Cách diễn đạt sự bất đồng giữa những người không bình đẳng về quyền lực trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt: Nghiên cứu dụng học giao văn hoá

Cách diễn đạt sự bất đồng giữa những người không bình đẳng về quyền lực trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt: Nghiên cứu dụng học giao văn hoá

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES NGUYEN QUANG NGOAN DISAGREEING AMONG POWER-UNEQUALS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE: A CROSS-CULTURAL PRAGMATICS STUDY Major: English Linguistics Code: 62.22.15.01 SUMMARY OF PHD DISSERTATION ON ENGLISH LINGUISTICS HANOI, 2009 ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS A: Addressee ANS: Australian native speaker B&L: Brown and Levinson CC: Cross-cultural CCP: Cross-cultural pragmatics D: Social Distance DCT: Discourse completion task/test FTA: Face Threatening Act H: Hearer IL: Interlanguage ILP: Interlanguage pragmatics MAQ: Metapragmatic assessment questionnaire P: Relative Power PT: Pragmatic transfer R: Ranking of imposition S: Speaker Se: Setting VLE: Vietnamese learner of English VNS: Vietnamese native speaker Politeness strategies: Avoid D: Avoid disagreement Bald-on R: Bald on record Common G: Presuppose/ raise/ assert common ground Concern: Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge or concern for H’s wants Conventionally ind: Be conventionally indirect Deference: Give deference Encourage: Condolence, encouragement FTA as a GR: State the FTA as a general rule Gift: Give gifts to H Hint: Give hints Impersonalize: Impersonalize S and H In-group: Use in-group identity markers Include S&H: Include both S and H in the activity Interest: Intensify interest to H Ironic: Be ironic Minimize the imp: Minimize the imposition, Rx Multiple P: Multiple positive politeness Multiple N: Multiple negative politeness Multiple O: Multiple off record Negative P: Negative politeness No FTA: Don’t the FTA N + O: Negative politeness plus off record Optimistic: Be optimistic Positive P: Promise: =P: P + N: P + O: P + N + O: Positive politeness Offer, promise Equal-power Positive politeness plus negative politeness Positive politeness plus off record Positive politeness plus negative politeness plus off record Reciprocity: Assume or assert reciprocity Reason: Give (or ask for) reasons Rhetorical Q: Use rhetorical questions Single P: Single positive politeness Single N: Single negative politeness Single O: Single off record Vague: Be vague In tables and sample analyses: CCD: Cross-cultural difference +D: Small social distance =D: Not-large-nor-small social distance -D: Large social distance -P: Powerless/Low power =P: Equal-power +P: Powerful/High power +Se: Formal setting =Se: Semi-formal setting -Se: Informal setting Sit.: Situation No PT: No pragmatic transfer In numbered examples: Examples are numbered for ease of reference For example, (4.9) signifies the ninth example in the fourth chapter Underlined: used to highlight what is being demonstrated In the text: Italics: used for emphasis, examples, politeness strategies, or technical terms mentioned for the first time &: used to replace “and” for linking the names of co-authors of references PART A: INTRODUCTION Rationale In the last fifteen years in Vietnam, there have been a great number of contrastive pragmatics studies comparing and contrasting Vietnamese and English in various speech acts However, there have not been sufficient interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) studies contrasting English by Vietnamese learners and English by its native speakers It is for this reason that the author decided to contribute to developing the trend of ILP studies by conducting a research into pragmatic transfer (PT) from Vietnamese to English in the act of disagreeing under the influence of the relative power (P) in some particular contexts Disagreeing is the speech act under investigation in this study, and it was chosen because of some major reasons Firstly, no studies of the speech act of disagreeing have been conducted in Vietnam from the ILP perspective Secondly, another focus of my study is on the effects of P on verbal interactions, and according to many researchers (Beebe & Takahashi, 1989; Rees-Miller, 2000; and Locher, 2004), the realizations of disagreeing strategies are proven to be under great influence of P However, the author has not noticed any studies of speech acts, in which P was realized as a separated social variable that is in focus Thus, it is the author’s purpose to attempt to investigate the issue There are also some other reasons for the author’s choice of P as the focused social variable operating in this study One reason is that, as far as the author knows, there have been no thorough empirical studies of power influence on verbal interaction in Vietnam although there have been a lot of relevant discussions and studies on power and its correlation with language in English-speaking cultures (e.g., Ng, 1995; Ng and Bradac, 1993; Watts, 1991, 2003; Hofstede, 1977, 1991, 2001; Holmes, 1992; Rees-Miller, 2000; Fairclough, 2001; Holmes & Stubbe, 2003; Locher, 2004) Thus, this study can serve to fill in the gap in the Vietnamese literature Another reason is that, according to Hofstede (1991, 2001) and his supporters, including Spencer-Oatey (1997), Gibson (2002), Samovar & Porter (2001), and Ting-Toomey & Chung (2005), high-power-distance values are for Asian countries and lower-power-distance values are for the USA, Great Britain and its former dominions, including Australia Vietnam is an Asian country but it was not a country under Hofstede’s investigation, so it seems to be logical to hypothesize that Vietnam is among other Asian countries which show high-power-distance values but this hypothesis must be tested, especially in comparison with an English-speaking culture, Australia A third reason is that the effects of P on language have been discussed and emphasized by many authors (e.g., Holmes, 1992; Ng & Bradac, 1993; Ng, 1995; Rees-Miller, 2000; Fairclough, 2001; Nguyen Quang, 2002, 2004; Holmes & Stubbe, 2003; Locher, 2004) However, to what extent does the relative power affect the speaker’s use of disagreeing strategies realized in Vietnamese by the Vietnamese native speakers (VNS) and in English by the Vietnamese learners of English (VLE) and Australian native speakers (ANS)? Do the effects cause negative PT in the use of disagreeing strategies from Vietnamese to English? These are some of the questions which remain unanswered, and so the questions the author hopes to answer in the present study Aims of the study 2.1 Overall purpose The overall purpose of the dissertation is to investigate thoroughly primarily the negative PT from Vietnamese into Australian language and culture, and secondarily noteworthy Vietnamese-Australian CC differences as valid clues for the interpretation and discussion of the PT in the speech act of disagreeing under the effects of P in the investigated situations 2.2 Specific aims To achieve the overall purpose, the study is aimed: - to find out the major features of Vietnamese-English PT caused by the VLE and CC differences between the VNS and ANS in their use of disagreeing politeness strategies with the more powerful as well as with the less powerful in the investigated situations - to investigate the effects of P on the subject’s use of disagreeing politeness strategies reflected from the differences in their use of politeness strategies for disagreeing which is affected by their perception of P described in the relative roles in the investigated situations Research questions What are some significant features of negative PT caused by the VLE and what are some significant CC differences between the VNS and ANS in their use of disagreeing politeness strategies in the investigated situations? Sub questions are: - Which features of negative PT and CC differences in the use of disagreeing politeness strategies are significant? - Which CC differences between the VNS and ANS lead to negative PT and which CC differences not? - Which disagreeing politeness strategies are used and preferred by the VLE, ANS, and VNS? What are the differences in their use of those strategies in the powerful and powerless situations? - Which politeness strategies in Brown and Levinson’s (1987) framework are realized, either as single strategies or strategy combinations for disagreeing in the investigated situations? Is there a high possibility for strategy combinations? How does the subject’s perception of P in the investigated situations affect their use of disagreeing politeness strategies? How the similarities and differences in the subject’s perception of P affect negative PT and CC differences in their use of disagreeing politeness strategies? Sub questions are: - How is P described in the relative roles in the investigated situations perceived by the VNS, ANS, and VLE? - To what extent is the VNS’s perception of P different from the ANS’s? Is it true that Vietnam is a higher-power-distance culture than Australia? - Is there the phenomenon of inverse PT in P perception caused by the VLE in the investigated situations? - How the similarities and differences in the subject’s perception of P in the investigated situations affect their use of disagreeing politeness strategies? Scope of the study - The study focuses on intralinguistic factors Paralinguistic and extralinguistic aspects are, therefore, out of the scope of the study The verbal interaction is restricted to the act of disagreeing - The act of disagreeing focuses on the frequency and realizations of politeness strategies used by the VLE, ANS, and VNS in some specific situations in light of the politeness framework by Brown and Levinson (1987) - The particular situations are restricted to thirty situations in the Meta-pragmatic Assessment Questionnaires (MAQ) and six situations in the Discourse Completion Task (DCT) - “Among power-unequals” is meant to cover all the interactions between not only the more powerful and the less powerful but also the less powerful and the more powerful in various situations in the four contexts: (1) at home, (2) at work, (3) at school, and (4) in society - P is described in the relative roles, such as a parent versus his/her child (at home), a university lecturer versus a student (at school), a boss versus an employee (at work), or an elder person versus a younger one (in society) - The focused social variable is P, which is used to refer to the relative power each speaker temporarily has in each given context However, the social distance (D) and the speaking context (Se) are also taken into consideration for detailed interpretation and discussion of each particular situation - Vietnamese-Australian PT in disagreeing among power-unequals is what the study aims to investigate Thus, comparison and contrast of disagreeing strategies by the VLE and ANS are in focus However, for the objectivity and validity of the research, the study is expanded to cover the comparison and contrast of the power perception and disagreeing strategies by the VNS and ANS to serve as the basic background for the interpretation, discussion, and conclusion of the PT Contributions of the study The study is expected to bring out some following contributions: - Theoretically, it contributes an investigation to some research areas in Vietnam: (1) socio-cultural effects (i.e power effects) on verbal interactions, (2) pragmatic transfer (i.e Vietnamese-English transfer), (3) speech act theory (i.e disagreeing as a speech act), and (4) linguistic politeness Specifically, this is the first thorough empirical research in Vietnam, the focus of which is on the influence of P on language, or to be more exact on disagreeing, and also the first study of Vietnamese-Australian PT in the act Its findings are expected to reinforce or deny existing hypotheses in the fields and to bring about a better insight into the issues - Practically, its findings on the Vietnamese-Australian PT, especially negative PT, in the frequency and realizations of disagreeing strategies in particular situations with sufficient details and plenty of specific examples from a rich source of data can be applied to English language teaching and CC communication - Methodologically, it serves as a valid study on people’s perception of socio-situational factors and the production of language strategies in verbal interactions through the suitable research methodology of the combination between the MAQ and DCT It also contributes a new way of applying Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness model to data analyses in empirical studies concerning linguistic politeness Organization of the study The present study is 197 pages long divided into three parts: Part A – Introduction, Part B – Development, and Part C – Conclusion Part A is the introduction to the study consisting of 10 pages (pp 110) in which the author writes about the reasons for which the study is conducted Other issues clarified in this section are the aims, scope, research questions, and contributions of the study A summary of all the parts and chapters is also presented to help the audience have an overall idea of the study Part B is the major part of the study which consists of 177 pages (pp 11-187) divided into four chapters, discussing the relevant theoretical concepts, literature review, methodology and results of the present study Part C consists of 10 pages (pp 178-197) regarding the conclusions, implications, and suggestions for further studies Following is the structure of the study in detail  Certificate of originality of study project report  Acknowledgements  Abstract  Table of contents  Abbreviations and conventions  List of figures, tables, and graphs PART A: INTRODUCTION Rationale Aims of the study 2.1 Overall purpose 2.2 Specific aims Research questions Scope of the study Contributions of the study Methodology Organization of the study PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Cross-Cultural pragmatics (CCP) and interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) 1.1.1 Notion and scope 1.1.2 Pragmatic transfer and relevant issues 1.2 Speech act theory and disagreeing as a speech act 1.2.1 Notion of speech acts 1.2.2 Classification of speech acts 1.2.3 Disagreeing as a potential face threatening act 1.3 Politeness theory and its application to the present study 1.3.1 Definitions of politeness 1.3.2 Politeness approaches in literature 1.3.2.1 The strategic view 1.3.2.2 The normative view 1.3.2.3 Concluding remarks 1.3.3 Application of politeness approach in the present study 1.4 Disagreeing in previous studies and in the present study 1.4.1 Previous studies of disagreeing in English and Vietnamese 1.4.2 Summary of findings and shortcomings in the previous studies 1.4.3 Disagreeing in the present study CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY 2.1 Research methods 2.1.1 An overview of research methods in inter-language pragmatics 2.1.1.1 A brief description of the two major research methods in ILP 2.1.1.2 Common trends in applying research methods to ILP studies 2.1.1.3 Some concluding remarks on ILP research methods 2.1.2 Research methods in the present study 2.1.2.1 The chosen research methods 2.1.2.2 Reasons for choosing the methods 2.2 Research design 2.2.1 Data collection instruments 2.2.1.1 Meta-pragmatic assessment questionnaires (MAQ) 2.2.1.2 Discourse completion task (DCT) 2.2.2 Subjects 2.2.3 Procedures of developing instruments and gathering data 2.3 Data analysis 2.3.1 Validity test (T-Test) for developing data-gathering instrument (DCT) 2.3.1.1 A description of the T-Test 2.3.1.2 Interpretation of the T-Test scores 2.3.1.3 Results of the T-Test 2.3.2 Chi-square analysis of the MAQ and DCT 2.3.2.1 A description of the Chi-square 2.3.2.2 Interpretation of the Chi-square 2.3.2.3 Results of the Chi-square analyses CHAPTER III: CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND PRAGMATIC TRANSFER IN THE PERCEPTION OF RELATIVE POWER 3.1 Power and language in social interactions in previous studies 3.1.1 The concept and nature of power in social interactions 3.1.2 Previous studies of power and language in social interactions 3.1.3 Major findings and shortcomings in the previous studies of power 3.1.3.1 Power and language are closely interconnected 3.1.3.2 Power is conceptualized differently in different cultures 3.1.3.3 Factors that need taking into concern when studying power 3.1.4 Concluding remarks 3.2 Perception of P in the present study 3.2.1 The perception of P in the family context 3.2.1.1 Equal-power situations in the family context 3.2.1.2 Unequal-power situations in the family context 3.2.1.3 Concluding remarks of P perception in the family context 3.2.2 The perception of P in the university context 3.2.2.1 Equal-power situations in the university context 3.2.2.2 Unequal-power situations in the university context 3.2.2.3 Concluding remarks of P in the university context 3.2.3 The perception of P in the work context 3.2.3.1 Equal-power situations in the work context 3.2.3.2 Unequal-power situations in the work context 3.2.3.3 Concluding remarks of P in the work context 3.2.4 The perception of P in the social context 3.2.4.1 Equal-power situations in the social context 3.2.4.2 Unequal-power situations in the social context 3.2.4.3 Concluding remarks of P in the social context CHAPTER IV: CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND PRAGMATIC TRANSFER IN THE USE OF DISAGREEING POLITENESS STRATEGIES 4.1 Disagreeing politeness strategies realized in the invested situations 2.1 The chosen research methods The data-gathering methods in the present study are a combination between a perception-eliciting method and a production-eliciting method To be more specific, it is a combination between a metapragmatic assessment questionnaire (MAQ) and an open-ended discourse completion task (DCT) 2.2 Data collection instruments The MAQ was designed in two versions: one in Vietnamese, delivered to the VNS and the VLE, and the other in English, delivered to the ANS The MAQ was chosen to help develop the next data-gathering instrument, the DCT, with more validity and reliability It also helps to examine the subject’s perception of P across the groups for a better insight into the production data The DCT was also designed in two versions: the Vietnamese version, delivered to the VNS, and the English version, to the VLE and ANS The DCT was chosen in combination with MAQ to study the production data, or to be more specific, the disagreeing politeness strategies used by the subject groups in the study to find out negative PT and CC differences 2.3 Subjects The subjects in the study were selected on the basis of being university students and forming two equal groups of males and females They can be divided into three groups: (1) the VLE (2) the ANS, and (3) the VNS The first group consists of fifty VLEs They were fourth-year students at Quinhon University whose major is English The second group consists of fifty ANSs They were chosen under the criteria of being born in Australia, living in Australia, speaking English as their first language and as the language they speak at home with other family members The Australian subjects were all students at the University of Queensland The VNS group consists of fifty first-year students at Quinhon University who were selected on the basis of belonging to the Kinh group born and resident in Hanoi and its surrounding provinces in Northern Vietnam 2.4 Data analysis The T-Test is used for testing the validity of the MAQ collected from the VNS Then, the Chi-square analysis is used for analyzing the subject’s P perception and use of disagreeing politeness strategies by the three groups Brown and Levinson’s (1987) framework of politeness strategies is based on to build up the analytical framework for analyzing the disagreeing politeness strategies in the study 2.5 Analytical framework Table 2.6 illustrates the analytical framework for the study which is based on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) framework added with possible ways of strategy combinations They comprise the multiple positive politeness, multiple negative politeness, and mixed The mixed is subdivided into the positive politeness plus negative politeness, positive politeness plus off-record, negative politeness plus off-recor, and positive politeness plus negative politeness plus off-record Six major groups Bald-on record Positive politeness Negative politeness Off record Mixed No FTA Twelve subgroups Single strategies and strategy combinations Bald-on record Single strategies Single positive politeness Multiple positive politeness Single negative politeness Multiple negative politeness Single off record Multiple off record Positive politeness + negative politeness Positive politeness + off record Negative politeness + off record Positive politeness + negative politeness + off record No FTA Single strategies Strategy combinations Single strategies Strategy combinations Single strategies Strategy combinations Strategy combinations Strategy combinations Strategy combinations Strategy combinations No FTA Table 2.6: The analytical framework of the present study To use this framework, first, all the single strategies and combinations from the raw data are coded, computed, and analyzed with the frequency analysis Next, they are added to find out the number of subjects using the subgroups and major groups Significant differences between the VNS and ANS as well as between the VLE and ANS in the number of subjects choosing each subgroup and major group are found out with the chi-square analysis The interpretation began with the major groups, further examined with the subgroups, and clarified with the realizations of single strategies and strategy combinations in each situation under investigation Chapter three Consisting of 48 pages (pp 91-138), chapter three discusses the perception of P as a socio-cultural dimension and its effects in verbal interactions, especially in disagreeing The chapter is conducted to uncover how the VNS, VLE, and ANS perceive the relative power between the speaker and the hearer in the investigated situations This also helps ensure the validity and reliability in the discussion of P effects on disagreeing in chapter IV In the first place, relevant studies of P and language in social interaction with their findings, discussions, and shortcomings are presented to serve as a narrower background for the comparison and contrast of the perception of P by the VNS and ANS Studies by Hofstede (1991, 2001), Ng and Bradac (1993), Spencer-Oatey (1996, 1997), Holmes (1985, 1992, 2003), Locher (2004), among others are reviewed to show that power and language are closely interconnected, that power is conceptualized differently across cultures, and that the terminology and definition of P must be clarified in all the relevant studies Then, cross-cultural similarities and differences in the subject’s perception of P in the present study are presented and discussed at length In parallel, possible inverse pragmatic transfer caused by the VLE are investigated These inverse PT and CC differences are presented and discussed in four separated contexts: (1) the family context (in parent-child and husband-wife interactions), (2) the university context (in lecturer-student and student-student interactions), (3) the work context (in boss-employee and colleague-colleague interactions), and (4) the social context (realized with various P aspects, including age, gender, economic status, authoritative status, physical strength, and intellectual capacity) Each context is further divided into equal-power situations and unequal-power situations The unequal-power situations are subdivided into powerless situations and powerful situations Finally, concluding remarks of CC differences and inverse PT are given at the end of the chapter The results of the thirty situations are presented in tables and graphically illustrated with graphs Table 3.4 and graph 3.2 are typical examples of tables and graphs in situations and The results of the other twenty eight situations are presented with tables and graphically illustrated with graphs (please see the Appendix) in the same way SITUATION Sit Sit +P =P -P +P =P -P VNS N % 0 6.0 47 94.0 2.0 10.0 44 88.0 ANS N % 6.0 14 28.0 33 66.0 12 24.0 32 64.0 12.0 X2 3.093 8.575 12.250 10.698 31.274 57.760 p * *** *** *** *** *** VNS N % 0 6.0 47 94.0 2.0 10.0 44 88.0 VLE N % 0 10.0 45 90.0 4.0 14.0 41 82.0 X2 #DIV/0! 0.543 0.543 0.344 0.379 0.706 p ≡ - Table 3.4: Family powerless situations (Sit and 4) Graph 3.2A: Sit 1, child-parent, house decoration Graph 3.2B: Sit 4, child-parent, diary 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 VNS ANS VLE +P =P -P P values VNS ANS VLE +P =P -P P values Graph 3.2: Family powerless situations (Sit and 4) Chapter four Chapter four is 49 pages long (pp 139-187) and it focuses on the Vietnamese-English negative PT and CC differences in the subject’s use of disagreeing politeness strategies in the investigated situations realized with the data collected from the three subject groups It begins with an introduction to all the twenty eight disagreeing strategies realized in the present study, based on Brown and Levinson’s (1987) framework, with various examples from the collected data Then it continues with the presentation of a hundred and sixty four single strategies and strategy combinations with an introduction to the frequently-used ones, as seen from the analytical framework of the present study Next, the statistic results of similarities and differences between the VLE and ANS as well as between the VNS and ANS in their use of disagreeing strategies in each of the six situations in the DCT are presented, interpreted, and discussed in depth The six situations are discussed in two major groups: the powerless situations and the powerful situations Concluding remarks of the PT and CC differences are summarized and highlighted at the end of the discussion of the three situations in each group This helps to have a deeper insight into negative PT and CC differences in both the powerless and powerful situations Similar to the presentation in chapter three, the presentation to the results of the six situations are presented in tables and graphically illustrated with graphs Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 together with graphs 4.1 and 4.2 help to present the results of situation Similar presentation of the results with tables and graphs (please see the Appendix) is applied to the other five situations Sit Val +P =P -P +D =D -D +Se =Se -Se VNS N % 0 6.0 47 94.0 50 100.0 0 0 8.0 14 28.0 32 64.0 ANS N % 6.0 14 28.0 33 66.0 50 100.0 0 0 0 4.0 48 96.0 X2 p 3.093 8.575 12.250 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 4.167 10.714 16.000 * *** *** ≡ ≡ ≡ * *** *** VLE N % 0 10.0 45 90.0 50 100.0 0 0 6.0 14.0 40 80.0 ANS N % 6.0 14 28.0 33 66.0 50 100.0 0 0 0 4.0 48 96.0 X2 p 3.093 5.263 8.392 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 3.093 3.053 6.061 * * *** ≡ ≡ ≡ * * ** * ≈ p≤0.05 *** ≈ p≤0.001 = ≈ no difference ** ≈ p≤0.01 - ≈ p>0.05 ≡ ≈ all or none (These same abbreviations and conventions are applied to all the tables in this chapter) Table 4.1: Perception of P, D, and Se in situation Sit.1 VNS Strategies N % Bald-on R 10.0 Positive P 26 52.0 Negative P 8.0 Off-record 4.0 Mixed 13 26.0 No FTA Missing Total 50 100.0 ANS N % 4.0 15 30.0 18.0 6.0 21 42.0 50 X2 1.382 5.002 2.210 0.211 2.852 VLE N % p * 24 * 26 100.0 50 48.0 52.0 100.0 ANS N % 4.0 15 30.0 18.0 6.0 21 42.0 50 X2 p 2.041 3.405 9.890 3.093 1.004 * *** * - 100.0 Table 4.2: Realization of major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation Graph 4.1: Realization of major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 60 50 40 30 20 10 VNS ANS VLE Bald-on R Positive P Negative P Off-record Mixed No FTA Graph 4.1: Realization of major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation Sit VNS ANS VLE ANS X2 p X2 Strategies N % N % N % N % Bald-on R 10.0 4.0 1.382 4.0 2.041 Single P 18.0 10 20.0 0.065 6.0 10 20.0 4.332 Multiple P 17 34.0 10.0 8.392 *** 21 42.0 10.0 13.306 Single N 8.0 18.0 2.210 18.0 9.890 Multiple N Single O 4.0 6.0 2.211 6.0 3.093 Multiple O P+N 13 26.0 21 42.0 2.852 * 26 52.0 21 42.0 1.004 P+O N+O P+N+O No FTA Missing Total 50 100.0 50 100.0 50 100.0 50 100.0 Table 4.3: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation p * *** *** * - Graph 4.2: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 60 50 40 30 VNS 20 ANS 10 VLE on dl Ba R S gl in eP P eN eO eN eO le gl gl pl pl ip t n n ti ti ul Si Si ul ul M M M P + N P + O N + O P + N + O o A FT N Graph 4.2: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation PART C: CONCLUSION Major findings 1.1 On inverse PT and CC differences in power perception Power perception was investigated through the relative roles (e.g., a child to a parent) or aspects of power (e.g., age or gender) in thirty situations divided into the four contexts: family (situations to 6), university (situations to 12), work (situation 13 to 18), and society (situations 19 to 30) As regards inverse PT, it is not a common phenomenon in the present study as it accounts for only 4.44% of all the cases investigated More particularly, it is totally absent in the family context, university context, and work context and rarely occurs in the social context, accounting for 11.11% of all the cases in this context Regarding CC differences, the results reinforce the hypothesis that Vietnam is a higher-power-distance culture than Australia although Australia does not completely prove a low-power-distance society This can most obviously be reflected in the family context less obviously in the university context, and least in the work context In the family context, situations and (parent-child interaction) are perceived as +P situations by far more VNS than ANS but as =P situations by far fewer VNS than ANS Besides, situation (childparent interaction) is rated as -P by far more VNS than ANS but as =P by far fewer VNS than ANS In addition, in situation (mature childparent interaction), a majority of the VNS, compared to only a few ANS, consider it as a -P situation, whereas a large number of the ANS, compared to only a few VNS, rate it as a =P situation In the university context, in all the -P situations (situations and 10 – student-lecturer interactions) as well as +P situations (situations 11 and 12 – lecturer-student interactions) in which S and H are perceived as unequal in power by a majority of subjects in both groups, more VNS than ANS perceive that those are unequal-power situations On the contrary, fewer VNS than ANS regard those four situations as =P situations in which S and H are equal in power In the work context, it should be noted that situations 13 (manageremployee interaction), 14 (manager-employee interaction), and 16 (employee-boss) are all rated as unequal-power situations by more VNS than ANS and as equal-power situations by fewer VNS than ANS These appear to be additional clues supporting the hypothesis that Vietnam is a higher-power-distance culture than Australia although the differences are not statistically significant enough (p>0.05) to contribute to accepting the hypothesis However, it is an exception that situation 15 (junior-senior interaction) is regarded as a =P situation by a majority of VNS compared to a minority of ANS, but as a -P situation by a large number of ANS compared to just a few VNS In the social context, the results show that gender, economic status, and physical strength are not the major aspects of power in both cultures Age, intellectual capacity, and authoritative status, however, prove to be major aspects of power To be more specific, age is more noticeable in Vietnam, while intellectual capacity is more noticeable in Australia However, it is unexpected that authoritative status is much more noticeable in Australia than in Vietnam in the situation investigated (i.e between the passenger and the custom officer at the airport) 1.2 On negative PT and CC differences in the use of disagreeing politeness strategies Disagreeing politeness strategies were investigated in six situations divided into powerless group (situations 1, 9, and 27) and powerful group (situations 5, 12 and 13) Situation (-P+D-Se) is a child-parent interaction in the family context in which S has less power than H, S and H are socially close to each other, and the setting is informal Situation (-P=D=Se) is a student-lecture interaction in which S has less power than H, S and H are a little bit acquainted with each other, and the setting is semi-formal Situation 27 (-P-D-Se) is a youngerelder interaction in which S has less power than H, S and H are not acquainted and the setting is informal Situation (+P+D-Se) is a parent-child interaction in which S has more power than H, S and H are socially close to each other, and the setting is informal Situation 12 (+P=D=Se) is a lecturer-student interaction in which S has more power than H, S and H are a little bit acquainted with each other, and the setting is semi-formal Situation 13 (+P=D+Se) is a manageremployee interaction in which S has more power than H, S and H are a little bit acquainted with each other, and the setting is formal 1.2.1 On negative PT in the use of disagreeing politeness strategies in specific situations Negative PT caused by the VLE is a common phenomenon in the present study as it can be observed in nearly all the situations Six groups of strategies Bald-on R Positive P Negative P Off-record Mixed No FTA Powerless situations Sit.1: Sit.9: Sit 27: Family University Social (-P+D-Se) (-P=D=Se) (-P-D-Se) VLEANS No PT No PT No PT No PT VLE>ANS VLE