INTRODUCTION
Rationale
Language is essential for human development and civilization, serving not only as a means of communication but also as a vehicle for cultural exchange among nations The strong connection between language and culture highlights the challenge of learning a language without also understanding its cultural context.
Cross-cultural communication explores the similarities and differences in languages and cultures, particularly in speech acts and politeness strategies While numerous studies have examined speech acts such as requesting and complimenting in Vietnam and among English learners from diverse backgrounds, there is a notable lack of research on the aspects of "interrupting and asking for clarification." This gap is especially evident in the context of business meetings, highlighting an area that requires further attention.
This article explores the nuances of interrupting and seeking clarification in Vietnamese and American English, highlighting the challenges individuals face in choosing appropriate and polite methods in cross-cultural contexts The author undertakes a study titled “An American – Vietnamese Cross-Cultural Study of Interrupting and Asking for Clarification in Business Meetings” to investigate the similarities and differences in the ways business professionals from these two cultures navigate interruptions and requests for clarification during meetings.
Significance of the study
Exploring the similarities and differences in interrupting and seeking clarification between Vietnamese and American entrepreneurs during business meetings can greatly enhance our understanding of cross-cultural pragmatics This research aims to improve effective communication practices, empowering Vietnamese businesspeople to engage more confidently in meetings with their American counterparts.
Aims and objectives of the study
This study explores the differences and similarities in linguistic politeness strategies used by American and Vietnamese businesspeople during speech acts of interrupting and seeking clarification in business meetings, framed within the context of cross-cultural pragmatics.
firstly, to investigate ways of interrupting and asking for clarification in business meetings in Vietnamese and American English;
secondly, to compare and contrast the use of politeness strategies in the ways the Vietnamese and American businesspeople interrupt and ask for clarification in business meetings
Scope of the study
The English-speaking informants to be surveyed are all American businesspeople and their Vietnamese-speaking counterparts are all Northern Vietnamese
The study examines the verbal dynamics of interruption and clarification requests among American and Vietnamese business professionals of varying ages, genders, and roles during meetings It aims to highlight key similarities and differences in their communication styles, particularly in the context of negative and positive politeness strategies.
Research questions
To fulfill the objectives above, the answers to the following research questions are sought:
1 What politeness strategies are used by American and Vietnamese businesspoeple in interrupting and asking for clarification in business meetings?
2 What are the major similarities and differences in interrupting and asking for clarification in terms of politeness strategies between the Vietnamese and American businesspeople?
Research method
This study employs a quantitative approach, relying heavily on statistical data analysis and relevant publications Key methods include conducting survey questionnaires, reviewing literature, engaging in discussions with American and Vietnamese colleagues, and consulting with a supervisor.
Survey research is a data collection method that involves gathering information from a sample of respondents who represent a larger population This approach enables researchers to achieve generalizability, as they can draw conclusions about the entire population based on the responses of a smaller group When conducted with well-constructed and standardized questionnaires, survey research is considered a reliable method (Blackstone, 2012) Consequently, this study utilizes the survey method to effectively gather and analyze data.
Structure of the study
The thesis consists of the followings:
This chapter includes the rationale, aims, objectives and scope of the study
This chapter defines essential concepts such as culture, cross-culture, speech acts, and politeness, while critically examining politeness principles and strategies for interrupting and seeking clarification Additionally, it includes a review of relevant studies that contribute to the understanding of these topics.
This chapter provides a methodological framework for collecting and analyzing data Chapter IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In this chapter, data analysis and findings of the study are presented with the illustration of tables and charts
Summary of the major findings and suggestions for further research are presented in this part.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Key concepts defined and discussed
Culture is a complex concept that varies among researchers, often viewed as a set of symbolic meanings in individuals' minds or as a contextual variable It encompasses both the products of historical behaviors and influences future actions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between humans and culture (Segall et al., 1999) According to Levine and Adelman (1993), culture can be defined as a shared background shaped by common language, communication styles, customs, beliefs, attitudes, and values.
Recent perspectives view cultures as dynamic systems that transcend geographical boundaries and evolve over time, rather than as static entities (Hong & Chiu, 2001, p 181) This thesis aligns with the notion that culture is continually changing, shaped by learned behaviors and beliefs Furthermore, language is inherently linked to social activities and cannot exist in isolation from its cultural context.
Business culture, as defined by McCarthy (1996), represents the ethos of a business, influencing how its personnel think and behave Gallagher (2003) further clarifies this concept by outlining what business culture encompasses and what it does not.
“A business culture is your values and beliefs, generally unspoken, your style, the type of people you hire and what behavior you reward.” In contrast, business culture is not
Business culture is shaped by long-standing practices and conventional methods, including the promotion of products and services, recruitment processes, and desired behaviors These elements collectively influence how a business operates and reflects the broader cultural values of a country.
1.2.1 Overview of American business culture
The United States is characterized by its cultural diversity, as noted by Gary (1999) Despite this diversity, a dominant culture prevails, compelling immigrants to assimilate by relinquishing their unique differences in order to integrate into the mainstream society.
According to John (2008), Americans operate within a rule-based culture where adherence to rules takes precedence over personal relationships This trait contributes to the U.S being classified as a "low-context" culture, characterized by direct communication and clarity in expressing desires, as noted by Katrine (2007).
According to Yin (2002), American participants utilize communication to project a positive self-image, reflecting the strong emphasis on individualism in U.S culture Additionally, these participants prioritize making others feel valued and validated, which significantly impacts American business communication practices.
In American business culture, meetings are conducted with a focus on efficiency, prioritizing agenda-driven discussions over relationship-building Formal meetings typically include a structured action plan and pre-written contracts, while negotiations are characterized by directness, with little tolerance for haggling Americans value continuous communication and are generally uncomfortable with silence, preferring to save questions and comments for the end of presentations Unlike many other cultures, American business practices emphasize personal merit over class or seniority, making favoritism in hiring unethical In more casual settings, Americans are relaxed and prioritize personal achievements, openly sharing their opinions and contributing to significant decisions in the workplace.
1.2.2 Overview of Vietnamese business culture
Vietnam is characterized by a high-context culture, where the meaning of words is influenced by context and long-lasting relationships are valued (Katrine, 2007) This relationship-based culture emphasizes the importance of authority figures in regulating behavior, with improper actions potentially leading to shame or ostracism (John, 2008) Additionally, Vietnamese culture is collectivist, where individuals identify as part of a group, prioritizing group needs over personal desires (Adler & Gundersen, 2008) The influence of Confucian values and hierarchical structures further shapes business conduct in Vietnam.
In Vietnamese business meetings, hierarchy and face play significant roles, with the most senior individual entering the room first Silence often prevails when disagreements arise, as participants may choose to remain quiet to avoid causing a loss of face Building relationships is essential for successful partnerships, and while meetings tend to be relaxed, small talk serves to foster familiarity and establish relative status among attendees Given Vietnam's hierarchical culture, individuals typically feel uneasy if they are unaware of the status of those they are interacting with.
In Vietnam, the cultural context is characterized by high power-distance and low uncertainty avoidance, leading employees to perceive their organizations as familial structures In this environment, there is an expectation for bosses to provide financial and physical support to their employees, reinforcing strong interpersonal relationships within the workplace.
1.3 Cross- culture and cross-cultural communication
Cross-culture, defined as the interaction between two cultures or languages across national borders (Kram, 1998: 81), emphasizes the significance of cultural exchange This concept, often referred to as "interculture," highlights the assumption that each nation has a distinct culture and language, which can lead to a potential "culture shock" when crossing these boundaries Ultimately, cross-culture aims to foster understanding and appreciation of diverse perspectives beyond one's own national identity.
Cross-cultural communication encompasses the interaction between individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds, as highlighted by Jia (1997), who emphasizes its focus on the communicative activities and underlying rules of such exchanges The term "cross-cultural" extends beyond international borders, encompassing communication among people of varying nationalities, social statuses, and cultural contexts Ultimately, it involves the exchange and negotiation of ideas, feelings, and attitudes among individuals from different cultures.
Overview of cross-cultural pragmatics
Cross-cultural pragmatics, as defined by Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993), involves the examination of linguistic acts among individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds (Locastro, 2012:80) Wierzbicka (1991) highlights that this field focuses on various communicative aspects, such as the distinct ways people communicate within different communities and how these speech styles embody unique cultural values and priorities This perspective is further explored in Holmes's (2009) study on "politeness strategies as linguistic variables," which recognizes that cultures vary in their approaches to expressing consideration for others.
Wierzbicka (1991) defines "cross-cultural" as encompassing interactions between individuals who lack a shared linguistic or cultural background, extending beyond just native-non-native exchanges Cross-cultural pragmatics plays a crucial role not only in comparing diverse cultures but also in enriching the field of general pragmatics, which relies on insights from cross-cultural studies to articulate its theories effectively.
Interrupting as a speech act
The concept of "interrupting" has garnered significant interest from researchers, yet a clear consensus on its definition remains elusive West and Zimmerman (1975) characterize interrupting as a form of simultaneous speech that infringes on a speaker's turn, serving as a means of asserting power and control during conversations Additionally, James and Clarke (1988) describe interrupting as the act of one individual initiating speech while another is already speaking.
In the realm of interruption classification, numerous categorization schemes have been suggested by various researchers This study adopts the classification framework established by Roger and Schumacher (1983), which categorizes interruptions into two distinct types: successful interruptions and unsuccessful interruptions.
This paper examines the politeness strategies used by businesspeople when interrupting and seeking clarification, focusing exclusively on successful interruptions Successful interruptions, as defined by Roger and Schumacher (1983), occur when the second speaker effectively prevents the first speaker from finishing their statement by taking the floor.
Interruptions can serve various purposes, including expressing disagreement, soliciting opinions, contributing ideas, or seeking clarification In this study, the focus is on interruptions specifically aimed at obtaining clarification Such interruptions often arise from the listener's confusion or lack of understanding regarding the speaker's message.
One of the important approaches within interlanguage pragmatics is the application of the notion of speech acts According to Yule (1996:47), “Actions performed via utterances are generally called speech acts.”
Austin (1962, pp 94-108) categorizes the utterance into three layers:
(1) The locutionary act refers to an utterance simply constructed by its literal or propositional meaning
(2) The illocutionary act is the real action performed by the utterance, i.e the conventionalized meaning
(3) The perlocutionary act refers to the effect of the utterance upon the listener
Austin emphasized the significance of the illocutionary act as the primary focus of communication, as it reflects the speaker's intended outcome when expressing sentences According to Searle (1976), illocutionary acts can be classified into five distinct categories.
(1)Representatives which tell people how things are, (e.g suggest, deny, swear, report, etc.)
(2) Directives are attempts by the speaker to get the hearer to do something (e.g order, request, invite, command, etc.)
(3)Comissives by which the speaker commits himself to do things (e.g intend, promise, vow, undertake, etc.)
(4)Expressive express speakers‟ feelings and attitudes (e.g thank, congratulate, apologize, detest, etc.)
Declarations, or declarative statements, can significantly alter institutional circumstances through specific utterances, such as resigning, appointing, or dismissing individuals A notable example is a priest declaring, "I now pronounce you man and wife," which exemplifies how such statements can effectuate change in social and legal statuses.
Speech acts may be either direct or indirect depending on the direct and indirect relationships between their structures and functions
In English, speech acts are often categorized into specific labels such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, and request (Yule, 1996) Interruption serves the primary function of allowing the second speaker to take over the conversation, often viewed negatively as it disrupts normal conversational rules and is seen as rude (James & Clarke, 1993) However, interruptions can also be supportive and cooperative, enabling speakers to collaboratively explore a topic and create shared meaning In some cases, interruptions may be neutral, particularly when they arise from a lack of understanding, prompting a request for clarification According to Yule (1996) and Searle (1976), interrupting for clarification is a form of request, where the speaker seeks further explanation, as in the phrase, "Could you explain what you mean by ?"
Politeness strategies in interrupting and asking for clarification
This paper is grounded in the theory of speech acts, particularly requests, and the theory of politeness, which is essential for understanding pragmatics The following section will explore the theoretical background of politeness and its strategies, as they are crucial components of pragmatics Numerous researchers have investigated this area, largely building on the foundational work of Brown & Levinson (1987) Therefore, this thesis primarily relies on the politeness theory proposed by Brown & Levinson as its core framework.
Yule (1996) defines politeness as the methods used to acknowledge another person's face To fully understand this concept, it's important to explore Brown and Levinson's interpretation of 'face,' which is crucial in the study of interpersonal communication.
Every individual seeks to establish a public self-image that encompasses two interconnected dimensions: the negative face, which asserts the right to personal space and freedom from interference, and the positive face, which reflects the desire for a consistent self-image that is recognized and valued by others (Brown and Levinson 1987:61).
In conversations, both the speaker and hearer are typically aware of the need to protect each other's self-image, known as "face." However, certain situations may arise where the speaker's words threaten the listener's expectations of their self-image, referred to as a face-threatening act (FTA) Yule (1996) discusses these circumstances, while Brown and Levinson (1987) also acknowledge the significance of FTAs in their theory.
A Face Threatening Act (FTA) is defined as a verbal communication from a speaker (S) to a hearer (H) that carries a specific intention, which S expects H to acknowledge This acknowledgment is crucial for the communicative purpose of S's utterance Every utterance inherently poses some level of imposition on both S and H, making it intrinsically face-threatening Additionally, the degree of threat posed by FTAs can vary, with some being more significant than others.
Yule (1996) aligns with Brown and Levinson (1987) in defining politeness as a fixed concept, while Watts (2003:16) argues that politeness is dynamic, subject to adaptation and change across different groups and eras.
In this regard, Watts appears to refute the universality of politeness as proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987), but considering it a flexible conception
In short, in person, various definitions of politeness, the writer tends to fall on Yule (1996)‟s viewpoint.
This paper focuses on the concept of "face" and face wants, exploring various politeness strategies, with a particular emphasis on Brown and Levinson's theory, which is widely recognized and utilized in this research The authors outline five key strategies, known as the five super-strategies, as detailed in their 1987 work.
Figure II.1 Possible Strategies for Doing FTAs (Brown/Levinson, 1987:60)
Aiming at clarifying these strategies, Yule (1996) applies this theory into a specific situation: “How to get a pen from someone else” as presented in the following chart:
Figure II.2 How to get a pen from someone else (following Brown/Levinson 1987)
(Yule, 1996:66) The conception of Brown &Levinson about the typical characteristics as well as the chief distinctions of each mentioned politeness strategy as below:
Bald on-record does nothing to minimize threats to H‟s “face” and avoid FTAs
Positive politeness strategy shows S recognizes that H has a desire to be respected It also confirms that the relationships is friendly and expresses group reciprocity
Negative politeness also recognizes H‟s face But it also recognizes that S is in some way imposing on that face
How to get a pen from someone else
Positive politeness (´How about letting me use your pen?´)
Bald on record (´Give me a pen)
Negative politeness (´Could you lend me a pen?´)
Off record (´I forgot my pen´)
Say nothing (but search in bag)
Off-record indirect: an FTA is avoided by not (literally) making a request at all but an indirect statement that must be inferred to be a request by hearer
Negative politeness strategies, referred to as "deference strategies" by Yule (1996), prioritize the hearer's freedom and can be employed by a group or on specific occasions This approach is integral to what is known as "formal politeness." Yule identifies key characteristics of deference strategies, including an impersonal tone that avoids personal references and highlights the independence of both the speaker and the hearer, often marked by the absence of personal claims.
Brown and Levinson (1987:131)tend to provide a more lucid description of negative politeness by giving ten different strategies as follows:
(8) State the FTA as a general rule
Nguyen Quang (2003: 183), from his observation of cross cultural communication, adds one more negative politeness strategy:
Strategy 11: Avoid asking personal questions
In communities that prioritize positive politeness, asking personal questions can effectively demonstrate concern for others; however, such inquiries may also infringe on an individual's privacy Consequently, refraining from asking intrusive questions, such as inquiries about salary or the cost of personal items, serves as a negative politeness strategy to respect boundaries and maintain social harmony.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 70), positive politeness “is oriented toward the positive face of H, the positive self-image that he claims for himself”
Nguyen Quang (2003: 27) defines positive politeness as a communicative act, whether verbal or nonverbal, that is intentionally suitable and demonstrates the speaker's concern for the addressee This approach aims to strengthen the sense of solidarity between the interactants.
Positive politeness strategies serve as social accelerators, allowing speakers (S) to express a desire to connect more closely with their listeners (H) According to Brown and Levinson (1987:102), there are 15 distinct positive politeness strategies that speakers can employ in communication to enhance interpersonal relationships.
(1) Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods)
(2) Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)
(4) Use in-group identity markers
(5) Seek agreement (by the safe topics, repetition or minimal encouragers)
(7) Presuppose/ raise/ assert common ground
(9) Assert or presuppose S‟s knowledge of and concern for H‟s wants
(12) Include both S and H in the activity
(13) Give (or ask for) reasons
(15) Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
Nguyen Quang (2003: 78-85), adds two more strategies, namely:
E.g: You have my whole-hearted support
E.g: Are you married or single?
In our discussion, we explored 17 positive politeness strategies and 11 negative politeness strategies commonly employed in communication However, it is important to note that distinguishing between these two types of politeness strategies can be quite challenging.
In one utterance, we may find both negative politeness and positive politeness strategies applied:
E.g: Honey, wait for me for just a second? („positive politeness‟: in group identity marker- honey - and „negative politeness‟: minimizing the imposition- just a second)
4.2 Politeness strategies in interrupting and asking for clarification
Interruption markers like "excuse me" and "sorry for interrupting" demonstrate the effort to soften the impact of an interruption The selection of these markers varies based on the interrupter and the situation Often, the interrupter may opt to ask a question as a way to interject This section categorizes the politeness strategies used to interrupt and seek clarification during business meetings.
Based on the politeness theory proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987) and further developed by Nguyen Quang (2003), this research categorizes politeness strategies for interrupting and seeking clarification into positive politeness strategies (PPS).
Có phải ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn đang nói rằng “… ”?
E.g: Why do not you make it clearer?
Sao ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn không trình bày vấn đề này rõ hơn? b Negative politeness strategies (NPS)
E.g: If I may interrupt, could you explain what you mean by… ?
Xin phép cho tôi được ngắt lời ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn, ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn có thể giải thích ý của mình về ….?
- Apologizing and using verbal off - record
E.g: Sorry to interrupt, but I am not really sure I understand what you mean by… Xin lỗi đã ngắt lời ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn, nhưng tôi thực sự chưa hiểu rõ ý của ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn về….?
E.g: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you just clarify it, please?
Xin lỗi đã ngắt lời ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn, nhưng ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn có thể vui lòng nói rõ hơn vấn đề đó được không?
- Minimizing imposition and using verbal off record
E.g: Hold on just a minute, I do not really understand what you mean…
Cho tôi xin chỉ một phút thôi, tôi thực sự chưa hiểu ý của ông/bà.anh/chị/bạn về…
4.3 Previous studies on interrupting and asking for clarification
METHODOLOGY
Data collection instruments
Questionnaires serve as a crucial tool for data collection, featuring a combination of structured items such as multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and open-ended items known as discourse completion tasks (DCTs).
Two questionnaires were developed to gather data, including a multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ) aimed at assessing the reliability of the discourse completion test (DCT) and the overall survey The MCQ features 10 items that reflect common situations where participants often seek clarification during business meetings These questionnaires are tailored for two groups: American businesspeople and their Vietnamese counterparts, resulting in two distinct versions—one in American English for American participants and another in Vietnamese for the Vietnamese respondents.
Cross-cultural and inter-language studies have utilized various methods, including ethnographic methods, role-play, and discourse completion tasks (DCT) While ethnographic and role-play approaches have significant drawbacks—such as contextual variables in ethnography and time-consuming recordings in role-play—DCT offers a viable solution DCT includes two types: Oral Completion Tasks, where researchers verbally describe scenarios for role-playing participants, and Written Completion Tasks, where informants write responses to brief situations Despite its limitations, such as non-authentic data and the lack of prosodic and non-verbal elements, DCT is favored for its ability to systematically incorporate relevant contextual factors like social distance and power dynamics, facilitating the analysis of social variables on strategy choice (Barron, 2003) Additionally, DCT can be efficiently distributed to large groups, making it ideal for studies with time constraints.
The instructions for both the MCQ and DCT are designed to ensure that informants can easily comprehend them and provide their best responses The author aims to collect authentic, natural, typical, and reliable tokens from the survey questionnaire for evaluation However, the study has limitations, as it does not address certain aspects, including paralinguistic factors (such as pitch and vocal qualities), non-verbal cues (like facial expressions and gestures), the communication setting (including place and lighting), and mood influences (such as happiness or boredom).
Participants
The study will involve thirty native Vietnamese speakers and thirty American native speakers, all currently employed in business sectors A questionnaire will be administered exclusively to these participants to explore the dynamics of interrupting and seeking clarification during business meetings By focusing on native speakers rather than immigrants, the research aims to ensure the reliability of the survey results.
Data collection procedure
The initial version of the multiple-choice questionnaire will be distributed to two participant groups to identify specific situations in which business professionals frequently interrupt for clarification during meetings Following this, a discourse completion task will be conducted with the same groups If direct delivery of the questionnaires is not possible, they will be sent via email The analysis of the results will utilize a coding scheme and SPSS software version 11.5.
Data analysis method
The analysis of the discourse completion task focuses on the utterances provided by informants, specifically regarding interruptions and requests for clarification The data is examined through various dimensions of speech acts and politeness strategies, which will be defined and organized into a coding scheme largely influenced by Brown & Levinson's politeness theory To identify key similarities and differences in how business professionals from two cultures engage in interruptions and seek clarification, considering factors such as power, gender, and age, SPSS software version 11.5 will be utilized, with an emphasis on cross-tabulation analysis.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Comments on MCQ
The multiple-choice questionnaire aims to identify common situations in business meetings where interruptions and requests for clarification occur among businesspeople Results, presented in tables and figures (see Appendix 3), indicate that both Vietnamese and American participants frequently identify disagreement as a primary reason for interruptions Additionally, interruptions often arise when a speaker provides information that is out of context A significant number of participants also noted that confusion among the audience prompts interruptions Based on these findings, a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) has been created to explore how Vietnamese and American businesspeople navigate interruptions and seek clarification across three contexts: formal, semi-formal, and informal meetings.
How do Vietnamese and American businesspeople interrupt and ask for clarification
Business meeting atmospheres can vary from formal to informal, influenced by the setting, topics discussed, and the significance of the participants involved Research conducted through DCT indicates that both American and Vietnamese attendees typically refrain from interrupting or seeking clarification during formal meetings.
Table III.1 Vietnamese businesspeople and American counterparts‟ responses in formal meetings
Only 6.7% of American participants utilize negative politeness strategies to interrupt a speaker and seek clarification, primarily employing sub-strategies such as apologizing and minimizing imposition.
Sorry to interrupt, would you mind giving more explanation, please?
Excuse me for interrupting, could you explain what you mean by….?
In a study involving Vietnamese business people, only 13.3% of participants reported making interruptions during conversations Notably, the politeness strategies utilized by Vietnamese respondents align closely with those chosen by their American counterparts.
Xin lỗi đã ngắt lời ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn, ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn có thể vui lòng giải thích rõ hơn được không?
Research shows that American businesspeople prefer to avoid interruptions during presentations unless the issue is urgent, allowing for a dedicated Q&A session at the end This aligns with Gesteland's (1999) findings that interruptions are generally unwelcome in formal American settings Similarly, Vietnamese professionals often observe silence in meetings, particularly in formal contexts, to prevent any loss of face, as noted by Adler & Gundersen (2008).
The table presents findings from Vietnamese participants, highlighting five distinct sub-categories of politeness strategies utilized by Vietnamese businesspeople: minimizing imposition and verbal off-record, apologizing and verbal off-record, apologizing and minimizing imposition, asking for reasons, and seeking agreement through repetition.
Table III.2 Vietnamese businesspeople‟s use of politeness strategies in semi-formal meetings
In a study of five sub-categories, the predominant tactic chosen by Vietnamese business people to seek clarification and interrupt conversations is the use of apologizing and minimizing imposition, which constitutes 42.5% of the total strategies observed Common expressions illustrating this approach include various phrases that demonstrate politeness and consideration.
- Xin lỗi anh/chị, anh/chị có thể làm ơn giải thích rõ hơn ý vừa rồi được không?
Xin lỗi đã ngắt lời ông/bà, nhưng ông/bà có thể vui lòng trình bày rõ hơn quan điểm vừa rồi được không ạ? Đây là một ví dụ về chiến lược lịch sự trong giao tiếp, thể hiện sự tôn trọng và mong muốn hiểu rõ hơn ý kiến của người khác.
Y ounger Higher position Equal position Lower position Male
Seeking agreement by repet it ion polit eness st rategy
The second most prominent strategy identified in the data is minimizing imposition and employing verbal off-record communication, which accounts for 34.2% of the total According to the Discourse Completion Test (DCT), Vietnamese entrepreneurs often utilize these approaches in their interactions.
- Xin phép cho tôi được ngắt lời ông/bà/anh/chị, tôi thực sự chưa hiểu ý mà ông/bà/anh/chị đang trình bày
- Tôi xin phép được ngắt lời ông/bà/anh/chị,nhưng tôi vẫn chưa rõ kế hoạch đang nói đến ở đây là gì
Alternatively, some other respondents choose “seeking agreement by repetition” or
“asking for reason” to interject the speaker‟s speech For example:
- Có phải kế hoạch mà ông bà/anh/chị đang bàn đến ở đâylà….phải không ạ?
- Tại sao đồng chí không nói cụ thể hơn nữa về kế hoạch này nhỉ?
In Vietnamese culture, preserving one's face is essential, particularly in public settings and meetings Consequently, offering an apology before seeking clarification is viewed as a more courteous approach that helps reduce face-threatening situations Additionally, as Vietnam's culture emphasizes relationship-building, maintaining strong connections is crucial, especially in business interactions.
The use of politeness strategies varies significantly across eight proposed scenarios involving speakers of different ages Vietnamese respondents predominantly favor "apologizing and minimizing imposition" when interacting with older speakers Notably, there is a marked difference in the application of these strategies based on the speaker's age, with all respondents opting for negative politeness strategies when the speaker is older While "apologizing and minimizing imposition" remains the most frequently chosen strategy, some respondents also select "apologizing and verbal off record."
Figure III.1.Vietnamese businesspeople‟s use of politeness strategies in semi-formal meetings
In contrast, if the speaker is supposed to be younger, the most frequently used is
“seeking agreement by repetition” and “asking for reasons”, which belong to positive politeness strategy Two positive politeness strategies namely “minimizing imposition
In situations where the speaker and hearer are perceived to be of similar age, both "verbal off record" and "apologizing & minimizing imposition" strategies are utilized equally Additionally, when considering the speaker's position, the findings mirror those related to age; however, there is a notable increase in the application of these strategies when the speaker holds an equal position to that of the hearer, as indicated by a larger number of participants.
“minimizing imposition & verbal off record” strategy as well as several uses of “asking for reason” strategy
Vietnamese culture is characterized by its hierarchical structure, heavily influenced by Confucian beliefs, which significantly shape interpersonal behaviors, including those in business contexts.
Hi gh er po sitio n
Minimizing impositi- on &Verbal off recor
Apologizing & Minimi -zing imposition Asking for reason Seeking agreement by repetition
Vietnamese culture is characterized by its hierarchical nature, heavily influenced by Confucian beliefs that shape interpersonal behaviors, particularly in business contexts To demonstrate respect towards elders and superiors, individuals often employ tactics such as apologizing and minimizing imposition In contrast, when interacting with younger individuals or those of lower status, repeating an idea or seeking clarification is considered more suitable, as it conveys a friendly tone, albeit with less formality.
The analysis reveals that there are no differences in politeness strategies based on the speaker's gender All participants consistently utilize two primary positive politeness strategies: minimizing imposition and using verbal off-record tactics, alongside apologizing while minimizing imposition.
In semi-formal business meetings, American business professionals utilize four key politeness strategies: minimizing imposition, apologizing & verbal off record, apologizing & minimizing imposition, and asking for reasons Among these strategies, the negative politeness approach is the most favored, with 70% of respondents opting for the "minimizing imposition" strategy.
- If I may interrupt, could you please explain what you mean by…?
- Hold on just a minute, could you please clarify what you mean by….?
The second largest number of responses belongs to “apologizing & minimizing imposition” strategy making up 17.5% The positive politeness strategy namely
“asking for reason” is the least popular one with just only 2.1% in total responses There are frequent expressions as example below:
- Sorry to interrupt, but could you just help me clarify what you mean by… ?
- Why don‟t you explain the plan in more detail?
The similarities and differences
An analysis of American and Vietnamese business interactions reveals notable similarities in how professionals from both cultures interrupt and seek clarification during meetings Both groups identify common reasons for interruptions, including disagreement with the speaker, the speaker going off-topic, and a lack of understanding of the speaker's message While the quantitative data from each culture may differ slightly, the overarching patterns in interruption behavior highlight a shared approach to communication in business settings.
In formal meetings, both Vietnamese and American businessmen generally agree on the importance of not interrupting each other, with most respondents opting for silence unless faced with urgent issues When interruptions do occur, both parties typically apologize beforehand to maintain the decorum of the meeting Furthermore, there is no noticeable difference in the politeness strategies employed by Vietnamese and American businesspeople based on the speaker's gender during semi-formal meetings.
Finally, in informal meetings, the choice of “seeking agreement by repetition” strategy in America accounts a proportion approximately equal to amount response in Vietnam
This thesis aims to explore the differences in interruptions and requests for clarification during business meetings between American and Vietnamese professionals The analysis will focus on two contexts—semi-formal and informal meetings—while considering the frequency of politeness strategies used Additionally, the study will examine how age, gender, and position influence these communication behaviors in a business setting.
3.2.1 Differences in semi-formal meetings
Vietnamese businesspeople exhibit a distinct approach to politeness strategies compared to their American counterparts While 70% of American responses utilize the "minimizing imposition" strategy during interruptions, Vietnamese respondents prefer to apologize first, with nearly half employing the "apologizing & minimizing imposition" strategy This preference aligns with the cultural norm in Vietnam, where giving an apology is seen as a crucial method for maintaining face, particularly in face-threatening situations, and is used twice as frequently as in American interactions Additionally, American businesspeople typically avoid the "minimizing imposition & verbal off record" strategy due to their low-context culture, which favors direct communication In contrast, about one-third of Vietnamese respondents adopt this indirect tactic, reflecting the high-context nature of Vietnamese culture, where indirect expressions help preserve the face of both the speaker and the listener.
Table III 6 Vietnamese businesspeople versus their American counterparts in the use of politeness strategies in semi-formal meetings
Vietnamese businessmen adapt their politeness strategies for interruptions and requests for clarification based on the speaker's age, gender, and social status In contrast, American counterparts tend to use a more uniform approach to politeness strategies, showing less variation in their interactions.
In terms of speaker‟s age, except for the case of speakers older, a larger number of Vietnamese participants opt for positive strategies such as “asking for reason” and
“seeking agreement by repetition” when they interrupt a younger speaker Conversely, no distinction can be found for American counterparts in this regard
Position plays a crucial role in the use of politeness strategies among Vietnamese respondents, unlike in America where this distinction is less significant Younger individuals, particularly those in junior positions, often experience interruptions characterized by positive politeness strategies This approach is also frequently employed among speakers of equal status, highlighting the importance of position in communication dynamics.
American vs Vietnamese * Politeness strategy Crosstabulati on
Seeking agreement by repet it ion
Verbal of f record Politeness strategy
Total power at work has tremendous impact on business communication in Vietnam whereas this factor just slightly influences on how senior American businesspeople interrupt their subordinators
In informal business meetings, significant cultural differences emerge in the frequency and impact of politeness strategies In the United States, two primary strategies dominate, with "minimizing imposition" being the most prevalent Conversely, in other cultures, politeness strategies are more varied, with five different approaches used almost equally Notably, the combination of "apologizing" and "minimizing imposition" stands out as the most frequently employed strategy.
Table III 7 Vietnamese businesspeople versus their American counterparts in the use of politeness strategies in informal meetings
With a regard to three factors, position shows the most distinction in the way
American vs Vietnamese * Politeness strategy Crosstabulati on
Seeking agreement by repet it ion Politeness strategy
In Vietnam, different politeness strategies are employed based on the speaker's status, with seniors receiving the highest level of respect; Vietnamese participants often apologize before seeking clarification The use of negative politeness decreases as more respondents opt for "minimizing imposition" and "verbal off record" tactics when interrupting colleagues, while positive politeness is predominantly used when addressing juniors In contrast, American respondents show less variation in their strategies, primarily utilizing "minimizing imposition" regardless of the speaker's status However, a notable distinction arises when speakers are of equal or lower status, where "seeking agreement by repetition" is frequently employed.
In terms of age, American businesspeople exhibit consistent politeness strategies, while Vietnamese counterparts show notable differences In Vietnam, older speakers are highly respected, prompting participants to use negative strategies to maintain the self-image of the elderly during interruptions Conversely, younger speakers tend to adopt positive politeness strategies, with over half of respondents repeating the speaker's ideas to seek agreement when interrupting or asking for clarification.
In informal meetings, Vietnamese male and female participants exhibit a noticeable difference in their interruption tactics, with many employing a positive politeness strategy, such as "seeking agreement by repetition," to protect the female speaker's face during disruptions In contrast, American businesspeople show no significant variation in their responses regarding interruptions.
CONCLUSION
Summary of main findings
This research aims to explore the interruption and clarification techniques used by Vietnamese and American business professionals during meetings Additionally, it seeks to compare and contrast the politeness strategies employed by both cultures The key findings will be summarized in relation to the two primary research questions.
Vietnamese and American businesspeople often interrupt and seek clarification when they disagree with a speaker or do not understand the message, particularly when comments are out of context In formal business meetings, most participants from both countries refrain from interruptions However, in semi-formal and informal settings, Vietnamese businesspeople choose different strategies based on the speaker's age, gender, and position, with "apologizing & minimizing imposition" being the most common approach, as it is seen as a courteous way to maintain harmony Conversely, American businesspeople tend to favor the "minimizing imposition" tactic when interrupting, as it aligns with their cultural emphasis on individualism and the importance of preserving self-image, regardless of the speaker's demographics.
The similarities between American and Vietnamese cultures are evident in how participants choose to interrupt and seek clarification, as well as their mutual decision to refrain from interruptions during formal meetings In semi-formal settings, gender does not influence the use of politeness strategies in either country Both cultures employ "seeking agreement by repetition" as a common negative politeness strategy However, differences arise as American businesspeople prefer the "minimizing imposition" strategy, while their Vietnamese counterparts favor "apologizing & minimizing imposition." Additionally, in Vietnam, the use of politeness strategies for interruptions and clarification requests is significantly affected by the speaker's gender, age, and position, a factor that does not hold true in the American context.
Limitations
Despite the researcher's significant efforts in data collection and analysis, the study has notable limitations due to time constraints and unforeseen factors Firstly, the exclusive use of DCT for data collection means that nonverbal elements in actual business meetings were not assessed Secondly, the relatively small sample size may hinder the ability to draw definitive conclusions applicable to the entire population These limitations should be considered in future research endeavors.
Suggestions for further study
Future research should focus on expanding the participant pool in similar studies to enhance reliability and improve the generalizability of findings Additionally, exploring non-verbal communication, particularly in contexts of interruption and clarification, warrants further investigation into non-linguistic politeness.
Anderson, K & Leaper, C (1998) "Meta-Analysis of gender effects on conversational interruption: who, what, when, where and how." Sex Roles, 39(3/4): 225-252
Adler, N J., & Gundersen, A (2008).International dimensions of organizational behavior (5th ed.).Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western
In "How to Do Things with Words," Austin (1962) explores the intricacies of language and its performative functions, emphasizing how utterances can accomplish actions beyond mere communication Barron (2003) builds on this foundation by examining interlanguage pragmatics, particularly in the context of study abroad experiences, highlighting how learners acquire the ability to effectively use language to navigate social interactions in a foreign environment Together, these works underscore the significance of understanding pragmatics in language acquisition and the role of context in shaping communicative competence.
Blackstone, A (2012) Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative methods, v.1.0 Retrieved from http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/sociological- inquiry-principles-qualitative-and-quantitative-methods/index.html
Brown, P & Levinson, S (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage
Chambers, K (1997) Succeed in business: Vietnam The essential guide for business and investment Portland, OR: Graphics Arts Center
Gallagher, R S (2003) The soul of an organization: Understanding the values that drive successful corporate cultures La Crosse, Wisconsin: Dearborn Trade Publishers, pp.4-6.
Gary, R W (1999) American cultural values Kokusai Bunka Kenshu (Intercultural
Gesteland, R.R (1999) Cross-culture business behavior Herndon, VA: Copenhagen
Holmes, J (2009) Politeness Strategies as Linguistic Variables, In Keth Brown and
Keth Allan (eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics Elselver.Amsterdam, Boston,Heidelberg, London, New York, Oxford, pp.699-711
Hong,Y., & Chiu, C (2001).Toward a paradigm shift: From cross-cultural differences in social cognition to social-cognitive mediation of cultural differences.Social Cognition, 19, 181-196
James, D.,& Clarke, S (1988) "Women, Men, and Interruptions: A Critical
Review."Pp.231-80 in Gender and Conversational Interaction, edited by Deborah
Tannen New York: Oxford University Press
Jia,Y (1997) Communication between Cultures Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign
John, H (2008) Cultural Differences in Business Communication Tepper School of
Katrine, S.K (2007) American doing business in Vietnam: Communication differences.COM 9656: International Business Communication
Kramsch, C (1998) Language and culture.Oxford University Press
Levine, D R., & Adelman, M B (1993) Beyond language: Cross-cultural communication Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall Regents
Locastro, V (2012).Pragmatics for Language Educators: A Sociolinguistic
McCarthy, M P D (1994).International Business History: A Contextual and Case
Menz, F & Al-Roubaie, A (2008)."Interruptions, status and gender in medical interviews: the harder you brake, the longer it takes." Discourse & Society 19(5): 645-
Nguyen Quang (2003) Intracultural and Cross-cultural Communication.VNU Press O'Reilly, M (2008)."What value is there in children's talk? „Investigating family therapists' interruptions of parents and children during the therapeutic process"
Roger, D B., & Schumacher, A (1983).Effects of individual differences on dyadic conversational strategies Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 700-705
Searle, J R (1976) "The classification of illocutionary acts" Language in Society 5:
Segall, M H., Dasen, P R., Berry, J W., &Poortinga, Y H (1999).Human behavior in global perspective(2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn& Bacon
Searl, J.R (1976) The classification of illocutionary acts Language in Society, 5, 1-23 Watts, J.R (2003) Politeness Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Wierzbicka, A (1991).Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human
Interaction Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Yin, J (2002).Telling the truth? A cultural comparison of “facilitating discussion” in
Yule, G (1996) Pragmatics.Oxford University Press
Zimmerman, D & West, C (1975) "Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in
Conversations." Pp 105-29 in Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, edited by Barrie Thorne and Nancy Henley Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Zhao, X &Gantz, W (2003) "Disruptive and Cooperative Interruptions in Prime-
Time Television Fiction: The Role of Gender, Status, and Topic “Journal of
This survey questionnaire is part of my research titled “An American-Vietnamese Cross-Cultural Study of Interrupting and Asking for Clarification in Business Meetings.” Your participation in completing the following items is highly valued, and rest assured that your identity will remain confidential in any discussions regarding the data collected.
1 Which situations below do you think are common for interrupting and asking for clarification in business meetings?
Please tick (v) in one of the following columns:
2 When you disagree to something
3 When you cannot follow what the speaker is saying
4 When you do not hear something clearly
5 When you do not understand what the speaker is saying
6 When you want to add your own ideas
7 When you miss something the speaker is saying
8 When the speaker uses abbreviations
9 When the speaker mentions something out of context
10 When the speaker does not explain what he/she means very well
2 Could you please give me your answers on the three situations below
During the Annual General Business Meeting, if the speaker, who is older than you, presents information that you disagree with, it is important to approach the situation respectfully You might say, "Excuse me, I appreciate your insights, but I would like to seek clarification on a specific point you just made Could you please elaborate on that?" This approach maintains a respectful tone while encouraging open dialogue and understanding.
……… b The speaker is your age
……… c The speaker is younger than you
……… f The speaker is of higher position
……… g The speaker is of equal position
……… h The speaker is of lower position
During a crucial business meeting involving the Board of Directors, Heads of Departments, and all staff, it's essential to maintain focus on the company's development plan for the upcoming quarter If the speaker, who is older than you, strays off-topic, politely interject by saying, "Excuse me, I appreciate your insights, but could we please clarify how this relates to our development plan for the next quarter?" This approach shows respect while ensuring that the discussion remains relevant and productive.
……… b The speaker is your age
……… c The speaker is younger than you
……… f The speaker is of higher position
……… g The speaker is of equal position
……… h The speaker is of lower position
During a weekly business meeting with your team of three, you encounter a situation where the speaker, who is older than you, presents information that is unclear In this case, it's important to respectfully interrupt by saying, "Excuse me, I apologize for interrupting, but could you please clarify that point? I want to ensure I fully understand your perspective." This approach maintains professionalism while seeking the necessary clarification.
……… b The speaker is your age
……… c The speaker is younger than you
……… f The speaker is of higher position
……… g The speaker is of equal position
……… h The speaker is of lower position
Thank you very much for your assistance!
Chúng tôi xin giới thiệu bảng câu hỏi khảo sát phục vụ cho nghiên cứu mang tiêu đề “Nghiên cứu giao thoa văn hóa Việt-Mỹ về cách thức ngắt lời và yêu cầu làm rõ ý trong các cuộc họp kinh doanh.” Rất mong Quý vị dành chút thời gian để trả lời các câu hỏi dưới đây Xin Quý vị yên tâm rằng chúng tôi cam kết bảo mật thông tin và sẽ không tiết lộ danh tính của Quý vị dưới bất kỳ hình thức nào.
1 Theo Qúi vị trong những tình huống nào dưới đây, Qúi vị thường ngắt lời và yêu cầu làm rõ ý trong các cuộc họp kinh doanh?
Xin Qúi vị vui lòng dánh dấu (v) vào một trong các cột sau
Cột 1 nghĩa là: không phổ biến
Cột 2 nghĩa là: khá phổ biến
Cột 3 nghĩa là: phổ biến
Cột 4 nghĩa là: rất phổ biến
1 Khi Qúi vị đang bị nhầm lẫn một vấn đề nào đó
2 Khi Qúi vị không đồng ý với một vấn đề nào đó
3 Khi Qúi vị không theo kịp những gì người nói đang trình bày
4 Khi Qúi vị không nghe rõ một điều gì đó
5 Khi Quí vị không hiểu những gì người nói đang trình bày
6 Khi Qúi vị muốn nêu thêm ý kiến của mình
7 Khi Qúi vị bị bỏ lỡ một vấn đề mà ngưới nói đang trình bày
8 Khi người nói sử dụng các từ viết tắt
9 Khi người nói nhắc đến một vấn đề nào đó ngoài lề cuộc họp
10 Khi người nói không giải thích rõ ý của họ
2 Xin Qúi vị vui lòng trả lời giúp chúng tôi những câu hỏi theo 3 tình huống dưới đây
Tình huống1 ( cuộc họp trang trọng)
Kính thưa quý vị, trong cuộc họp thường niên hôm nay, tôi xin phép được ngắt lời để làm rõ một số điểm mà tôi không đồng ý với quan điểm của người phát biểu Với sự tôn trọng đối với kinh nghiệm và tuổi tác của ông/bà, tôi mong muốn được trình bày ý kiến của mình để đảm bảo rằng chúng ta có thể thảo luận một cách công bằng và toàn diện về vấn đề này.
……… b Người nói cùng độ tuổi với Qúi vị
……… c Người nói ít tuổi hơn Qúi vị
……… d Người nói là nam giới
……… e Người nói là nữ giới
……… f Người nói có địa vị cao hơn Qúi vị
……… g Người nói có địa vị ngang hàng với Qúi vị
……… h Người nói có địa vị thấp hơn Qúi vị
Tình huống 2 (Cuộc họp nửa trang trọng)
Kính thưa quý vị, tôi xin phép ngắt lời để làm rõ một điểm trong phần trình bày Tôi rất trân trọng ý kiến của người phát biểu, đặc biệt là với kinh nghiệm và tuổi tác của quý vị Tuy nhiên, để đảm bảo rằng tất cả chúng ta đều hiểu rõ vấn đề đang được thảo luận, tôi mong quý vị có thể giải thích thêm về ý kiến đó Cảm ơn quý vị đã thông cảm.
……… b Người nói cùng độ tuổi với Qúi vị
……… c Người nói ít tuổi hơn Qúi vị
……… d Người nói là nam giới
……… e Người nói là nữ giới
……… f Người nói có địa vị cao hơn Qúi vị
……… g Người nói có địa vị ngang hàng với Qúi vị
……… h Người nói có địa vị thấp hơn Qúi vị
Tình huống 3 (Cuộc họp không trang trọng)
Kính thưa quý vị, trong cuộc họp kinh doanh hàng tuần của nhóm ba thành viên, khi người nói lớn tuổi hơn tôi trình bày một vấn đề mà tôi không hiểu, tôi sẽ lịch sự ngắt lời và nói: "Xin lỗi, tôi không hiểu rõ ý của anh/chị Anh/chị có thể làm rõ hơn về điểm này được không?"
……… b Người nói cùng độ tuổi với Qúi vị
……… c Người nói ít tuổi hơn Qúi vị
……… d Người nói là nam giới
……… e Người nói là nữ giới
……… f Người nói có địa vị cao hơn Qúi vị
……… g Người nói có địa vị ngang hàng với Qúi vị
……… h Người nói có địa vị thấp hơn Qúi vị
Xin chân thành cảm ơn sự giúp đỡ của Qúi vị!
Figure III.5 Vietnamese businesspeople versus their American counterparts in the use of politeness strategies in semiformal meetings
Apologizing & Minimi -zing imposition Asking for reason
Minimizing impositi- on & Verbal off reco
Figure III.6.Vietnamese businesspeople versus their American counterparts in the use of politeness strategies in informal meetings
Minimizing impositi- on & Verbal off recoAsking for reasonSeeking agreement by repetition
Appendix 3: Vietnamese businesspeople and their American counterparts‟s choice of interrupting situations
Table III Vietnamese businesspeople and their American counterparts‟s choice of interrupting situations
AM vs.VN * Situations * Ranking Crosstabulation
Ranking uncommon moderately common common very common
Confusing Disagreeing not following not hearing sth clealy not understa nding adding ideas missing information using abbreviations mentioning sth out of context not explaining very well
Confusing not following not hearing sth clea ly not understanding adding ideas missing information using abbreviations mentioning sth out o f context not explaining very well
Disagreeing not following not hearing sth clea ly not understanding adding ideas missing information using abbreviations mentioning sth out o f context not explaining very well
Confusing Disagreeing not following not hearing sth clea ly not understanding missing information using abbreviations mentioning sth out o f context not explaining very well