Vietnamese deference rituals in everyday life encounters a grounded theory study of hanoi city

MASTERS BY COURSEWORK THESIS VIETNAMESE DEFERENCE RITUALS IN EVERYDAY LIFE ENCOUNTERS: A GROUNDED THEORY STUDY OF HANOI CITY By Trung-Kien Nguyen Supervisor: Professor Sharyn Roach Anleu Department of Sociology Flinders University of South Australia ADELAIDE 2014 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Table of Figures Table of Tables Table of Boxes CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Statement of the problem Significance of the study Purpose of the study Research questions CHAPTER II INTERACTION RITUAL THEORY BY ERVING GOFFMAN 2.1 An overview of ritual studies 2.2 Erving Goffman’s theory: deference and demeanour 2.2.1 Model of deference and demeanour 2.2.2 General Model of Interaction Rituals CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN 3.1 Grounded Theory Approach 3.2 Theoretical sampling 3.3 Interviewing 3.4 Data processing, interpretation and analysing 3.4.1 Strategy of data processing 3.4.2 Coding Open coding Axial coding Selective coding 3.4.3 Memos, diagrams and theoretical development 3.4 Ethical issues ii iii iii iv 1 4 6 8 13 21 21 23 28 30 30 31 31 33 34 34 35 CHAPTER IV THE DOMINANT PRESENTATION OF RITUALS BASED ON SOCIAL STATUSES 38 4.1 The perception of deference and defererence rituals 4.1.1 Deference is admiration to the superior 4.1.2 The deference rituals are the subordinate’s obligation 4.2 The presentation of deference rituals following the status-based principle 4.2.1 The form of deference rituals reflecting asymmetrical status Personal pronouns Polite exclamations 38 40 44 48 48 48 55 4.2.2 The unequal exchange of respectful rituals 59 4.3 The hierarchical display of Vietnamese society 62 The hierarchical order Status conflicts and situation-based choices Status’s advantage 62 66 68 ii CHAPTER V EMOTIONAL THRESHOLD 5.1 The threshold of sincerity 5.2 The threshold of closeness CHAPTER VI DISCUSSION 6.1 The hierarchical order of deference rituals 6.2 The sacred subject or face 6.3 Situating the study in current literature CHAPTER VII CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Conclusion Limitations and implications for future research APPENDIXES Appendix 3.1: The profile of interviewees Appendix 3.2: The sampling process Appendix 3.3: The integration of four activities: theoretical sampling, data collection, theoretical coding and memo-writing/diagrams Appendix 3.4: The research timetable (May 2013 – July 2014) Appendix 3.5: Detailed Fieldwork Timetable Appendix 3.6: The interview guidelines for participant English version Vietnamese version Appendix 3.7: Short Questionnaire for foreign participant Appendix 3.8 Consent form for participation in research Appendix 7.1: Various dimension of ritual resulted from different rules BIBLIOGRAPHY 70 71 78 83 83 87 93 96 96 100 102 102 103 112 115 116 117 117 118 119 120 121 124 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure Structure of Goffman’s model of deference and demeanour Figure The sacred object in Erving Goffman’s model of interaction rituals Figure The properties and dimensions of the concept ‘respect’ Figure The distribution of respect-related terms on the scale of biased/equal Figure The ladder of roles/statuses in family order Figure The transition of personal pronouns from family model to social model 14 39 47 48 50 TABLE OF TABLES Table The difference between deference and demeanour Table Comparison of demeanour, facework and drama Table Comparisons of the use of exclamations between the low-rank and the high-rank Table Forms of a greeting sentence by the low rank 11 16 55 58 iii Table The unequal exchange of deference rituals between the unequal statuses Table Various indicators forming an individual’s status Table Personal choice in the case of status conflict Table The advantage of age and power status in attaining respect Table A comparison of features between personal honesty and social etiquette Table 10 The difference between personal honesty and social etiquette in key rituals 59 64 67 68 74 75 TABLE OF BOXES Box Various terms relating to the notion of ‘respect’ in Vietnamese language 40 Box Vietnamese respect is admiration 42 Box Several practical terms denoting the respectful rituals in the Vietnamese context 44 Box Guessing someone else’s age in Vietnamese communication 52 Box Chung’s furious reaction to her ‘boss’ 76 Box Various meaning of the term ‘face’ in Vietnamese communication 88 Box Discourteous behaviours result in losing face 92 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT My warmest thanks first go to Professor Sharyn Roach Anleu, the supervisor of this thesis I could not bring this research project to completion without her great support During the period of doing this study, she always had words of encouragement for me, and patiently listened to me, read and discussed drafts with me The intellectual stimulation and challenges provided by her have influenced my work and continue to influence my research in the future I would like to thank Elaine Kane and many other Australia Awards Liaison officers of International Student Services Unit (ISSU) of Flinders University, who have provided with more than I can express I am greatly indebted to Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affair and Trade (DFAT) for giving me permission to extend my scholarship, helping me to improve the quality of this research project The research and travel fund provided by Australian Award Scholarships have supported me to complete the fieldwork in Vietnam Many other people have stimulated, encouraged, advised and assisted me in this project I would like to record my gratitude to Ms Phung Thi Thanh Thu for her unwavering support in editing English and translation some Vietnamese terms into English Thu’s reading of early draft and her comments and discussions were unexpected and generous gift I would like to thank Associate Professor Nguyen Quy Thanh for his sharing of his idea on Vietnamese deference rituals I am very much indebted to Ms Hoang Thanh Hoa for her assistance and encouragement during fieldwork Many people including Cao Vinh Hieu, Vu Bich Ngoc, Le Tran Ngoc Anh, Tran Duy Anh, Nguyen Thi Mai Phuong, Nguyen Thi Ha Thuy, Nguyen Huu Cuong, Nguyen Hong Linh, Phung Thi Hai Hau, and Pham Thi Bich Ngoc enthusiastically helped me to complete my two-month fieldwork in Hanoi, Vietnam The generous outpouring of assistance I received from my research participants was v overwhelming Finally, it is with deep love, respect, gratitude that I dedicate this thesis to my family vi CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Statement of the problem Imagine, when an Australian gets on the bus, he or she usually exchanges a greeting with the bus driver, for example saying ‘Hello’ or ‘Good morning/evening’ When he or she gets off the bus, he or she often says ‘Thank you’ to the driver, while the driver might say ‘You’re welcome’ or ‘No worries’ Saying ‘Hello’, ‘Good morning’, ‘How are you’, ‘Thank you’, ‘No problem’, ‘Excuse me’, or ‘I’m sorry’ is very common in Australia in particular and in Western societies in general Not merely is it true in public places but also in non-public situations where interaction between two or more people in small group occurs According to the American sociologist Erving Goffman, those talk above can be called ‘deference ritual’ an individual uses to show his/her appreciation to specific recipients during social intercourse (see Goffman 1956b, pp.477-478) Those deference rituals can be also regarded as everyday rituals referring to the practices of individuals in the presence of other people in ‘everyday life’ The topics of the everyday are diverse They include substantive topics such as reading, talking, walking (De Certeau 1984), ‘emotions, home, time, eating, health, shopping and leisure’ (Scott 2009, p 1) According to Scott (2009, p.2), these daily rituals have three sets of features in common: (i) they are ‘mundane, familiar, and unremarkable’ because they seem trivial, even boring and meaningless to an observer; (ii) they appear ‘routine, repetitive and rhythmic’ because they are habitually practiced and repeated day-to-day; and (iii) they are ‘private and personal’ in the sense that they belong to ‘individual choices’ rather than to a group’s or organisation’s requirements These features are also true of deference rituals which this study will examine including invitations, greetings, farewells, addressing someone, saying thank you, apologising, joking, and discussions, along with gestures such as hand-shakes and head nodding and so on Given those features above, it seems that deference rituals are not worth studying Randall Collins (2004) attests that although small words such as ‘Hello’, ‘Thank you’, ‘Sorry’ or ‘See you later’ are repeated many times in everyday life, they are ‘on the surface meaningless’ in the sense that they convey no information or no ‘explicit content’ in conversation (Collins 2004, p.17) Nevertheless, it cannot be stated that these words play no part in society Manning, for example, while acknowledging that ‘small talk’ and ‘passing exchanges’ such as ‘Hi! How are you’ not function as questions for information, attests that they play a role of ‘little ceremonial gifts’ because they show the respect for the recipients, especially strangers in conversation (Manning 1989, p 376) To understand the significance of these tiny ‘gifts’, we can ask what will happen if people omit or exclude these verbal expressions from their daily encounters Collins predicts that if these rituals fail or are excluded from everyday interaction, social relationships can be ‘downgraded’, making the connections between individuals weaker (Collins 2004, p.17-18) In his early work, Goffman also stresses the essential role of those rituals in maintaining social relationships and social solidarity (see Goffman 1956b, p.496) For instance, greetings and farewells are ‘access rituals’ which help strangers approach each other, while apology functions as ‘remedial interchanges’, correcting the faults that have been made (Goffman 2010, pp 79, 113, originally published in 1971) The importance of deference rituals in particular and everyday rituals in general has been accepted by many social scientists from classic theorist Emile Durkheim to modern social scientists such as Jack Douglas (1971), Lefebrve (1971), Michel de Certeau (1984) Therefore, studying ‘[the] mechanism of social rituals’ helps us answer the question of ‘what holds society together?’ (Collins 2004, pp 40-1) However, Goffman’s theory of rituals mostly draws upon the twentieth centurey western societies This raises concerns about whether Goffman’s theory can be generalized to nonWestern societies in the twentieth-first century, for example, Vietnamese society Recent decades have witnessed a number of studies applying Goffman’s theory of deference rituals into non-Western societies, such as Chinese society (Chen 1993; Chen & Yang 2010; Gu 1990) or Japanese society (Erbaugh 2008; Fukada & Asato 2004; Hill et al 1986; Kumatoridani 1999a; Matsumoto 1989; Ohashi 2008) Nonetheless, there studies have two limitations First, they have approached deference rituals mostly from a linguistics perspective, leading to the focus on linguistic forms, patterns, strategies or principle of languages rather than the relations between individuals and social structures Second, it seems that most of the current research has a strong practical bias in the sense that their researches are mostly based on Chinese and Japanese societies (Chen, He & Hu 2013, p 141) Not merely this fact casts doubt on the representation of non-Western social reality of Chinese and Japanese societies, but also raises the alarm of the neglect of studying other non-Western societies such as Vietnam In Vietnam, social rituals in general and deference rituals in particular have also been neglected by sociology and other social disciplines There has been much talk in academic circles of macro issues such as politics and civil society (Abuza 2001; Dalton & Ong 2005; Gray 1999; Thayer, C 1992; Thayer, CA 2009), economic reform and policy (Anh 1994; Đặng & Beresford 1998; Fforde & De Vylder 1996; Ohno 2009; Witter 1996), but litter examination of how Vietnamese individuals interact with each other in everyday life Several topics, which are close to everyday rituals such as public sphere (Nguyen, QT & Trinh 2009), social capital and social network (see for example Dang & Bui 2011; Nguyen, QT & Cao 2012; Nguyen, TMP 2011), have been examined but never focused on the forms and details of daily encounters The micro approach to deference rituals in everyday encounters is missing from current Vietnamese literature, resulting in a lack of understanding social life at micro level Significance of the study The study of deference rituals in the Vietnamese milieu is crucial because: (i) the theories on social rituals of Goffman and others have not been confirmed wisely in non-Western contexts; (ii) as the result of the advancement in information technology as well as the diffusion of globalisation worldwide, there have been rapid and fundamental changes in the twenty-first century’s societies, compared to the twentieth century’s societies; (iii) Vietnamese sociologists and social scientists seem to neglect the study of deference rituals and micro social world Therefore, the findings from this study will provide new perspective on deference rituals of an Asian country in which there are the mixture of and conflict between its traditions and global cultural trends This study might contribute to the growth of microanalysis in general and the study of interaction rituals in Vietnamese and Eastern sociology in particular Purpose of the study Applying grounded theory methods proposed by Glaser and Strauss (1967), developed by Strauss and Corbin (1990, 1998), Corbin and Strauss (2008), this study aims to explore the deference rituals of Vietnamese people in their everyday encounters Not solely does it look at how Vietnamese people behave in everyday interaction, but also aims to identify the fundamental rules governing Vietnamese deference rituals In this study, Vietnamese people are urban dwellers living and/or working in Hanoi city (see more details in Chapter III) Urban circumstance is taken into consideration It therefore, explicates and extends Erving Goffman’s theory of deference rituals in contemporary urban life of Vietnamese society Research questions To identify deference rituals in everyday life: How Vietnamese people manage to express or withhold deference rituals to others in their everyday encounters? What forms of deference Appendix 3.7: Short Questionnaire for foreign participant (Being completed before actual interview taking place) To you, what is deference or respect given to other people in everyday encounter? How you show deference to other people when you meet them? (your language, gesture, etc.) Which sources that form your etiquette/demeanour? What did you think of Vietnamese people when you first met them? Tell me an example? In your opinion, how you think about the way Vietnamese express their respect to other people present? Tell me some examples? What you think about Vietnamese demeanour? Tell me some examples in which you ? How you think about Vietnamese greeting? How you think about Vietnamese ‘thank you’? How you think about Vietnamese ‘sorry’ 10 How you think about Vietnamese ‘goodbye’? 11 How you think about Vietnamese invitation? 12 How you think about Vietnamese language? Have you tried to study it? Can you speak Vietnamese? 13 How have you understood Vietnamese culture through your wife or her relationships? 14 What difference between your culture and Vietnamese culture? Do these difference have a bearing on your life? 119 Appendix 3.8 Consent form for participation in research CONSENT FORM FOR PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH By interview Vietnamese deference rituals in everyday encounter I … being over the age of 18 years hereby consent to participate as requested in the audio recorded interview for the research project on looking at deference rituals of Vietnamese people in everyday encounter in everyday life All the participants of the research will be unidentifiable and anonymous I have read the information provided I agree to audio recording of my information and participation I am aware that I should retain a copy of the Information Sheet and Consent Form for future reference I understand that: I may not directly benefit from taking part in this research I am free to withdraw from the project at any time and am free to decline to answer particular questions While the information gained in this study will be published as explained, I will not be identified, and individual information will remain confidential  I may ask that the recording be stopped at any time, and that I may withdraw at any time from the session or the research Participant’s signature……………………………………Date………………… I certify that I have explained the study to the volunteer and consider that she/he understands what is involved and freely consents to participation Researcher’s name………………………………….…………………… Researcher’s signature………………………………… Date……………………    NB: Two signed copies should be obtained 120 Appendix 7.1: Various dimension of ritual resulted from different rules Assuming A and B’s statuses are on different levels, A is the high-rank (senior), while B is the low-rank (junior) Principles Definition Rule’s description Example 1.Status-based principle 1.1 Compulsion The level (strong/weak) of A’s respectful rituals before B are compulsory A must greet B, B does not need to greet back pressure for performing or obliged, while B’s are optional deference rituals 1.2 Formality The requirement of doing A’s respectful rituals before B must strictly A’s speaking must a full sentence, including deference rituals in the follow formal patterns, while B’s are more relax polite exclamation, personal pronouns (referring expected pattern and flexible the subject and object) plus polite tone and gestures B may omit personal pronouns and use joking during conversation 1.3 Asymmetry The reciprocity of the A receives more respect from B, while gives A is B’s mother At the beginning of a meal, B exchange of respectful rituals less; B gives more, receives less must invite A to have a meal first ‘Mother, between two parties please have a meal’, while A just responds ‘Let’s have a meal’ or simply ‘Uh’ 1.4 Bias The level of respect in the B treats A with more respectfully, while treats C Relationship 1: A is B’s grandfather’s age (big treatment giving to other with less respectfully because B and C’s statuses age difference) people are of equal Relationship 2: C is B’s friend (no age difference) B would grab C’s shoulders, joke with C more freely, or use filthy languages, or swearing 121 words Before A, B use a low tone of voice (polite tone), no joking or filthy languages Situational principles: Two parties rely on a particular situation to make decision and behave properly 2.1 Following age Two parties follow age A is older than B B pays more respect to A no A is B’s older uncle’s age But B is Kinh (the difference to define their matter how different their other statuses are dominant group) while A is Tay (an ethnic deference rituals minority group) Age is more important than ethnic status B greets A first but A may not need to greet back 2.2 Following the Two parties choose another When age difference cannot be specified, other more dominant/clearer more dominant/clear status to statuses may be unclear, two parties choose the status define their deference rituals more dominant/clearer status (which has more influence on the current situation) to behave B comes to ask A for route Age difference and other status indicators are blurred B has to greet A first and ask A with full sentence because B is the dependent in this situation A may choose to greet back/talk to B or not 2.3 Following one’s What one wants to When A wants to meet B for a certain interests/purpose (purpose) in or what advantage (interests) one is purpose which can help A gains some able to gain from a certain interaction advantage from that meeting, A will A is B’s grandparent’s age A comes to visit B’s house for some purposes Only B is staying at home A wants to ask B about B’s parents or grandparents, A greets B first, but A’s greeting is turned into asking, instead probably treat B more respect, not much regarding to status-based rules 3.Emotional thresholds principle 122 3.1 Sincerity rules: The level of being honest to what one thinks/feels 3.1.1 Being honest to True respect reflects what an A is not the type of person B truly respects B B meets A and B does not like B because of A the true respect individual truly thinks/feels will not show respectful rituals to A looks arrogant B does not greet and talk to A 3.1.2 Being honest to One’s current mood is every A meets B while B is in a bad mood A and B never meet each other A is B’s one’s current mood feeling one has in the present (angry/disappointed) B may not care about and father’s age B is motorbike taxi driver A time of situation show respect towards A comes to talk to B, but B does not greet A first or expresses interest in talk with A 3.2 Closeness rules: The level of being intimate and acquainted of a relationship 3.2.1Informal preference The preference for doing The more familiar relationship is, the more A and B are siblings C and B are strangers deference rituals in more informal are behaviours preferred When having done something wrong, B would flexible, informal ways rather say sorry to C, but may omit apology when than expected patterns interacting with A 3.2.2 Privacy Privacy is any space and affair The closer or more acquainted the relationship which each individual claims is, the more likely would two parties ask about for only her/himself each other’s private affairs such as marital status, age, family information, job, health and so on A and B are good friends B’s questions about A’s parents, children or even husband/wife show closeness C and B are strangers B and C would not discuss about private affairs 123 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abuza, Z 2001, Renovating politics in contemporary Vietnam, Lynne Rienner Publishers Anh, VT 1994, Development in Vietnam: policy reforms and economic growth, vol 4, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Bargiela-Chiappini, F 2003, 'Face and politeness: new (insights) for old (concepts)', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 35, no 10, pp 1453-69 Bataineh, RF & Bataineh, RF 2005, 'American university students’ apology strategies: An intercultural analysis of the effect of gender', Journal of Intercultural Communication, vol 9, pp 1-19 Bataineh, RF & Bataineh, RF 2008, 'A cross-cultural comparison of apologies by native speakers of American English and Jordanian Arabic', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 40, no 4, pp 792-821 Becker, JA & Smenner, PC 1986, 'The spontaneous use of thank you by preschoolers as a function of sex, socioeconomic status, and listener status', Language in Society, vol 15, no 04, pp 537-45 Bell, C 1992, Ritual theory, ritual practice, Oxford University Press, USA —— 1997, Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions, Oxford University Press, USA Blum-Kulka, S 1987, 'Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different?', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 11, no 2, pp 131-46 Blum-Kulka, S, House, J & Kasper, G 1984, 'Requests and apologies: A crosscultural study of speech acts realization patterns (CCSARP)', Applied Linguistics, vol 5, no 31, pp 192-212 Branaman, A 1997, 'Goffman's social theory', in C Lemert & A Branaman (eds), The Goffman Reader, Wiley-Blackwell, United Kindom, pp xlv-lxxxii 124 Brown, P & Levinson, SC 1987, Politeness: Some universals in language usage, vol 4, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Bryant, A & Charmaz, K 2007, The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California Charmaz, K 2006, Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis, Pine Forge Press Charmaz, K & Mitchell, RG 2001, 'Grounded theory in ethnography', Handbook of ethnography, pp 160-74 Chen, R 1993, 'Responding to compliments A contrastive study of politeness strategies between American English and Chinese speakers', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 20, no 1, pp 49-75 —— 2001, 'Self-politeness: A proposal', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 33, no 1, pp 87-106 Chen, R, He, L & Hu, C 2013, 'Chinese requests: In comparison to American and Japanese requests and with reference to the “East-West divide”', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 55, pp 140-61 Chen, R & Yang, D 2010, 'Responding to compliments in Chinese: Has it changed?', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 42, no 7, pp 1951-63 Chudacoff, HP 1992, How old are you?: Age consciousness in American culture, Princeton University Press, New Jersey Collins, R 2004, Interaction ritual chains, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ Corbin, J & Strauss, A 2008, Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California Creel, HG 1949, Confucius and the Chinese way, Harper & Row, New York 125 —— 1954, Chinese thought, from Confucius to Mao Tse-tung, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London Creswell, JW 2003, Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed method approaches, Sage Publications, California, America —— 2007, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2nd edn, Sage publications, Thousand Oaks, California —— 2009, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 3rd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California —— 2012, Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative research, 4th edn, Pearson Education, Boston, MA Dalton, RJ & Ong, N-NT 2005, 'Civil society and social capital in Vietnam', Modernization and Social Change in Vietnam Hamburg, Institut für Asienkunde Đặng, P & Beresford, M 1998, Authority relations and economic decision-making in Vietnam: An historical perspective, vol 38, NIAS Press Dang, TVP & Bui, QD 2011, 'Các tổ chức xã hội tự nguyện nông thôn đồng sông Hồng: Liên kết trao đổi xã hội', Xã hội học, vol 4, pp 31-45 Dao, DA 2010, Hán Việt Từ Điển giản yếu, Văn hóa Thơng tin, Hà Nội De Certeau, M 1984, The Practice of Everyday Life, University of California Press, California Denzin, NK 1978, The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods, McGraw-Hill, New York Denzin, NK & Lincoln, YS 2005, 'Introduction: The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research', in NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (eds), The Sage handbook of qualitative research, Sage Publications, Incorporated, Thousand Oaks, California, vol 3, pp 1-32 126 —— 2008, Strategies of qualitative inquiry, 3rd edn, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA Douglas, JD 1971, Understanding everyday life, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London Durkheim, E 1974, Sociology and Philosophy, The Free Press, New York —— 1976, The elementary forms of the religious life, George Allen and Unwin London Elliott, A 2007, 'Presentations of Self: Goffman', in A Elliott (ed.), Concepts of the Self, Polity, Cambridge, pp 37-44 Erbaugh, MS 2008, 'China Expands Its Courtesy: Saying “Hello” to Strangers', The Journal of Asian Studies, vol 67, no 02 Escandell-Vidal, V 1996, 'Towards a cognitive approach to politeness', Language Sciences, vol 18, no 3, pp 629-50 Fforde, A & De Vylder, S 1996, From plan to market: The economic transition in Vietnam, Westview Press Boulder, CO Fraser, B 1990, 'Perspectives on politeness', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 14, no 2, pp 219-36 Fukada, A & Asato, N 2004, 'Universal politeness theory: application to the use of Japanese honorifics', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 36, no 11, pp 1991-2002 Gagné, NO 2010, 'Reexamining the notion of negative face in the Japanese< i> Socio linguistic politeness of request', Language & Communication, vol 30, no 2, pp 123-38 García, C 1993, 'Making a request and responding to it: A case study of Peruvian Spanish speakers', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 19, no 2, pp 127-52 Geertz, C 1973, The Interpretation of Cultures Selected Essays, Basic Books, USA 127 Glaser, BG 1978, Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory, vol 2, Sociology press Mill Valley, CA Glaser, BG & Strauss, AL 1967, The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research, Transaction Books Goffman, E 1955, 'On face-work: an analysis of ritual elements in social interaction', Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal Processes, pp 213-31 —— 1956a, 'Embarrassment and social organization', American Journal of Sociology, pp 264-71 —— 1956b, 'The nature of deference and demeanor', American Anthropologist, vol 58, no 3, pp 473-502 —— 1957, 'Alienation from interaction', Human Relations —— 1959, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Penguin Books, London, England —— 1963a, Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings, The Free Press New York —— 1963b, Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis —— 1967a, Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior, Anchor Books, New York —— 1967b, 'On Face-Work', in E Goffman (ed.), Interaction ritual: Essays in face to face behavior, Anchor Books, New York, pp 5-46 —— 1969, Strategic interaction, Unversity of Pensylvania Press, Philadelphia —— 2010, Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order, Transaction Publishers, London 128 Gray, ML 1999, 'Creating civil society? The emergence of NGOs in Vietnam', Development and Change, vol 30, no 4, pp 693-713 Gu, Y 1990, 'Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 14, no 2, pp 237-57 Guan, X, Park, HS & Lee, HE 2009, 'Cross-cultural differences in apology', International Journal of Intercultural Relations, vol 33, no 1, pp 32-45 Gubrium, JF & Holstein, JA (eds) 2002, Handbook of interview research: Context and method, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA Gubrium, JF, Holstein, JA, Marvasti, AB & McKinney, KD (eds) 2012, The Sage handbook of interview research: The complexity of the craft, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA Hanoi's People Committee 2012, Introduction, viewed May 26 2014 2014, Haugh, M & Hinze, C 2003, 'A metathe linguistic approach to deconstructing the concepts of ‘face’and ‘politeness’ in Chinese, English and Japanese', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 35, no 10, pp 1581-611 Herbert, RK 1986, 'Say" thank you"-or something', American speech, vol 61, no 1, pp 76-88 Hill, B, Ide, S, Ikuta, S, Kawasaki, A & Ogino, T 1986, 'Universals of linguistic politeness: Quantitative evidence from Japanese and American English', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 10, no 3, pp 347-71 Ho, DY-f 1976, 'On the concept of face', American Journal of Sociology, vol 81, no 4, pp 867-84 Holmes, J 1989, 'Sex Differences and Apologies: One Aspect of Communicative Competence1', Applied Linguistics, vol 10, no 2, pp 194-213 129 —— 1990, 'Apologies in New Zealand English', Language in Society, vol 19, no 02, pp 155-99 Hu, HC 1944, 'The Chinese concepts of “face”', American Anthropologist, vol 46, no 1, pp 45-64 Ide, S 1989, 'Formal forms and discernment: Two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness', Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, vol 8, no 2-3, pp 223-48 Koutlaki, SA 2002, 'Offers and expressions of thanks as face enhancing acts: tæ'arof in Persian', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 34, no 12, pp 1733-56 Kumatoridani, T 1999a, 'Alternation and co-occurrence in Japanese thanks', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 31, no 5, pp 623-42 —— 1999b, 'Alternation and co-occurrence in Japanese thanks', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 31, pp 623-42 Lakoff, RT 1973, 'The logic of politeness: Minding your p's and q's', in The Ninth Regional Meetings of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Chicago, IL, pp 292-305 —— 1977, 'What you can with words: Politeness, pragmatics and performatives', in Proceedings of the Texas conference on performatives, presuppositions and implicatures, Arlington, Texas, pp 79-106 —— 1989, 'The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse', Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, vol 8, no 2-3, pp 101-30 Leech, G 1983, Principles of pragmatics, vol 285, Longman, London —— 2007, 'Politeness: is there an East-West divide?', Journal of Politeness Research Language, Behaviour, Culture, vol 3, no 2, pp 167-206 Lefebvre, H 1971, Everyday Life in the Modern World, Harper & Row 130 Linton, R 1936, The study of man: an introduction, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York Lofland, J, Snow, D, Anderson, L & Lofland, LH 2006, Analyzing social settings A guide to qualitative observation and analysis, 4th edn, Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA Manning, P 1989, 'Ritual Talk', Sociology, vol 23, no 3, pp 365-85 Mao, LR 1994, 'Beyond politeness theory:‘Face’revisited and renewed', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 21, no 5, pp 451-86 Marshall, C & Rossman, GB 2011, Designing qualitative research, 5th edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California Matsumoto, Y 1988, 'Reexamination of the universality of face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 12, no 4, pp 403-26 —— 1989, 'Politeness and conversational universals–observations from Japanese', Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, vol 8, no 2-3, pp 207-22 Neugarten, BL & Moore, JW 1968, 'The changing age-status system', in BL Neugarten (ed.), Middle age and aging: A reader in Social Psychology, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, pp 5-21 Nguyen, QT & Cao, THB 2012, 'Quan hệ xã hội vốn xã hội: Nghiên cứu so sánh Việt Nam Hàn Quốc', Xã hội học, vol 3, pp 35-44 Nguyen, QT & Trinh, NH 2009, 'Không gian bán cơng cộng hình thành dư luận xã hội: nghiên cứu trường hợp quán cà fe Hà Nội', Xã hội học, vol 2, pp 72-81 Nguyen, TMP 2011, 'Vốn xã hội nông thôn Việt Nam đương đại (Một nghiên cứu trường hợp xã Giao Tân, huyện Giao Thuỷ, tỉnh Nam Định)', Xã hội học, vol 4, pp 67-79 Nureddeen, FA 2008, 'Cross cultural pragmatics: Apology strategies in Sudanese Arabic', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 40, no 2, pp 279-306 131 Ohashi, J 2008, 'Linguistic rituals for thanking in Japanese: Balancing obligations', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 40, no 12, pp 2150-74 Ohno, K 2009, 'Avoiding the middle-income trap: renovating industrial policy formulation in Vietnam', ASEAN Economic Bulletin, vol 26, no 1, pp 25-43 Parsons, T 1949, The structure of social action: A study in social theory with special reference to a group of recent European writers, The Free Press, New York Patton, MQ 2002, Qualitative research and evaluation methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California Pizziconi, B 2003, 'Re-examining politeness, face and the Japanese language', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 35, no 10, pp 1471-506 Reischauer, EO & Jansen, MB 1977, The Japanese today: Change and continuity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Saldaña, J 2012, The coding manual for qualitative researchers, SAGE Publications Limited Schwandt, TA 2001, The SAGE Dictionary of qualitative inquiry, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California Scott, S 2009, Making sense of everyday life, Polity, Cambridge Silverman, D 2011, Interpreting qualitative data, Sage Publications Spradley, JP 1980, Participant observation, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York Straus, A & Corbin, J (eds) 1998, Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 2nd edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California 132 Strauss, A & Corbin, J 1994, 'Grounded theory methodology: An overview', in NK Denzin & YS Lincoln (eds), Handbook of qualitative research, 1st edn, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, pp 273-85 Suszczyńska, M 1999, 'Apologizing in English, Polish and Hungarian: Different languages, different strategies', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 31, no 8, pp 1053-65 Taylor, SJ & Bogdan, R 1984, Introduction to qualitative research methods: The search for meaning, John Wiley & Sons, Canada Thayer, C 1992, 'Political reform in Vietnam: Doi moi and the emergence of civil society', The development of civil society in communist systems, pp 110-29 Thayer, CA 2009, 'Vietnam and the challenge of political civil society', Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, vol 31, no 1, pp 127 Trosborg, A 1987, 'Apology strategies in natives/non-natives', Journal of Pragmatics, vol 11, no 2, pp 147-67 Vietnam General Statistics Office 2012, Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam, Statistical Publish House, Hanoi Watts, RJ 2003, Politeness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Wetzel, PJ 2004, Keigo in Modern Japan: Polite language from Meiji to the present, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu Witter, S 1996, '‘Doi moi’and health: the effect of economic reforms on the health system in Vietnam', The International journal of health planning and management, vol 11, no 2, pp 159-72 133 ... identifiable information of the participants including real name, contact details 37 CHAPTER IV THE DOMINANT PRESENTATION OF RITUALS BASED ON SOCIAL STATUSES When we look at a certain building, we have... Vietnamese deference rituals in everyday life encounters is parallel to the appearance of a certain building To grasp the picture of Vietnamese deference rituals, we have to link it with the ‘architecture... Model of Interaction Rituals CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN 3.1 Grounded Theory Approach 3.2 Theoretical sampling 3.3 Interviewing 3.4 Data processing, interpretation and analysing 3.4.1 Strategy of