INTRODUCTION
Rationale of the study
Language plays an essential role in our life We use language to inform people of how we feel, what we desire, and understand the world around us Communication drives our lives However, not only is language for communication but it is also for cultural exchange among nations To support this point of view, Durant (1997: 332) claims that “to have a culture means to have communication and to have communication means to have access to a language.‖ Language serves as an expression of culture without being entirely synonymous with it In most cases, a language forms a basis for ethnic, regional, national or international identity
According to Brown (1994:65), ―a language is a part of a culture and a culture is a part of a language; the two are intricately interwoven so that one cannot separate the two without losing the significance of either language or culture‖ Nguyen
Quang (1998:2) states that ―One can not master a language without profound awareness of its cultural background and in both verbal and non-verbal communication, culture makes itself strongly felt.‖
In addition, the fact is that many Vietnamese wish to learn a foreign language towards a communicative end but are still largely concerned about grammar and vocabulary Consequently, although the utterances and expressions are well-formed, they may experience culture shock when entering into actual cross-cultural interactions It can be easily realized that different languages and cultures have different expressions as well as different realizations of speech acts by language users This results in a variety of research on cross-cultural study of communication such as complementing, thanking, requesting, making a bargain, promising
However, little attention has been put into asking for permission which is expected to be where appropriate politeness is found, and as a result, the chance of permission will increase
Therefore, a desire to have a further insight into major similarities and differences in asking for permission by native speakers of Vietnamese and American has inspired the researcher to develop a study entitled “A Vietnamese-American cross-cultural study of asking for permission in the workplace‖.
Aim and objectives of the study
The aim of this study is to find out major similarities and differences in the way the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace
* To analyze the ways the Vietnamese ask for permission in the workplace
* To analyze the ways the American ask for permission in the workplace
* To discuss major similarities and differences in the ways the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace.
Scope of the study
To some extent, with playing an important role in interpersonal communication, paralinguistic (speed, loudness, pitch, …) and extralinguistic (facial expression, postures, gestures, proximity…) factors are beyond the scope of this study The study is limited within the verbal-nonvocal aspects of the speech act of asking for permission in view of positive politeness & negative politeness.
Significance of the study
The thesis will contribute to the knowledge and understanding of how to ask for permission in the workplace in two different cultures: Vietnam and America, thus, avoidance of culture shock and communication breakdown for success in inter- cultural communication.
Research Methodology
The main purpose of the study is to answer the following questions:
- What are the major similarities and differences in American and Vietnamese perception of asking for permission in the workplace?
- How do the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace?
- What are the major similarities and differences in the ways the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace in terms of politeness strategies?
To study how to ask for permission in the workplace in Vietnamese and American cultures, a contrastive analysis is applied Firstly, strategies of asking for permission are collected in Vietnamese and American workplace from questionnaires
Secondly, the collected data are classified in the light of positive politeness and negative politeness
The third step is to comparatively and contrastively analyze the collected data
In order to reach the goal of this thesis, the research was conducted with combination of several methods as follows:
Descriptive method: this method is used to give a detailed explanation for the act of asking for permission in American and Vietnamese workplace through questionnaires
Analytic method: the analytic method points out some specific strategies of asking for permission in the workplace in two different cultures through the collected data
Contrastive method: this method is used in order to show the similarities and differences in the ways of asking for permission in the workplace in Vietnamese and American cultures
Inductive method: it helps researchers and readers to draw out the generalizations from the findings
Among them, the analytic and contrastive methods are the dominant ones which are most frequently used in the thesis
The collected data will be analyzed according to the informants‘ status parameters (age, gender) and participants‘ role relationships
The findings are compared and contrasted to find out major similarities and differences in the act of asking for permission in the workplace in Vietnamese and American cultures.
Design of the study
This part includes the rationale, aims and objectives, scope, research questions, significance as well as organization of the study
Chapter II: Literature Review and Theoretical Background
This chapter reviews the previous studies related to the problem under investigation
It provides the theoretical background including theory of culture, cross-culture, culture shock, relation between language and culture; definition, classification of speech acts, asking for permission as a speech act; basic knowledge of politeness strategies
This chapter consists of the research methods, data collection
This chapter concerns with the findings and discussion It presents the ways of asking for permission in the workplace and shows the differences and similarities of the polite strategies in expressing the permission request in the workplace between American and Vietnamese culture
This chapter summarizes the major findings of the investigation, puts forward the implications for learning and teaching, and points out the limitations of the study
Some suggestions are also raised for further studies.
Key concepts defined and discussed
Based on Oxford Advanced Learners‘ Dictionary, “Communication‖ means the activity or process of expressing ideas and feelings or of giving people information
With a view to deepening and broadening the definition, Hybels and Weaver (2008) defined communication as any process in which people share information, ideas, and feelings that involve not only the spoken and written words but also body language, personal mannerism and style, the surrounding and things that add meaning to a message It can be easily realized that two above researchers mentioned some different factors in the process of exchanging the information In order to generalize some above factors, Levine and Adelman (1993) confirmed that communication is a process of sharing meaning through verbal and nonverbal behavior Not only is communication categorized into verbal and non- verbalcommunication but Nguyen Quang also made a detailed desciption about intralanguage in verbal communication as well as pararlanguage and extralanguage in non-verbal communication To sum up, it can be understood that there are some effective ways to share information, to express ideas, feelings in communication as well as some different factors which contribute to a successful communication
According to Oxford Advanced Learners‘ Dictionary, cross-culture is defined as ideas from two or more different countries or cultures In Nguyen Quang‘s Lecture Note, cross-culture is described as the interaction within some social groups, sub- cultures, ethnic cultures as well as some different cultures
Based on the above definition, some scholars expanded their concerns for cross- culture When two strangers from different countries communicate so as to let others understand their culture, customs, religions, values, norms and beliefs, they are doing the cross-cultural communication According to Levine and Adelman
(1993), cross-cultural communication is communication (verbal and non-verbal) between people from different cultures; communication that is influenced by cultural values, attitudes and behavior; the influence of culture on people’s reactions and responses to each other A specific example is that Tina (originally from Malaysia) has worked with a number of Fijians and sometimes she would touch their curly hair and tell them how nice and soft it feels However, some Fijians feel very uncomfortable with her doing so because in their culture, you‘re not supposed to touch people on the head—only the chief can do that Through it, it highlights cultural differences in both non-verbal communication and the social codes of conduct Sometimes, some misunderstandings in cross-cultural communication can happen due to cultural differences In general, it is essential to build up common ground and profound knowledge of different cultures in order to avoid unexpected misunderstadings
Individualism is defined as a situation in which people are concerned with themselves and close family members only (Hofstede & Bond,1984) Similar to Hofstede & Bond, Darwish and Huber (2003) confirmed that individualistic cultures include those people who ―are concerned with themselves and family members only‖ Concerned about people‘s characteristics in culture, Varner and Beamer
(2005) showed that individualistic cultures include those people who show many individual characteristics The individual‘s wishes, wants, and needs are the driving force behind any action taken at work, home, and/or school Individualists are comfortable earning personal credit for successful projects as well as taking the blame for failure to meet project goals More clearly, Trampenaars (2011) best describes individualism as societies that: frequent use of ―I‖, decision are made on the spot by representatives, people ideally achieve alone and assume personal responsibility, vacations taken in pairs or even alone vs group orientation
On the other hand, collectivism is a situation where people feel they belong to larger collectives that care for them in exchange for their loyalty, and in return those same people remain loyal to the group (Hofstede & Bond, 1984) An important value in a collectivist culture is that of saving ―face‖ (Varner & Beamer, 2005) Ting-Toomey and Oetzel (2002) explain that face is associated with ―identity respect, disrespect, dignity, honor, shame, guilt, status, and competence issues‖ (p 145) Many collectivist cultures will not deliver bad news or give criticism for fear of losing face An example of losing face is when an employee makes an error that loses money for the company The company loses face because the error is often attributed not to the individual but to the group More obviously, collectivism is characterized by Trampanaars (2011) as follows: frequent use of ―we‖ decisions referred back by the delegates to the organization people ideally achieve objectives in groups and assume joint responsibility vacations are taken in organized groups of with extended family
All things considered, the difference between individualism and collectivismcan be expressed by the range of social ―concern‖, which refers to bonds and links with others (Hui & Triamdis, 1986)
Confucianism is not a religion; instead it is a set of guidelines for proper behaviour, and an ideology that underlies, pervades, and guides Chinese culture (Hofstede, 1991; Tu, 1998a; Yan & Sorenson, 2006)
The Confucian values form the core of the Chinese culture They penetrate all levels of social life, and also set standards for family, community and political behaviors
Within the present study, Confucianism is defined as a philosophy which is the basic starting point for 53 every individual to arrive at the state of perfect morality and is a teaching based on a moral code for human relations
The fundamental principles of Confucianism are grounded in the observance of the five virtues (also known as the ‗Five Constant Regulations‘) namely, Ren (love and benevolence), Yi (righteousness), Li (propriety or rites), Zhi (wisdom) and Xin (sincerity or trustworthiness) (Chan, Ko, & Yu, 2000; Lu, 1983; Tamney & Chiang, 2002; Yao, 2000).
Speech acts
J Austin (1962) is considered to be a pioneer in confirming the theory of speech acts According to him, a speech act is an act that a speaker performs when making an utterance A speech act, then, is described as ―in saying something, we DO something.‖ For example, when someone says ―I am hungry‖, he or she can express his hunger or ask something to eat A speech act is part of a speech event The speech act performed by producing an utterance, consists of three related acts, namely locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act
• Locutionary act is the basic act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression.The locutionary act is performed with some purposes or functions in mind
• Illocutionary act: is an act performed via the communicative force of an utterance
In engaging in locutionary acts we generally also perform illocutionary acts such as informing, advising, offer, promise, etc In uttering a sentence by virtue of conversational force associated with it
• Perlocutionary act is what we bring about or achieve by saying something, such as convincing, persuading, deterring perlocutionary acts are performed only on the assumption that the hearer will recognize the effect you intended
Searle (1969) states that speaking a language is performing speech acts, acts such as making statements, giving commands, asking questions, making promises and so on; and more abstractly, acts such as referring and predicting; and secondly, that these acts are in general made possible by and are performed in accordance with certain rules for the use of linguistic elements More obviously, Searle (1972: 136) points out that the minimal unit of linguistic communication is the production of speech acts, not the symbol or word or sentence
In agreement with Searle, Levelt (1989) defines that an utterance with this communicative intention is called a speech act; it is an intentional action performed by means of an utterance
The definition of speech acts was developed by some another American language philosophers Yule (1996:47) defines that ―in attempting to express themselves, people do not only produce utterances containing grammatical structures and words, they perform actions via those utterances.‖ According to him, actions performed via utterances are generally called speech acts, and in English, are commonly given more specific labels, such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise or request
For example, you work in a situation where a boss has a great deal of power, then the boss says: ―You’re fired” The utterance of the expression is more than just a statement The utterance can be used to perform the act of ending your employment
Also, Yule points out another utterance: ―This tea is really cold!‖ On a wintry day, the speaker makes a cup of tea and believes that it has been freshly made, takes a sip and produces this utterance It is likely to be interpreted as a complaint
However, changing the circumstances to a really hot summer‘s day with the speaker being given a glass of iced tea by the hearer, taking a sip and producing this utterance, it is likely to be interpreted as praise It can be confirmed that the same utterance can be interpreted as two different kinds of speech act
Some different classification of speech acts can be presented by some different linguistics and researchers
Based on Austin (1962), there are five types of speech acts as follows: o Verdictives: typified by the giving of a verdict by a jury, umpire, arbitrator such as acquit, grade, estimate, diagnose o Exercitives: which are the exercising of powers, rights or influence such as appoint, order, advise, warn o Commisives: which commit the speaker to doing something, but also include declarations or announcements of intention such as promise, guarantee, bet, oppose o Behabitives: a miscellaneous groups concerned with attitudes and social behaviors such as apologies, criticize, bless, challenge o Expositives: which clarify how utterances fit into ongoing discourse, or how they are being used – argue, postulate, affirm, concede
One of Austin‘s followers is Searle‘s, whose classification has become more popular Nguyen Hoa (2004:32) confirmed that the key point about Searle‘s system is that he recognize ―constatives‖ as a kind of speech acts Searle‘s system (1979) includes six types of speech acts as follows: o Commissive: a speech act that commits the speaker to doing something in the future, such as a promise, or a threat
If you don‘t stop fighting, I‘ll call the police
I‘ll take you to the movies tomorrow o Directive: a speech act that has the function of getting the listener to do something, such as a suggestion, a request, permission or a command
Why don‘t you close the window o Declarative: a speech act which changes the state of affairs in the world
I now pronounce you man and wife o Expressive: a speech act in which the speaker expresses feelings and attitudes about something, such as an apology, a complaint, to thank someone, to congratulate someone
The meal was delicious o Representative: a speech act which describes states or events in the word, such as an assertion, a claim, a report
This is a German car o Phatic act: a speech act whose function is to establish rapport between people:
2.3 Asking for permission as speech act
In accordance with Oxford Advanced Learners‘ Dictionary, ―permission‖ means the act of allowing somebody to do something, especially when this is done by somebody in a position of authority; therefore, ―asking for permission‖ is defined as an acting of requiring the others‘ allowance to do something performed through utterances in interaction
Based on Searle‘s classification of speech acts, asking for permission belongs to directive speech act whose direction of fit is to make the world fit the word (Yule,
In the book ―Meaning and Expression” (1979:22), Searle points out that permission has the syntax of directives In addition to the emphasis on the simple meaning of
―giving permission‖- trying to get somebody to do something, he states that it consists in removing antecedently existing restrictions on his doing it
Consequently, ―permission‖ is considered to be illocutionary negation of a directive with a negative propositional content and its logical form is ~(~p)
In agreement with Searle, Edda Weigand confirms that ―to permit‖ something presupposes that something is forbidden which must not explicitly expressed but is known to the community and the speaker asks for the ban to be lifted (2010:190) In other words, the speech act of ―permitting‖ arises from the specific propositional features of something forbidden
With Brown and Levinson (1978), asking for permission is face-threatening speech act and is risky for the speaker in losing his/ her face In other words, such requests are towards speaker rather than hearer as well as activate speaker not hearer
However, it might be expected that asking for permission, since by definition they occur between unequals, will tend to be less direct than requests for action (cited by Shoshana Blum-Kulka and Elite Olshtain) According to the ethnographic study on the language of requesting in Israel, requests for action is the most direct and asking for permission is the most indirect, with requests for goods and for information clustering in between the two extremes (Blum-Kulka, Danet and Gerson, 1983).
Politeness and politeness strategies
Hill et al (1986: 349) define politeness as “one of the constraints on human interaction, whose purpose is to consider other’s feelings establish levels of mutual comfort, and promote rapport‖ Leech (1983: 104) interprets politeness as forms of behavior aimed at creating and maintaining harmonious interactions According to
Nguyen Quang (2005: 185), “Politeness refers to any communicative act (verbal and/ or non-verbal) which is intentionally and appropriately meant to make others feel better‖
3.2 Politeness strategies Positive politeness strategies
Based on Brown and Levinson‘s theory (1987), positive politeness “is oriented toward the positive face of H, the positive self-image that he claims for himself It expresses solidarity and attend to the H’s positive face wants.” In other words, it confirms that the relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity With Yule
(1996), he highlights positive politeness as a face saving act concerned with the person‘s positive face It will tend to show solidarity, emphasize that both speakers want the same thing and have a common goal Through the analysis of cross-culture communication, Nguyen Quang (2003) categorises into some sub-types as follows:
Strategy 1: Notice/attend to H (interest, wants, needs…) Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H) Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H
Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers
Strategy 7: Presuppose, raise, assert common ground
Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose knowledge of and concern for H’s want
Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity
Strategy 13: Give or ask for reasons
Strategy 15: Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
Brown and Levinson (1987) states that negative politeness is oriented toward partially satisfying (redressing) H’s negative face, his basic want to maintain claims of territory and self- determination When negative politeness is used, the speech strategies emphasize the deference or respect for the hearer Negative politeness is defined as a face saving act oriented to a person’s negative face which tends to show deference, emphasizes the importance of the other’s time or concerns and may include an apology for the imposition by Yule (1996) In agreement with two above researchers, Nguyen Quang (2003) emphasizes that the speaker does not want to impigne on the addressee‘s privacy, thus, maintain the sense of distance between them through using the negative politeness With the basis of negative politeness, he gives more detailed description of 11 negative politeness strategies as follows:
Strategy 4: Minimizing the imposition Strategy 5: Give deference
Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H Avoid the pronoun I and You Strategy 8: State the FTA as an instance of a general rule Strategy 9: Nominalize to distance the actor and add formality
Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt or as not indebting H Strategy 11: Avoid asking personal questions
However, in a real utterance, some ovelaps and borderlines between positive politeness and negative politeness can happen Some people sometimes use both of them in a sentence as follows:
Kevin, could I possibly use your computer for a short while? (Kevin: in-group identity marker [Positive politeness] + for a short while: minimise the imposition [Negative politeness])
3.3 Politeness strategies in asking for permission
As usual, some modal verbs such as: can, could, may, might can be used in asking for permission In addition, ―please”,“would you mind”,“could/ can you mind‖ can be considered tobe markers for asking for permission Each specific circumstance will be equipvalent to some suitable asking for permission markers Therefore, this section aims to categorize politeness strategies used to ask for permission in the workplace Based on the politeness theory of Nguyen Quang (2003), some politeness strategies for asking for permission are classified into: a Positive politeness strategies (PPS)
Ex: Let me borow your pen for a while
Bạn cho tớ mượn cái bút nhé
- Give or ask for reasons
Ex: I forgot my pen Can I use yours for the day?
Tôi bỏ quên cái bút Ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn có thể cho tôi mượn bút được không? b Negative politeness strategies (NPS)
Ex: Can I have a couple weeks off for vacation?
Tôi có thể xin phép nghỉ 1 đôi tuần cho kì nghỉ?
Ex: Do you mind exchange our shift today?
Anh/chị/bạn vui lòng đổi ca cho mình hôm nay được không?
Ex: I just want to ask you if I can swap shifts with you
Anh ơi, cho em mượn cái bút một chút được không?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research questions
With the aims of finding out major similarities and differences in the way the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace, the thesis is hoped to answer the following questions:
- What are the major similarities and differences in American and Vietnamese perception of asking for permission in the workplace?
- How do the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace?
- What are the major similarities and differences in the ways the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace in terms of politeness strategies?
Research participants
As mentioned above, asking for permission in the workplace in American- Vietnamese culture was investigated in this study; therefore, those who work in some different offices from both countries were chosen to participate in research In order to ensure the reliability of the research, research participants coming from American offices or those who are working in Vietnam are American-European native speakers In Vietnam, the researcher chose some Vietnamese native speakers in not only state companies but also private enterprises to be research participants
However, there is a variety of factors which affect asking for permission style A large and growing body of literature suggests that gender status beliefs can systematically affect women‘s ability to effectively exert influence and authority in the workplace Ridgeway in a wealth of social psychological research documents how sex categorization and the gender labeling of jobs affect expectations and behaviors Specifically, she argues that, once individuals categorize a worker as either male or female, gender stereotypes are likely to become infused into occupational roles and responsibilities, thereby affecting the way the job is done, understood, and represented to others (cited in L.Doering &S.Thesbaud‘s artice,
2015) Therefore, a range of choosing research participants will be quite wide as follows.
A total of 60 participants from both countries were randomly selected with the age ranged from 22 to 59 In terms of gender, both male and female participate in this survey With regard to nationality, there are 30 American people and 30 Vietnamese people carrying out this questionnaire
In addition, the researcher had a tendency towards a variety of given occupations, from businessmen, accountants to bank clerks with a view to enhancing the validity of the collected data.
Data collection instrument
The main instrument of the research is survey questionnaire Questionnaire is the important way to collect data for analysis Leary (1995) said that survey questionnaires are less expensive, easier to group administration Additionally, thanks to the researchers‘ acquaintance, survey questionnaires sent through emails can reduce their expense and also assist the participants to providing information in a short time or whenever they are free On the other hand, with questionnaire, some natural speech patterns can not be exactly collected because the participants will have much time to think about what he says, especially, the tone, attitudes, emotions of the performance will not deeply shown However, it is considered to be useful to use the survey questionnaire for primary investigation in asking for permission in the workplace
Questionnaire is obviously divided into three parts and comprised of some situations necessarily responded At the beginning of the questionnaire, there was an essential part including the participants‘ personal information such as age, genders and which have a significant effect on their alternatives of politeness strategies when asking for permission in given situations The next part was designed to find out the similarities and differences in the attitude towards asking for permission in normal situations in the workplace In this part, 8 alternative situations were raised and the participants would be required to choose 5-point Likert Scale to decide whether it is necessary or not to ask for permission for some certain situations in the workplace 8 situations were categorized into two sub-parts with the first one being the situations in which the participants are in lower status than the requestees (ask the boss for permission) and the second part including in the situations in which the participants have equal status with the requestees (ask the colleague for permission)
The third part of the questionnaire was designed to investigate the linguistic form of asking for permission in some certain situations in the workplace 4 given situations which are common problems in working environment are shortly described with specific contexts and the relationship between the interactants For each particular situation, the participants were asked to accomplish what he/she would say in natural speech.
Data collection procedure
First of all, a pilot survey will be carried out with some Americans and Vietnamese in order to ask them if they often ask for permission in some daily situations From the pilot survey, 8 common situations will be chosen to build the alternative questions to find out the similarities and differences in the necessity of asking for permission in the workplace perceived by American and Vietnamese After having finished the questionnaire, the researcher will contact with the participants
For American participants, the researcher asked the acquaintances who are working in America for a help to present the questionnaire with their colleagues, neighbor or acquaintance If their friends accepted, a link to questionnaire would be sent to their emails or facebooks After having finished all of the questions, the participants click the button ―submit‖ to send it back For Vietnamese participants, questionnaires were delivered either in person or via emails.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
In the previous chapter, the methodology of this paper including the comments on the informants, the instruments along with the procedure of collecting and analyzing the data has been emphasized This chapter was written to show the research findings and the discussion about the findings So as to gain the best answers for the research questions, the analysis of collected data would be presented based on those ones
Especially, in order to clarify its answers of the second research question, some common situations which American and Vietnamese people choose to ask for permission are categorized into two different contexts namely: unimpotant situations (seek permission to borrow a pen from colleague, ask boss for permission to have a holiday/ an annual leave) and important situations (seek permission to swap your shift for colleague., ask boss for permission to have your say in a formal meeting or discussion).
Findings and discussion
The author has investigated eight situations with different formal and informal events where the act of asking for permisionmay may happen in the workplace 5 columns are shown with 5 levels indicating: (1) Very unnecessary, (2) Unnecessary,
(3) Neutral, (4) Necessary, (5) Very necessary to find out similarities and differences in the neccesity of asking for permission in some certain situations in American and Vietnamese workplace cultures
Table IV.1: Americans‘ perception of asking boss for permission in the workplace
In 4 above stuations, the majority of American find it necessary to ask the boss for permission to do something As you can see, in situation 3, 40% of the informants think that it is necessay to seek permission when you want to have your say in the end-of-year meeting, 43.3% in situation 2 With situation 1 (have your say in a formal meeting or discussion) in and situation 4 (have a holiday/ an annual leave), the level of very necessary accounts for the highest percentage, 40% and 46.7% respectively This indicates that despite the equality between boss and employees, the employees still request their boss for permission to express the respect for their boss‘ s plan L Robert Kohls (1984) confirms that Americans routinely plan and schedule an extremely active day and any relaxation must be pre-planned
Americans believe leisure activities should assume a relatively small portion of one‘s total life (Values Americans Live By)
Table IV.2: Vietnameses‘ perception of asking boss for permission in the workplace
Similar to Americans, Vietnamese people realize that asking the boss for permission is necessary The highest rates including 50 %, 36.6%, 46.6%, 50% in 4 situations belong to level 4 (necessary) Hofstede (1980) study ranked Australia as a low distance country with Asian countries at the high power distance Also, he confirms that the relationship between boses and subordinates in a low power distance society is one of interdependence in contrast to dependence in a high distance culture Vietnam is a hierarchical society and decisions are taken by the boss, therefore, asking boss for permission to do st is indispensable in Vietnamese workplace
Table IV.3 Americans‘ perception of asking colleagues for permission in the workplace The data shows a general tendency that American people consider asking their colleagues for permission to be necessary, particularly, 60% assume the necessity to seek permission before swap the shifts with the colleagues; the proportion of those who ask to lend him/her a pen is 46.6%; 40% belongs to the act of consulting the colleagues‘ plan; 40% find it necessary to ask for permission when helping to print a copy In reality, American typical characteristic is individualistic and privacy is highly appreciated, therefore, asking someone for permission to be accessible to their objects is not avoided in American culture
Table IV.4 Vietnameses‘ perception of asking colleagues for permission in the workplace
As you can see from the table, most of Vietnamese participants confirm that seeking permission from the colleagues is in the level of neutral with the highest proportion (situation 5, 7, 8) In other words, they don‘t highly appreciate the act of asking for permission with their colleagues However, it can be easily realized that the rate of necessity is still higher than that one of unnecessity, therefore, it can‘t be negated that Vietnamese ignore seeking for permission In fact, they only dignify the act of seeking permission in several situations if necessary Particularly, 33.3% think that it is necessary to ask for permission in the act of consulting the colleagues‘ plan which is considered important because of its big effect on the whole company
2.2 How do the Vietnamese and Americans ask for permission in the workplace?
2.2.1 In some unimportant events 2.2.1.1 With colleagues
Negative strategies Positive strategies Giving deference
Table IV.5 Politeness strategies with colleagues in some unimportant events as seen from Vietnamese respondents
The table below demonstrates the results collected from Vietnamese participants It is noticeable that there are five different sub-categories of politeness strategies employed by Vietnamese people namely giving deference, being conventionally indirect, minimizing the imposition, giving reasons, being optimistic
Of five sub-strategies above, it can be seen that positive strategies, particularly, being optimistic are preferred to ask for permission in some unimportant events with colleagues who are powerless, making up 51.3% in total Some common expressions can be seen as follows:
- Anh cho em mượn cái bút này nhé
The second most noticable strategy to seeking permission in the workplace is giving deference, accounting for 23.3% in total For instance;
- Chị làm ơn cho em mượn cái bút được không ạ?
In addition, other strategies including ―being conventionally indirect‖ , ―minimizing imposition‖ are selected in some expressions such as:
- Cho mình mượn cây bút viết được không?
- Cho mình mượn cái bút một lát
It can be explained that according to researches on Vietnamese cultural backgrounds, the societial norms of Vietnamese society are mainly collectivistic (Parks and Vu, 1994) In collectivist societies, ties among individuals are more important than individualism as life is fundamentally a cooperative experience
Therefore, Vietnamese always try to get on well with each other, become friendlier especially with some colleagues who are equal to them
For five different proposed case of the speakers, the application of strategies is extremely divergent With regard to the speakers‘ age, the most preferred strategy substantial distinction in the choice of strategies as well as the rate of participants in terms of the speakers‘ age If the speaker is older, the negative strategy ―giving deference‖ is considered as the most common selection although the choice of
―being optimistic‖ is not too low On the contrary, if the speaker is supposed to be younger, the most frequently used is ―being optimistic‖ which belongs to positive politeness strategy Especially, there is a small increase in the rate of applying this strategy when the speaker‘s age is not different from the hearers‘
This may be due to the fact that Vietnamese culture is hierarchical and Confucian belief has profound impact on the way people behave including in the workplace
Hence, to show respect to the elderly people or superiors ―giving deference‖ seems to be a more polite tactic in spite of some events are just considered to be unimportant Conversely, ―being optimistic‖ is likely to be more appropriate in case of younger or lower status addressee since it is friendlier but less courteous expression
More interestingly, there are no discrepancies in the selections of politeness strategy in terms of speaker‘s genders All participants employ a common positive politeness strategy namely ―being optimistic‖ in order to seek permission
Negative strategies Positive strategies Giving deference
Table IV.6 Politeness strategies with colleagues in some unimportant events as seen from American respondents
The data indicates that in some unimportant events, American people tend to employ four different sub-categories of politeness strategies namely giving deference, being conventionally indirect, being optimistic, giving reasons Of the four above strategies, the largest number of responses belongs to ―being conventionally indiect‖ strategy accounting for 71.3% in total To illustrate:
Holding the second position with the propotion of respondents 15.3% is ―giving deference‖ strategies The positive politeness strategy namely ―being optimistic‖ is the least popular one with just only 6 % in total Some common expressions can be shown as follows:
- You won’t mind if I borrow your pen
This result maintains the fact that the United States scored the highest in individualism (Hofstede, 1984) In other words, individualistic cultures protect privacy, one‘s self-image or face is expected to be independent and respected from others Therefore, even in some unimportant events, the majority of American participants select negative politeness strategy to give respect to the others
CONCLUSION
The main goal of this minor research is to investigate how Vietnamese people and American counterparts asking for permission in the workplace Furthermore, this study also aims at comparing and contrasting to figure out the similarities and differences between the two cultures in the ways of employing politeness strategies
The major findings would be recapitulated and subsumed as followed:
Initially, the Vietnamese and American people frequently ask for permission when they want to help someone or do something which can make an impact on the others Almost participants from both countries ask for permission in some important and unimportant events, however, there is a variety of politeness strategies in each cases With colleagues in some important events and unimportant events, of the five applied strategies, Vietnamese businesspeople select different tactics depending on the speaker‘s age However, ―being optimistic‖ is the most popular one since this is considered an effective tactic in saving other‘s face and express typical Vietnamese characteristics - collectivism In another continent, American people prefer ―being conventionally indirect‖ tactic if they decide on asking for permission to preserve other‘s self-image regardless of the speaker‘s age, gender as directness is highly valued in the American culture
Unlike colleagues, with boss, Vietnamese participants choose ―giving deference‖ with the highest proportion in both contexts because of hierarchy in their culture
On the contrary, ―being conventionally indirect‖ is still the priority in the choice of politeness strategy in America Especially, in Vietnam, gender and age factors have an impact on giving responses with the older being more respectful and the younger and the same age being more friendly whereas there is no effects of gender and age factors on selecting politeness strategies in America
In spite of the researcher‘s effort during the research procedure and data analysis, certain limitations of the study should be noted due to time limitation and other unforeseen factors Firstly, as the only method of collecting data is DCT, nonverbal elements in a real context of workplace are not covered Secondly, a threat of drawing definitive conclusions for the whole population of the study is not avoided since the sample is not larger enough It is of great importance to take these mentioned limitations of the study into consideration in further studies
From the results of the research along with the limitations of the study, several issues are worth considering for future research Initially, the result will be more reliable and the generalization of the study would be decreased if a similar study is conducted with a larger number of participants Not only verbal but also non-verbal language is frequently found in cases of seeking for permission Hence, a study on non-linguistic politeness in this regard should be welcomed further studies
Austin, J L (1962) How to Do Things with Words Oxford: Clarendon Press
Blum-Kulka, Danet and Gerson (1983) The language of requesting in Israeli Society Language and Social Psychology Conference, Bristol
Bobbie Kalman (2009) What is culture? Crabtree Publishing Company
Brown and Levinson (1978) Universals of language usage: Politeness Phenomena
Brown and Levinson (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage
Brown and Levinson (1994) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage
Claire Kramsch (2000) Language and Culture Oxford University Press Chan, H L., Ko, A., & Yu, E (2000) Confucianism and management In O H M
Yau & H C Steele (Eds.), China Business: Challenges in the 21st century (pp 179-
192) Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Darwish, Abdel-Fattah E., & Huber, Gunter L (2003) Individualism vs collectivism in different cultures: a cross cultural study Intercultural Education, 14 (1), 47-55
Durant (1997) Linguistic Anthropology UK: CUP Edda Weigand (2010) Dialogue: The mixed game John Benjamins Publishing
Company F.Trompenaars & Charles Hampden-Turner, (2011), Riding waves of culture:
Understanding Diversity in Global Business, Business & Economics
Hoa Nguyen (2004) Understanding English Semantics Hanoi National University
Hill et al (1986) Universals of Linguistic Politeness: Quantitive Evidence from Japanese and American English Journal of Pragmatics
Hofstede (1980) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values Beverly Hills; London: Sage Publications
Hofstede, Geert, & Bond, Michael H (1984) Hofstede’s Culture Dimensions
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15 (4), 417-433
Hofstede, G (1984) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work- related values Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Hofstede, G (1997) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind London:
Hui,C.H & Triands,C.H (1986) Individualism-Collectivism A study of cross- cultural researchers Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Hybels and Weaver (2008) Communicating effectively Boston: McGraw-Hill
Leary (1995) Self-presentation: impression management and interpersonal psychology Madison, Wisconsin: WCB Brown & Benchmark
Linda, K.Trevino & Katherine, A.N (2010) Managing Bussiness Ethics: Straight Talk about how to do it right John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Leech (1983) Principles of Pragmatics London: Longman
Levine and Adelman (1993) Beyond Language: cross- cultural communication
Prentice Hall Regents, Englewood Cliffs, NJ07632
Levine and Adelman (1982) Beyond Language: Intercultural Communication for English as a second language Prentice Hall Regents, Englewood Cliffs, NJ07632
Levelt W.J.M (1989) Speaking: From Intention to Articulation Cambridge, MA:MIT Press
L Robert Kohls (1984) Values Americans Live By, Meridian House International
Lu, M (1983) Confucianism: Its Relevance to Modern Society Singapore: Federal Publications
Mark R Leary (1995) Introduction to Behavioral Research Methods Brooks/
Cole, the University of California
Nguyen Quang (1998) Intercultural Communication Vietnam National University Hanoi
Nguyen Quang (2003) Intracultural and Cross-culture Communication VNU Press
Nguyen Quang (2006) Lecture note on Cross-Cultural Communication ULIS, VNU, Hanoi
Oberg, K (2006) Cultural Shock: Adjustment to New Cultural Environments
Technical Information Clearing House (Reprinted with the permission from the Technical Assistance Quarterly Bulletin)
Parks and Vu (1994) Social Dilemma Behavior of Individuals from Highly Individualist and Collectivist Cultures The Journal of Conflict Resolution
Shoshana Blum-Kulka & Elite Olshatain Requests and Apologies: A Cross- Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization patterns
Searle, John (1969) Speech acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language
Searle, John (1979) Meaning and Expression Cambridge University Press
Tamney, J B., & Chiang, L H.-L (2002) Modernisation, Globalisation, and
Confucianism in Chinese Societies Westport: Praeger Publishers
Tanveer Ahmed, Haralambos, David (2009) Website Design Guidelines: High Power Distance and High-Context Culture
Ting-Toomey, Stella, & Oetzel, John G (2002) Cross-Cultural face concerns and conflict styles: Current status and future directions In William B Gudykunst &
Bella Mody (Eds.), Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication (2nd ed.) London: Sage Pubications
Tu, W (1998) Confucius and Confucianism In W H Slote & G A DeVos (Eds.), Confucianism and the family (pp 3-36) New York: State University of New York Press
Varner, Iris, & Beamer, Linda (2005) Intercultural Communication in the Global
Workplace (3rd ed.) Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill
Valdes (1995) Culture Bound Cambridge CUP
Yan, J., & Sorenson, R (2006) The Effect of Confucian values on succession in family business Family Business Review, 19(3), 235-250
Yau, O H M (2000) Chinese Cultural Values: Their Dimensions and Marketing
Implications In O H M Yau & H C Steele (Eds.), China Business: Challenges in the 21st Century (pp 133-150) Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Yule, George (1996) Pragmatics Oxford: Oxford University Press
The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out what you would naturally say in the situations below Your assistance in completing the following items is highly appreciated You can be confident that this questionnaire is for research purposes only and that you will not be identified in any discussion of the data Thank you for your cooperation!!!
1 Do you think it is necessary to ask for permission in the following situations? Please tick (x) in the appropriate column
To have your say in a formal meeting or discussion
To leave the office early
To have a holiday/ an annual leave
To give advice on a schedule
To swap your shift for hers/ his
To help him/ her print a report
To borrow a pen from him/ her
2 Please put yourself in the following situations and write down what you would actually say in each situation:
Situation 1: You and your colleague are discussing a small project in the office
You need a pen to take note of some important points What would you say? a Your colleague is male?
……… c Your colleague is older than you
……… d Your colleague is your age
……… e Your colleague is younger than you
Situation 2: For some personal reason, you have to swap your shift for your colleague‘s shift What would you say? a Your colleague is male?
……… c Your colleague is older than you d Your colleague is your age
……… e Your colleague is younger than you
Situation 3: You are in the end-of-year meeting Your boss has just finished his speech and you want to have your say What would you say? a Your boss is male
……… c Your boss is younger than you
……… d Your boss is your age
……… e Your boss is older than you
Situation 4: You want to travel overseas with some friends of yours You ask your boss for your annual leave What would you say? a Your boss is male
……… c Your boss is younger than you
……… d Your boss is your age
……… e Your boss is older than you
Thank you for your cooperation !!!
Bản câu hỏi khảo sát
Mục đích của bản câu hỏi khảo sát để tim ra cách thức diễn đạt một cách tự nhiên trong các tình huống dưới đây Với mỗi tình huống, các bạn vui lòng đưa ra các câu trả lời ngắn gọn các bạn vẫn hay sử dụng trong môi trường công sở, nơi làm việc
Tôi xin đảm bảo nội dung của bản câu hỏi khảo sát này được bảo mật tuyệt đối và chỉ sử dụng cho mục đích nghiên cứu Mọi thông tin về người tham gia sẽ không được tiết lộ dưới bất kỳ hình thức nào Tôi xin chân thành cám ơn sự hợp tác và giúp đỡ của các bạn
Hãy đánh dấu (√) vào chỗ thích hợp
II Câu hỏi khảo sát
1 Bạn nghĩ gì về những tình huống dưới đây? Có thực sự quan trọng để xin phép trong những tình huống đó hay không? Đánh dấu (x) vào những cột thích hợp
1 = hoàn toàn không quan trọng 2 = không quan trọng
4 = quan trọng 5 = rất quan trọng
- Xin phép phát biểu trong cuộc họp hoặc buổi thảo luận
- Xin phép giám đốc tăng lương
- Xin phép giám đốc về sớm
- Xin phép giám đốc nghỉ phép (thường niên)
- Xin đồng nghiệp góp ý cho bản kế hoạch làm việc
- Xin đồng nghiệp đổi ca làm
- Xin được giúp đỡ bạn in 1 bản báo cáo
- Xin phép mượn đồng nghiệp 1 cái bút
2 Bạn sẽ đọc những câu hỏi dưới đây, đặt mình vào trong những tình huống được đưa ra, sau đó viết những điều bạn sẽ nói trong các tình huống đó
Tình huống 1: Bạn và đồng nghiệp đang thảo luận về 1 dự án nhỏ trong văn phòng Bạn cần 1 cái bút đế ghi chú những ý quan trọng Bạn sẽ nói gì trong những tình huống dưới đây? a Đồng nghiệp của bạn là nam?
……… b Đồng nghiệp của bạn là nữ?
……… c Đồng nghiệp lớn tuổi hơn bạn?
……… d Đồng nghiệp bằng tuổi bạn?
……… e Đồng nghiệp trẻ hơn bạn?
Tình huống 2: Xin phép đồng nghiệp để đổi ca cho cô ấy/ anh ấy Bạn sẽ nói gì trong những tình huống dưới đây? a Đồng nghiệp của bạn là nam?
……… b Đồng nghiệp của bạn là nữ?
……… c Đồng nghiệp lớn tuổi hơn bạn?