to do it As Searle (1969: 57) puts it, in promising the speaker “ predicates a future act A of S”

Boguslawaski (1983) has disputed this claim, pointing out that one can also promise that someone else will do something In Boguslawski (1983: 612) stresses that words such as want, wish and similar expressions are inadequate since a formula containing such expressions would predict that a promise can normally be made by using phrases like I want This, however, is by no means, a promise “ I wish to come your place tomorrow”, “ I intend to come your place tomorrow”

In Searl’s analysis promise implies that the addressee wants the act to take place In fact the speaker seems to assume not only that the addressee wants the act to take place but to assume that the addressee wants it On the other hand, from the addressee’s point of view the promised act must indeed be uncertain, as well as desirable

According to Vescuneren (1983: 630), promise is the “obligation” which the act imposes on the speaker The speaker feels that having promised to do something he will now have to do it

(simply because he promised) In other words, by promising something, the speaker offers his

personal credibility in general as a kind of guarantee that he will really perform the action in question

As regards the illocutionary point of promising, Searle (1979: 2) suggests “the point or purpose of promise is that it is an undertaking of an obligation by the speaker to do something The obligation undertaken in a promise is not an aim in itself Rather, it is a means of strengthening” The assurance given to the addressee, there are many ways to express promise

in English The words like pledge, vow, assure, swear, certain…we use them in different ways and situations,

One can say: He promised her that he would do it

As one can say: He assured her that he would do it

Speech acts can be either explicit or implicit An explicit promise is one in which the speaker actually says I promise…For example: I promise that I will return the money tomorrow That is, the utterance contain’s an expression, usually a verb, which make the intended act explicit by naming it But we do not have to say I promise in order to make a genuine promise

We can merely say I will return the money tomorrow When the speech act is not named by a specific verb in the sentence, we are performing the speech act implicit

What matters in performing a speech act is not whether it is explicitly named but whether the act meets certain contextual or background conditions, called felicity or unappropriated conditions For examples imagine a situation in which you promise your teacher to finish an assignment by the beginning of the next class period For this to count as a genuine promise, you must say something to the effect that you will finish the assignment by the next class period, the teacher must want you to complete the assignment by that time, you must be carried out this task, you must sincerely intend to finish the assignment by that time, and you must intend your teacher to interpret your remarks as your commitment to finish the assignment by the next class time

Promises are distinct from threats, a promised act is one desired by the addressee, whereas a threatened act is one which the addressee would prefer not to happen

There are 4 types of felicity conditions

+ The propositional content condition expresses the content of the act Thus, I will return the book tomorrow denotes the promised act

+ The preparatory conditions expresses the contextual background required for a particular act For example, I will constitutes a marriage vow only in the context of a real wedding, a promise requires that the proPmiser be able to perform what s/he promises, a speaker making an assertion must have evidence to support the assertion

+ The sincerity condition requires that the speaker be sincere For example, a promiser must willingly intend to keep the promise, a speaker who makes an assertion must believe what she asserts

+ The essential condition is that the speaker intends the utterance to have a certain force For example, someone uttering I promise to return tomorrow, must intend the utterance

to be a commitment to return tomorrow, an assertor must intend the utterance to represent a true representation of state of affairs

No doubt, these conditions all seem perfectly ordinary However, articulating them makes explicit what we usually take for granted and which we pay attention to only when things go wrong they are also very useful in helping us to characterize the differences between speech acts Promisees are distinct

I.3 POLITENESS

I.3.1 What is politeness?

Politeness is something that is very abstract, but it plays an important role in interaction and has a great effect on the use of speech acts in human communication Politeness has been suggested that the principle of politeness governs all of the communication behave

It is generally believed that, in everyday social interactions, people act in such a way as

to show respect for the face wants or needs of their conversational partners It is a story, simply of “you respect my public self-image and I’ll respect yours” The use of language to carry out social actions where mutual face wants are respected, can be labeled linguistic politeness According to Yule (1996), “politeness in an interaction, can be then defined as the

means employed to show awareness of another’s face” Culturally, politeness is seen as “the idea of polite social behave or etiquette within a culture”

Brown and Levinson (1978) view politeness as “a complex system for softening face-threatening acts”

Hill et al (1986: 349) define politeness as “one of the constraints on human interaction, whose purpose is to consider other’s feelings establish levels of mutual comfort, and promote rapport”. Lakoff (1975: 64), one of the pioneers in politeness research sees politeness as consisting of forms of behave which have been “developed in societies in order to reduce friction

in personal interaction” This view is supported by many other researchers in the field He defines politeness as: “A system of interpersonal relations designed to faliciate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange”

Leech (1983: 104) interprets politeness as forms of behavior aimed at creating and maintaining harmonious interactions

According to Nguyen Quang (2005: 185), “Politeness refers to any communicative act (verbal and/ or non-verbal) which is intentionally and appropriately meant to make others feel better

or less bad”

When we make a promise to somebody, we are showing our politeness by expressing our awareness of another person’s face In this sense, politeness can be accomplished in situations of social distance and closeness To the former, showing awareness for another person’s face is described in terms of respect or deference To the latter, it would be friendliness, camaraderie or solidarity

Politeness can be accomplished in situations of social distance or closeness Showing awareness for another person’s face when that other seems socially distant is often described

in terms of friendliness, camaraderie, or solidarity

Therefore, the norms of problems are quiet culturally specific in a particular culture I.3.2 Politeness principles

A linguistic interaction is a social interaction in which various factors relating to social distance and closeness are at play Some of these factors are external to the interaction (social status, age, power of participants) Other factors are negotiated during the interaction There are internal factors The investigation of the impact of these factors is carried out in terms of politeness A speaker says something that is a threat to another personal’face (self- image), it

is called a face threatening act When a speaker says something to lessen a possible threat it is

a face saving act

According to Nguyen Quang (2005), a person’s negative face is the need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others A face saving act oriented to a person’s negative face is called negative politeness A person’s positive face is the need to be accepted by others, to be treated as a member of the same group A face saving act concerned with a person’s positive face is called positive politeness

Lakoff (1975) suggests three politeness rules

Rule 1: Do not impose

There is a difference in power and status between the participants, such as a student and a dean, a factory worker and the vice- president in charge of personnel This rule will avoid, or ask permission or apologize for making the addressee to anything which he/she does not want to do

Rule 2: Offer options

The participants have approximately equal status and power, but are not socially close such as a business person and a new client Offering options means expressing oneself in such a way that one’s opinion or request can be ignored without being contradicted or rejected

Rule 3: This is friendly or intimate politeness that encourages feelings of camaraderie It is appropriate to intimates or close friends

According to Grice, these maxims are an intuitive characterization of conversational principles that would constitude guidelines for achieving maximally efficient communication they must be stated briefly as follow:

Maxims of Quality: Be non-spurious (speak the truth, be sincere)

Maxims of Quantity: a) Don’t say less than is required

b) Don’t say more than is required

Maxims of relevance: Be relevant

Maxims of maner: Be perspicuous, avoid ambiguity and obscurity

Another author, Leech (1983: 16) assumes that a politeness principle in order to “minimize the expression of impolite beliefs” with its six maxims as following:

1 Tact maxim: Minimize cost to other Maximize benefit to other

2 Generosity maxim: Minimize benefit to self Maximize dispraise of self

3 Approbation maxim Minimize dispraise of other Maximize dispraise of self

4 Modesty maxim: Minimize praise of self Maximize praise of other.

5 Agreement maxim: Minimize disagreement between self and other

Maximize agreement between self and other

6 Sympathy maxim: Minimize antipathy between self and other

Maximize sympathy between self and other

Above all the maxims, Leech considers the maxim of “Tact” as the most important kind of politeness in the English-speaking societies Leech claims that his model could be applied universally across cultures But in reality, it can be best applied to English culture where social distance is given higher value, especially in formal situations It proves unsuitable for all situations and societies where social intimacy is highly valued

According to Brown and Levinson, politeness strategies are developed in order to save the hearer’s “Face” Face refers to the respect that an individual has for him or herself, and maintaining that “self-esteem” in public or in private situations Usually, you try to avoid embarrassing the other person, or making them feel uncomfortable Face Threatening Acts (FTA’s) are acts that infringe on the hearer’s need to maintain his/self-esteem, and be

respected Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with these FTA’s

Face:

Face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction In general, people cooperate in maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of face That is, normally everyone’s face depends on everyone else’ being maintained, and since people can be expected to defend their faces if threat, and in defending their own to threaten others’ faces, it is in general in every participant’s best interest to maintain each others’ face, that is to act in ways that assure the other participants that the agent is heedful of the assumptions concerning face

Face, the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects

Negative face: is our wish not to be imposed on the others and to be allowed to go about our business unimpeded with our rights to freedom and independence Negative face is the want of self-determination The word “negative” does not mean “bad”, it is just the

opposite pole from “ positive” Thus, telling someone they cannot see the doctor at the time they expected to is a threat to their negative face

Positive face: is a person’s wish to be well thought of its manifestation may include the desire to have what we admire by others, the desire to be understood by others, and the desire to be treated as a friend and confident Positive face is the want of approval Thus, a complaint about the quality of someone’ work threatens their positive face

In simple terms, Negative face is the need to be independent and positive face is the need to be connected

In short, the concepts of positive face and negative face give rise to different politeness strategies

There are four types of politeness strategies, described by Brown and Levinson, that sum up human “politeness” behavior: Bald on record, Negative politeness, Positive politeness, and Off- Record-indirect strategy

On record: a speaker can potentially get any of the following advantages, he can enlist public pressure against the addressee or in support of himself

Bald-on-record: efficiency (S can claim that other things are more important than face, or that the act is not a FTA at all

Off record: on the other hand, a speaker can profit in the following ways, he can get credit for being tactful, non-coercive, he can run less risk of his act entering the gossip biography that others keep of him, and he can avoid responsibility for the potentially face-damaging interpretation

Positive politeness: a speaker can minimize the face-threatening upsets of an act by assuring the addressee that S considers himself to be of the same kind

Negative politeness: A speaker can benefit in the following ways, he can pay respect, deference to the addressee in return for the FTA, and can thereby avoid incurring

According to Brown and Levinson (1978), strategy types are presented diagrammatically in figure The scale given on the left is the degree to which these model linguistic politeness

Brown and Levinson

Figure 1: Strategies for doing the FTAs (Brown and Levinson, 1987)

Brown and Levinson (1978) assume that every individual has two types of face: positive and negative Positive face is defined as the individual desire that her/his wants be appreciated and approved of in social interaction, whereas negative face is the desire for freedom of action and freedom from imposition

I.3.3 Social factors affecting politeness strategies

According to Brown and Levinson (1978), in broad terms, research seems to support the claim that three sociological factors are crucial in determining the level of politeness which

a speaker (S) will use to an addressee (H); there are relative power (P) of H over S, the social distance (D) between S and H, and the ranking of the imposition (R) involved in doing the face-threatening act (FTA)

D is a symmetric social dimension of similarity/difference within which S and H stand for the purposes

of this act In many cases (but not all ), it is based on an assessment of the frequency of interaction and the kinds

of material or non-material goods (including face) exchanged between S and H (or parties or representing S or H,

or for whom S and H are representatives) An important part of the assessment of D will usually be measures of social distance based on stable social attributes The reflex of social closeness is, generally, the reciprocal giving and receiving of positive face

P is an asymmetric social dimension of relative power is the degree to which H can impose his own plans and his own self-evaluation (face) at the express of S’s plans and self-evaluation In general there are two sources of pragmatics, either of which may be authorized and authorized-material control (over economic distribution and physical force) and metaphysical control (over the actions of others, by virtue of metaphysical forces subscribed to by those others) In most cases an individual’s power is drawn from both these sources, or is thought to overlap them

R is a culturally and situationally defined ranking of impositions by the degree to which they are considered to interfere with an agent’s wants of self-determination or of approval (his negative and positive face

With redressive action

5 Don’t do the FTA

wants) In general, there are probably two such scales or ranks that are emically identifiable for negative-face FTAs: a ranking of impositions in promotion to the expenditure (a) of services (including the provision of time) and (b) of goods (including non-material good like information, as well as the expression of regard and other payments)

In any case, the function must capture the fact that all three dimensions P, D and R contribute to the seriousness of the FTA, and thus to a determination of the level of politeness with which, other things being equal, the FTA will be communicated

I.3.4 Politeness strategies

I.3.4.1 Positive politeness strategies

Brown and Levinson (1978) assume that positive politeness is redress directed to the addressee’s positive face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the actions/acquisitions/values resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable Redress consists in partially satisfying that desire by communicating that one’s own wants (or some of them) are in some respects similar to the addressee’s wants

Positive politeness strategies (PPS) are those that are used to satisfy positive face wants They include:

Strategy 1: Notice/attend to H (interest, wants, needs…)

When communicating, S cares for H’s wants or needs:

Vietnamese: Mình ngh r ng cu c s ng không ph i lúc nào c ng h nh phúc C u hãy g ng

v t qua nh ng khó kh n này

( I think that life is not always happy Try to overcome these difficulties)

Hôm nay trông c u p quá, c u có chuy n gì à?(Today, you look so beautiful Something new?)

English: You must be hungry How about some cakes?

Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)

It is the way S shows his/her concern by expressing that he/ she is really interested in H’s news

B n th t là tuy t v i ( You are exellent!) I am really honored!

Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H

S communicates with H, he shares some of his wants to intensify the interest of his own contributions to the conversation

Vietnamese: M t ch c quan em có ch ng là nhà báo M t l n ã i th c t vi t bài v

n n phá r ng ã b b n lâm t c ph c kích và hành hung ng yên ng lành thì t nhiên bây gi l i thành tàn ph nhân, ng i xe l n, n c m út y, m i ng i m t ph n, nên anh b

Some ways of address forms can be used flexibly and effectively in this strategy

Vietnamese:

Chúng mình s! i xem phim l n khác nhé (We will go to the cinema another time!)

Anh c" yên tâm, em s! làm cho ám c #i c$a cháu nhà mình th t vui v%

(Take it eassy I will make our kid’s wedding so happy.)

English: Mate! I will help you Take it easy

Strategy 5: Seek agreement

With this strategy, S stresses his/her agreement with H, and therefore, satisfies H’s desire to be

“right”, or to be corroborated in his opinions There are 4 different policies in order to reach agreement between S and H

Vietnamese: Tôi r t tán thành v#i ý ki n c$a anh ( I quite agree with your idea)

Tôi ng ý giúp anh Tôi h"a ( I agree to help you I promise!)

English: If you want me to conduct your wedding, I will be OK

Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement

In communication, Brown and Levinson suggest 4 policies:

Pseudo-agreement Hedging opinions

Em ghét anh l m à? ( Do you hate me?) A: Do you understand what I am saying? Th&nh tho ng thôi (Sometimes.) B: More or less

Strategy 7: Presuppose, raise, assert common ground

3 policies are realized in this strategy

Small talk Deixis inversion Presupposition manipulations Vietnamese: Ch'ng l! thông minh nh b n mình mà c u l i không hi(u mình ang ngh gì à

(Perhaps, intelligent as we are, you can see what is in my mind You are such an intelligent person)

English: We both are surely tired now Let’s relax for some minutes

Strategy 8: Joke

Making jokes is considered to be one of the useful way to communicate between S and H S can share background knowledge, values, goals and sensitivity to H

Vietnamese: Con gì n l m nói nhi u, mau già lâu ch t òi yêu su t i

(What eats and talks too much, soon old, loving a live, everlasting asking for love) English: OK if I tackle those cookies now?

Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose knowledge of and concern for H’s want

This strategy indicates that S and H are cooperators of and thus potentially to put pressure on

H to cooperate with S, is to assert or imply knowledge of H’s wants and willingness to fit one’s own wants in with them

Vietnamese: Mình tin r ng c u s! tha th" cho mình.(I firmly believe that you will forgive me!) English: I know you cannot bear parties, but this one will really be good-do come! Strategy 10: Offer, promise

This strategy is used to gain the solidarity or cooperation between S and H, S often offer or promise to do something in order to satisfy for the H

Offers or promises are divided in to two types (indefinite and definite) through 2 main deixis: time and space:

If time and space are definite, the promise/offer is definite

If time and space are indefinite, the promise/offer is indefinite

In this case, the offer/promise is called unreal invitation, or lip-service

Vietnamese: Tôi h"a s! không l p l i n a (I promise not to do it again!)

English: I promise, it will not happen again

Strategy 11: Be optimistic

This strategy shows that S tries to establish a close or intimate relationship between S and H Vietnamese: C u s! giúp mình ch" ( You will help me, OK?)

Tôi hy v ng b n s! tha th" cho tôi ( I hope, you will forgive me!)

English: I believe that you will succeed in the near future

Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity

By using an inclusive “we” form, when S really means “you” or “me”, he can call upon the cooperative assumptions and thereby redress FTAs Noting that “let’s” in English is an inclusive “we” form

Vietnamese: Chúng mình có lúc l m l i, ch& mong c u ng làm to chuy n, mình bi t l i r i (We go wrong at times I hope that, you do not make fuss I know my errors) English: Let’s drink some coffee

Nguyen Quang (2003) suggests a list to express the various and useful use of “ chúng ta” ( inclusive “we”) and “chúng tôi” ( inclusive “we”) in Vietnamese By using “ chúng tôi, chúng ta” (we) the Vietnamese can shorten the gap between S and H and their relationship become closer and more friendly

Strategy 13: Give or ask for reasons

Giving or asking for reasons is one way that S shows his/ her concern towards H

Vietnamese: Mình không hi(u n)i t i sao b n l i hành ng nh th ( I do not understand myself why do you act like that)

English: Why do you tell a lie?

Strategy 14: Assert reciprocal exchange

The existence of cooperation between S and H may also be claimed or urged by giving evidence of reciprocal rights or obligations obtaining between S and H

Vietnamese: N u anh ch b* qua cho em l n này, em h"a s! không tái ph m n a (If you forgive me this time, I will not do it again I promise)

English: I will help you if you promise not to tell my secret to anyone

Strategy 15: Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)

S may satisfy H’s positive-face wants by actually satisfying some of H’s wants S can give gifts or share the sadness or happiness to H

Vietnamese: T# v a mua cho c u m t cái vòng c), không bi t c u có thích không?( I have just bought a necklace for you Do you like it?)

English: I have just been out shopping Here is hot dog for you Like it?

Nguyen Quang (2003) adds 2 more strategies

Strategy 16: Condole, encourage

In this strategy, S expresses his/her concern, and good will to H

Vietnamese: Hãy c g ng h t mình, còn nhi u c h i ang phía tr #c

( There are a lot of good chances in the future Try your best!)

English: Do not worry! I will try my best

Keep calm! You will do it well

Strategy 17: Ask personal questions

People from the negative politeness-oriented culture may get shocked When someone they meet the first time asks such personal questions as:

How old are you?

Are you married?

Negative politeness strategies are those that are used to satisfy negative face wants According to Brown and Levinson (1978), they include

1.3.4.2 Negative politeness strategies

Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect

This strategy solves a dilemma or in other words it satisfies two different communicative points at the same time

Assuring on-record the obvious illocutionary force

Expressing off-record the speaker’s reluctance to produce it

Vietnamese: Làm n hãy cho em m t c h i? (Could you please give me a chance?) English: I am shy I do not think I make you sad I promise not to do it again

Please, believe me! I have no intention It will not happen again

Strategy 2: Question, hedge

A “ hedge” is a particle, word, or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate

or now phrase in a set, it says of that membership that it is partial, or true only in certain respects, or that it is more true and complete than perhaps might be expected

There are different ways of classifying hedges but the most common one is basing on the 4 principles provided by Grice (1975) They are quantity, quality, relation and manner

Vietnamese: N u b n không phi n , cho tôi vay m t ít ti n

(I would like to borrow some money, if you do not mind)

English: Perhaps it is a lesson I never forget in my life

If you do not mind, we will go to the cinema another time

Strategy 3: Be pessimistic

Being pessimistic strategy is an important one of negative politeness When S maintain a distance from his/ her communicative partner and minimize the imposition of utterances as well as avoiding imposition on H

Nguyen Quang (2003: 150, 159, 160, 161) suggests 3 main sub-strategies

Using hypothesis Using down toners Using negative form Vietnamese: Giá nh em ã không làm anh ch bu n ( If only I had not made you sad)

Em không bi t anh ch có th( tha th" cho em không?( I do not know could you forgive me)? English: I do not think you can understand my problem

I wonder whether you will forgive me or not?

Strategy 4: Minimizing the imposition

This strategy seeks to minimize the R factor in P-D-R paradigm

Vietnamese: Em ch& mu n anh ch tin r ng i u ó s! không bao gi x y ra n a

( I just want you to belive that, it will not happen a gain)

English: I want to ask you if you could lend me some money

Strategy 5: Give deference

The social hierarchy and power are two essential factors of this strategy

Vietnamese: N u s p tha th" cho em, em s! mang n s p c i

( If you forgive me , I will indebt you all my life)

M i bác n n t i cùng v#i gia ình.( Would you like to have dinner with my family, please?) English: Excuse me, officer I think I might have parked in the wrong place

Strategy 6: Apologize

By apologizing for doing the FTA, the speaker can indicate his reluctance to impinge on H’s negative face and thereby partially redress that impingement There are 2 main sub- strategies Apologizing directly

Expresses direct way by such words as “ sorry”, “apologize”

Apologizing indirectly

There are 5 main ways in indirect apology

Admitting trouble

Expressing reluctance

A basing and complaining about self

Raising unavoidable reasons

Hoping and promising

Vietnamese: Tôi xin l i v nh ng chuy n ã x y ra ( I am sorry for what happened.)

Hãy tha l i cho tôi ( Forgive me!)

English: I am sorry Please, forgive me!

Sorry, I make you upset

Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H Avoid the pronoun I and You

When using this strategy, S does not want to impinge on H Both S and H avoid mentioning in communication Thus, S can lower S’s power and reduce the imposition of the act as well as minimizing the threat over H There are 5 sub- strategies in this strategy

Avoiding performative verb

Using imperatives

Using passive voice

Using indefinite pronouns instead of “I” and “you”

Using impersonalized subject

Vietnamese: V n th t không n gi n ( The problem is not simple)

English: Do not worry, everything will be OK

Strategy 8: State the FTA as an instance of a general rule

This strategy is served many aims, S can give requests, advice, orders as general rules for a group of H and distances S and H through the cool and distant utterances

Vietnamese: ( m b o s"c kho%, ta nên i ng$ s#m

(One should go to bed early in order to keep your health)

English: Parking on the double yellow lines is illegal, so I am going to have to give you a fine Strategy 9: Nominalize to distance the actor and add formality

It is noticeable point that the more nouns, are used, the cooler the statement becomes

Vietnamese: ngh m i ng i không nói chuy n ây

(It is required everyone here not to talk)

English: It is my regret to inform you that your application has turned down

Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt or as not indebting H

This strategy is shown that S can redress the FTA by explicitly claiming his indebtedness to H,

or by disclaiming any indebtedness of H

Vietnamese: Tôi s! r t bi t n anh, n u anh b* qua cho tôi l n này

(I would be grateful to you if you could forgive me this time)

Tôi n c u m t l i xin l i ( I am indebted to you for a sorry.)

English: I am very happy to help you

It is not too difficult to pass the examination

Nguyen Quang (2003) adds one more strategy

Strategy 11: Avoid asking personal questions

In a negative politeness oriented community personal questions prove to be inappropriate On the other hand, in a positive politeness oriented community, personal questions are comfortably accepted

CHAPTER II: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS II.1 Comments on survey questionnaires

The data are collected from the survey questionnaire This questionnaire is designed to investigate how informants verbally promise others in given situations

Situation 1: How would you verbally promise the following person after you spoke ill of him/her?

Situation 2: How would you verbally promise with the following person when you agree to host a wedding ceremony for him/her?

Situation 3: How would you verbally promise with the following person after you could not take them

to the cinema?

Informants are requested to promise the following persons

1 Brother/sister

2 Close friend

3 Colleague (same sex, same age)

4 Colleague (opposite sex, same age)

5 Acquaintance

6 Boss (about 5 years younger than you)

7 Boss (about 5 years older than you)

Paralinguistic factors: pitch, volume, rate, silence, vocal quality…

Non-verbal factors: facial expressions, gestures, eye contact…

Environment settings: place, time, lighting system, setting arrangement

Mood of participants: happy, angry, sad, disappointed…

II.2 Comments on the informants

There are two groups of informants: one is the Vietnamese and the other is the Anglophone The Vietnamese informants all live in Northern Vietnam The Anglophone

informants are native speakers The status parameters of the informants are believed to the way people communicate, therefore, the following parameters are requested for provision:

* Age

* Gender

* Marital status

* Area where they spend most of their time

The informants’ status parameters are presented in the table below

Vietnamese English Number of informants

Strategy 5: Use in group identity makers + promise

Strategy 6: Apologise+ promise

Strategy 7: Be conventional + promise

Strategy 8: Seek agreement + promise

Strategy 9: Wish + regret

The Vietnamese informants employ eight of nine strategies (Except strategy 2) and the English informants resort to eight of nine strategies (except strategy 3) Following are the percentages of strategies employed by the Vietnamese and the English informants:

This strategy expresses the commitment of the speaker and a promised act is the one desired by the addressee For example:

(I promise, I will not tell a lie again) A: Will you come to my wedding?

Tôi ng ý giúp anh (I agree with helping you) Exactly, I will help you

It is easily observed that the Vietnamese informants often use “promise”, while the English informants seem to neglect this performative Promise is divided in two kinds:

definitive promise and indefinitive promise

+ Definitive promise: I will attend your wedding on Sunday

+ Indefinitive promise: It will not happened again, I promise