INTRODUCTION
Rationale
Language has become an indispensable part in the development and civilization of human beings Language is not only for communication but also for cultural exchange among nations The close association between language and culture is undeniable Hence, it is very difficult for an individual to acquire a language without studying and understanding its culture
Cross-cultural communication is an interesting and attractive field to find out the similarities and differences between languages and cultures in various situations in terms of speech acts and politeness strategies Many studies regarding the speech acts of requesting, giving and receiving compliments, promising and soon have been carried out in Vietnam and in other countries where learners of English are of different language backgrounds However, „interrupting and asking for clarification‟ in conversations in general and in the context of business meetings in particular is one of the areas that is not paid much attention to
There are different ways to interrupt and ask for clarification in Vietnamese and in American English However, how to interrupt politely and get effectiveness of clarifying are by no means easy People often have difficulties selecting appropriate and polite ways to interrupt another person in another language and in different contexts This leads the author to the decision to conduct research into “An American – Vietnamese cross-cultural study of interrupting and asking for clarification in business meetings” to find out the similarities and differences in how businesspeople interrupt and ask for clarification in these situations in the two different languages and cultures.
Significance of the study
Finding out the similarities and differences in interrupting and asking for clarification between Vietnamese and American entrepreneurs in the context of business meetings is expected to make a significant contribution to cross-cultural pragmatics in theory, and effective communication in practice Therefore, Vietnamese businesspeople can be more confident when communicating and attending business meetings with American counterparts.
Aims and objectives of the study
In the light of cross-cultural pragmatics, this study aims at comparing and contrasting linguistic politeness strategies in the speech acts of interrupting and asking for clarification employed by American businesspeople and their Vietnamese counterparts in business meeting context
firstly, to investigate ways of interrupting and asking for clarification in business meetings in Vietnamese and American English;
secondly, to compare and contrast the use of politeness strategies in the ways the Vietnamese and American businesspeople interrupt and ask for clarification in business meetings
Scope of the study
The English-speaking informants to be surveyed are all American businesspeople and their Vietnamese-speaking counterparts are all Northern Vietnamese
The study only focuses on the verbal aspects of interrupting and asking for clarification The analysis of the data collected from the survey questionnaire concentrates on the ways the American and Vietnamese businesspeople of different ages, genders and positions interrupt and ask for clarification in business meetings
This would mean major similarities and differences between the two cultures would be drawn out from the analysis of the use of negative politeness and positive politeness strategies.
Research questions
To fulfill the objectives above, the answers to the following research questions are sought:
1 What politeness strategies are used by American and Vietnamese businesspoeple in interrupting and asking for clarification in business meetings?
2 What are the major similarities and differences in interrupting and asking for clarification in terms of politeness strategies between the Vietnamese and American businesspeople?
Research method
The main method of this study is quantitative All the considerations, remarks, interpretations, comments and assumptions given in this study are based largely on the analysis of statistic data with reference to publications The practical access includes: conducting survey questionnaires, studying relevant publications, discussing with American and Vietnamese colleagues, and consulting with the supervisor
Survey research is the method of gathering data from respondents supposed to be representatives of some population In this survey, the author samples a population
Since populations can be quite large, the researcher directly questions only sample of the population Therefore, this method allows the researcher to gain potential generalizability Besides, survey research tends to be reliable method if questionnaires are well-constructed and standardized, (Blackstone, 2012).That is the reason why survey method is employed in this study.
Structure of the study
The thesis consists of the followings:
Chapter I: INTRODUCTION This chapter includes the rationale, aims, objectives and scope of the study
Such key concepts as culture, cross-culture, speech acts, and politeness are defined, and politeness principles, politeness strategies in interrupting and asking for clarification are critically discussed Also, a review of related studies will be presented
Chapter III: METHODOLOGY This chapter provides a methodological framework for collecting and analyzing data
Chapter IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In this chapter, data analysis and findings of the study are presented with the illustration of tables and charts
Chapter V: CONCLUSION Summary of the major findings and suggestions for further research are presented in this part.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Key concepts defined and discussed
There are probably as many conceptions of culture as there are researchers in the field Traditionally, culture has either been seen as a set of symbolic meanings located in the minds of people or been defined as a context variable Cultures are seen as both products of past behavior and as shapers of future behavior and at the same time; humans are seen as producers of culture and are being influenced by it (Segall, Dasen, Berry, &Poortinga, 1999) Levine and Adelman (1993:17) give a more concrete definition: “Culture is a shared background (for example national, ethnic, religious) resulting from a common language and communication style, customs, beliefs, attitudes and values.”
Recent approaches comprehend cultures as “dynamic open systems that spread across geographical boundaries and evolve through time” (Hong & Chiu, 2001, p 181) rather than stable and static entities In short, the author of this thesis is in line with the idea that culture is always changing because it consists of learned patterns of behavior and belief Obviously, language cannot occur alone and is never separated from social activities and its culture
According to McCarthy (1996: 4), business culture “embodies the character or ethos of business as reflected in the way its personnel think and act” Regarding this term, Gallagher (2003) defines business culture in terms of what it both is and is not
“A business culture is your values and beliefs, generally unspoken, your style, the type of people you hire and what behavior you reward.” In contrast, business culture is not
“your products and services, promoted externally, your policies and procedures, your recruiting process and what behaviors you say you want”, (p 4) Overall, business culture is built from time-tested and conventional business practices In other words, business practices and ways of thinking over a long period of time shape the business culture of a country
1.2.1 Overview of American business culture
According to Gary (1999), the U.S is a society of cultural diversity However, there also exists a dominant culture and immigrants became a part of this culture by giving up their differences so that they could fit into the mainstream of the society
As John (2008) points out, Americans belong to a rule-based culture, in other words; behaviors are based on respects for rules and personal relationships are relatively unimportant in enforcement of rules This characteristic also makes the U.S a “low- context” culture in the sense that “Americans are direct and have no problems of spelling out what they want”, (Katrine, 2007, p.4)
Yin‟s (2002) shows that American participants use communication as a means to convey a positive self-image This result could be due to the particularly high value of the U.S culture on individualism dimension The U.S participants in his study are also concerned about making others feel good about themselves as well (i.e., equally important and validated) These values also have influences on American business communication
Firstly, they tend to “get down to business” in a meeting much more quickly than in cultures where relationships are important Secondly, an action plan or agenda with a clear cut schedule is provided at almost all formal business meetings, and contracts are written out ahead of time In negotiating, American businesspeople are more likely to be very open and direct, and normally do not enjoy haggling
Additionally, Americans tend not to be comfortable with silence and will make every effort to maintain constant communication Interruptions are not always welcomed either; in presentations all questions and comments should be held to the end of a gathering unless otherwise specified (Gesteland, 1999).Unlike many other countries, business in the United States is based on personal power rather than class, status or seniority Hiring relatives or friends solely based on favoritism is completely unethical in the United States Furthermore, in less formal business settings, Americans are more relaxed and place great emphasis on personal achievements Americans are not reserved about their personal opinions and express themselves freely in the work environment, including giving input on important decisions, (Gary, 1999)
1.2.2 Overview of Vietnamese business culture
Katrine (2007) reckons that Vietnam, like other Asian countries, has a „high context‟ culture in the sense that words spoken may vary in their meaning depending on the context, and people maintain close relationships over a long period of time
Similarly, it can be said that Vietnam belongs to relationship-based culture, according to John (2008) More specifically, in relationship-based cultures, behaviors are regulated through close supervision by authority figures; improper behaviors may lead to shame, loss of face, punishment or ostracism, (John, 2008) Moreover, Adler and Gundersen (2008) when describing individualism versus collectivism claims that Vietnamese culture is the later case where employees see themselves as part of a group whose needs should determine behavior Besides, Confucian concept and hierarchy also have significant influence in Vietnam Hence, these values greatly determine the way Vietnamese people conduct their business
Firstly, hierarchy and face manifest themselves in different ways at business meetings For example, the most senior person should always enter the room first
Silence is also common in meetings where someone disagrees with another and remains quiet, so as not to cause a loss of face Secondly, relationships are critical to successful business partnerships Meetings in Vietnam are generally relaxed affairs, but small talk is also used to establish a sense of familiarity and of a relative status among the participants As Vietnam is a very hierarchical society, Vietnamese in general feel uncomfortable if they do not know the status of the people with whom they interact,
(Chambers, 1997).In addition, in Vietnam where high power-distance is associated with low uncertainty avoidance, employees view their organizations as families, and bosses are expected to take care of their employees financially and physically, (Adler
1.3 Cross- culture and cross-cultural communication
Cross-culture can be understood as “the meeting of two cultures or languages across the political boundaries of nation-states” (Kram, 1998: 81) The term “cross- culture” or “interculture” usually refers to the meeting of two cultures They are predicated on the equivalence of one nation-one culture-one language and on the expectation that a “culture-shock” may take place upon crossing national boundaries
Cross-culture seeks ways to understand the other on the other side of the border
As for the concept of cross-cultural communication, researchers are of different opinions from divergent angles Jia (1997) defines cross-cultural communication as a subject which focuses on the communicative activities of people from different cultural background and the essence and rules of the communicative activities The consensus viewpoint is that the term “cross-cultural” does not only mean the communication of different countries, but also the communication of people from different nations, different social status and so on Thus, cross-cultural communication is the exchange and negotiation of information ideas, feelings and attitudes between individuals who come from different cultural backgrounds.
Overview of cross-cultural pragmatics
Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993) define cross cultural pragmatics as “the study of linguistic acts by language users from different cultural backgrounds,” (as cited in Locastro, 2012:80).According to Wierzbicka (1991), the term “cross-cultural pragmatics” has been used in the study of language that focuses on several communicative aspects including the way people speak differently in different communities; and how different speech styles reflect different cultural values and priorities These ideas are adopted in the most recent study on “politeness strategies as linguistic variables” (Holmes 2009), which acknowledges that different cultures have different methods of expressing consideration for others
Wierzbicka (1991) suggests that the term “cross-cultural” is used for describing not only native-non-native interactions, but also any communicative patterns employed between two people who, in any particular domain, do not share a common linguistic or cultural background Cross-cultural pragmatics isn‟t important only for comparing different cultures but also for general pragmatics as a whole
General pragmatics is only able to phrase its theories with the help of cross-cultural studies.
Interrupting as a speech act
Although the term “interrupting” has drawn much attention from researchers, there is still little consensus about the definition of interrupting According to West and Zimmerman (1975), interrupting can be seen as a form of simultaneous speech, which is defined as a violation of a speaker‟s turn at talk and as a device of exercising power and control in conversation Moreover, James and Clarke (1988) indicate that interrupting happens when one person initiates talks while another person is already talking
Regarding the classification of interruption, various categorization schemes for interruption are proposed by different researchers In this study, the author would adopt the classification of interruption proposed by Roger and Schumacher (1983) in which interruptions are divided into successful and unsuccessful interruptions
Since the aims of this paper is to focus on politeness strategies employed in the way businesspeople interrupt and ask for clarification, only successful interruption is considered in this research According to Roger and Schumacher (1983), successful interruptions consist of those events in which the first speaker is prevented from completing an utterance by the second speaker taking the floor
Interrupting actions may have different intentions such as showing disagreement, asking for opinion, adding ideas or asking for clarification The case in this study is interruption to ask for clarification This situation usually originates from the listeners‟ divergent problems but mostly resulting from the circumstance when the listeners do not understand what the speaker is saying
One of the important approaches within interlanguage pragmatics is the application of the notion of speech acts According to Yule (1996:47), “Actions performed via utterances are generally called speech acts.”
Austin (1962, pp 94-108) categorizes the utterance into three layers:
(1) The locutionary act refers to an utterance simply constructed by its literal or propositional meaning
(2) The illocutionary act is the real action performed by the utterance, i.e the conventionalized meaning
(3) The perlocutionary act refers to the effect of the utterance upon the listener
Austin considered the illocutionary act as the most important of the three acts because it is actually what the speaker wants to achieve through the action of uttering the sentences Searle (1976) asserts that all illocutionary acts fit into five categories:
(1)Representatives which tell people how things are, (e.g suggest, deny, swear, report, etc.)
(2) Directives are attempts by the speaker to get the hearer to do something (e.g order, request, invite, command, etc.)
(3)Comissives by which the speaker commits himself to do things (e.g intend, promise, vow, undertake, etc.)
(4)Expressive express speakers‟ feelings and attitudes (e.g thank, congratulate, apologize, detest, etc.)
(5)Declarations or declaratives bring about changes in the institutional state of affairs through utterances (e.g resign, appoint somebody, fire somebody, etc.) For instance, a priest stating: “I now pronounce you man and wife”
Speech acts may be either direct or indirect depending on the direct and indirect relationships between their structures and functions
In English, as Yule (1996) states, more specific labels are normally given to speech acts, namely apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, or request
The basic function of interruption is to prevent the first speaker from being able to finish what he/she is saying and to allow the second speaker to take over the floor (James & Clarke, 1993) It is often regarded negatively as violating normal conversation rules, rude and disrespectful act However, James & Clarke (1993) indicate that interruption can be supportive and cooperative speech act as the speakers can work out a topic together and produce shared meaning Hence, interruption can sometimes be neutral in case one might interrupt because of a problem with the communicative process; that is, one‟s failure in understanding what the speaker is saying Under such circumstance, one may legitimately break into asking for clarification Based on the theory proposed by Yule (1996) and Searl (1976), interrupting and asking for clarification belongs to the speech act of request It is the kind of request for verbal action, that is, the speaker is asked to clarify what he or she is saying; for example: Could you explain what you mean by….?
Politeness strategies in interrupting and asking for clarification
Beside theory of speech acts, particularly requests, the theory of politeness can be considered one of the most fundamental backgrounds of this paper As a result, the following part of this thesis mentions the theoretical background related to politeness and politeness theory Since politeness and politeness strategies tend to be one of the chief aspects of pragmatics, abundant research has been conducted in this area by divergent researchers However, earlier studies seem to all stem from the theory suggested by Brown &Levison (1987) Consequently, in this thesis, the theory of Brown &Levinson (1987) serves as the principal foundation
To begin with, Yule (1996:60) defines politeness as “the means employed to show awareness of another person‟s face.” Accordingly, it is essential to trace Brown and Levinson‟s definition of „face‟ This term is considered as:
The public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects: a) Negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non- distraction- i.e to freedom of action and freedom from imposition b) Positive face: the positive consistent self-image or „personality‟ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) (Brown and Levinson 1987:61)
Although there is a mutual awareness for both people (speaker and hearer) in a conversation to preserve each other‟s face, some circumstances when speaker (henceforth S) says something that threatens another individual‟s expectations of self- image (their “face”) are discussed by Yule (1996) In this case, this is described as a face threatening act (henceforth FTA) In their theory, Brown &Levinson (1987:65) also admit that:
An FTA is any verbal act a speaker (S) addresses to any hearer (H) with a specific intention which S intends H to recognize, this recognition being the communicative point of S‟s doing the communicative act Any utterance is always to some extent an imposition on H and S; any utterance is intrinsically face-threatening Some FTAs are more threatening than others
Yule (1996)tends to have an agreement in defining the concept of politeness with Brown &Levinson (1987) as he declares that politeness can be treated as a fixed concept However, Watts (2003:16) states that “politeness is a dynamic concept, always open to adaptation and change in any group, in any age and indeed any time”
In this regard, Watts appears to refute the universality of politeness as proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987), but considering it a flexible conception
In short, in person, various definitions of politeness, the writer tends to fall on Yule (1996)‟s viewpoint.
Concerning the standpoint of “face” and face wants, the hypotheses of politeness strategies have been varied; nevertheless, in this paper, the author would like to present Brown and Levinson theory since it is one of the most prevalent theories and adopted for this research These five strategies (which are referred to as the five super- strategies in Brown &Levinson, 1987) are illustrated in the below figure:
Figure II.1 Possible Strategies for Doing FTAs (Brown/Levinson, 1987:60)
Aiming at clarifying these strategies, Yule (1996) applies this theory into a specific situation: “How to get a pen from someone else” as presented in the following chart:
Figure II.2 How to get a pen from someone else (following Brown/Levinson 1987)
(Yule, 1996:66) The conception of Brown &Levinson about the typical characteristics as well as the chief distinctions of each mentioned politeness strategy as below:
Bald on-record does nothing to minimize threats to H‟s “face” and avoid FTAs
Positive politeness strategy shows S recognizes that H has a desire to be respected It also confirms that the relationships is friendly and expresses group reciprocity
Negative politeness also recognizes H‟s face But it also recognizes that S is in some way imposing on that face
How to get a pen from someone else
Positive politeness (´How about letting me use your pen?´)
Bald on record (´Give me a pen)
Negative politeness (´Could you lend me a pen?´)
Off record (´I forgot my pen´)
Say nothing (but search in bag)
Off-record indirect: an FTA is avoided by not (literally) making a request at all but an indirect statement that must be inferred to be a request by hearer
Negative politeness strategies, which emphasize the right of freedom of the hearer, are acknowledged as “deference strategies” by Yule (1996:66) For him, it can be the typical strategy of a whole group or just an option used on a particular occasion
Besides, this strategy is involved in what is called „formal politeness‟ Yule (1996) also states some features associated with a deference strategy such as: being impersonal (as if nothing is shared and referring to neither S nor H); emphasizing S‟s and H‟s independence (marked through an absence of personal claims, for example)
Brown and Levinson (1987:131)tend to provide a more lucid description of negative politeness by giving ten different strategies as follows:
(8) State the FTA as a general rule
Nguyen Quang (2003: 183), from his observation of cross cultural communication, adds one more negative politeness strategy:
Strategy 11: Avoid asking personal questions
In the positive politeness - oriented communities, „asking personal questions‟ is a considerably effective strategy to show concern to H Meanwhile, this is considered to impinge on H‟s privacy Therefore, avoiding asking such private questions as: “How much do you earn a month?”, “How nice your skirt is How much is it?”… is another negative politeness strategy
According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 70), positive politeness “is oriented toward the positive face of H, the positive self-image that he claims for himself”
Nguyen Quang (2003: 27) considers the notion of positive politeness, based on the concern of the solidarity between interactants, as “any communicative act (verbal and/ or nonverbal) which is intentionally appropriate and meant to show the speaker‟s concern to the addressee, thus, enhancing the sense of solidarity between them”
Positive politeness strategies are usable not only for FTA redress, but in general as a kind of social accelerator, where S, in using them, indicates that he wants to „come closer‟ to H Therefore, Brown and Levinson (1987:102) sketch 15 positive politeness strategies applied by speakers in communication as follows:
(1) Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods)
(2) Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)
(4) Use in-group identity markers
(5) Seek agreement (by the safe topics, repetition or minimal encouragers)
(7) Presuppose/ raise/ assert common ground
(9) Assert or presuppose S‟s knowledge of and concern for H‟s wants
(12) Include both S and H in the activity
(13) Give (or ask for) reasons
(15) Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)
Nguyen Quang (2003: 78-85), adds two more strategies, namely:
E.g: You have my whole-hearted support
E.g: Are you married or single?
We have mentioned 17 positive politeness strategies and 11 negative politeness strategies, which are mainly used in communication However, a clear-cut distinction between positive politeness strategies and negative politeness ones is hardly reached
In one utterance, we may find both negative politeness and positive politeness strategies applied:
E.g: Honey, wait for me for just a second? („positive politeness‟: in group identity marker- honey - and „negative politeness‟: minimizing the imposition- just a second)
4.2 Politeness strategies in interrupting and asking for clarification
Interruption markers such as „excuse me‟, „sorry for interrupting‟ bear witness to the effort made to mitigate the effect of an interruption The choice of interruption markers depends on interrupter and circumstance In some cases, the interrupter may choose to interrupt by asking a question This section aims to categorize politeness strategies employed in order to interrupt and ask for clarification in the context of business meetings
On the basis of the politeness theory by Brown and Levinson (1987) and Nguyen Quang (2003), the researcher classifies politeness strategies for interrupting and asking for clarification into: a Positive politeness strategies (PPS)
Có phải ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn đang nói rằng “… ”?
E.g: Why do not you make it clearer?
Sao ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn không trình bày vấn đề này rõ hơn? b Negative politeness strategies (NPS)
E.g: If I may interrupt, could you explain what you mean by… ?
Xin phép cho tôi được ngắt lời ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn, ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn có thể giải thích ý của mình về ….?
- Apologizing and using verbal off - record
E.g: Sorry to interrupt, but I am not really sure I understand what you mean by…
Xin lỗi đã ngắt lời ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn, nhưng tôi thực sự chưa hiểu rõ ý của ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn về….?
E.g: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you just clarify it, please?
Xin lỗi đã ngắt lời ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn, nhưng ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn có thể vui lòng nói rõ hơn vấn đề đó được không?
- Minimizing imposition and using verbal off record
E.g: Hold on just a minute, I do not really understand what you mean…
Cho tôi xin chỉ một phút thôi, tôi thực sự chưa hiểu ý của ông/bà.anh/chị/bạn về…
4.3 Previous studies on interrupting and asking for clarification
METHODOLOGY
Data collection instruments
The instrument to gather data is questionnaires The questionnaires are composed of close structure items which are multiple choice questionnaires (MCQ) and open-ended items which are DCT (discourse completion task)
Two questionnaires are designed to collect data The first one is a multiple- choice questionnaire (MCQ) which is plotted separately for the author‟s to examine the reliability of the DCT, also the other part of the survey questionnaire The MCQ consists of 10 suggested items which cover the situations attendants frequently interrupt and ask for clarification in business meetings These questionnaires are designed to deliver to participants of the two groups: American businesspeople and their Vietnamese counterparts Hence, the survey questionnaire is designed into two versions The American English version is for American informants, and the Vietnamese one is for Vietnamese informants
There have been so far some good methods for cross-cultural and inter-language studies; for example, ethnographic method, role–play method and discourse completion task (DCT) However, these first two methods are of huge disadvantages such as contextual variables in ethnographic method or time-consuming on tape records in role-play approach DCT appears to be the method which can solve the limitation of the two methods above DCT consists of two different types: Oral Completion Task and Written Completion Task The first one is modeled as a closed role-play and in this closed role-play; the researcher will verbally describe the situations and ask the role- playing people what to say in the situations The second one consists of written interactions Briefly described situations are given and the researchers will ask the informants to write down what they will say in those situations Although this method has the limited point which is non-authentic collected data or the absence of prosodic and non-verbal features, the author still chooses this one for the following reasons
Firstly, while natural talk always includes elements unknown to the observer, the scenarios making up the DCT can be designed to include all pertinent contextual factors relevant to the envisaged study Factors such as social distance and power can be systematically varied and then correlated with preferences for particular strategies, allowing the investigation of the impact of social variables on strategy choice, (Barron, 2003).Second, DCT can be distributed to large groups of informants within a short period of time; hence, these seem to be suitable for the author‟s study with time constraint
The instructions in both MCQ and DCT are clearly provided so that the informants can easily understand and give their best answers The author hopes that the tokens collected from the survey questionnaire are authentic, natural, typical and reliable for consideration and evaluation However, as limitations of the study, some aspects are not covered such as paralinguistic factors (pitch, intensity, rate, other vocal qualities, etc.), non-verbal factor (facial expressions, gestures, eye contact, etc.), setting of communication (place, distance, lighting system, heat, etc.), and mood factors (happy, unhappy, bore, excited, etc.)
Participants
The sample or participants of the study will be thirty Vietnamese and thirty American native speakers The questionnaire will be delivered to only these participants As the scope of the research is to investigate interrupting and asking for clarification in business meetings, the participants are those who are currently working in business sectors They are Native American and Vietnamese people, not immigrants, so that the results of the survey will hopefully be reliable.
Data collection procedure
The first version of questionnaire (MCQ) will be distributed to the two groups of participants The goal of this questionnaire is to establish specific situations or contexts in which businesspeople often interrupt and ask for clarification in business meetings After that, the discourse completion task will be administrated to two groups of participants In case the research cannot deliver these questionnaires to the participant directly, this will be fulfilled via email The analysis of the result is based on a coding scheme and the SPSS software 11.5
Data analysis method
The unit for analysis for both interrupting and asking for clarification in the discourse completion task is the utterances or sequence of utterances supplied by informants in completing the task item The analysis of the data yielded by the responses to the discourse completion task is based on a number of dimensions of speech acts and politeness strategies These dimensions will be given operational definitions and presented in the forms of coding scheme The coding scheme is mostly based on Brown & Leveinson‟s theoretical framework on politeness strategy To find out major similarities and differences in the way business people in the two cultures interrupt and ask for clarification under the influence of power, gender and age, SPSS software11.5 will be employed with the main concentration on the application of cross tabulation.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Comments on MCQ
The multiple choice questionnaire is designed to discover situations in business meetings in which interrupting and asking for clarification is common for businesspeople The results are illustrated in tables and figures (see Appendix 3) Of the ten situations designed, it is noticeable that almost Vietnamese and all American participants choose the situation of disagreement to be the very common case to make interruptions and ask for clarification Additionally, the findings reveal that when the speaker is saying something out of context is the second most common case of interruption Besides, a majority of both Vietnamese and American participants opt for the moment when audiences do not understand what the speaker is saying to be the case of interruption Based on the three most popular situations, a DCT is designed to put these situations into three different contexts of business meetings namely: formal, semi-formal and informal to find out how the Vietnamese and American businesspeople interrupt and ask for clarification in those contexts.
How do Vietnamese and American businesspeople interrupt and ask for clarification
The atmosphere of business meetings can be formal, semi-formal or informal depending on not only settings, the issues discussed but also the importance of participants The responses gathered from DCT designed on the basis of features of formal business meetings reveal that almost American and Vietnamese participants do not interrupt and ask for clarification in case of formal meetings
Table III.1 Vietnamese businesspeople and American counterparts‟ responses in formal meetings
Just only 6.7% of American participants choose to interrupt speaker and ask for clarification with the employment of negative politeness strategies Respondents select the sub-strategies of apologizing and minimizing imposition For example:
Sorry to interrupt, would you mind giving more explanation, please?
Excuse me for interrupting, could you explain what you mean by….?
For Vietnamese business people, the similar finding can be found with only 13.3% of participants making interruptions Noticeably, the politeness strategy employed by Vietnamese respondents in this context is corresponding to one selected by American as the example below:
Xin lỗi đã ngắt lời ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn, ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn có thể vui lòng giải thích rõ hơn được không?
The reasons for not interrupting are revealed by enthusiastic respondents For American businesspeople, unless the problem is urgent, it is not essential for audience to make interruptions as there will be time for questions and answers at the end of the speech In addition, this finding is in accordance with Gesteland‟s result (1999) which reckons that interruptions are sometimes not welcomed in America, especially in a formal atmosphere For Vietnamese counterparts, this result also goes in line with Adler & Gundersen‟s standpoint (2008) as they claim that silence is commonly observed in meetings in Vietnam, particularly in highly formal ones in order to avoid a loss of face
2.2 In semi-formal meetings 2.2.1 Vietnamese findings
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 businesspeople namely minimizing imposition and verbal off record, apologizing and verbal off record, apologizing and minimizing imposition, asking for reason, seeking agreement by repetition
Table III.2 Vietnamese businesspeople‟s use of politeness strategies in semi-formal meetings
Of five sub- categories observed, the most prevalent tactic Vietnamese business people select to make interruption and ask for clarification is apologizing and minimizing imposition, accounting for 42.5 % in total Several common expressions of this strategy gathered as the examples below:
- Xin lỗi anh/chị, anh/chị có thể làm ơn giải thích rõ hơn ý vừa rồi được không?
- Xin lỗi đã ngắ tlời ông/bà, ông/bà có thể vui long trình bày rõ hơn quan điểm vừa rồi được không ạ? cases of speaker * politeness strategy Crosstabulati on
Y ounger Higher position Equal position Lower position Male
Seeking agreement by repet it ion polit eness st rategy
The second most noticeable strategy can be seen from the table is minimizing imposition and verbal off record making up 34.2 % in total As presented in DCT, Vietnamese entrepreneurs frequently make use of statements such as
- Xin phép cho tôi được ngắt lời ông/bà/anh/chị, tôi thực sự chưa hiểu ý mà ông/bà/anh/chị đang trình bày
- Tôi xin phép được ngắt lời ông/bà/anh/chị,nhưng tôi vẫn chưa rõ kế hoạch đang nói đến ở đây là gì
Alternatively, some other respondents choose “seeking agreement by repetition” or
“asking for reason” to interject the speaker‟s speech For example:
- Có phải kế hoạch mà ông bà/anh/chị đang bàn đến ở đâylà….phải không ạ?
- Tại sao đồng chí không nói cụ thể hơn nữa về kế hoạch này nhỉ?
It can be explained according to studies on Vietnamese cultural backgrounds, which indicate that saving one‟s face is really crucial especially in public places or meetings
Therefore, making apology prior to asking for clarification may be considered a more polite way as well as minimize a face threatening act Moreover, as Vietnamese culture is regarded as a relationship-based one, maintaining relationships is of paramount importance especially in business
For eight different proposed cases of the speaker, the employment of politeness strategies is significantly divergent In terms of the speaker‟s age, the most common strategy chosen by Vietnamese respondents is “apologizing and minimizing imposition” However, there is a substantial distinction in the employment of strategy as well as proportion of participants in regard to speaker‟s age Provided that the speaker is older, all respondents employ negative politeness strategies with the most common selection of “apologizing and minimizing imposition”, except for several choices of “apologizing and verbal off record”
Figure III.1.Vietnamese businesspeople‟s use of politeness strategies in semi-formal meetings
In contrast, if the speaker is supposed to be younger, the most frequently used is
“seeking agreement by repetition” and “asking for reasons”, which belong to positive politeness strategy Two positive politeness strategies namely “minimizing imposition
& verbal off record” and “apologizing & minimizing imposition” are applied equally when the speaker‟s age is supposed to be not different from the hearer‟s Concerning with the speaker‟s position, the results is similar to the aspect of speaker‟s age, except for the case of the speaker‟s equal position with more number of participants applying
“minimizing imposition & verbal off record” strategy as well as several uses of “asking for reason” strategy
This is may be due to the fact that Vietnamese culture is hierarchical and Confucian belief has profound impact on the way people behave including in business cases of speaker
Hi gh er po sitio n
Minimizing impositi- on &Verbal off recor
Apologizing & Minimi -zing imposition Asking for reason Seeking agreement by repetition
Hence, this is may be due to the fact that Vietnamese culture is hierarchical and Confucian belief has profound impact on the way people behave including in business
Hence, to show respect to the elderly people or superiors, apologizing & minimizing imposition seems to be a more polite tactic Conversely, repeating an idea or asking for reason is likely to be more appropriate in case of younger or lower status addressee since it is friendlier but less courteous expression
Interestingly, there are no discrepancies in the selections of politeness strategy in terms of speaker‟s genders All respondents employ two common positive politeness strategies: minimizing imposition & verbal off record and apologizing & minimizing imposition
The result gathered shows that in semi-formal business meetings, American business people tend to employ four different sub-categories of politeness strategy namely minimizing imposition, apologizing & verbal off record, apologizing & minimizing imposition and asking for reason Of the four observed strategies, most of Americans entrepreneurs are in favor of using negative politeness strategy with the highest proportion of respondents choosing “minimizing imposition” strategy, accounting for 70% in total For example:
- If I may interrupt, could you please explain what you mean by…?
- Hold on just a minute, could you please clarify what you mean by….?
The second largest number of responses belongs to “apologizing & minimizing imposition” strategy making up 17.5% The positive politeness strategy namely
“asking for reason” is the least popular one with just only 2.1% in total responses
There are frequent expressions as example below:
- Sorry to interrupt, but could you just help me clarify what you mean by… ?
- Why don‟t you explain the plan in more detail?
The similarities and differences
From analysis of how American and Vietnamese business people interrupt and ask for clarification in three different business meeting situations, it can be seen that two cultures share several similar characteristics Firstly, considering when participants in both cultures make interruption, the findings from MCQ points out those respondents in two cultures have a similar viewpoint on reasons to interrupt Three most common cases of interruptions are selected by participants namely when you disagree with what the speaker is saying, when the speaker says something out of context, when you do not understand what the speaker is saying though the quantitative result collected from both sides is not exactly the same
Another connection between the two cultures is that, in formal meetings, both Vietnamese businessmen and American counterparts have a consensus as almost respondents opt for not making interruptions in this case In spite of some respondents still decide on interrupt, it is explained to be the indeed urgent issue for them, and both sides also choose making apology prior to break up the continuity of formal meetings
Additionally, in term of speaker‟s gender, both Vietnamese and American businesspeople show no distinction to the choice of politeness strategies in semi-formal meetings
Finally, in informal meetings, the choice of “seeking agreement by repetition” strategy in America accounts a proportion approximately equal to amount response in Vietnam
Finding the differences in making interruptions and asking for clarification in business meetings between American business people and their Vietnamese counterparts is one of the crucial aims of this thesis As the settings of business meetings are based on the formality, the comparison will be made from two contexts: semi-formal and informal meetings and with a regard to the frequency use of politeness strategies and the influence of three factors: age, gender and position
3.2.1 Differences in semi-formal meetings
Firstly, in the aspect of politeness strategy frequency, Vietnamese businesspeople do not apply “minimizing imposition” strategy to make interruption while up to 70% of American responses belong to this strategy Alternatively, prior to using expressions to minimize imposition to the hearer, Vietnamese businessmen are in favor of giving an apology nearly as haft of Vietnamese participants select the strategy of “apologizing & minimizing imposition” From cultural perspective, giving apology in Vietnam is considered an effective way to save one‟s face; particularly in cases it is followed by a face threatening act The frequency use of this strategy of Vietnamese respondents doubles the American‟s Another significant distinction between the two cultures is that American business people do not opt for “minimizing imposition & verbal off record” strategy since their culture is low-context Therefore, everything is expected to express directly in America In contrast, this strategy seems to be quite popular in Vietnamese context as a third of Vietnamese respondents employ “verbal off record” after minimizing imposition to the hearer As mentioned in the theoretical background, according to Katrine (2007), Vietnamese culture is high context and expressions are often manifested indirectly, so this indirect tactic is another helpful ways to preserve both speaker and hearer‟s face
Table III 6 Vietnamese businesspeople versus their American counterparts in the use of politeness strategies in semi-formal meetings
Taking the influence of three factors in consideration, it should be noted that Vietnamese businessmen apply different politeness strategy in making interruption and asking for clarification depending on speaker‟s age gender and position In contrast, there e ways is unlikelihood of differentiation in the way American counterparts select politeness strategies
In terms of speaker‟s age, except for the case of speakers older, a larger number of Vietnamese participants opt for positive strategies such as “asking for reason” and
“seeking agreement by repetition” when they interrupt a younger speaker Conversely, no distinction can be found for American counterparts in this regard
Position is another element leading to significant differences in the use of politeness strategy for Vietnamese respondents while this distinction is not considerable in America Like the case of younger people, junior speakers tend to be interrupted with more positive politeness strategies This tactics is sometimes also applied to speakers with equal position Undoubtedly, position as the manifestation of
American vs Vietnamese * Politeness strategy Crosstabulati on
Seeking agreement by repet it ion
Verbal of f record Politeness strategy
Total power at work has tremendous impact on business communication in Vietnam whereas this factor just slightly influences on how senior American businesspeople interrupt their subordinators
In another context of business meetings, in an informal meeting, there are also obvious distinctions between the two cultures in frequency and the effect of factors on the selection of politeness strategies Firstly, in America, only two politeness strategies are used with high frequency, and the most prominent one is still “minimizing imposition” tactic On the contrary, the distribution of applied politeness strategies spreads among five different strategies with approximately equal frequency between three outstanding strategies, but the highest proportion of “apologizing & minimizing imposition”
Table III 7 Vietnamese businesspeople versus their American counterparts in the use of politeness strategies in informal meetings
With a regard to three factors, position shows the most distinction in the way
American vs Vietnamese * Politeness strategy Crosstabulati on
Seeking agreement by repet it ion Politeness strategy
Total clarification Different politeness tactics are applied to the speaker of different statuses
More specifically, seniors or people with higher position seem to be the most respected ones in Vietnam as almost Vietnamese participants choose to make an apology before asking for clarification The level of negative politeness reduces as a larger number of respondents select “minimizing imposition & verbal off record” to interrupt their colleagues and almost all choose positive politeness strategies when interrupting their juniors Conversely, American respondents show a small differentiation in the use of strategy in this regard since “minimizing imposition” is the prominent strategy regardless of the speaker‟s different statuses The slight difference lies in the cases of speaker‟s equal or lower position as “seeking agreement by repetition “strategy account for a considerable number of total responses
Concerning with the aspect of age, the American business people‟s choice of politeness strategies indicates no significant divergences whereas Vietnamese counterparts manifest a clear distinction Corresponding to the terms of position, older speaker is the most respected case when making interruption in Vietnam as all participants carefully select negative strategies to show consideration to the elderly self-image For younger speaker, it is the case of more positive politeness strategy when over a half of respondents employ repeating the speaker‟s idea to seek agreement as a way of making interruption and asking for clarification
Unlike the situation of semi-formal meetings which participants from both countries share similar responses, in these informal settings, there is a moderate difference in the selection of interruption tactic for Vietnamese male and female A substantial number of participants take the positive politeness strategy –“seeking agreement by repetition”- to save the female speaker‟s face when she is disrupted By contrast, no significant discrimination can be found in American businesspeople‟s responses in this sense.
CONCLUSION
Summary of main findings
The principal goal of this minor research is to investigate how Vietnamese business people and American counterparts interrupt and ask for clarification in business meetings 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 under the two research questions
For the first research question, the Vietnamese and American businesspeople frequently make interruption and ask for clarification when they are in the circumstance of not agreeing with the points made by the speaker, or not understanding what the speaker or presenter is saying and when the speaker mentions something out of context Almost participants from both countries do not interrupt and ask for clarification in formal business meetings In semi-formal and informal meetings, of the five applied strategies, Vietnamese businesspeople select different tactics depending on the speaker‟s age, gender and position However, “apologizing & minimizing imposition” is the most popular one since this is considered a courteous tactic in saving other‟s face In another continent, American businesspeople prefer “minimizing imposition” tactic if they decide on interrupting and asking for clarifications to preserve other‟s self-image regardless of the speaker‟s age, gender and position as individualism is highly valued in the American culture
For the second research question, initially, the similarities between two cultures are not only manifested in the way participants select situation to interrupt and ask for clarification but also in their decision on not making interruption in formal meetings
Furthermore, in semi-formal meetings, gender factor have no influence on the employment of politeness strategy in both countries Alternatively, “seeking agreement by repetition” is the negative politeness strategies chosen by a similar number of respondents in both countries Regarding differences, initially, the American businesspeople are in favor of “minimizing imposition” strategy whereas Vietnamese counterparts prefer “apologizing & minimizing imposition” tactic In addition, the employment of politeness strategy to make interruption and asking for clarification in business meeting in Vietnam is largely impacted by the speaker‟s gender, age and position while this is not the case in America
Limitations
Despite the significant efforts of the researcher during the research procedure and data analysis, certain limitations of the study should be noted due to time limitation and other unforeseen factors Firstly, since the only method of collecting data is DCT, nonverbal elements in a real context of business meetings are not measured Secondly, there is likely to be a threat of drawing definitive conclusions for the whole population of the study since the sample is not larger enough It is of importance to take these mentioned limitations of the study into consideration in further studies.
Suggestions for further study
From the results of the research along with the limitations of the study, several issues are worth considering for future research Initially, a similar study should be conducted with a larger number of participants so that the result will be more reliable and the generalization of the study would be decreased Not only verbal but also non-verbal language is frequently found in cases of making interruption and asking for clarification Hence, a study on non-linguistic politeness in this regard should be welcomed further studies
Anderson, K & Leaper, C (1998) "Meta-Analysis of gender effects on conversational interruption: who, what, when, where and how." Sex Roles, 39(3/4): 225-252
Adler, N J., & Gundersen, A (2008).International dimensions of organizational behavior (5th ed.).Mason, OH: Thomson South-Western
Austin,J.L (1962) How to do things with words New York: Oxford University Press
Barron, A (2003) Acquisition in interlanguage pragmatics Learning how to do things with words in a study abroad context Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Blackstone, A (2012) Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative methods, v.1.0 Retrieved from http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/sociological- inquiry-principles-qualitative-and-quantitative-methods/index.html
Brown, P & Levinson, S (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage
Chambers, K (1997) Succeed in business: Vietnam The essential guide for business and investment Portland, OR: Graphics Arts Center
Gallagher, R S (2003) The soul of an organization: Understanding the values that drive successful corporate cultures La Crosse, Wisconsin: Dearborn Trade Publishers, pp.4-6.
Gary, R W (1999) American cultural values Kokusai Bunka Kenshu (Intercultural
Gesteland, R.R (1999) Cross-culture business behavior Herndon, VA: Copenhagen
Holmes, J (2009) Politeness Strategies as Linguistic Variables, In Keth Brown and
Keth Allan (eds.), Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics Elselver.Amsterdam, Boston,Heidelberg, London, New York, Oxford, pp.699-711
Hong,Y., & Chiu, C (2001).Toward a paradigm shift: From cross-cultural differences in social cognition to social-cognitive mediation of cultural differences.Social Cognition, 19, 181-196
James, D.,& Clarke, S (1988) "Women, Men, and Interruptions: A Critical
Review."Pp.231-80 in Gender and Conversational Interaction, edited by Deborah
Tannen New York: Oxford University Press
Jia,Y (1997) Communication between Cultures Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign
Language Education Press John, H (2008) Cultural Differences in Business Communication Tepper School of
Katrine, S.K (2007) American doing business in Vietnam: Communication differences.COM 9656: International Business Communication
Kramsch, C (1998) Language and culture.Oxford University Press
Levine, D R., & Adelman, M B (1993) Beyond language: Cross-cultural communication Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall Regents
Locastro, V (2012).Pragmatics for Language Educators: A Sociolinguistic
McCarthy, M P D (1994).International Business History: A Contextual and Case
Menz, F & Al-Roubaie, A (2008)."Interruptions, status and gender in medical interviews: the harder you brake, the longer it takes." Discourse & Society 19(5): 645-
Nguyen Quang (2003) Intracultural and Cross-cultural Communication.VNU Press
O'Reilly, M (2008)."What value is there in children's talk? „Investigating family therapists' interruptions of parents and children during the therapeutic process"
Roger, D B., & Schumacher, A (1983).Effects of individual differences on dyadic conversational strategies Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 700-705
Searle, J R (1976) "The classification of illocutionary acts" Language in Society 5:
Segall, M H., Dasen, P R., Berry, J W., &Poortinga, Y H (1999).Human behavior in global perspective(2nd ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn& Bacon
Searl, J.R (1976) The classification of illocutionary acts Language in Society, 5, 1-23 Watts, J.R (2003) Politeness Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Wierzbicka, A (1991).Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human
Interaction Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyter
Yin, J (2002).Telling the truth? A cultural comparison of “facilitating discussion” in
Yule, G (1996) Pragmatics.Oxford University Press
Zimmerman, D & West, C (1975) "Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in
Conversations." Pp 105-29 in Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance, edited by Barrie Thorne and Nancy Henley Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Zhao, X &Gantz, W (2003) "Disruptive and Cooperative Interruptions in Prime-
Time Television Fiction: The Role of Gender, Status, and Topic “Journal of
This survey questionnaire is designed for my research entitled “An American- Vietnamese Cross-Cultural Study of Interrupting and Asking for Clarification in Business Meetings” Your assistance in completing the following items is greatly appreciated You can be confident that you will not be identified in any discussion of the data
1 Which situations below do you think are common for interrupting and asking for clarification in business meetings?
Please tick (v) in one of the following columns:
Column 1 means: uncommon Column 2 means: moderately common
2 When you disagree to something
3 When you cannot follow what the speaker is saying
4 When you do not hear something clearly
5 When you do not understand what the speaker is saying
6 When you want to add your own ideas
7 When you miss something the speaker is saying
8 When the speaker uses abbreviations
9 When the speaker mentions something out of context
10 When the speaker does not explain what he/she means very well
2 Could you please give me your answers on the three situations below Situation 1 (a formal meeting)
You are in an Annual General Business Meeting which is organized in a main hall with the participation of a larger number of shareholders, Boards of Directors and all the staff The speaker is saying something that you do not agree What do you say to interrupt him/her and ask for clarification in the following cases? a The speaker is older than you
……… b The speaker is your age
……… c The speaker is younger than you
……… f The speaker is of higher position
……… g The speaker is of equal position
……… h The speaker is of lower position
Situation 2 (a semi-formal meeting) You are in a business meeting within your company with the participation of Boards of Directors, Heads of Departments and all staff The meeting is about the company’s development plan next quarter The speaker is saying something which is out of context What do you say to interrupt him/her and ask for clarification in the following cases? a The speaker is older than you
……… b The speaker is your age
……… c The speaker is younger than you
……… f The speaker is of higher position
……… g The speaker is of equal position
……… h The speaker is of lower position
Situation 3 (an informal meeting) You are in a business meeting with your team, which is consists of three staff
The meeting is set up weekly to evaluate the results your team obtained in a week The speaker is saying something that you do not understand, what do you say to interrupt him/her and ask for clarification in the following cases? a The speaker is older than you
……… b The speaker is your age
……… c The speaker is younger than you
……… f The speaker is of higher position
……… g The speaker is of equal position
……… h The speaker is of lower position
Thank you very much for your assistance!
Chúng tôi lập bảng câu hỏi khảo sát này nhằm phục vụ cho đề tài nghiên cứu tiêu đề “ Nghiên cứu giao thoa văn hóa Việt-Mỹ về cách thức ngắt lời và yêu cầu làm rõ ý trong các cuộc họp kinh doanh ” Chúng tôi sẽ rất biết ơn nếu Quí vị bớt chút thời gian giúp chúng tôi trả lời những câu hỏi dưới đây.Xin Qúi vị tin rằng chúng tôi sẽ không nêu danh tính của Qúi vị trong bất cứ trường hợp nào và dưới bất kỳ hình thức nào
1 Theo Qúi vị trong những tình huống nào dưới đây, Qúi vị thường ngắt lời và yêu cầu làm rõ ý trong các cuộc họp kinh doanh?
Xin Qúi vị vui lòng dánh dấu (v) vào một trong các cột sau
Cột 1 nghĩa là: không phổ biến Cột 2 nghĩa là: khá phổ biến Cột 3 nghĩa là: phổ biến Cột 4 nghĩa là: rất phổ biến
1 Khi Qúi vị đang bị nhầm lẫn một vấn đề nào đó
2 Khi Qúi vị không đồng ý với một vấn đề nào đó
3 Khi Qúi vị không theo kịp những gì người nói đang trình bày
4 Khi Qúi vị không nghe rõ một điều gì đó
5 Khi Quí vị không hiểu những gì người nói đang trình bày
6 Khi Qúi vị muốn nêu thêm ý kiến của mình
7 Khi Qúi vị bị bỏ lỡ một vấn đề mà ngưới nói đang trình bày
8 Khi người nói sử dụng các từ viết tắt
9 Khi người nói nhắc đến một vấn đề nào đó ngoài lề cuộc họp
10 Khi người nói không giải thích rõ ý của họ
2 Xin Qúi vị vui lòng trả lời giúp chúng tôi những câu hỏi theo 3 tình huống dưới đây
Tình huống1 ( cuộc họp trang trọng) Qúi vị tham dự một cuộc họp thường niên được tổ chức hàng năm tại phòng họp lớn của công ty với sự tham dự của các cổ đông, ban giám đốc và toàn thể nhân viên Người nóiđang trình bày một vấn đề mà Qúi vị không đồng ý Qúi vị sẽ nói gì đề ngắt lời người nói và yêu cầu làm rõ ý trong các trường hợp sau? a Người nói lớn tuổi hơn Qúi vị
……… b Người nói cùng độ tuổi với Qúi vị
……… c Người nói ít tuổi hơn Qúi vị
……… d Người nói là nam giới
……… e Người nói là nữ giới
……… f Người nói có địa vị cao hơn Qúi vị
……… g Người nói có địa vị ngang hàng với Qúi vị
……… h Người nói có địa vị thấp hơn Qúi vị
Tình huống 2 (Cuộc họp nửa trang trọng) Qúi vị tham dự một cuộc họp kinh doanh của công ty với sự tham dự của ban giám đốc, các trưởng phòng và toàn thể nhân viên Cuộc họp bàn về kế hoach phát triển của công ty trong quý tiếp theo Người nói đang trình bày một vấn đề ngoài lề cuộc họp Qúi vị sẽ nói gì để ngắt lời người nói và yêu cầu làm rõ ý trong các trường hợp sau ? a Người nói lớn tuổi hơn Qúi vị
……… b Người nói cùng độ tuổi với Qúi vị
……… c Người nói ít tuổi hơn Qúi vị
……… d Người nói là nam giới
……… e Người nói là nữ giới
……… f Người nói có địa vị cao hơn Qúi vị
……… g Người nói có địa vị ngang hàng với Qúi vị
……… h Người nói có địa vị thấp hơn Qúi vị
Tình huống 3 (Cuộc họp không trang trọng) Qúi vị tham dự một cuộc họp kinh doanh trong nhóm gồm 3 thành viên.Cuộc họp được tổ chức hàng tuần để đánh giá kết của đạt được của nhóm mỗi tuần.Người nói đang trình bày một vấn đề mà Qúi vị không hiểu.Qúi vị sẽ nói gì để ngắt lời người nói và yêu cầu làm rõ ý trong các trường hợp sau? a Người nói lớn tuổi hơn Qúi vị
……… b Người nói cùng độ tuổi với Qúi vị
……… c Người nói ít tuổi hơn Qúi vị
……… d Người nói là nam giới
……… e Người nói là nữ giới
……… f Người nói có địa vị cao hơn Qúi vị
……… g Người nói có địa vị ngang hàng với Qúi vị
……… h Người nói có địa vị thấp hơn Qúi vị
Xin chân thành cảm ơn sự giúp đỡ của Qúi vị!
Figure III.5 Vietnamese businesspeople versus their American counterparts in the use of politeness strategies in semiformal meetings
Apologizing & Minimi -zing imposition Asking for reason
Minimizing impositi- on & Verbal off reco
Figure III.6.Vietnamese businesspeople versus their American counterparts in the use of politeness strategies in informal meetings
Minimizing impositi- on & Verbal off recoAsking for reasonSeeking agreement by repetition
Appendix 3: Vietnamese businesspeople and their American counterparts‟s choice of interrupting situations
Table III Vietnamese businesspeople and their American counterparts‟s choice of interrupting situations
AM vs.VN * Situations * Ranking Crosstabulation
Ranking uncommon moderately common common very common
Confusing Disagreeing not following not hearing sth clealy not understa nding adding ideas missing information using abbreviations mentioning sth out of context not explaining very well
Confusing not following not hearing sth clea ly not understanding adding ideas missing information using abbreviations mentioning sth out o f context not explaining very well
Disagreeing not following not hearing sth clea ly not understanding adding ideas missing information using abbreviations mentioning sth out o f context not explaining very well
Confusing Disagreeing not following not hearing sth clea ly not understanding missing information using abbreviations mentioning sth out o f context not explaining very well
