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

• 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.. Aims of the

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,

3 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

2 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

3 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

4 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

5 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

1 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'

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 do 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 do 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:

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 non-material), 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:

1 Without redressive action, baldy

On record 2 Positive Politeness

Do the FTA With redressive action

3.Negative Politeness Off record

Don’t do 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

politeness strategies to reduce the weightiness of the decline A hedge itself can be an record decline For example, when a person says ‘I have already had other plans for the evening’, this sentence alone is a hedge, yet it can be understood as an off-record decline Brown and Levinson include hedges as part of the strategies available for both positive politeness where 'intensifying modifiers fulfill the sub-strategy of exaggerating (interest, approval, sympathy with H)' (1987: 104) and more normally for negative politeness where they modify the expression of communicative intentions (1987: 145).

off-1.5 Culture and Hedging in Invitation Declining

Hedging in general and hedging in invitation declining in particular is apparently a phenomenon of language And as language is believed to be woven into the very fabric of every human culture, it can be said that hedging in invitation declining is an element of culture

Although there are plenty disagreements on the definition of culture and the relation of language and culture, a majority of people agree that culture overwhelms language and language reflects culture Nevertheless, cultural features vary from region to region, even when they speak the same language That is why their reflections in language are different Hedging in invitation declining is not an exception It is influenced by cultures

There are plenty dissimilarities between Vietnamese and American cultures though in this era of globalization, cultural transfers are commonly seen Cultures rooted so deeply in people’s awareness that cannot be changed easily in a short time Each culture still has its own characteristics and dignity These dissimilarities between two cultures often create a phenomenon called cultural shock when people from the two cultures endeavor to communicate

The use of hedges in invitation declining by Vietnamese and American people is surely affected by cultural features To partially help avoid the cultural shock in this area, the following part will analyze the data collected from both Vietnamese and American informants to see the similarities as well as the differences in the way Vietnamese and American people employ hedges to make an invitation decline

2 Findings

2.1 The Extent of Hedging in Invitation Declining

Firstly, the extent that people hedge when giving a common invitation decline is viewed from gender perspective between the two cultures - those of American and Vietnamese The statistics shows that a majority of Vietnamese and American people hedge It can be clearly seen from the Figure 2 that when declining an invitation, it’s Vietnamese women who use hedges the most (96%), while only 70% Vietnamese male say that they mostly hedge The numbers of American male and female who admit that they mostly hedge when declining an invitation are 80% and 86% respectively Therefore, it can be noted that the difference in the extent of using hedges in invitation declining between Vietnamese male and female participants is bigger than that of the Americans This can be explained by the level of equality between men and women in the two cultures Vietnamese culture is still, to some extent, influenced by male chauvinism set by Confucianism, where men are more privileges than women That is why women tend to be very cautious in their behaviors, and declining invitation is one example Meanwhile, Vietnamese men feel rather free in expression, as their clumsiness in communication is not always taken into account On the contrary, the equality between American males and females can be well proved by a little difference in the extents of hedging The US is well- known as the country of freedom where there is little distinction in gender However, women tend to be more cautious than men by nature It is the reason why they employ a little more hedging

American

Vietnamese

Male Female

%

Male Female

Figure 2 Extent of hedging in invitation declining from gender perspective

In general, age is also a factor which can influence on the extent of hedging employment among the participants The value and the power of age are viewed differently in American and Vietnamese cultures The dissimilarities will be shown clearly in Figure 3

The statistics indicate that in American culture, the older the participants, the more they hedge their invitation decline The maturity of age may help them to realize the effects of communication in general, and of hedging in particular

However, Vietnamese data shows an opposite phenomenon It is clearly represented in the figure 3 below:

under 40

above 40

American Vietnamese

86

80 80

86

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

%

American Vietnamese

Figure 3 Extent of hedging in invitation declining from age perspective

Vietnamese people under 40 of age employ more hedging than those who are above 40 (86% and 80% respectively) The reason for this phenomenon is the power of age in Vietnamese culture In Vietnam, the older a person gets, the more power he/ she gains So the elder people do not think it is always a must to hedge their invitation declines

However, age is not the most decisive factor in the office setting, where power and distance play better roles in communication The extent to which people use hedging also depends on the partners they are communicating with In the figures of this paper, numbers 1-5 indicate:

1 boss/ someone superior

2 someone junior

3 colleague ( same sex/ close)

4 colleague ( opposite sex/ close)

5 colleague ( same sex/ not close)

6 colleague (opposite sex/ not close)

100% Vietnamese and American claim that they will hedge in the cases 1 and 6, i.e when the H is someone superior or opposite sex colleague that are not close We can also find the equality in the extent Vietnamese and American hedge in case 5 (80%) The differences happen in cases 3 and 4, where American people decide to hedge more when declining an invitation made by their close colleagues than the Vietnamese The reason may be that Vietnamese people trust more in the relationship and believe the intimacy that they developed with the partners can allow them to be more direct Hedging to close friends in American culture is considered polite and proper while in Vietnamese culture, too much hedging to close friends will be considered unnatural and somewhat hypocritical

100 86.6 70 76.6 60

90 70 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100

%

American Vietnamese

Figure 4 Extent of hedging in invitation declining to different kinds of partners

Though all Vietnamese and American participants agree that they should hedge when refuse an invitation from someone more powerful at work, Vietnamese people tend to care for both gender and distance when they have to decide to hedge or not, whereas, American hedge more to people of the opposite sex The distance is also taken into account but not as much serious as Vietnamese people do

2.2 Frequency of Strategies

From the survey questionnaire, it is suggested that there are seven ways utilized to hedge

an invitation decline: (a) Humming and Hawing, (b) Expressing Regret and Sorry, (c) Giving Excuses, (d) Showing Appreciation to the Invitations, (e) Blaming the partner, (f) Giving Offer and Promise Sometimes people use one tactic at a time, while in other cases they decide to employ different ways (a speech act set) at the same time to hedge (Mixing

Different Ways – labeled as (g) in figures) Besides those tactics given in the questionnaire,

no other strategy is suggested by the informants

The frequency of using these tactics is going to be analyzed from gender and age perspectives of the speakers and from power, gender, distance between the hearers and the speakers in two given situations – wedding party and dinner party The Likert scale means are calculated to see the average frequency

2.2.1 Frequency of Strategies from Speakers’ Gender Perspective

As discussed in 2.1, the extent of hedging in invitation declining between American and Vietnamese males and females is different In this section, the frequency of each strategy used by both Vietnamese and American males and females is going to be analyzed in details We shall range the frequency scale: 0 – Never, 1 – Hardly, 2 – Sometimes, 3 – Often, and 4 – Always The Likert means are calculated to see the average frequency of each strategy on the scale from 0 to 4 Therefore, the higher the means are, the more frequently the strategy is employed In the following figures, A stands for American party, and V stands for Vietnamese party

Figure 5 Frequency of strategies used by Vietnamese and American male participants

From the highlighted Likert means from the table above, the average frequency of the strategies used by Vietnamese and American male participants can be interpreted as follow:

Mixing Different Ways is most favored by two parties, which is well proved by very high Likert means on the scale (3.3 for American male and 3.27 for Vietnamese male) The least frequently used strategy by both parties is Blaming the Partners, followed by Giving Offer

or Promise Vietnamese males tend to use (c), (e) and (f) better than the American Meanwhile, American males opt for (a), (b) and (d) much more constantly than Vietnamese counterparts

Figure 6 Frequency of strategies used by Vietnamese and American female participants

By the same way of analyzing the data, it can be noted that the favorite hedging option of Vietnamese females is Strategy (g), i.e Mixing Different Ways (its mean is 3.4 in the frequency scale from 0 to 4) This is also true to the American counterparts, though the average frequency is a bit lower than that of the Vietnamese (3.14) The second favorite by

Vietnamese females is strategy (c) - Giving Excuses (its Likert mean is 3.14, much higher

in comparison with that of the American: 2.46.) American female employ the first 4 strategies at likely equal frequency level (ranging from 2.42 to 2.61 in terms of Likert mean) The least frequently used by both parties is strategy (e), followed by Strategy (f) However, in Strategy (f) - Giving Offer or Promise, the Vietnamese females proved to be much better than the American ones (Means are 1.6 and 1.13 respectively)

In terms of gender, Both Vietnamese and American females tend to use every strategy more often than males

2.2.2 Frequency of Strategies from Speakers’ Age Perspective

• Under 40 years old

Similarly, the frequency of each strategy employed by Vietnamese and American informants under 40 years old is shown in the Figure 7 The Likert means are also highlighted to show the average frequency of each strategy on the scale 0 -4

Hedging

Strategies

Likert mean

Figure 7 Frequency of strategies used by participants under 40 years old

On comparing the average frequency of each strategy employed by both Vietnamese and American people under 40, it is noted that the most remarkable difference lies in the

strategy (c) where Vietnamese people under 40 rank Giving Excuses very high in frequency level (mean 3.18), while the American of the same age do not give it such importance (mean 2.4) Vietnamese people under the age of 40 tend to employ strategy (a) and (b) at the similar rate (2.46 and 2.4 respectively) However, the Americans prefer strategy 2 to strategy 1 Both American and Vietnamese participants most favor mixing different ways when hedging their invitation decline The least favored tactic by both parties is Blaming the Partner

• Above 40 years old

Again, the frequency of each strategy employed by Vietnamese and American above 40 years old is also calculated by Likert mean and represented in Figure 8

Hedging Likert mean Never

Figure 8 Frequency of strategies used by participants above 40 years old

In comparison with the people under the age of 40, the frequency of strategy (a) used by Vietnamese people above 40 drops remarkably (from 2.46 to 1.27 in means) This is also true to strategy (b) – Expressing Regret and Sorry (the mean falls from 2.4 to 1.88) The power of age in Vietnamese culture allows the speakers of older age to think that it is not necessary to hesitate or say sorry to the partners It is quite different in American culture, where the maturity makes people more aware of the significance of hedging The frequency of each strategy used by the American above 40 in age is a little higher than that

of the American people who are under the age of 40 The two least favored tactics by two parties again are strategies (e) and (f), and the strategy (g) is still the highest on the scale

2.2.3 Hedging Strategies in Different Situations

The use of hedging varies in different situations The two situations are set to see if the hedging strategies are different in formal and informal situations The following date will display the similarities and differences between Vietnamese and American use of each strategy in different situations from the perspectives of gender, power and distance between the S and the H

2.2.3.1 Humming and Hawing

Figure 9 Humming and Hawing

Statistically, Humming and Hawing is hardly used to hedge when declining a wedding invitation made by someone superior or junior in both Vietnamese and American cultures Meanwhile, it is a popular strategy in the case when the partner is a not very close opposite sex colleague (40% Americans and 66% Vietnamese) To the partners who are bosses, juniors or same sex close colleagues, Vietnamese people tend to hum and haw less frequent than the Americans On the contrary, to colleagues that are not very close, especially to those of opposite sex, Vietnamese people employ it much more often than the American

It can be referred from the data in Figure 9 that the significance of the invitation decides the extent of using this tactic – Humming and Hawing It is much less frequently used in

the second situation, where both Vietnamese and American people think that it is not necessary to be much hesitant when refusing an invitation to a dinner In this situation, however, more American people use this tactic than Vietnamese ones

2.2.3.2 Expressing Regret and Sorry

Figure 10: Expressing Regret and Sorry

Expressing Regret and Sorry has been well- proved to be much more favored by the American participants than by the Vietnamese in very case In two situations, the Americans show their regret and sorry most frequently to their boss or someone superior (86.6% in the situation 1 and 83.3% in the situation 2) To the rest groups of partners, they show regret and sorry at a similar frequency level, ranging from 56,6 % to 70%, with a slight drop when the partner is intimate and of the same sex

Vietnamese people, traditionally, do not say sorry in socialized situations and to the partners that they have developed intimacy The regrets are often shown under the forms of

‘ti c quá’, ‘chán quá’, ‘giá mà’… The data represented in Figure 10 shows a very low frequency of this strategy used to hedge an invitation decline to close colleagues The frequency is a bit higher when the partners are juniors or someone unfamiliar The second situation is where this tactic is applied a little bit more often The reason must be in the first situation (wedding party), Vietnamese people tend to think that other strategies may

do better job than saying sorry or showing regret

2.2.3.3 Giving excuses

Figure 11 Giving Excuses

Figure 11 indicates that this strategy is more adopted by Vietnamese people in both situations It seems to be a Vietnamese habit to give excuses in almost every decline From 80%-86.6% Vietnamese people give excuses when declining invitations To Vietnamese participants, excuses seem to be a very significant part of the decline in both situations As

a matter of fact, Vietnamese people tend to give excuses in majority of their declines because they are afraid that the H may misunderstand their good will Nevertheless, to the Americans, though majority of them give excuses in the first situation, the number of people who give excuses falls remarkably in the second situation It is also noted that fewer Americans give excuses to colleagues who are not close They may think that excuses are not always necessary or they may not want to reveal their plans, for example; especially when they deal with an informal invitation, and when the distance between the S and the H

Figure 12: Showing Appreciation