Rationale
In the era of globalization, English has become essential across diverse sectors, including science, business, education, and particularly in cross-cultural communication This growing significance has led to numerous global studies on cross-cultural pragmatics, notably highlighted in Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper’s 1989 work.
Cross-cultural pragmatics: request and apologies, (2) Wierzbicka’s (1991) Cross- cultural pragmatics – the semantics of human interaction, (3) Kasper & Blum-
Kulka’s (1993) Interlanguage pragmatics, (4) Trosborg’s (1995) Interlanguage pragmatics – requests, complaints and apologies, and (5) Gass & Neu’s (1996) Speech acts across cultures – challenges to communication in a second language
Contrastive pragmatics (CCP) focuses on the differences in communication styles across various cultural communities, as noted by Trosborg (1995) Wierzbicka (1991) emphasizes that these differences arise from distinct societal norms and values, leading to unique ways of speaking and interacting Understanding these variations is essential for grasping the profound impact of culture on communication.
The studies in contrastive pragmatics aim to analyze the similarities and differences between various languages and English in specific speech acts, fostering a deeper understanding of language use in context Additionally, these studies seek to identify features of pragmatic transfer (PT) from native languages to English, giving rise to interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) research The primary goal of contrastive and interlanguage pragmatics is to enhance awareness among learners and non-native English speakers regarding the cultural and linguistic nuances that may lead to negative pragmatic transfer or failures This awareness is crucial for effective communication with native English speakers, as it helps mitigate the risks of culture shock and communication breakdowns.
As regards the contrastive pragmatics trend, there have been a great number of studies conducted by researchers all over the world, as reviewed by Trosborg
Research on speech acts, particularly focusing on requests, apologies, compliments, and expressions of gratitude, has been conducted since 1995 (Trosborg, 1995: 46-47) In Vietnam, several unpublished PhD research projects have explored contrastive pragmatics, specifically comparing the use of speech acts such as complimenting in Vietnamese and English (Nguyen Van Quang).
1998), requesting (Nguyen Van Do, 1999), disagreeing (Kieu Thi Thu Huong,
Numerous studies have explored various speech acts, with significant contributions from researchers such as Duong Bach Nhat (2008) and Nguyen Quang Ngoan and Nguyen Tien Phung (2007) These studies encompass a range of speech acts, including greetings, as investigated by Nguyen Phuong Suu (1990) and Huynh Thi Ai Nguyen (1997), as well as requests, examined by Nguyen Van Do (1996) and Do Thi Mai Thanh This body of work highlights the depth and variety of speech act research within the field.
2000), apologizing (Dang Thanh Phuong, 1999), refusing a request (Pham Thi Van Quyen, 2001), among others (cf Nguyen Quang Ngoan and Nguyen Tien Phung, 2007: 26-29)
Kasper and Dahl (1991) provide a comprehensive literature review of 39 studies on Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP), while Trosborg (1995) effectively examines ILP pragmatics, focusing on requests, thanks, complaints, and apologies In Vietnam, the author notes a limited number of ILP studies, including research on requests by Ha Cam Tam (1998, 2005) and criticism by Nguyen Thuy Minh.
2006), and general cultural linguistic features, (Pham Dang Binh, 2002)
In the past fifteen years, numerous contrastive pragmatics studies have been conducted in Vietnam, focusing on the differences between Vietnamese and English in various speech acts However, there remains a lack of Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) research comparing the English usage of Vietnamese learners with that of native speakers To address this gap, the author of this dissertation aims to advance ILP studies by investigating the pragmatic transfer (PT) from Vietnamese to English specifically in the context of disagreement, influenced by the relative power dynamics in certain situations.
The focus of the study is on pragmatic transfer (i.e “transfer of some culturally specific politeness strategies from one’s native language to the target language”
A comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon discussed by Beebe & Takahashi (1989) significantly enhances language teaching and learning However, in Vietnam, research on this topic is notably scarce Therefore, it is crucial to conduct more in-depth studies on the Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) trends in various speech acts to establish a stronger foundation for teaching English and cross-cultural communication in the country.
It is for this reason that disagreeing has become the speech act under investigation in this study Disagreeing was chosen also because of some additional reasons
Research on the politeness strategies of disagreeing between Vietnamese and Americans has been explored by Kieu Thi Thu Huong (2001, 2006) and Nguyen Quang Ngoan (2004) through contrastive pragmatics and conversational analysis However, there has been a lack of studies on the speech act of disagreeing from the Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) perspective in Vietnam The only relevant literature identified is a 1989 study by Beebe and Takahashi, which contrasted the responses of English native speakers with Japanese learners Therefore, a comprehensive investigation into disagreeing from the ILP perspective is anticipated to provide valuable insights into this speech act.
This study examines the impact of power dynamics on verbal interactions, particularly focusing on how power influences disagreement strategies, as highlighted by researchers such as Beebe & Takahashi (1989), Rees-Miller (2000), and Locher (2004) Disagreement serves as a significant speech act where power is enacted However, the author notes a lack of research that treats power as a distinct social variable in the context of speech acts Therefore, the objective of this dissertation is to explore this gap in the literature.
There are also some other reasons for his choice of P as the focused social variable operating in this study of disagreeing as an example of verbal interaction
Despite extensive discussions and studies on the relationship between power and language in English-speaking cultures, there is a notable lack of thorough empirical research on the influence of power on verbal interaction in Vietnam This gap in the literature highlights the need for studies that specifically address this issue within the Vietnamese context, making this research essential for expanding the understanding of power dynamics in communication in Vietnam.
Hofstede's research indicates that high-power-distance values are prevalent in Asian countries, while lower-power-distance values are favored in the USA and its former dominions, such as Australia Although Vietnam, an Asian country, was not included in Hofstede's studies, it is reasonable to hypothesize that it shares similar high-power-distance values However, further investigation is needed to determine the extent of power distance in Vietnamese culture, particularly in comparison to Australian culture.
The impact of power dynamics on language use has been highlighted by numerous scholars, including Leech (1983), Thomas (1985), and Fairclough (2001) However, key questions remain regarding how relative power influences the disagreement strategies employed by Vietnamese native speakers compared to Vietnamese learners of English and Australian native speakers Specifically, the study aims to explore whether these power effects lead to negative pragmatic transfer in the use of disagreement strategies when transitioning from Vietnamese to English.
Aims of the study
Overall purpose
This dissertation aims to comprehensively examine the negative politeness tactics (PT) in the context of Vietnamese to Australian language and culture Additionally, it explores significant cultural and communicative (CC) differences between Vietnamese and Australian contexts, providing valuable insights for interpreting and discussing the speech act of disagreement influenced by politeness in the studied scenarios.
Specific aims
To achieve the overall purpose, the study is aimed:
- to find out the major features of Vietnamese-English PT caused by the VLE and
CC differences between the VNS and ANS in their use of disagreeing politeness strategies with the more powerful as well as with the less powerful in the investigated situations
This study explores how individuals employ disagreeing politeness strategies based on their perceptions of the subject, P It highlights the variations in politeness strategies for disagreement, emphasizing how these differences are influenced by the relative roles of participants in specific situations.
Research questions
The study explores key characteristics of negative politeness tactics employed by the VLE, highlighting notable differences in the use of disagreeing politeness strategies between the VNS and ANS It examines how these variations manifest in specific contexts, shedding light on the implications for effective communication By analyzing the significant features of negative politeness, the research aims to enhance understanding of interpersonal dynamics in disagreement scenarios.
- Which features of negative PT and CC differences in the use of disagreeing politeness strategies are significant?
- Which CC differences between the VNS and ANS lead to negative PT and which CC differences do not?
The article explores the preferred disagreeing politeness strategies employed by the VLE, ANS, and VNS groups, highlighting the distinctions in their application across powerful and powerless contexts It examines how these groups navigate disagreements, focusing on the variations in strategy usage based on social dynamics The findings reveal that the choice of politeness strategies is influenced by the perceived power balance in interactions, with different approaches adopted in situations of authority versus those of subordination.
- Which politeness strategies in B&L’s (1987) framework are realized, either as single strategies or strategy combinations for disagreeing in the investigated situations? Is there a high possibility for strategy combinations?
The subject's perception of the addressee (P) in various contexts significantly influences their application of disagreeing politeness strategies Variations in how subjects perceive P can lead to noticeable differences in their use of negative politeness techniques and conversational control Understanding these perceptions is crucial for analyzing the effectiveness of disagreeing politeness strategies in communication.
- How is P described in the relative roles in the investigated situations perceived by the VNS, ANS, and VLE?
- To what extent is the VNS’s perception of P different from the ANS’s? Is it true that Vietnam is a higher-power-distance culture than Australia?
- Is there the phenomenon of inverse PT in P perception caused by the VLE in the investigated situations?
- How do the similarities and differences in the subject’s perception of P in the investigated situations affect their use of disagreeing politeness strategies?
Scope of the study
- The study focuses on intralinguistic factors Paralinguistic and extralinguistic aspects are, therefore, out of the scope of the study The verbal interaction is restricted to the act of disagreeing
The study examines how the frequency and application of politeness strategies by VLE, ANS, and VNS manifest in specific situations, utilizing the politeness framework established by Brown and Levinson (1987).
- The particular situations are restricted to thirty situations in the Meta-pragmatic Assessment Questionnaires (henceforth MAQ) and six situations in the Discourse Completion Task (henceforth DCT)
The term "among power-unequals" encompasses all interactions between individuals of varying power dynamics, specifically focusing on the exchanges between the more powerful and the less powerful This concept is applicable in four key contexts: at home, in the workplace, within educational settings, and throughout society.
In various contexts, the dynamics of relationships are shaped by the roles individuals play, such as the parental bond at home, the educational interaction between a university lecturer and a student, the professional hierarchy between a boss and an employee, and the generational differences between older and younger members of society.
The primary social variable, P, denotes the relative power each speaker holds in a specific context Additionally, the factors of social distance (D) and the speaking context (Se) are essential for a thorough interpretation and analysis of each unique situation.
This study investigates the disagreement strategies employed by Vietnamese-Australian individuals (VLE) in contexts of power inequality, focusing on the comparison with Australian native speakers (ANS) To ensure objectivity and validity, it also examines the power perceptions and disagreement strategies of Vietnamese speakers (VNS) in relation to ANS, providing a foundational context for the interpretation, discussion, and conclusions drawn regarding the Vietnamese-Australian perspective on power dynamics in communication.
Contributions of the study
The study is expected to bring out some following contributions:
- Theoretically, it contributes an investigation to some research areas in Vietnam:
This article presents a comprehensive empirical study conducted in Vietnam, focusing on the socio-cultural effects of power dynamics on verbal interactions, particularly in the context of pragmatic transfer between Vietnamese and English It examines speech act theory, specifically the act of disagreeing, and explores the nuances of linguistic politeness As the first study of Vietnamese-Australian pragmatic transfer, its findings aim to either support or challenge existing hypotheses in these fields, ultimately providing deeper insights into the complex interplay between culture and language.
The research findings on Vietnamese-Australian pragmatic transfer, particularly regarding negative pragmatic transfer, reveal significant insights into the frequency and application of disagreement strategies in various contexts These detailed observations, supported by numerous specific examples, provide valuable implications for English language teaching and cross-cultural communication.
This study effectively explores individuals' perceptions of socio-situational factors and their language strategy production during verbal interactions by employing a research methodology that combines the MAQ and DCT Additionally, it introduces an innovative application of Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness model for analyzing data in empirical research focused on linguistic politeness.
Methodology
This is primarily a quantitative CCP study in combination with some qualitative methods The data collection is conducted with a combination of MAQ and DCT
The data analysis employs T-Test and Chi-square statistics using the SPSS package, incorporating various techniques such as statistical, descriptive, contrastive, and inferential analysis A detailed explanation of this methodology can be found in chapter two.
Organization of the study
The present study is divided into three parts: Part A – Introduction, Part B – Development, and Part C – Conclusion
The introduction of the study outlines the rationale behind the research, detailing its objectives, scope, research questions, methodology, and contributions Additionally, it provides a comprehensive summary of the various parts and chapters, offering readers a clear overview of the study's framework and insights.
Part B is the major part which is divided into four chapters, discussing the relevant theoretical concepts, literature review, methodology and results of the empirical research of the study
Chapter one provides a theoretical background and literature review on the concepts of CCP and ILP, starting with an introduction to essential terminologies It explores speech act theory with critical insights, particularly focusing on disagreement as a potential face-threatening act The discussion includes a reevaluation of politeness theory, comparing Western and Asian approaches, with specific attention to Vietnamese perspectives This comparison aims to establish a solid theoretical foundation for the current study Additionally, the chapter presents a comprehensive overview of recent studies on disagreement as a speech act, highlighting both the achievements and limitations of existing research in this area.
Chapter two outlines the methodology of the study, highlighting various research methods in ILP studies along with their strengths and weaknesses as discussed by prominent authors It provides critical insights before detailing the chosen methods for this study, along with the rationale behind these selections The chapter also covers the research design, including data-gathering instruments, subject selection, and data collection procedures Additionally, it clarifies data analysis procedures, offering a comprehensive description of T-test analysis, Chi-square analysis, and the analytical framework employed in the research.
Chapter three explores the impact of relative power as a socio-cultural factor in verbal interactions, particularly in the context of disagreement It aims to reveal how the VNS, VLE, and ANS interpret the dynamics of power between speakers and listeners in various situations This analysis is crucial for establishing the validity and reliability of the discussion on the effects of power in disagreements, which will be further examined in chapter four.
This article presents a comparative analysis of how the perception of P is understood by the VNS and ANS, highlighting both cross-cultural similarities and differences It also examines the perception of P by the VLE in relation to the VNS to identify any potential inverse socio-pragmatic transfer The findings underscore significant cultural contrasts and the implications of these differences in communication practices.
PT are given at the end of the chapter
Chapter four examines the differences in politeness strategies between Vietnamese and English speakers when disagreeing, based on data from three subject groups It introduces various disagreeing strategies identified in the study, showcasing both single strategies and combinations with illustrative examples The chapter then presents and analyzes statistical results, highlighting similarities and differences in the use of these strategies among Vietnamese learners of English (VLE), native English speakers (ANS), and Vietnamese native speakers (VNS) Concluding remarks emphasize the key distinctions in politeness strategies and cultural considerations.
In the conclusion of the study, the author summarizes key findings regarding the inverse politeness theory (PT) influenced by varying values of politeness and communication (CC) between Vietnamese native speakers (VNS) and English native speakers (ANS) in specific contexts Additionally, the study emphasizes the significant differences in negative politeness tactics and communication strategies employed by Vietnamese speakers when disagreeing in English The implications of these findings suggest valuable insights for enhancing English language teaching methodologies.
CC communication are suggested before suggestions for further studies of the field are put forward
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Cross-Cultural pragmatics (CCP) and interlanguage pragmatics (ILP)
In his discussion of approaches to inter-cultural communication, Clyne (1996: 3) states,
There are three main ways in which the role of culture can be, and has been, studied – by comparing native discourse across cultures (the Contrastive
This article explores the Interlanguage Approach by analyzing the discourse of non-native speakers in a second language It also compares interactions among individuals from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, whether they communicate in a lingua franca or in the native language of one of the participants.
He (1996: 4) notes that the three approaches often lack clear differentiation, with the third approach being the least developed and researched Clyne’s classification and observations align well with the perspective of CCP.
According to Kasper & Blum-Kula (1995: 3), pragmatics is considered as “the study of people’s comprehension and production of linguistic action in context”
CCP, or Cross-Cultural Pragmatics, examines the linguistic action patterns of language users from diverse cultural backgrounds According to Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989), this field can be categorized into two main trends: contrastive pragmatics and Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP).
Contrastive pragmatics examines the similarities and differences in pragmatic aspects, such as politeness and speech act performance, across various cultural communities This field of study operates under the premise that distinct cultural groups communicate differently, with these variations reflecting unique cultural values and communicative styles Understanding these profound and systematic differences offers insights into how language and culture intersect.
ILP studies investigate the linguistic actions of language learners and non-native speakers, comparing them with native speakers to reveal insights into learners' comprehension and production of various pragmatic aspects Additionally, ILP serves as a branch of Second Language Acquisition Research, distinct from interlanguage morphology, syntax, and semantics As noted by Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993: 3), ILP is considered "a second-generation hybrid."
“belongs to two different disciplines, both of which are interdisciplinary”
In summary, contrastive pragmatics, a subset of cross-cultural pragmatics, effectively examines the differences and similarities in pragmatic usage across cultures and languages, while Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) emphasizes the unique pragmatic behaviors of learners and their connections to both their first and second languages For a comprehensive research project, it is essential to integrate methodologies from both fields, as highlighted by Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993: 13).
A comprehensive research program will explore the interplay between cross-cultural differences, IL-specific pragmatic features such as transfer, and their communicative effects, effectively integrating methodologies from diverse fields of study.
This research project integrates methods from contrastive pragmatics and interlanguage pragmatics (ILP), focusing primarily on how Vietnamese learners comprehend and produce pragmatic aspects in English The study is titled “A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study” to reflect this emphasis, distinguishing it from a traditional interlanguage pragmatics approach This choice highlights the cross-cultural elements involved in the learners' pragmatic development.
“ILP has derived its theoretical and empirical foundation from general and especially cross-cultural pragmatics” (Kasper and Blum-Kulka, 1993: 4)
1.1.2 Pragmatic transfer and relevant issues
Pragmatic transfer refers to the adoption of culturally specific politeness strategies from a learner's native language into a target language, as outlined by Beebe & Takahashi (1989) This phenomenon occurs due to the influence of a learner's native language and culture on their interlanguage pragmatic knowledge and performance, as noted by Kasper & Blum.
Pragmatic transfer (PT) can be categorized into negative and positive types Negative PT refers to the influence of a speaker's first language pragmatic competence on their interlanguage, leading to differences from the target language and potential communication breakdowns In contrast, positive PT involves pragmatic behaviors that are consistent across the first language, interlanguage, and target language, but it tends to receive less attention since it often results in communicative success, making it less intriguing for study.
In literature, pragmatic failure (PT) is categorized into two types: sociopragmatic failure and pragmalinguistic failure, as outlined by Thomas (1983) Sociopragmatic failure occurs when learners evaluate situational factors based on their native sociopragmatic norms, while pragmalinguistic failure involves the transfer of native speech act procedures and linguistic means into interlanguage communication, according to Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper (1989) Both types of failure are associated with negative pragmatic transfer.
Research indicates that negative transfer occurs at both sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic levels Sociopragmatically, learners struggle with understanding status relationships, appropriateness of speech acts, and selection of politeness styles Pragmatically, negative transfer primarily affects learners' strategic choices and linguistic forms, which alter the politeness value of their communication (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993: 10-11).
Inverse pragmatic transfer refers to how a learner's pragmatic skills in a second or foreign language can affect their understanding and use of pragmatic elements in their native language, leading to differences from native speakers This study explores the inverse sociopragmatic transfer among Vietnamese learners of English, focusing on how their cultural background influences their perception of pragmatics in specific situations.
Speech act theory and disagreeing as a speech act
Speech act theory, introduced by philosopher John Austin in his seminal work “How to Do Things with Words” (1962), is a pivotal concept in understanding language use According to Levinson (1983: 226), it is one of the most intriguing areas in the broader study of language, having generated significant interest among scholars.
Actually, since its initiation, it has been inherited, refined, and developed by a number of philosophers and linguists, including Searle (1969, 1975, 1976), Bach and Harnish (1979), and Wierzbicka (1987), among others
The concept of speech acts, introduced by John Austin in 1962, has been further explored by various pragmaticists They share the understanding that when a speaker conveys a message with specific meaning and reference, they simultaneously perform actions such as making promises, requests, or apologies.
1995) For example, in saying, “I’ll come and pick you up.”, a speaker not only produces a meaningful utterance but also constitutes the act of promising
Understanding speech act theory requires a thorough grasp of Austin's (1962) fundamental distinction among three types of acts: locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts.
According to Searle (1969) and clarified by Richards et al (1992), a locutionary act involves the meaningful expression of words, an illocutionary act refers to the use of those words to achieve a specific function, and a perlocutionary act pertains to the outcomes or effects generated by the utterance.
11) puts it simply that locution is the actual form of an utterance, illocution is the communicative force of the utterance, and perlocution is the communicative effect of the utterance
The three acts of communication are interconnected, as a meaningful utterance involves a speaker (S) conveying a message to a hearer (H), performing an action through the utterance, and ultimately influencing the hearer For instance, when someone says, "I've just made some coffee," they are not only stating a fact (locutionary act) but also making an offer (illocutionary act) that may encourage the hearer to accept and drink the coffee (perlocutionary act).
Yule (1997: 52) emphasizes the significance of illocutionary force among the three dimensions of speech acts, as the same utterance can convey different meanings based on context For example, the phrase “I’ll see you later” can function as a prediction, a promise, or a warning depending on the situation This variability highlights why Yule asserts that the term ‘speech act’ is often narrowly defined to refer specifically to the illocutionary force of an utterance.
Speech acts are a universal phenomenon, but they might vary greatly across cultures under the effects of socio-cultural norms This explains why Wierzbicka (1991:
Every culture possesses unique speech acts and genres, as noted by research in cross-cultural communication This understanding has led to studies that recognize both universal aspects and cultural specificities in speech acts, as emphasized by Blum-Kulka et al.
Research in this field assumes that speech communities exhibit identifiable speech patterns, highlighting that 'cultural ways of speaking' are crucial for understanding speech as a cultural phenomenon Studies focused on speech acts from this viewpoint demonstrate how differing interactional styles can result in intercultural miscommunication.
Blum-Kulka argues that a lack of understanding of speech act differences across cultures can lead to cultural conflicts and communication breakdowns Therefore, it is essential to conduct more comparative studies of speech acts across various cultures to identify their similarities and differences However, these studies face challenges due to the specificity of cultural and contextual factors.
Speech acts are categorized based on their functions, with Austin (1962) identifying five key types: verdictives (e.g., assess, appraise), exercitives (e.g., command, direct), commissives (e.g., promise, propose), behabitives (e.g., apologize, thank), and expositives (e.g., accept, agree) In contrast, Searle (1976) offers a widely recognized classification that emphasizes the intentional responses of listeners to utterances, highlighting a different perspective from Austin's approach.
In 1962, Wardhaugh (1986: 287) emphasized the importance of how speakers convey their intentions through speech Searle's classification identifies five main types of speech acts: commissives, which include promises and threats; declarations, such as court pronouncements; directives, which encompass suggestions and requests; expressives, like apologies and complaints; and representatives, including assertions and reports.
According to Yule (1997: 55), Searle's (1976) framework identifies five main types of speech acts: declarations, where the speaker creates a situation; representatives, where the speaker conveys belief; expressives, where the speaker shares feelings; directives, where the speaker expresses desires; and commissives, where the speaker indicates intentions Bach and Harnish (1979: 41) refine this classification by introducing six categories of illocutionary acts, distinguishing between two conventional types—effectives and verdictives—and four communicative types: constatives, directives, commissives, and acknowledgements These communicative types align closely with Austin’s and Searle’s classifications, although there are notable differences in characterization, such as the classification of suggestions as constatives by Bach and Harnish, while Searle categorizes them as directives.
Figure 1.1: Classification of communicative illocutionary acts (Bach and Harnish, 1979: 41)
Linguists categorize speech acts not only by their functions but also into direct and indirect speech acts Direct speech acts occur when speakers convey their intended meaning clearly, while indirect speech acts involve a deeper or alternative meaning beyond the literal words spoken Saville-Troike (1982: 36) highlights this distinction in understanding communication dynamics.
In speech act theory, direct acts occur when the surface form aligns with the intended interactional function, such as using "Be quiet!" as a clear command In contrast, indirect acts, like "It's getting noisy here" or "I can't hear myself think," convey a similar request without explicitly stating it.
Yule (1997) clarifies the distinction between direct and indirect speech acts by examining the relationship between three structural forms—declarative, interrogative, and imperative—and their corresponding communicative functions: statement, question, and command/request According to the researcher, this framework aids in understanding how speech acts are categorized.
Politeness theory and its application to the present study
Politeness is so popular a notion in studying pragmatics and CCP that Thomas (1995: 149) argues that “it could almost be seen as a -discipline of pragmatics”
In the introduction to "Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage" by B&L (1987), Grumper highlights that politeness is a universal concept essential for maintaining social order and fostering human cooperation.
Politeness is a multifaceted concept that has been extensively studied by researchers across various cultures It can be defined as the effort to establish, maintain, and save face during conversations (Richard, 1985) Additionally, it encompasses the methods used to demonstrate awareness of another person's face (Yule, 1997) and involves a complex system of strategies aimed at minimizing the face threat associated with face-threatening acts (B&L, 1987).
Positive concern for others is expressed through behavior that balances engagement with respectful distance (Holmes, 1995) Normatively, this behavior serves as a guideline for human interaction, aiming to acknowledge others' feelings, foster mutual comfort, and enhance rapport (Hill et al., 1986) It embodies social values that encourage individuals to consider one another by meeting shared expectations (Sifianou).
In 2004, Nguyen Quang defined politeness from a communication perspective as any communicative act—whether verbal or nonverbal—that is intentionally designed to improve the feelings of others This definition offers a comprehensive understanding of politeness, encompassing both individual intentions and socially accepted norms, thus integrating strategic and normative approaches.
In this study, the author examines linguistic politeness, focusing on how individuals (represented by VNS, VLE, and ANS) convey (im)politeness through their language use in Vietnamese and English To establish a theoretical foundation for the chosen approach, the author revisits various politeness strategies discussed in the literature, which informs the application of these concepts in the current research.
There exist different politeness views and approaches that have been put into several broader categories by different researchers
Fraser (1990) categorized politeness into four types: social-norm view, conversational-maxim view, face-saving view, and conversational-contract view Kasper (1990) identified two key conceptualizations: strategic politeness and politeness as social indexing Watts (2003) distinguished between prepragmatic and postpragmatic approaches to politeness Additionally, Kieu Thi Thu Huong and Duong Bach Nhat (2006) classified politeness approaches into volitional/strategic, normative/social-norm, and normative-volitional/integrated categories.
This research explores the contrasting cultural dynamics between Australia, an Anglophone nation, and Vietnam, a non-Anglophone country The author emphasizes both strategic and normative approaches, drawing on pertinent studies and perspectives to highlight the complexities of intercultural interactions.
Vietnamese researchers Then, he argues for an appropriate politeness approach for his study
This politeness view, also referred to as the instrumental (Kasper, 1992) or volitional approach (Hill et al., 1986; Ide, 1989), is argued to work well in
Western scholars often favor Anglophone cultures, resulting in various approaches classified by Watts (2003) as prepragmatic These approaches include models developed by Lakoff (1973), Leech (1983), and Brown & Levinson (B&L).
(1987), which rely on, or are more or less related to, Grice’s (1975) cooperative principle They are discussed in two subcategories: the maxim-based approach and the face-centered approach
Grice’s cooperative principle, introduced in the early 1970s and published in “Logic and Conversation” in 1975, significantly influences conversational dynamics This principle comprises four key maxims: quantity (be informative), quality (be true), relation (be relevant), and manner (be clear), each with its sub-maxims Additionally, Grice acknowledges the importance of other maxims, such as the politeness maxim, which is notably addressed by Lakoff in her politeness rules.
Grice's cooperative principle significantly impacts pragmatics, serving as a foundational element in the prominent politeness models developed by Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983) This principle is essential for understanding the use of hedges and various off-record strategies in communication.
According to Grice’s cooperative principle, Lakoff (1973, in Watt, 2003: 60) proposes two key sets of politeness rules: (1) Be clear and (2) Be polite The first set mirrors Grice’s principles, encompassing four rules: quantity, quality, relevance, and manner In contrast, Lakoff’s second set introduces three unique rules for politeness: (1) Don’t impose, (2) Give options, and (3) Make A feel good.
– be friendly These rules are schematically presented by Watts (2003: 60) in figure
Lakoff's model reveals a significant contradiction: while she asserts that clarity rules are part of politeness rules, prioritizing politeness can lead to violations of conversational norms When a speaker opts for politeness by avoiding imposition or by offering choices to make the other person feel good, they may inadvertently disrupt the flow of the interaction, highlighting a fundamental weakness in her framework.
Figure 1.2: Lakoff’s rules of pragmatic competence
Lakoff's politeness rules, as outlined in Green (1989), emphasize the importance of social dynamics in communication Rule 1, "Don’t impose," applies when there is an imbalance of power, prompting the speaker to avoid forcing the listener into unwanted actions In contrast, Rule 2, "Offer options," is relevant in scenarios where participants share similar status and power but lack social closeness, leading the speaker to frame their requests in a way that allows the listener to feel free from the obligation to comply.
Rules of conversation (= Grice’s cooperative principle)
R3: Make A feel good – be friendly
Be as informative as require Be no more informative than required
Only say what you believe to be true
Be perspicuous Don’t be ambiguous Don’t be obscure
When discussing views or actions with close friends, it's essential to keep the conversation succinct Rule 3, "Make A Feel Good," emphasizes the importance of fostering a positive atmosphere in these intimate discussions While close friends should ideally be able to share anything openly, there may still be certain truths that even your best friend might hesitate to reveal.
The initial two rules in B&L's politeness theory emphasize avoiding imposition, which creates a sense of negative politeness In contrast, the third rule, aimed at enhancing solidarity, conveys an impression of positive politeness.
Disagreeing in previous studies and in the present study
1.4.1 Previous studies of disagreeing in English and Vietnamese
Disagreement, as a communicative act, was first explored by Sornig (1977) and has since sparked extensive discussions and research, particularly within the framework of politeness theory This body of work can be categorized into two main groups: the first focuses on developing theoretical frameworks for politeness strategies (Leech, 1983; Brown & Levinson, 1987), while the second examines how these strategies are enacted in specific contexts, including studies on intra-cultural communication (Holtgraves, 1997).
Rees-Miller, 2000; Locher, 2004; Nguyen Quang Ngoan, 2007a), inter-language pragmatics (Beebe & Takahashi, 1989), and contrastive pragmatics (Kieu Thi Thu
Brown and Levinson (1987) significantly influenced politeness theory and its application in speech act studies They propose strategies for disagreeing that help maintain social harmony, including (1) using partial agreement, colloquial language, and first-person plural forms to mitigate threats to the addressee’s positive face, (2) employing questions, hedges, and impersonal language to soften threats to the addressee’s negative face, and (3) utilizing indirect strategies that mask disagreement as different speech acts Specifically, partial agreement aligns with the strategy of avoiding outright disagreement, colloquial language incorporates in-group identity markers, and the first-person plural fosters inclusivity in interactions.
In the realm of negative politeness strategies, questions and hedges are typically expressed through conventionally indirect methods and hedging techniques Indirect strategies encompass various sub-strategies within the off-record category; however, B&L do not specify which off-record strategies are frequently employed when disagreeing.
Leech (1983) considers disagreement to be dispreferred if face consideration is concerned Minimizing disagreement is even one of his main politeness sub maxims (p 132)
(a) Minimize disagreement between self and other
(b) Maximize agreement between self and other
Leech (p 138) suggests that individuals often exaggerate their agreement with others while downplaying disagreements through expressions of regret or partial agreement Within B&L's model, expressions of regret fall under the negative category of apologies, whereas partial agreement is categorized as a positive strategy to avoid conflict This aligns with Leech’s Tact Maxim, which emphasizes minimizing costs to others in communication.
Approbation Maxim (i.e., maximizing praise of other) are of relevance here as well
The second group of studies, grounded in politeness theory, primarily examines intra-cultural communication, particularly the strategies for expressing disagreement This research focuses on how Vietnamese native speakers articulate disagreement in their language, as well as how English native speakers, and occasionally proficient nonnative speakers residing in English-speaking countries, navigate similar expressions in English.
Holtgraves (1997) explores positive politeness strategies in verbal disagreements, building on B&L's (1987) politeness theory By analyzing the interactions of thirty-two unacquainted students (twenty-four women and eight men) during eight experimental sessions, the study reveals actual disagreement tactics rather than hypothetical responses The identified strategies include token agreement, hedging opinions, personalizing opinions, expressing distaste for one's position, displacing agreement, self-deprecation, and seeking common ground.
Among them, token agreement, hedge opinion, personalize opinion are the most frequently-used (Holtgraves, 1997: 231-234)
Rees-Miller (2000) explores the dynamics of disagreement in university settings, focusing on the linguistic markers that either soften or intensify such expressions Her research, based on a corpus of over 450 interactions among 36 students and 14 professors in the eastern United States, employs B&L’s (1987) concepts of power and imposition to analyze how disagreement manifests in academic discourse The study identifies various strategies of disagreement through the interactions among different participant groups, including professors and students, as well as student-to-student exchanges, which are illustrated in figure 1.4.
Type of disagreement Type of linguistic marker
Positive comment Positive politeness Humor
(21% of turns) Inclusive 1 st person
I think/ I don’t know Negative Politeness Downtoners (may be, sort of) (41% of turns) Verb of uncertainty (seem)
Disagreement not softened Contradictory statement or strengthened Verbal shadowing
(8% of turns) Personal, accusatory you
Figure 1.4: Taxonomy of disagreement (Adapted from Miller, 2000: 1095)
Locher (2004) conducted a comprehensive study on the interplay of power and politeness in expressing disagreement across three distinct speech situations: a family dinner argument, a controversial business meeting, and a political radio interview The most detailed analysis of verbal disagreement strategies was observed during the dinner conversation, which took place in a private Philadelphia home in the late 1990s, involving seven participants with diverse linguistic backgrounds This two hour and fifty-five-minute recording included four native English speakers and individuals from Turkey and Switzerland, offering rich naturalistic linguistic data for the investigation The findings highlight various strategies employed in expressing disagreement within this social context.
Disagreement can be effectively communicated through various strategies, including the use of hedges, personal or emotional justifications, and shifting responsibility Formulating objections as questions and utilizing conjunctions like "but" can also enhance the expression of disagreement Additionally, repeating statements, whether by the same speaker or another, and presenting unmitigated disagreement are common techniques These strategies can be combined to create nuanced expressions of dissent (Locher, 2004: 149).
According to the author (2004: 147), the most common strategy for softening disagreement is the use of hedges, accounting for 25% of instances This is followed by providing personal reasons for disagreement at 23% The use of modals ranks third at 16%, while shifting responsibility and formulating questions account for 13% and 12%, respectively Mitigation strategies represent 7%, and the repetition of a speaker's own mitigated disagreement is the least utilized method, at only 3%.
Nguyen Quang Ngoan (2007a) identifies and analyzes 25 strategies for expressing disagreement in Vietnamese, drawing on Brown and Levinson’s framework His research includes examples from five collections of short stories published between 2001 and 2006 Ngoan emphasizes the importance of recognizing strategy combinations when examining speech acts.
The second major category of group 2 encompasses ILP studies, which examine the similarities and differences in disagreement strategies between native and nonnative English speakers The primary goal of these studies is to explore how learners' language and cultural backgrounds influence their use of English A notable example is the research conducted by Beebe and Takahashi (1989), which investigates how American and Japanese speakers perform face-threatening speech acts in English, particularly in the contexts of disagreement and chastisement.
The study investigates face-threatening acts in interactions between individuals of differing statuses, focusing on how lower-status individuals communicate with higher-status ones and vice versa Data collection involved two methods: observing natural speech and conducting a discourse completion test The test featured two scenarios with participants from Japan and the U.S In the first scenario, where the speaker (S) held a higher status than the hearer (H), American participants employed disagreeing strategies in the following order of frequency: suggestion, positive remark, criticism, and gratitude In the second scenario, where S had a lower status than H, their strategies shifted to positive remark, suggestion, criticism, and token agreement.
Contrastive pragmatics studies examine the similarities and differences in verbal strategies employed during specific speech acts, such as disagreement, by native speakers of different languages, including English and Vietnamese.
A study by Kieu Thi Thu Huong (2001) examined the similarities and differences in disagreeing strategies between English and Vietnamese speakers through the lens of speech act and politeness theory (B&L, 1987) The research involved fifty American native speakers (twenty males and thirty females) and sixty Vietnamese native speakers (twenty-eight males and thirty-two females), utilizing a Discourse Completion Test (DCT) for data collection The findings categorized the strategies into three main types: (1) on-record strategies without redressive action, (2) on-record strategies with redressive action, and (3) off-record strategies.