Nghiên cứu giao thoa văn hoá việt mỹ về cách rào đón khi từ chối lời mời

1 Rationale An emphasis on language as a communication system is really necessary in an age of globalization Not only does it help uncover principles underlying social interactions, but it also enables us to gain an access to ways of thinking, belief systems, and world views of people from various cultural backgrounds and thus enhances empathy and mutual understanding Investigating issues concerning cross-cultural communication is especially momentous in today’s time, when national boundaries are becoming less visible, and more and more people are engaging in intercultural communication Understanding social conventions and attention to such concepts as politeness, and face, which are important to members in a particular culture, will certainly enable us to better comprehend the different ways of speaking by people from different cultures, thus helping eliminate ethnic stereotypes and misunderstandings There have been so far plenty of researches on the field of politeness from various perspectives Yet, hedging in language is still an area available for more exploration This research, therefore, has chosen hedging as a potential subject The study is done not only to see the similarities and dissimilarities between the two cultures Another goal of this research is to raise the awareness of both teachers and learners of English about the necessity of hedging in language, and to give teachers several suggestions in teaching this language phenomenon to their students Nevertheless, hedging is a very broad area, and within the limit of the study, it is impossible to discuss all aspects of hedging in language As declining an invitation is an act with high risk of making the hearers lose face, it requires different supplementary steps to reduce the weightiness of the utterance This is where hedging can mostly be seen That is the reason why hedging in invitation declining is chosen for the project The study has also derived from the need for improvement in English teaching process in Thang Long University, where American-English course books The New Interchange 1, 2, are employed This study, therefore, has focused on comparing American and Vietnamese cultures, with the hope to pay a humble contribution to the people who the thesis author has owed so much for their love and support: colleagues and students For any of those purposes, the study promises to make itself meaningful, reliable and applicable to the reality Scope of the study • Within the limit of a minor thesis, the research has been carried out in the office setting Participants selected are people who are currently working in offices The reasons for choosing this setting are: (1) it is suitable with the size of a minor thesis; (2) it includes various common kinds of relationship, which promises a meaningful research • The study has been done from the perspective of pragmatics where Vietnamese and American hedging in invitation declining is analyzed as speech acts in particular contexts However, semantic and syntactic theories are employed at times to help better analyze different hedging strategies • Hedging is known available in both spoken and written language Yet, in this research, the focus will be paid on hedging in spoken language only • Though paralinguistic and extra-linguistic factors play a very important part in communication, the study is restricted to verbal aspect of hedging in invitation declining Aims of the study The main aims of the study are to: • find out the similarities and differences in the way Vietnamese and American people hedge when declining an invitation • help avoid potential cross-cultural conflicts between Vietnamese and American speakers, with focus on the proper use of hedging in invitation declining • provide language teachers and learners with an insight into hedging in invitation declining employed by Vietnamese and American speakers to avoid hurting their partners • give some suggestions on teaching hedging in the situations of invitation declining Methodology This is mainly a quantitative method, specifically, a survey research Survey research is the method of gathering data from respondents supposed to be representative of some population, using an instrument composed of closed structure or open-ended items (questions) In a survey, researchers sample a population Since populations can be quite large, researchers directly question only a sample (i.e a small proportion) of the population That is why survey research is a suitable choice for a cross-cultural study The questionnaire is designed carefully basing on some hypothesis with both close-ended and open-ended questions The data collected will then be analyzed to find out the similarities and differences in hedging an invitation decline between the American and the Vietnamese from different perspectives, age, gender, power, distance, and circumstance The evaluations and comments on the results, hence, are made inductively In addition, personal observation and some small interviews with the participants play a very significant part in the study, especially in setting up the hypothesis and making interpretation for the statistics Comments on the participants The survey questionnaires were sent to thirty American and thirty Vietnamese participants As the scope of the research is to investigate hedging in invitation declining in office setting, the participants are those who are currently working in offices, mean age is 28.33 The numbers of males and females are equal in each group, i.e., 15 males and 15 females for each party These are Native American and Vietnamese people, not immigrants, so that the results of the survey will hopefully be reliable Theoretical Background 1.1 Hedging There have been so far two main approaches about hedging The term ‘hedge’/ ‘hedging’ itself was introduced first by G Lakoff (1972) in his article ‘Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts’ Lakoff argues that the logic of hedges requires serious semantic analysis for all predicates He defines hedges as follows: For me, some of the most interesting questions are raised by the study of words whose meaning implicitly involves fuzziness - words whose job it is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy I will refer to such words as 'hedges' (1972:195) In his article "Fuzzy-Set - Theoretic Interpretation of Linguistic Hedges", Zadeh (1972) followed Lakoff in using the new designation ‘hedge’ and analyzed English hedges (such as simple ones like ‘very’, ‘much’, ‘more or less’, ‘essentially’, and ‘slightly’ and more complex ones like ‘technically’ and ‘practically’) from the point of view of semantics and logics The author assumes that hedges are operators that act on the fuzzy set representing the meaning of their operands Hedges vary in their dependency on context Later on, hedging has been viewed from the perspective of pragmatics The concept of hedge/ hedging is understood in different ways in the literarture Hedges have been referred to as compromisers (James,1983), downtoners (Quirk at all, 1972,1985), understatements (Hubler, 1983), weakeners (Brown and Levinson, 1987), downgraders (House and Kasper, 1981), softeners (Crystal & Davy, 1975), backgrounding terms (Low, 1996), approximators and shields (Prince at all.1982) and pragmatic devices (Subble & Homes, 1995), mitigators (Labov and Fanshel 1977, Stubbs, 1983), tentativeness (Homes, 1983,1995) and vagueness (Channell 1994) Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987), dealing with politeness in verbal interaction from the point of view of pragmatics, viewed hedges as a device to avoid disagreement Brown and Levinson (1987: 145) define ‘hedges’ as: …a particle, word or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or noun 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 might be expected' (1987:146) Vietnamese linguists such as Nguy n Thi n Giáp (2000), Hoàng Phê (2002), Nguy n Quang (2003) also view hedging as a pragmatic phenomenon Hoàng Phê in his Vietnamese Dictionary states that ‘hedges are expressions which are preventive from [unexpected] misunderstanding and reaction/responses to what is said’ According to Nguy n Quang (2003), hedging is a strategy used simply to hedge the propositional content In this paper, we mainly view hedging from pragmatic perspective In pragmatics, the concept of hedging is mainly linked to the concept of speech act and politeness phenomena A hedge is either defined as one or more lexico-syntactical elements that are used to modify a proposition, or else, as a strategy that modifies a proposition A hedge can appear before or after a proposition The term ‘hedging’ is used to refer to the textual strategies of using linguistic means as hedges in a certain context for specific communicative purposes 1.2 Hedges and Speech Acts Hedging, when being viewed from pragmatic perspective, is surely linked to a very common pragmatic perception: speech act, as speech act is ‘one of the central phenomena that any general pragmatic theory must account for’ (S.C Levinson 1983:226) So what is a speech act? In fact, speech act theory is built on the foundation laid by Wittgenstein and Austin In his book Philosophical Investigations (1958), Ludwig Wittgenstein set forth with an idea called ‘ordinary language philosophy’ He believed that the meaning of language depends on its actual use Language, as used in ordinary life, is a kind of ‘language games’ because it consists of rules In other words, people follow rules to things with the language It was in this same period that Austin launched his theory of speech acts He insisted that ‘the total speech act in the total speech situation is the only actual phenomenon which, in the last resort, we engaged in elucidating’ (1962:147) John Searle (1965) is also one of the linguists much concerned with the theory According to Searle, to communicate is to express a certain attitude, and the type of speech act being performed corresponds to the type of attitude being expressed For example, a statement expresses a belief, a request expresses a desire, and an apology expresses 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 That is why to understand language one must understand the speaker’s intention Since language is intentional behavior, it should be treated like a form of action Thus Searle refers to statements as speech acts The speech act is the basic unit of language used to express meaning, an utterance that expresses an intention Normally, the speech act is a sentence, but it can be a word or phrase as long as it follows the rules necessary to accomplish the intention When one speaks, one performs an act Speech is not just used to predicate something, but it actually does something Though making a statement may be the paradigmatic use of language, there are all sorts of other things we can with words We can make requests, ask questions, give orders, make promises, give thanks, offer apologies, and so on Speech act stresses the intent of the act as a whole According to Searle, understanding the speaker’s intention is essential to capture the meaning Without the speaker’s intention, it is impossible to understand the words as a speech act Hedging, therefore, can be treated as speech acts, as hedging is set up to perform intentions and to express the attitudes of the speakers, for examples: to make an excuse, a question, to give thanks, apologies, promises etc The act of hedging can consist of different means, including hedging devices (or hedges) 1.3 Invitation Decline and Hedges in Invitation Declining It is noticed that normally, an invitation decline is a set of speech acts According to Murphy and Neu (1996), a speech act set is a combination of individual speech acts that, when produced together, comprise a complete speech act Often more than one discrete speech act is necessary for a speaker to develop the overarching communicative purpose – or illocutionary force – desired When declining an invitation we commit an act of refusal, as the word decline itself, according to the Longman Dictionary, means ‘refuse to accept’ However, declining an invitation sometimes is not simply saying no to an invitation When declining an invitation, speakers might produce different individual speech acts, for example, (1) an expression of regret, ‘I’m so sorry’, followed by (2) an excuse ‘I’m out of town on business next week’, followed by (3) a direct refusal, ‘I can’t come to your wedding party’ In this case, to perform one communicative purpose of declining an invitation, the speaker is employing a speech act set, which consists of many other individual speech acts In the example above (1) and (2) are hedges which combine with the direct refusal to make up a speech act set They play as individual speech acts in the whole set Within the larger act of communicating something, Austin (1965) identifies three component speech acts: the locutionary act - the act of saying something as might be reported in direct or indirect discourse, the illocutionary act as would be performed in saying something—acts of proposing, promising, apologizing, etc., and the perlocutionary act identified primarily in terms of the outcome or consequences of a communicative effort Of these three classes, the illocutionary act counts as Austin’s great discovery These three acts are ultimately related because normally, in a meaningful utterance, ‘Speakers (S) says something to Hearer(H); in saying something to H, S does something; and by doing something, S affects H.’ (Bach & Harnish, 1979:3) Searl (1965), basing on the speakers’ intention, presents one of the most influential and widely used classifications of speech acts Searl’s classification consists of five broad types, namely: • Assertives : They commit the speaker to something being the case The different kinds are: informing, suggesting, putting forward, swearing, boasting, and concluding Example: ‘No one makes a better cake than me’ • Directives : They try to make the addressee perform an action The different kinds are: asking, ordering, requesting, inviting, advising, and begging Example: ‘Could you close the window?’ • Commisives : They commit the speaker to doing something in the future The different kinds are: promising, planning, vowing, betting, opposing Example: ‘I bet I win’ • Expressives : They express how the speaker feels about the situation The different kinds are: thanking, apologizing, welcoming, deploring Example: ‘I am sorry that I lied to you’ • Declarations : They change the state of the world in an immediate way Example: ‘You are fired’ Beside the five categories set by Searl, speakers also employ more specific acts such as apologies, requests, complaints, and refusals (Kasper and Rose, 2001) Basing on the five categories set by Searl, it can be said that hedges in invitation declining belong to different types of speech acts It can be assertive when the speaker is giving an excuse ‘My daughter is ill today.’, or ‘I am busy.’ If the speaker is asking about the invitation or giving some suggestions, for examples: ‘When is the wedding party?’ / ‘Why not tomorrow?’ it can be considered Directives Hedges are Commissivse if speaker is talking about his plans or arrangements, or making promises: ‘I have to work in the evevning’/‘I will give you a hand in preparing the wedding’ In the case when speaker express their feelings about the invitation, such as appreciation, regret, confusion etc., hedges are Expressive Declarations hardly appear among hedges in invitation declining 1.4 Politeness and Hedging in Invitation Declining Politeness is one of the most important aspects of human communication: human beings can only exist in peace together if certain basic conventions of politeness are observed Hedging in invitation refusals is employed to avoid conflicts in communication Hence, it is also a politeness phenomenon Brown and Levinson (1987) produced the most comprehensive theory of politeness to date, the basis of which is used for analytical purposes in this thesis They argue that polite linguistic behavior shows up as a deviation against the rational and efficient nature of talk, but through a consideration of linguistic politeness, the hearer finds reasons for the speaker’s apparent irrationality or inefficiency Brown and Levinson (1987) base their theory on the concept of face (Goffman 1967) Face is defined as the public self image that all rational adult members have when engaged in spoken interaction, and it must be constantly adhered to Face consists of two related aspects: positive face and negative face Positive face refers to ‘the positive self-image that people have and want to be appreciated and approved by at least some people’ (1987:61) In other words, positive face is seen as the desire that others like, admire, value or approve of one’s wants (material or nonmaterial), or the need to be accepted and liked by others, treated as a member of the group, and to know one’s wants are shared by others (Cutting 2002:45) Brown and Levinson define negative face as ‘basic claim to territories, personal preserves, right to non-distraction –i.e freedom of action and freedom from imposition’ The negative face, therefore, ‘is reflected in the desire not to be impeded or put upon, to have the freedom to act as one chooses’ (Thomas 1995: 169), ‘the wants that one’s action be unimpeded by others’ (Eelen 2001:3) and the need to be independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others (Yule 1996:61) In general, participants will co-operate with each other due to the mutual vulnerability of face However, it is not possible for conversation to flow without a demand or intrusion being made on another person’s autonomy Certain illocutionary acts are liable to damage or threaten another person’s face Brown and Levinson define the performance of such utterances as potential face-threatening acts (FTAs) When confronted with the need to perform an FTA, the speaker needs to decide how it should be uttered Brown and Levinson argue that the first choice to be made is whether the FTA should be performed on record or off record If the on record strategy is chosen, a speaker can either perform the FTA baldly without redressive action or mitigate the FTA by uttering it with redressive action Performing an act without redressive action involves uttering it in the most ‘direct, clear, unambiguous way possible’ (1987: 69) Conversely, performing an act with redressive action actually gives face to the addressee, making it clear that no face threat is intended This can be achieved by adopting the strategies of either positive politeness or negative politeness Positive politeness is redressive action directed towards the addressee’s positive face, demonstrating that the hearer’s wants or needs are thought of as desirable In contrast, negative politeness is redressive action directed to the addressee’s negative face, demonstrating the speaker’s desire not to impose upon the hearer by restricting their actions The off record strategy enables the speaker to avoid the responsibility of performing a FTA See the following figure about possible strategies for doing FTAs by Brown and Levinson: Without redressive action, baldy On record Do the FTA Positive Politeness With redressive action 3.Negative Politeness Off record Don’t the FTA Figure 1: Brown and Levinson (1987:69) Possible strategies for doing FTAs From the theory of face and politeness, declining an invitation can be viewed as an FTA, as it can damage the hearer’s self-image When declining an invitation, speaker can choose to go on-record or off-record Hedges in this case, are employed as both positive and negative 10 Examples: - I’m really sorry, but I’m kind of tired And I have to wake up early for work tomorrow - #, ti c th t y, nh ng hôm y s p l i phái t xu ng H i Phòng r i (Oh What a pity! My boss will send me to Hai Phong on that day) • Mentioning a previous personal arrangement Examples: - I’m sorry but I have plans already - # Hôm l i có tí vi c khơng th hỗn c… (Oh, today I have some work that can’t be postponed.) Strategy 4: Expressing Esteem Being aware of the risk of making one lose face when declining an invitation, speakers can choose the strategy of giving the listeners a face, i.e making them to feel great first One effective way to this is to show how you appreciate the partner’s invitation This can guarantee that the speakers can safely commit the FTA - declining invitations afterwards Three common ways to show esteem before declining an invitation that will be mentioned are: (1) expressing thanks, (2) expressing interest and (3) expressing surprise • Expressing thanks: Giving thank is an easy and common way to show appreciation to the invitations Examples: - Thanks for thinking of me, but I’m really swamped at the moment - C m n ch Nh ng có l$ em không n c r i (Thank you But I probably will not be able to come) • Expressing interest: S can show their interest and concern for the invitation by giving good comments on it or showing enthusiasm for it Examples: - How nice are the couple! But I’m afraid I can’t make it that day 28 - That sounds really nice… I am really sorry… I don’t think I can go - Who’s getting married? Your sister? Cool… Please wish them all the happiness I don’t think I can attend - Chúc m ng nhé! Nh ng hôm y ch c anh ch không n c (Congratulation! But I don’t think I can come that day) - i %n à? & âu? Gi i i ti c hôm l i ph i a m! v v quê (Dinner? Where? My Goodness, unfortunately today I have to take my mom to her homeland.) - Tôi c ng mu n n l m, nh ng ng i ng xá xa xôi quá… (I really like to come But it’s too far) • Expressing surprise: Showing a nice surprise is also a good way in expressing your concerns for the invitation Examples: - Oh, really? What’s a nice surprise! - Wow Good news - Cái gì? C'u quy t nh c i t bao gi v'y? (What? When did you decide to get married?) - H ?? nh theo ch ng b cu c ch i à? (Huh? Will u leave us to get married?) – an extract from a famous Vietnamese poem Strategy 5: Blaming the Partner It sounds like the speaker is going to another FTA In fact this is a positive politeness strategy, as it shows the intimacy between the S and the H Blaming the Partner is not 29 aimed at making the hearer feel bad It is a very tactful way to remind the hearer that the speaker has regarded him/her as a close person so far, so as to ask for their sympathy more easily See the following examples: - Why didn’t you tell me before about this? I wouldn’t have already made plans for that date - Tr i i khéo ch(n lúc em b'n m i? (Gosh, why you only invite me when I am busy?) Strategy 6: Giving an Alternative Giving an Alternative, in this case, is considered as the compensation for the FTA of declining an invitation The S hopes, by giving an alternative, he/she can make up for the face lost of the H and therefore, can also soften the effect of an invitation refusal • Giving an offer Examples: - What night? Tuesday? Gosh, man, I am sorry I have an idea Why don’t you come to our house for dinner another time? We would love to share a good meal with you - V t s$ n giúp c'u chu)n b ám c i Cịn t ch c khơng n c (My wife will come and give you a hand with the preparation for the wedding But I don’t think I can come.) • Making a promise Examples: - Maybe next time I probably will not be able to make it - l n sau Hôm b'n m t r i (Maybe another time Today I am busy.) Strategy 7: Mixing Different Ways Sometimes hedging in invitation declining can be formed by one single hedge In other cases, it is formed by a cluster of hedges Strategy 7, in fact is the mixture of several 30 strategies mentioned above As discussed in the Theoretical Background section, an invitation decline is mostly a speech act set, which contains different individual speech acts Strategy is the cases when speakers employ more than one strategy at a time to hedge their refusal Example: - Wow, good news! Unfortunately I have got something planned before I don’t think I can come In this case, hedging contains different hedges: Showing Appreciation, Showing Regret and Giving Excuses - Th à? & âu? c'u ngày hơm tr xem ã Ch c t s$ n m ng h nh phúc c Th t có vi c r t quan tr(ng khơng th b c (Saturday? Where? Let me see Perhaps I will come to congratulate you the day before because I have a very important work on Saturday.) In this decline, there is a mixture of: Showing Esteem, Delaying, Giving an Alternative and Giving excuse Contrastive Analysis From the data analysis, a lot of similarities and differences can be seen in the way of hedging an invitation declining between Vietnamese and American participants Yet, in this section, only the main points are focused in order to be brief, relevant and easy to remember 3.1 Similarities All of these strategies discussed above are employed by both American and Vietnamese people 100% Vietnamese and American participants say that they will hedge when declining an invitation made by their boss or by the opposite sex colleagues 80% Vietnamese and American people hedge in case 4, i.e., when they refuse the invitation from same sex colleagues who are not close 31 From both gender and age perspectives, the most frequent tactic employed by both American and Vietnamese people are Strategy 7-Mixing Different Ways, and two strategies that they hardly use are Blaming the Partner and Giving an Alternative Both Vietnamese and American people use Delaying more when being invited to the wedding party than when being invited to a dinner party Perhaps the reason is that the first situation is much more a predicament than the second one That why Delaying is more popular in that situation Both Vietnamese and American parties not use much Delaying to someone superior Delaying sometimes sound informal and this will be inappropriate to decline an invitation made by boss, especially in formal situations In both cultures, Showing Esteem is proved to be a good choice to hedge an invitation decline to a wedding party The frequency of this strategy in the first situation does not vary much among different partners Blaming the Partner and Giving an Alternative are least frequently used strategies in both situations Vietnamese and American participants not use it to those who are not close Strategy – Mixing Different Ways - is the most popular choice in different situations and to different kinds of partners 3.2 Differences Beside all common features discussed above, there are various dissimilarities in the employment of hedging strategies in invitation declining between the Vietnamese and American people Followings are the differences referred from the survey statistics: In term of gender, Vietnamese male, when making an invitation refusal, use hedges less frequent than the American On the contrary, Vietnamese female tend to hedge more often than the American counterparts In term of age, the statistics show that the older the American gets, the more they hedge It turns reversed among Vietnamese participants 32 When declining an invitation from someone junior in the office, the Americans tend to hedge more than the Vietnamese people In general, the Vietnamese not hedge as much as the American when they refuse the invitation from their close co-workers They tend to appreciate the intimacy and think that intimacy can help them feel freer in declining an invitation When the data is analyzed from speaker’s perspective, it is shown that Vietnamese people are likely to use strategies 3, and more frequently than the Americans Whereas, the Americans employ strategies 1, and more often than Vietnamese people The frequency of strategy and employed by American people above 40 years old increases as compared to that by those who are under 40 Meanwhile, the frequency of these two strategies drops remarkably when Vietnamese people get older When being invited to a wedding party, Vietnamese people are likely to employ Delaying strategy more than the Americans, though it turns reverse when the speaker is being invited to a dinner In both situations – those of being invited to a wedding party and to a dinner party, American participants show their regret more regularly than the Vietnamese This can be analyzed by the fact that traditionally Vietnamese people not have much the habit of saying sorry in an socialized situation Vietnamese people show their regret mainly in such ways as: Tr i i…, chán quá…, ti c nh …, giá mà… Giving Excuses seems to be a popular tactic to hedge an invitation decline among Vietnamese people They employ it in both situations and to different kinds of partners However, American participants not give it so much importance American people not give excuses as frequently as Vietnamese people when declining an informal invitation, especially when the partners are those who are very close Statistics shows that, to refuse an invitation to a dinner, the Americans show their appreciation most often to their close co-workers, while Vietnamese people apply this strategy to unclose colleagues In Vietnamese culture, this tactic is not applied very often to someone close as they suppose that it is fake and artificial 33 Blaming the Partner seems to be a very complicated tactic Nevertheless, Vietnamese people prove to be better at applying it in different situations and to different kinds of partners Though the number of Vietnamese and American participants who use strategy Giving an Alternative is not high, it is Vietnamese people seem to use this tactic more often and broadly than the Americans Implications Teaching Hedging in Invitation Declining Apparently, hedging is a politeness phenomenon It is available in both spoken and written language Hedging has different functions in spoken language, but generally speaking, it helps to keep the conversations going in a smooth, natural, effective way Teaching hedging sounds rather unfamiliar but is an essential step in language teaching process As said earlier, hedging is a large concept, so teaching hedging in different contexts will be different However, this section will only discuss the communication problems caused by the differences when Vietnamese and American hedge their invitation declines; the implications of the study to teaching hedging in invitation declining and from there on give some related suggestions 4.1 Possible Problems In cross-cultural communication, the negative effects caused by the influence of the first language have long been admitted The dissimilarities in the way of hedging an invitation decline between the Vietnamese and American people can also create a number of problems that Vietnamese learners may face when communicating with American people Followings are several problems that Vietnamese people are likely to meet when they decide to hedge an invitation decline from American partners • Firstly, being influenced by mother culture, Vietnamese male learners may not fully appreciate the significance of hedging in general and hedging in invitation declining in particular As discussed earlier, men’s clumsiness in communication is 34 not taken serious by Vietnamese people Yet, this habit may create a limb when they have to communicate with American partners Insufficient hedging in invitation declining, as one example, may result in communication break-down • Secondly, the power of age in Vietnamese culture also decides the extent of hedging in invitation declining If they are older, sometimes Vietnamese people tend to hedge less in order to confirm their value If they behave this way when they communicate with American people, they probably make the hearers lose their face • The intimacy between Vietnamese people also means less hedging between them This may create misunderstandings when they deal with American people as American people hedge very frequently even to their close friends • It has been noticed that it is a Vietnamese habit not to say sorry and thank very often, especially in socialized situations, or when there exists intimacy between the speaker and the hearer Saying sorry and thank to someone close will be considered pseudo and artificial in Vietnamese culture This habit is a disadvantage when Vietnamese people have to decline an invitation from American partners, as American people tend to say sorry and thank very often, even to those who are intimate as a sign of respect • Giving Excuses is a tactic favored by Vietnamese people They tend to give very detailed excuses in every decline This is sometimes seen as lengthy and unnecessary in conversations with the Americans • Vietnamese people are proved to be better at employing Blaming the Partners They can use this strategy to all kinds of partners However, this sometimes lead to negative effect in communication with American people, as American people not use this tactic to people who are superior and not close 4.2 Suggested Solutions Linguistic competence alone is not enough for learners of a language to communicate successfully in the target language (Krasner, 1999) Language learners need to be aware 35 that behaviors and intonation patterns that are appropriate in their own speech community may be perceived differently by members of the target language speech community They have to understand that, in order for communication to be successful, language use must be associated with other culturally appropriate behavior Teaching language, therefore, can not go without making learners aware of the target culture Teaching hedging, accordingly, plays a very important part in language teaching When teaching hedging, first and foremost, teachers should make students aware of the importance of hedging in languages; and each culture has different ways of hedging Teaching spoken hedging in general and hedging in invitation declining in particular should be context-based Dialogues or conversations are where this can be done properly Like any other cultural features, it would be better if hedging in invitation declining is acquired not taught There would be no points in making learners remember a series of rules of Dos and Don’ts when hedging an invitation declining In this case, examples of invitation refusals should be collected from people of different genders, different ages, different statuses, and different level of intimacy The role of teachers in this case is to raise the matter to the learners’ attention, letting them question and find the answers themselves The findings of this study have given teachers some insights into the way of hedging in invitation declining in Vietnamese and American cultures as well as the problems learners often encounter Those can help teachers to give right instructions and hints for the best acquisition of the learners Followings are several sample class activities with the hope to aid teachers in guiding Vietnamese students learn hedging in American English These two dialogues were taken from the American course book New Interchange (by Jack C Richards with Jonathan Hull and Susan Proctor) These are conversations between close friends, both male and female, so students can learn how they hedge when declining an invitation Conversation 1: Scott: Hello? Albert: Hi Scott! This is Albert How are things? Scott: Oh, hi, Albert 36 Albert: um, you know, it’s my birthday on Saturday, and I thought maybe you’d like to come to my party Scott: Oh, I really wish I could, but I won’t be around this weekend I’m leaving Friday night and won’t get back till Sunday afternoon Albert: Oh Scott: I’m sorry, Albert Uh, have a great party, though, and happy birthday Albert: Oh, thanks And you have a great weekend, Scott Scott: Oh, thanks Albert: Well, bye Scott: See you around Conversation 2: Regina: Hello? Albert: Regina? Hi, it’s Albert How are you? Regina: I’m fine How are you? Albert: Oh I’m fine, too Um, you know, Saturday is my birthday, and I was wondering if you’d like to come to my party Regina: Oh What time? Albert: Say, around seven thirty? Regina: Oh I’m sorry I think I may already have plans to go to the movies with my friends Albert: Oh, OK, Regina I hope you have a good time Regina: Thank you And I hope your party’s fun Albert: Yeah, well, I hope so, too Uh, see you in class on Monday Regina: Sure! Bye-bye! Albert: Bye! Activity Ask students to underline all the hedges used to refuse the invitation in each dialogue, and discuss what functions they might be fulfilling Do they sound natural and meaningful, or are they distracting or unnecessary? The goal of this activity is to help students realize what hedges are, the necessity and the functions of different hedging strategies 37 Activity Re-word the dialogues by taking out all the hedges for the invitation declines; replace these hedges by ‘I will not come’ or ‘No, I can’t come’, then let students to read it out loud Ask students what the effect of the original is as compared with the re-worded version? Again this activity is to show the students the importance of hedging in communication by manipulating hedging devices The worse re-worded version in comparison with the original one will give students good impression on the functions of hedges Activity Ask students to translate the hedges in the dialogues into Vietnamese Students then work in group and discuss if these hedges sounds natural in Vietnamese version They can discuss to see if Vietnamese people hedge the same in similar situations This activity allows students to be aware of the similarities and differences in the ways of hedging between American and Vietnamese people, hence can hedge properly in American English Activity Provide students with a list of hedges Take out some of the hedging devices in the declines, and ask students to put the right hedges into the gaps This is a controlled exercise With a list of hedges provided, students may work out which is the best place to put them The list of hedges must be designed carefully so that each hedge can suit only one gap Students will go confused if one hedge can be filled in different places Activity Take out all hedges in the declines Then ask students to employ different hedging strategies to fill in the gaps This is a less-controlled exercise, where students can create their own hedges Teachers should help students to see their hedges are proper or not 38 Activity Role- play: Ask students to act out a similar conversation Student A will invite student B to a birthday party And students B will try to apply hedging strategies to decline student A’s invitation Ask the students in the class to give comment on the hedging strategies he/ she employed After different steps to give students the insight and the knowledge of hedging, Role-play gives students a chance to practice what they have learnt The activity can be made into a competition where the whole class judge to find the most persuasive hedges It is a good idea if the class is divided into different groups Teachers can vary the situations and let students think of some tips for hedging the decline in different contexts Conclusion In the research, hedging in invitation declining has been viewed in the light of pragmatics It is seen as speech acts that are employed to avoid the risk of making the hearers lose their face In this research, hedging in invitation declining has been limited in office setting Seven main hedging strategies have been found, including Delaying, Showing Regret, Giving Excuses, Showing appreciation, Blaming the Partner, Giving an Alternative and Mixing Different Ways Such factors as gender, age, power, distance of the speakers and the hearers and the formality of the events have been explored to find the similarities and differences in the use of hedges to decline an invitation between Vietnamese and American people The result of the survey shows that when declining an invitation, gender decides the use of hedging 96% Vietnamese and 86% American female participants say they mostly hedge The number of Vietnamese male who agree to hedge frequently is just 70% while that of the American is 80% 39 Age is also a factor that influences the extent of employing hedges Vietnamese tend to hedge less when they get older as the result of age power in the country, but the American hedge more when they are more mature The favorite strategy used by both Vietnamese and American people is Mixing Different Ways, while the least favored tactic is Blaming the Partners The frequency of each strategy used by both parties varies according to age, gender of the speakers; power, distance, age difference between the speakers and the hearers; and to formality of the invitations From all these findings, some implications have been discussed with an attempt to help teachers and students to teach and learn hedging in declining an invitation With examples of two conversations taken from an American course book, several exercises have been suggested as class activities to give teachers some ideas about how to teach hedging in general and hedging in invitation declining in particular Suggestions for Further Studies This study though has been done with great effort, can not cover all aspects of hedging in invitation declining For further understanding and more effective employment of hedging in invitation declining, it is suggested that paralinguistic and extra –linguistic factors should be investigated, as these factors play a very significant role beside the verbal aspects Furthermore, hedging, as mentioned earlier, is a broad concept It is impossible to discuss all about hedging within the scope of an MA thesis Therefore, hedging is still a potential place for more researches Followings are several interesting ideas for the next studies: • Hedging in favor asking • Hedging bad news • Hedging in academic writing This thesis though has been done with all enthusiasm, can not be completely well-rounded The author would be grateful for any constructive and valuable comments from the readers 40 TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ABSTRACT TABLE OF FIGURES ABBREVIATION PART I INTRODUCTION 1 Rational………………………………………………………………………………… Scope of the Study……………………………………………………………………….2 Aims of the study……………………………………………………………………… Methodology…………………………………………………………………………… Comments on the Participants……………………………………………………………3 PART II CONTENT Theoretical Background 1.1 Hedging 1.2 Hedges and Speech Acts .5 1.3 Invitation Decline and Hedges in Invitation Declining .7 1.4 Politeness and Hedging in Invitation Declining .9 1.5 Culture and Hedging in Invitation Declining .11 Findings…………………………………………………………………………………12 2.1 The Extent of Hedging in Invitation Declining .12 2.2 Frequency of Strategies 14 2.2.1 Frequency of Strategies from Speakers’ Gender Perspective 15 2.2.2 Frequency of Strategies from Speakers’ Age Perspective .17 2.2.3 Hedging Strategies in Different Situations 19 2.2.3.1 Humming and Hawing 19 2.2.3.2 Expressing Regret and Sorry…………………………………………………… 20 2.2.3.3 Giving excuses 20 2.2.3.4 Showing Appreciation 21 2.2.3.5 Blaming the Partner 22 41 2.2.3.6 Giving Offer or Promise 23 2.2.3.7 Mixing Different Ways………………………………………………………… 24 2.3 Hedging Strategies in Invitation Declining in Vietnamese and American English… 24 Contrastive Analysis……………………………………………………………………31 3.1 Similarities……………………………………………………………………………31 3.2 Differences 32 Implication………………………………………………………………………………34 4.1 Possible Problems…………………………………………………………………… 34 4.2 Suggested Solutions………………………………………………………………… 35 PART III CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES .39 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………39 Suggestions for Further Studies ……………………………………………………… 40 42