Aims of the study
Overall purpose
This dissertation aims to comprehensively examine the negative pragmatic transfer (PT) from Vietnamese to Australian language and culture, while also highlighting significant differences in Vietnamese-Australian cultural contexts These insights serve as essential clues for interpreting and discussing the pragmatic transfer involved in the speech act of disagreement within the studied scenarios.
Specific aims
To achieve the overall purpose, the study is aimed:
- to find out the major features of Vietnamese-English PT caused by the VLE and
CC differences between the VNS and ANS in their use of disagreeing politeness strategies with the more powerful as well as with the less powerful in the investigated situations
This study examines how the perception of P influences the use of politeness strategies when expressing disagreement It highlights the variations in these strategies based on the subjects' understanding of their relative roles in specific situations, ultimately revealing the impact of P on their communication styles.
Research questions
Negative politeness strategies influenced by the VLE exhibit distinct characteristics, particularly in their implementation across varying contexts Notably, there are significant differences in the use of disagreeing politeness strategies between the VNS and ANS, which reflect their unique approaches to managing interpersonal disagreements Understanding these differences is crucial for analyzing how cultural and contextual factors shape communication strategies in the studied scenarios.
- Which features of negative PT and CC differences in the use of disagreeing politeness strategies are significant?
- Which CC differences between the VNS and ANS lead to negative PT and which CC differences do not?
The article explores the preferred disagreeing politeness strategies utilized by the VLE, ANS, and VNS, highlighting their differences in both powerful and powerless contexts It examines how these groups navigate disagreement, revealing variations in their approaches based on social dynamics The analysis underscores the significance of context in shaping communication strategies, emphasizing the distinct preferences of each group when addressing disagreement in varying power situations.
- Which politeness strategies in B&L’s (1987) framework are realized, either as single strategies or strategy combinations for disagreeing in the investigated situations? Is there a high possibility for strategy combinations?
The subject's perception of P in various situations significantly influences their application of disagreeing politeness strategies Variations in how subjects perceive P lead to distinct patterns in negative politeness tactics and face-threatening acts Understanding these similarities and differences in perception can illuminate the nuanced ways individuals navigate disagreement while maintaining politeness.
- How is P described in the relative roles in the investigated situations perceived by the VNS, ANS, and VLE?
- To what extent is the VNS’s perception of P different from the ANS’s? Is it true that Vietnam is a higher-power-distance culture than Australia?
- Is there the phenomenon of inverse PT in P perception caused by the VLE in the investigated situations?
- How do the similarities and differences in the subject’s perception of P in the investigated situations affect their use of disagreeing politeness strategies?
Scope of the study
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com strategies used by the VLE, ANS, and VNS in some specific situations in light of the politeness framework by B&L (1987)
- The particular situations are restricted to thirty situations in the Meta-pragmatic Assessment Questionnaires (henceforth MAQ) and six situations in the Discourse Completion Task (henceforth DCT)
The term "among power-unequals" encompasses all interactions between individuals of differing power levels, including exchanges between the more powerful and the less powerful, as well as vice versa This concept is applicable in four key contexts: at home, in the workplace, within educational settings, and throughout society.
The dynamics of relationships can be observed in various contexts, such as the interaction between a parent and child at home, a university lecturer and student in an academic setting, a boss and employee in the workplace, and the exchanges between older and younger individuals in society Each of these roles highlights the distinct power structures and responsibilities inherent in these relationships, shaping communication and behavior across different environments.
In analyzing communication dynamics, the primary social variable, P, represents the relative power each speaker possesses in a specific context Additionally, understanding the nuances of social distance (D) and the speaking context (Se) is essential for a comprehensive interpretation and discussion of various situations.
This study investigates the disagreement strategies employed by Vietnamese-Australian individuals in contexts of power inequality, specifically comparing the approaches of Vietnamese learners of English (VLE) and Australian native speakers (ANS) To enhance the objectivity and validity of the research, it also examines the power perceptions and disagreement strategies of Vietnamese speakers (VNS) alongside ANS, providing a foundational context for the interpretation and discussion of the findings related to power dynamics in communication.
Contributions of the study
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals of unequal power in both English and Vietnamese contexts It highlights the pragmatic strategies employed by speakers to navigate these interactions, revealing cultural differences in communication styles By examining how power imbalances influence the expression of disagreement, the research contributes to a deeper understanding of cross-cultural pragmatics The findings underscore the importance of context in shaping conversational norms and strategies, providing valuable insights for effective communication across cultures.
The study is expected to bring out some following contributions:
- Theoretically, it contributes an investigation to some research areas in Vietnam:
This article explores the socio-cultural effects on verbal interactions, specifically focusing on power dynamics, pragmatic transfer between Vietnamese and English, and the theory of speech acts, particularly in the context of disagreement It represents the first comprehensive empirical research conducted in Vietnam on the influence of power in language, with a unique emphasis on Vietnamese-Australian pragmatic transfer The findings aim to either support or challenge existing hypotheses in these fields, providing deeper insights into the complexities of linguistic politeness and speech acts in cross-cultural communication.
The findings on Vietnamese-Australian pragmatic transfer, particularly regarding negative pragmatic transfer, highlight the frequency and application of disagreement strategies in various contexts These insights, supported by detailed examples from extensive data, can be effectively utilized in English language teaching and cross-cultural communication practices.
This study effectively explores individuals' perceptions of socio-situational factors and their corresponding language strategies in verbal interactions By employing a research methodology that combines the MAQ and DCT, it offers a valid approach to understanding these dynamics Furthermore, it introduces an innovative application of B&L’s (1987) politeness model, enhancing data analysis in empirical research on linguistic politeness.
Methodology
This is primarily a quantitative CCP study in combination with some qualitative methods The data collection is conducted with a combination of MAQ and DCT
Data analysis is conducted using T-Test and Chi-square statistics within the SPSS package, employing techniques such as statistical, descriptive, contrastive, and inferential analysis A detailed explanation of this methodology can be found in chapter two.
Organization of the study
The present study is divided into three parts: Part A – Introduction, Part B – Development, and Part C – Conclusion
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores the dynamics of disagreement in contexts where power disparities exist It examines how cultural differences influence the ways individuals express disagreement, highlighting the pragmatic strategies employed in both English and Vietnamese interactions By analyzing these cross-cultural nuances, the research sheds light on the implications for effective communication and understanding in diverse social settings This study contributes valuable insights into the intersection of language, culture, and power relations, emphasizing the importance of context in pragmatic discourse.
The introduction of the study outlines the rationale behind its conduct, detailing the objectives, scope, research questions, methodology, and contributions Additionally, it provides a comprehensive summary of the various sections and chapters, offering readers a clear overview of the study's framework and purpose.
Part B is the major part which is divided into four chapters, discussing the relevant theoretical concepts, literature review, methodology and results of the empirical research of the study
Chapter one provides a theoretical background and literature review on the concepts of CCP and ILP, starting with an introduction to essential terminologies It critically examines speech act theory, focusing on the implications of disagreeing as a potentially face-threatening act The discussion revisits politeness theory, contrasting Western and Asian approaches, particularly through the lens of Vietnamese researchers This comparison establishes a solid theoretical framework for the current study Additionally, the chapter reviews recent domestic and international studies on disagreeing as a speech act, highlighting both achievements and shortcomings in the existing literature.
Chapter two outlines the methodology of the study, presenting various research methods in ILP studies along with their strengths and weaknesses, as discussed by prominent authors It provides critical insights before detailing the specific methods chosen for the current study and the rationale behind these selections The chapter also covers the research design, including data-gathering instruments, subject selection, and data-gathering procedures Additionally, it clarifies the data analysis procedures, offering a comprehensive description of T-test analysis, Chi-square analysis, and the analytical framework employed.
This study explores the nuances of disagreement among individuals of unequal power in English and Vietnamese contexts It examines how cultural differences influence pragmatic approaches to expressing disagreement By analyzing conversational strategies, the research highlights the significance of power dynamics in communication The findings reveal distinct patterns in how disagreement is navigated across cultures, emphasizing the role of politeness and respect Ultimately, this cross-cultural pragmatics study contributes to a deeper understanding of interpersonal communication in diverse linguistic environments.
Chapter three examines the impact of relative power as a socio-cultural factor in verbal interactions, particularly in contexts of disagreement It aims to reveal how the VNS, VLE, and ANS interpret the dynamics of power between speakers and listeners in specific scenarios This analysis is crucial for establishing the validity and reliability of the discussion on the effects of power in disagreement, which will be explored in chapter four.
This article examines relevant studies to highlight the findings, discussions, and limitations regarding the perception of P by the VNS and ANS, aiming to uncover cross-cultural similarities and differences Additionally, it compares the perception of P by the VLE with that of the VNS to explore potential instances of inverse socio-pragmatic transfer The concluding remarks focus on the differences in cross-cultural communication and the implications of inverse transfer.
PT are given at the end of the chapter
Chapter four examines the differences in Vietnamese-English politeness tactics and communication styles, focusing on how subjects employ disagreeing politeness strategies in various contexts It introduces the range of disagreeing strategies identified in the study, showcasing both individual strategies and their combinations through examples from the collected data The chapter presents and analyzes statistical findings that reveal similarities and differences in the use of these strategies among Vietnamese learners of English (VLE) and native speakers (ANS), as well as between Vietnamese native speakers (VNS) and ANS Concluding remarks emphasize the key distinctions in politeness tactics and communication styles.
In the conclusion of the study, the author summarizes key findings regarding the inverse politeness theory (PT) influenced by variations in verbal language expression (VLE) and cultural context (CC) between Vietnamese native speakers (VNS) and English native speakers (ANS) in their perceptions of politeness The research also emphasizes the notable differences in negative politeness theory (PT) and cultural context (CC) in the use of disagreeing politeness strategies among the subjects Furthermore, the implications of these findings are discussed, highlighting their significance for enhancing English language teaching practices.
CC communication are suggested before suggestions for further studies of the field are put forward
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals of unequal power in both English and Vietnamese contexts It examines how cultural differences influence pragmatic approaches to disagreement, highlighting the significance of power relations in communication By comparing the strategies employed in these two languages, the research sheds light on the nuances of cross-cultural interactions and their implications for effective communication Understanding these differences is crucial for fostering better interpersonal relations and enhancing cross-cultural competence.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Cross-Cultural pragmatics (CCP) and interlanguage pragmatics (ILP)
In his discussion of approaches to inter-cultural communication, Clyne (1996: 3) states,
The role of culture can be studied through three primary approaches: the Contrastive Approach, which compares native discourse across different cultures; the Interlanguage Approach, which focuses on the discourse of non-native speakers using a second language; and the Interactive Inter-cultural Approach, which examines and compares the discourse of individuals from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds interacting in either a lingua franca or one of the participants' native languages.
Clyne (1996) suggests that the three approaches to the topic are often indistinct, with the third approach being the least explored His classification and observations are particularly relevant when viewed through the lens of Contrastive Cultural Pragmatics (CCP).
According to Kasper & Blum-Kula (1995: 3), pragmatics is considered as “the study of people’s comprehension and production of linguistic action in context”
CCP examines the linguistic action patterns of language users from diverse cultural backgrounds According to Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989), the field of CCP is categorized into two main trends: contrastive pragmatics and interlanguage pragmatics (ILP).
Contrastive pragmatics focuses on examining the similarities and differences in pragmatic elements, such as politeness and speech act performance, across various cultural communities It operates on the premise that individuals from different cultures communicate in distinct ways, highlighting profound and systematic differences that reflect diverse cultural values and communication styles.
This article examines the dynamics of disagreement among individuals with unequal power in English and Vietnamese contexts through a cross-cultural pragmatics lens It highlights the varying styles of expressing disagreement, emphasizing how cultural norms influence communication strategies By analyzing these differences, the study aims to provide insights into the complexities of intercultural interactions and the significance of power dynamics in shaping discourse Understanding these factors can enhance effective communication across cultures, particularly in situations where power imbalances exist.
ILP studies examine the linguistic actions of language learners and non-native speakers in relation to native speakers, aiming to reveal insights into learners' understanding and production of various pragmatic aspects Additionally, ILP serves as a component of Second Language Acquisition Research, distinguishing itself from traditional focuses on interlanguage morphology, syntax, and semantics As noted by Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993), ILP represents "a second-generation hybrid" in the field.
“belongs to two different disciplines, both of which are interdisciplinary”
In summary, contrastive pragmatics, as a subset of cross-cultural pragmatics, effectively explores the differences and similarities in pragmatic use across cultures and languages In contrast, Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) emphasizes understanding learner-specific pragmatic behaviors in relation to their first and second languages For a comprehensive research project, it is essential to integrate methodologies from both fields, as highlighted by Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993: 13).
A comprehensive research program will explore the interplay between cross-cultural differences and IL-specific pragmatic features, such as transfer, while examining their communicative effects This program will effectively integrate methodologies from diverse fields of study.
This research project integrates methods from contrastive pragmatics and interlanguage pragmatics (ILP), focusing primarily on how Vietnamese learners comprehend and produce pragmatic elements in English Consequently, the subtitle of the research is “a cross-cultural pragmatics study,” reflecting its emphasis on cultural differences rather than solely on ILP This choice underscores the significance of understanding pragmatic nuances across different cultures.
“ILP has derived its theoretical and empirical foundation from general and especially cross-cultural pragmatics” (Kasper and Blum-Kulka, 1993: 4)
1.1.2 Pragmatic transfer and relevant issues
Pragmatic transfer, as defined by Beebe & Takahashi (1989: 200), is “transfer of some culturally specific politeness strategies from one’s native language to the
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores how cultural and linguistic backgrounds influence pragmatic knowledge and performance in intercultural communication It highlights the differences in disagreement strategies employed by speakers of English and Vietnamese when interacting with individuals of different power statuses The research underscores the impact of learners' native languages and cultural contexts on their understanding and execution of pragmatic norms, shedding light on the complexities of cross-cultural interactions.
Pragmatic transfer (PT) can be categorized into negative and positive types Negative PT occurs when a speaker's first language pragmatic competence affects their interlanguage pragmatic knowledge, leading to differences from the target language and potential communication breakdowns In contrast, positive PT reflects consistent pragmatic behaviors across the first language, interlanguage, and target language, often resulting in successful communication The primary focus of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) is on negative PT due to its implications for communication challenges, while positive PT is less studied because it typically leads to communicative success and is perceived as less intriguing.
In literature, pragmatic failures are categorized into two types: sociopragmatic failure and pragmalinguistic failure, as outlined by Thomas (1983) Sociopragmatic failure occurs when learners evaluate situational factors based on their native sociopragmatic norms, while pragmalinguistic failure involves the transfer of native procedures and linguistic means of speech act performance to interlanguage communication, as noted by Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper (1989) Overall, pragmatic failure is synonymous with negative pragmatic transfer.
Research indicates that negative transfer occurs at both sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic levels At the sociopragmatic level, learners often misinterpret status relationships, the appropriateness of speech acts, and politeness styles Meanwhile, at the pragmalinguistic level, negative transfer primarily affects learners' strategic choices and the linguistic forms they use, which can alter the politeness value of their communication (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993: 10-11).
Inverse pragmatic transfer refers to the impact that a learner's proficiency in a second or foreign language has on their understanding and use of pragmatic elements in their first language This phenomenon highlights how the pragmatic skills acquired in a new language can shape a learner's perception and expression of various pragmatic aspects in their native tongue.
This study examines the differences in disagreement strategies among power-unequals in English and Vietnamese, focusing on cross-cultural pragmatics It highlights how these strategies differ from those used by native speakers of each language Additionally, the research investigates the inverse sociopragmatic transfer experienced by Vietnamese learners of English, particularly in their understanding of power dynamics within the context of their own cultural background.
Speech act theory and disagreeing as a speech act
Speech act theory, introduced by philosopher John Austin in his seminal work "How to Do Things with Words" (1962), is a pivotal concept in the study of language use According to Levinson (1983: 226), this theory has generated significant interest among scholars, making it one of the most engaging topics in the general theory of language usage.
Actually, since its initiation, it has been inherited, refined, and developed by a number of philosophers and linguists, including Searle (1969, 1975, 1976), Bach and Harnish (1979), and Wierzbicka (1987), among others
The concept of speech acts, introduced by John Austin in 1962, emphasizes that when a speaker conveys a message with specific meaning and reference, they simultaneously perform an action, such as making a promise, request, or apology This idea has been further explored by various pragmatists, highlighting the multifaceted nature of communication.
1995) For example, in saying, “I’ll come and pick you up.”, a speaker not only produces a meaningful utterance but also constitutes the act of promising
Understanding speech act theory requires a thorough grasp of Austin's (1962) important distinction among three types of acts: locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts.
In the study of speech acts, a locutionary act refers to the act of saying something that is meaningful and comprehensible An illocutionary act involves using a statement to perform a specific function, while a perlocutionary act pertains to the effects or outcomes that result from what is said.
11) puts it simply that locution is the actual form of an utterance, illocution is the
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores the dynamics of disagreement within hierarchical relationships in both English and Vietnamese contexts It examines the communicative force of utterances and their perlocutionary effects, highlighting how cultural differences influence the way disagreement is expressed and received This research provides valuable insights into the pragmatic aspects of communication, emphasizing the importance of understanding power dynamics in cross-cultural interactions.
The three acts of communication are interconnected, as a meaningful utterance involves a speaker (S) conveying a message to a hearer (H), performing an action, and ultimately influencing H For instance, when S states, "I've just made some coffee," this locutionary act serves as an offer (illocutionary act) that encourages H to accept and drink the coffee (perlocutionary act).
Yule (1997) emphasizes that the illocutionary force is the most crucial aspect of communication, as the same utterance can convey different meanings depending on the context For example, the phrase “I’ll see you later” can be interpreted as a prediction, a promise, or a warning, illustrating the variability of illocutionary acts This variability leads Yule to assert that the term "speech act" is often understood to refer specifically to the illocutionary force of an utterance.
Speech acts are a universal phenomenon, but they might vary greatly across cultures under the effects of socio-cultural norms This explains why Wierzbicka (1991:
Every culture possesses its unique set of speech acts and genres, as noted by 149) This understanding underscores the importance of examining speech acts within a cultural context, balancing both universal elements and cultural specificity, as emphasized by Blum-Kulka et al.
Research in this field posits that speech communities exhibit identifiable speech patterns, with "cultural ways of speaking" serving as a vital area for examining speech as a cultural phenomenon Studies on speech acts reveal that differing interaction styles can result in intercultural miscommunication.
Blum-Kulka argues that a limited understanding of the variations in speech acts across cultures can significantly contribute to cultural conflicts and communication breakdowns Therefore, it is essential to enhance cultural awareness and insight to foster effective communication.
The study of speech acts across cultures, particularly in the context of disagreement among individuals of unequal power dynamics in English and Vietnamese, is essential for understanding cross-cultural pragmatics Despite the significance of these studies, they face challenges due to cultural and contextual specificity, making comparative analysis complex yet vital for effective communication.
Speech acts can be categorized based on their functions, as highlighted by Austin (1962), who identified five key types: verdictives (such as assess and appraise), exercitives (including commands and directives), commissives (like promises and proposals), behabitives (such as apologies and thanks), and expositives (including acceptance and agreement) In contrast, Searle (1976) offers a widely recognized classification that emphasizes the intentional responses of listeners to utterances, further developing the understanding of speech acts beyond Austin's initial framework.
In 1962, Searle focused on how speakers convey their intentions during communication (Wardhaugh, 1986: 287) He categorized speech acts into five main types: commissives, which include promises and threats; declarations, such as court pronouncements; directives, encompassing suggestions and requests; expressives, like apologies and complaints; and representatives, which involve assertions and reports.
According to Searle (1976) and Yule (1997), speech acts can be categorized into five general types: declarations, representatives, expressives, directives, and commissives, each reflecting different intentions of the speaker Bach and Harnish (1979) expand on this by identifying six categories of illocutionary acts, distinguishing between conventional effectives and verdictives, and four communicative acts: constatives, directives, commissives, and acknowledgements While these categories share similarities with Austin's classifications, they differ slightly in their definitions, such as placing suggestions under constatives rather than directives, as Searle does.
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals with unequal power in both English and Vietnamese contexts, emphasizing the role of cross-cultural pragmatics It highlights how cultural norms and power structures influence the way disagreements are expressed and managed in these two languages The research aims to provide insights into the pragmatic strategies employed in differing cultural settings, contributing to a deeper understanding of interpersonal communication across cultures.
Figure 1.1: Classification of communicative illocutionary acts (Bach and Harnish, 1979: 41)
Politeness theory and its application to the present study
Politeness is a significant concept in pragmatics, with Thomas (1995) suggesting it could be considered a distinct discipline within the field Grumper, in the introduction to B&L's "Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage" (1987), highlights that the widespread interest in politeness stems from its universal nature, which is fundamental to maintaining social order and fostering human cooperation.
Politeness has been extensively studied by researchers across various cultures, revealing its strategic importance in communication It can be defined as the effort to establish, maintain, and save face during conversations (Richard, 1985), as well as the methods used to demonstrate awareness of another person's face (Yule, 1997) Additionally, politeness encompasses a complex system of strategies aimed at minimizing the face threat associated with face-threatening acts (B&L, 1987).
Positive concern for others is expressed through behavior that balances engagement and respectful distance, as noted by Holmes (1995) Normatively, this behavior serves as a guideline for human interaction, aiming to acknowledge others' feelings, foster mutual comfort, and enhance rapport (Hill et al., 1986) It embodies a collection of social values that encourage individuals to meet shared expectations in their interactions (Sifianou).
In 1992, Nguyen Quang (2004: 11) defined politeness from a communication perspective as any communicative act—verbal, nonverbal, or both—that is intentionally designed to enhance the feelings of others or alleviate their discomfort The author of the dissertation interprets this definition as broad, reflecting an integrative approach that encompasses both strategic and contextual elements of politeness.
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores the dynamics of disagreement in contexts where power disparities exist It emphasizes a normative approach that considers both individual intentions and socially accepted norms By analyzing how disagreements are navigated in English and Vietnamese cultures, the research highlights the importance of strategic communication and the role of cultural context in shaping interpersonal interactions This cross-cultural examination provides valuable insights into the pragmatics of disagreement, revealing how power dynamics influence communication styles in different cultural settings.
This study examines linguistic politeness, focusing on how individuals (represented by VNS, VLE, and ANS) convey (im)politeness through their language use in Vietnamese and English The author revisits various politeness theories from the literature to establish a theoretical foundation for the selected approach and its application in the current research.
There exist different politeness views and approaches that have been put into several broader categories by different researchers
Fraser (1990) identified four categories of politeness: the social-norm view, the conversational-maxim view, the face-saving view, and the conversational-contract view Kasper (1990) distinguished between strategic politeness and politeness as social indexing Watts (2003) categorized politeness into prepragmatic and postpragmatic approaches Additionally, Kieu Thi Thu Huong (2006) and Duong Bach Nhat proposed a classification that includes the volitional/strategic approach, the normative/social-norm approach, and the normative-volitional/integrated approach.
This research examines the contrasting cultural dynamics of Australia as an Anglophone nation and Vietnam as a non-Anglophone country, highlighting the strategic and normative approaches in cross-cultural studies The author references pertinent studies and perspectives to enhance the understanding of these cultural differences.
Vietnamese researchers Then, he argues for an appropriate politeness approach for his study
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores how disagreement is expressed between individuals of differing power dynamics in both English and Vietnamese contexts It highlights the cultural nuances and pragmatic strategies employed in communication, revealing significant differences and similarities in the approach to disagreement Understanding these intercultural variations is essential for effective communication and fostering mutual respect in diverse social interactions This research contributes to the broader field of pragmatics by examining the influence of cultural context on conversational dynamics.
This politeness view, also referred to as the instrumental (Kasper, 1992) or volitional approach (Hill et al., 1986; Ide, 1989), is argued to work well in
Anglophone cultures are often favored by Western scholars, resulting in various approaches classified by Watts (2003) as prepragmatic These approaches include models developed by Lakkoff (1973), Leech (1983), and Brown and Levinson (B&L).
(1987), which rely on, or are more or less related to, Grice’s (1975) cooperative principle They are discussed in two subcategories: the maxim-based approach and the face-centered approach
Grice's cooperative principle, introduced in the early 1970s and published in "Logic and Conversation" (1975), emphasizes effective communication through four key conversational maxims: quantity (be informative), quality (be true), relation (be relevant), and manner (be clear) Each maxim encompasses sub-maxims that guide conversational exchanges Additionally, Grice acknowledges the importance of other maxims, such as the politeness maxim, which is further explored by Lakoff in her politeness rules.
Grice’s cooperative principle significantly impacts pragmatics, serving as a foundational element in the politeness models developed by Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983) It is closely linked to the understanding of hedges and various off-record strategies in communication.
According to Grice’s cooperative principle, Lakoff (1973, in Watt, 2003: 60) proposes two sets of politeness rules: (1) Be clear and (2) Be polite The first set mirrors the Gricean principles, encompassing four rules: quantity, quality, relevance, and manner In contrast, Lakoff's second set introduces three unique rules for politeness: (1) Don’t impose, (2) Give options, and (3) Make A feel good.
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals of unequal power in both English and Vietnamese contexts, highlighting the nuances of cross-cultural pragmatics It examines how cultural backgrounds influence communication styles, particularly in situations where power imbalances exist The research aims to provide insights into the strategies employed by speakers to navigate disagreements while maintaining social harmony and respect By analyzing these interactions, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of effective communication across cultures.
– be friendly These rules are schematically presented by Watts (2003: 60) in figure
Lakoff's model reveals a significant contradiction: while she asserts that the rules of clarity fall under the umbrella of politeness, adhering to politeness can lead to violations of conversational norms When a speaker opts for politeness by avoiding imposition or by providing options to make the other person feel good, they may inadvertently disrupt the flow of conversation at some point during the interaction.
Figure 1.2: Lakoff’s rules of pragmatic competence
METHODOLOGY
Research methods
2.1.1 An overview of research methods in inter-language pragmatics
Research methods in interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) have been extensively examined by various scholars Notable works include Kasper & Dahl’s (1991) "Research Methods in Interlanguage Pragmatics" and Gass & Neu’s (1996) "Speech Acts Across Cultures – Challenges to Communication in a Second Language." Additionally, significant contributions to ILP research methods have been made by Rintell and Mitchell (1989), Beebe & Cummings (1996), Magalef-Boada (1993), and Hudson, Detmer & Brown.
(1995), Kasper & Blum-Kulka (1993), and Cohen (1996) In those researchers’ works, all the research methods in the field are thoroughly discussed with their strengths and weaknesses
Kasper and Dahl (1991: 3), for example, present a diagram illustrating different methods of data elicitation in interlanguage pragmatics.
Rating/ discourse closed open observation multiple choice/ completion role play role play of authentic interview tasks discourse perception/ production comprehension elicited observational
Figure 2.1: Methods of data elicitation
The diagram illustrates that data-gathering methods in Interactive Language Processing (ILP) are categorized into two primary types: perception-eliciting and production-eliciting methods These methods further encompass five specific categories: (1) rating, multiple choice, and interview tasks; (2) discourse completion; (3) closed role play; (4) open role play; and (5) observation of authentic discourse.
These procedures, according to Kasper and Dahl, are characterized on the basis of the constraints they impose on the data; that is, “the degree to which the data are
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals of unequal power in both English and Vietnamese contexts, highlighting the nuances of cross-cultural pragmatics It examines how language use is influenced by the social hierarchy and the specific modalities employed by speakers during interactions By focusing on the role of cultural norms and communication strategies, the research aims to provide insights into the complexities of disagreement in diverse linguistic environments.
Perception procedures, such as rating tasks, multiple choice questionnaires, and interviews, reveal how individuals understand various speech acts, including aspects of politeness and socio-cultural factors like power dynamics and social distance In contrast, production procedures utilize structured methods like discourse completion questionnaires and closed role plays, alongside more flexible open role plays that allow for some interaction Observing authentic discourse, which imposes no constraints on participants, is another valuable approach, though it is important to consider potential observer effects.
2.1.1.1 A brief description of the two major research methods in ILP 2.1.1.1.1 Methods eliciting perception/comprehension data
These methods can help to study the subjects’ perception of situational factors This can be seen in the following example:
Direction: Could you please read the situations on the following pages and tick the answer in the appropriate box?
Situation: You are applying for a job with a company You go into a company office to pick up an application form A receptionist is sitting behind a desk
How much authority or right do you think the speaker has in making the request? none some a great deal
How acquainted are the speaker and the hearer? not at all a little bit very well
How large is the imposition of the request on the hearer? very small mode- rate very large
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores the nuances of disagreement in contexts where power dynamics differ between individuals in English and Vietnamese cultures It examines how cultural backgrounds influence the way disagreements are expressed and perceived, highlighting the pragmatic strategies employed by speakers in both languages This research sheds light on the importance of understanding cultural subtleties in communication, particularly in hierarchical relationships, to enhance cross-cultural interactions and minimize misunderstandings.
They can also help to study the subjects’ comprehension of speech act realizations, which can be illustrated with an example conducted by Hudson et al (1995)
In this activity, you will encounter 24 different scenarios, each accompanied by three potential responses For each situation, please select the most suitable response by circling either option a, b, or c.
Situation: You live in a large apartment building You are leaving to go to work
While heading out, you encounter your long-lost neighbor, Bob, and exchange warm greetings Complimenting his shirt, you inquire about its origin and price Curious about his plans, you ask where he's headed and how his family is doing Expressing your delight in reconnecting, you mention that it’s been weeks since your last conversation.
Since Walter's early study on politeness perception in 1979, researchers like Kasper and Dahl (1991) have utilized various perception-eliciting procedures to examine different speech acts These include requests explored by Walter (1979), Carrel & Conneker (1981), and Tanaka & Kawade (1982), as well as requests and apologies studied by Olshtain & Blum-Kulka (1985), indirect answers by Carrel (1979), and responding acts by Kasper (1984).
The procedures employed in this study offer notable advantages, such as facilitating easier task completion for subjects, which requires less effort in selecting answers compared to language production This efficiency allows researchers to collect ample data within a constrained timeframe and gain insights into how situational factors influence language use However, these methods also present significant limitations; they primarily reveal subjects' perceptions rather than their actual language production Furthermore, the restricted options provided by the researcher hinder subjects' ability to express their true preferences, forcing them to choose from predetermined responses.
This article examines the dynamics of disagreement among individuals with unequal power in both English and Vietnamese contexts It highlights the cultural nuances in pragmatic approaches to conflict and disagreement By analyzing cross-cultural communication, the study reveals how power imbalances influence conversational strategies and politeness norms The findings provide insights into effective communication practices in multicultural environments, emphasizing the importance of understanding cultural differences in pragmatic interactions.
Discourse completion tasks (DCT) are a primary type of production-elicitation instrument, as described by Cohen (1996: 25) These tasks involve a brief written description of a situation, which can be presented in either the native or target language There are two main formats for these tasks: the first is open-ended elicitations, where a prompt is provided, followed by a space for respondents to write their answers The second format is specifically known as the discourse completion test (DCT), which structures responses in a more guided manner.
In Kulka's 1982 study, the discourse is designed with both open and closed elements, facilitating a speech act alongside a response An example of this is demonstrated through an open-ended completion task.
In this exercise, you will encounter various scenarios that are set in the United States For each situation presented, respond as if you were engaging in a casual conversation Be sure to articulate your thoughts clearly and naturally in English, reflecting how you would typically communicate in everyday interactions.
As I was heading out of my large apartment building for work, I unexpectedly ran into my next-door neighbor, someone I hadn't seen in quite a while Our brief encounter brought back memories of our past conversations and reminded me of the sense of community we share in this bustling environment.
Now, this open-ended completion task can be compared with a DCT below
Dan: Ron, I found a great apartment, but I have a problem I have to pay the landlady $500 deposit by tonight
Ron: And you haven’t got it?
Dan: No I’ll get my salary only next week
- Ron: Sorry, no I’m out of money right now
(Blum-Kulka, 1982 in Margalef-Boada, 1993: 36)
Researchers have extensively utilized the Discourse Completion Test (DCT) for data collection Initially developed by Levenston and Blum in 1978 for lexical simplification, the DCT was first applied to speech act realizations by Blum-Kulka in 1982 This led to a series of studies examining various speech acts across cultures using the DCT methodology.
Research design
2.2.1 Data collection instruments 2.2.1.1 Meta-pragmatic assessment questionnaires (MAQ)
The MAQ was developed to assess subjects' perceptions of P, D, and Se, and exists in two versions: Vietnamese and English Initially, the Vietnamese version was administered to the VNS on two separate occasions, fourteen days apart, followed by its delivery to the VLE Meanwhile, the English version was provided to the ANS.
Both versions contain thirty identical situations tailored for four distinct contexts: family, university, work, and social The family context, encompassing situations 1 to 6, features roles such as parent and child or husband and wife, highlighting interpersonal dynamics.
In both university and workplace environments, individuals navigate various roles, such as lecturer and student or manager and employee Additionally, social interactions involve addressing people with differing levels of power, influenced by factors like gender, social and economic status, physical strength, age, and intellectual capacity Understanding these dynamics is crucial for effective communication and relationship-building in diverse contexts.
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals of unequal power in both English and Vietnamese contexts, highlighting the implications of cultural pragmatics By examining how power differentials influence communication styles, the research provides a detailed analysis of these interactions Chapter three offers an in-depth description of the roles and contexts involved in the investigated situations, shedding light on the nuances of cross-cultural communication.
In each situation, the subject must assess the relative power dynamics and social distance between themselves and the addressee, as well as the level of formality required This involves determining their status in relation to the addressee—whether it is lower, equal, or higher—understanding their level of acquaintance—ranging from not acquainted to well acquainted—and evaluating the formality of the communication setting, which can be categorized as formal, semi-formal, or informal.
Please review the scenarios on the following pages thoroughly and indicate your responses Based on Australian culture, assess your status relative to your communication partner—whether it is lower, equal, or higher Additionally, evaluate your level of acquaintance with the partner—ranging from not at all to very well—and classify the formality of the communication setting as formal, semi-formal, or informal.
How high is your status?
How well-acquainted you are?
How formal is the setting?
When discussing holiday plans at home, a disagreement arises between you and your parent; while they favor a relaxing seaside resort, you express a strong preference for exploring a vibrant modern city.
A full English version and Vietnamese version is presented in Appendix A
As possibly observed, the variables operated in the MPQ can be put in two groups: independent variables and dependent variables The independent variables are
This study investigates the dynamics of disagreement among power unequals in English and Vietnamese, focusing on cross-cultural pragmatics It examines different subject groups, including Vietnamese native speakers (VNS), Vietnamese learners of English (VLE), and American native speakers (ANS) The research analyzes key dependent variables: Power (P), Distance (D), and Social Engagement (Se), shedding light on how cultural contexts influence communicative strategies in disagreement scenarios.
In this study, the variable P is categorized into three distinct values: -P, =P, and +P The numerical representations are as follows: -P is denoted by 1, =P by 2, and +P by 3 Specifically, -P indicates scenarios where S possesses less power than H, +P signifies situations where S holds more power than H, and =P describes circumstances in which S and H have equal power.
S and H are equal in power Since it is a study of disagreeing among power- unequals, -P and +P serve as the primary criteria for developing the DCT
In this study, the variable D signifies the social distance between interactants and is categorized into three values: “–D” for situations where S and H are almost strangers, “=D” for acquaintances who know each other but lack a close relationship, and “+D” for well-acquainted individuals with a close bond The numerical representations are 1 for –D, 2 for =D, and 3 for +D While the primary focus is on interactions among individuals with unequal power dynamics, understanding D is essential as it enhances the interpretation of production data in the DCT, revealing how varying social distances influence the choice of politeness strategies.
“Se” is the next dependent variable in the study which again has three values: +Se,
The article discusses the communication settings categorized by Se: "+Se" for formal environments, "=Se" for semi-formal contexts, and "–Se" for informal situations In this framework, the numerical inputs of 1, 2, and 3 correspond to these settings, respectively Se serves as a dependent variable, providing valuable insights into interactions among individuals with unequal power dynamics.
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores the nuances of disagreement in communication between individuals of differing power dynamics in both English and Vietnamese contexts It highlights how cultural differences influence the strategies employed in expressing disagreement, emphasizing the importance of understanding these variations for effective cross-cultural interactions The research provides valuable insights into pragmatic approaches to disagreement, showcasing the interplay between language, culture, and power relations.
The DCT was created in two distinct versions: the Vietnamese version, which was provided to the VNS, and the English version, delivered to the VLE and ANS.
The DCT, designed based on T-Test analysis results from the MAQ, features six statistically reliable situations that ensure validity These selected scenarios, specifically situations 1, 5, 9, 12, 13, and 27, were derived from the MPQ.
Situations 1 and 5 represent the family context in which situation 1 demonstrates the child-parent relationship (-P), whereas situation 5 demonstrates the parent-child interaction (+P) The university context is reflected in situations 9 and 12, in which situation 9 represents the student-lecturer relationship (-P), while situation 12 is a lecturer-student interaction (+P) The work context is represented by situation 13, which is a +P situation referring to the manager-employee relationship The social context is marked with situation 27 (-P) referring to age as an aspect of power through an interaction between a younger S and an elder H Thus, among the six DCT situations developed from the MAQ, there are three powerless situations (situations 1, 9, and 27) in which S has lower power than H and three powerful situations (situations 5, 12, and 3) in which S has higher power than H The situations are summarized in Table 2.2 regarding the result of the validity T-Test
Data analysis
The T-Test is employed to assess the validity of the MAQ data gathered from the VNS Additionally, Chi-square analysis is utilized to evaluate the participants' perceptions and application of disagreeing politeness strategies across three distinct groups, as outlined by Brown and Levinson's framework.
(1987) framework of politeness strategies is based on to build up the analytical framework for analyzing the disagreeing politeness strategies in the study
2.3.1 Validity test (T-Test) for developing data-gathering instrument (DCT) 2.3.1.1 A description of the T-Test
MAQs were designed, delivered and collected
MAQs were delivered and collected
DCT were delivered and collected
6 situations to VNS, VLE, & ANS T-Test was done and DCTs were developed
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores the nuances of disagreement in interactions between individuals of differing power dynamics in both English and Vietnamese contexts It highlights how cultural factors influence the ways in which disagreement is expressed and managed, revealing significant differences and similarities in pragmatic approaches The research aims to enhance understanding of cross-cultural communication, particularly in professional and social settings where power imbalances exist By analyzing discourse patterns, the study contributes valuable insights into effective communication strategies in multicultural environments.
The T-Test serves as a validity assessment for the reliable situations selected for developing the DCT, determining whether subjects' perceptions of P, D, and Se remain consistent over time A non-significant difference in subjects' perceptions between the Test and Retest indicates that their perceptions are stable, confirming the reliability of the situation.
2.3.1.2 Interpretation of the T-Test scores
As seen in the MAQ, in each situation, the subject has to answer three questions:
1 How high is your status (i.e position or role), compared with the communicating partner’s: (1) lower, (2) equal, or (3) higher?
T-test: Research question: Is there a significant difference in VNS’s perception of the variables (P, D, and S) in the 30 investigated situations between the Test and Retest?
Selecting subjects – based on race, place of birth, & residence: Only the Kinh, born and resident in Ha Noi and surrounding areas were selected
NP N% boy Sts & 25 girl Sts representing the VNS
Same MAQ (30 situations) Same students (VNS) Pragmatic Assessment Test
Pragmatic Assessment Retest Compare the test mean scores between the Test & Retest within the same group
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores the nuances of disagreement in interactions where power dynamics are at play It examines how cultural differences between English and Vietnamese speakers influence their approaches to disagreement The research highlights the strategies employed by individuals in power-unequal situations, shedding light on the pragmatic implications of these interactions By analyzing language use and social context, the study provides valuable insights into effective communication across cultures, particularly in hierarchical relationships.
2 How well acquainted (or close) are you and the communicating partner: (1) not acquainted at all, (2) a little bit acquainted, or (3) well acquainted?
3 How formal is the communicating setting: (1) formal, (2) semi- formal, or (3) informal?
The initial inquiry aimed to evaluate the subject's perception of S's relative power (P) in relation to H A score of 1 indicates a low-power scenario where S possesses less power than H, while a score of 2 signifies an equal power dynamic between S and H Conversely, a score of 3 denotes a high-power situation, indicating that S holds greater power than H.
The second question was intended to study D, the social distance between S and H in each situation A score of 1 equals –D, meaning that the social distance between
The social distance between individuals S and H can be categorized based on specific scores A score of 0 indicates that S and H are completely unacquainted, while a score of 2, represented as =D, suggests a slight familiarity between them A score of 3, denoted as +D, indicates a close relationship where S and H are well acquainted.
Question 3 was for the assessment of the formality of the communication setting in three values: +Se, =Se, and -Se A score of 1 represents +Se which means a formal communication setting, a score of 2 represents =Se which is a semi-formal setting, and a score of 3 represents -Se referring to an informal setting
Based on data analysis, the values of P are categorized as follows: a consistent mean score of P between 1.0 and 1.5 is interpreted as -P, a score from 1.5 to 2.5 is seen as =P, and a score from 2.5 to 3.0 is identified as +P The validity of these values increases as the mean scores approach 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0.
Similarly, the consistent mean scores of D (over time) were interpreted as -D when they are in the range of 1.0 to 1.5, =D in the range of 1.5 to 2.5, and + D in the
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals of unequal power in English and Vietnamese contexts, focusing on cross-cultural pragmatics The research employs a scoring system, where scores ranging from 1.0 to 3.0 indicate the validity of disagreement strategies, with values closer to 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 reflecting the strength of negative, neutral, and positive disagreement, respectively Understanding these nuances can enhance intercultural communication and negotiation strategies.
In evaluating Se value, consistent mean scores indicate specific classifications: a score between 1.0 and 1.5 is categorized as +Se, a score from 1.5 to 2.5 is classified as =Se, and a score ranging from 2.5 to 3.0 is deemed -Se The validity of these classifications is reinforced by the proximity of the mean scores to their respective thresholds of 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0.
The mean score value of 1.5 serves as the threshold between categories -P and =P, -D and =D, as well as +Se and =Se In contrast, a mean score of 2.5 distinguishes between =P and +P, =D and +D, and =Se and -Se, as depicted in Figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4: Interpretation of P, D, and Se values in the T-Test
As for the test of the mean scores over time (Test and Retest), the interpretation is based on the following Null Hypothesis (H o Hypothesis)
H o Hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the mean scores of P, D, and Se between the Test and Retest
The significance level for rejecting the null hypothesis (H₀) was established at p ≤ 0.5 When p ≤ 0.5, H₀ is rejected, indicating a statistically significant difference in the mean scores of P, D, or Se Conversely, if p > 0.5, H₀ is accepted, suggesting that the differences in mean scores between the Test and Retest are not statistically significant, reflecting a consistent perception of P, D, or Se over time Therefore, scenarios where H₀ is accepted are deemed reliable.
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores the nuances of disagreement in communication between individuals of differing power dynamics in both English and Vietnamese contexts It highlights how cultural backgrounds influence conversational strategies and the expression of dissent, emphasizing the importance of understanding these differences for effective cross-cultural communication The research aims to provide insights into pragmatic approaches to disagreement, contributing to the broader field of intercultural pragmatics.
However, It is obvious that in some cases, the scores of P, D, or Se are 1.5 (in the border of -P and =P, -D and =D, +Se and =Se) or 2.5 (in the border of =P and +P,
The reliability of the situations in the study may be questioned, particularly when 50% of subjects rate a scenario as -P and the other 50% as +P, resulting in a mean score of =P, which contradicts individual ratings Although such a scenario is unlikely in practice, the validity and reliability of the six situations selected for developing the DCT were enhanced through frequency statistics and chi-square analysis For detailed results, please refer to Appendix C.
This study focuses on the strategies of disagreement in contexts where there is an imbalance of power Situations where the subjects (S) and holders (H) possess equal power were excluded from the analysis, ensuring that only valid scenarios were utilized in the development of the Disagreement Communication Tool (DCT) Detailed results from the T-Test can be found in Appendix C.
Sit.1 (-P+D-Se) 1.06 1.10 420 3.00 2.96 159 2.56 2.58 837 Sit.2 (+P+D-Se) 2.96 2.86 058 2.98 3.00 322 2.54 2.60 554 Sit.4 (-P+D=Se) 1.14 1.24 133 3.00 2.98 322 2.22 2.28 554
Sit.5 (+P+D-Se) 2.96 2.90 322 3.00 2.98 322 2.52 2.52 1.000 Sit.9 (-P=D=Se) 1.14 1.06 209 2.02 2.12 229 1.96 1.88 510 Sit.10 (-P=D=Se) 1.28 1.16 224 2.02 1.98 598 2.02 1.66 005 Sit.11 (+P=D=Se) 2.92 2.86 083 1.84 1.90 444 1.80 1.80 1.000
Sit.12 (+P=D=Se) 2.92 2.88 159 2.00 1.98 743 1.86 1.78 252 Sit.13 (+P=D+Se) 2.92 2.94 709 2.10 2.00 133 1.40 1.34 472 Sit.14 (+P+D=Se) 2.82 2.68 051 2.54 2.56 811 2.00 1.78 062
Table 2.1: 13 valid and reliable situations in which S & H are not equal in power
Among the thirty situations investigated, thirteen situations were perceived by the subjects as those in which S has either more power (seven situations) or less power
CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND PRAGMATIC
Power and language in social interactions in previous studies
3.1.1 The concept and nature of power in social interactions
The concept of power has been notified and clarified by many researchers (Brown
& Levinson, 1987; Wartenberg, 1990; Ng & Bradac, 1993; Watts, 1991, 2003; Hofstede, 1997, 1991, 2001; Locher, 2004)
Ng and Bradac (1993) introduce two key concepts of power: "power to," which refers to an individual's temporary ability to act, and "power over," which denotes the hierarchical relationships characterized by dominance and submission between individuals This relational aspect of power is particularly emphasized by Watts (2003), who notes that "power over" is manifested through institutional networks such as schools and governments, highlighting its realization through interactions in various contexts Wartenberg (1990) further elaborates on this relational dimension, asserting that power emerges from the interactions between those who are powerful and those who are subordinate Brown also contributes to the understanding of power, focusing on its defined facets and implications.
According to Brown & Gilman (1972, as cited in Spencer-Oatey, 1996), the concept of 'relative power' refers to a relationship between at least two communicators, emphasizing that power dynamics are nonreciprocal; meaning that both individuals cannot possess power simultaneously in the same behavioral context This framework highlights the varying degrees of influence one communicator may hold over another.
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores how individuals from different cultural backgrounds navigate disagreements, particularly in contexts where power dynamics are at play It highlights that in such interactions, the hearer often prioritizes their own agenda and self-assessment over that of the speaker, which can lead to significant implications for communication This research draws on the foundational work of Brown and Levinson (1987), emphasizing the complexities of politeness and power in cross-cultural exchanges Understanding these dynamics is crucial for effective communication in diverse settings.
Power distance, as defined by Hofstede (1991), refers to the extent to which less powerful members of an institution accept and expect unequal power distribution This concept aligns with Mulder's (1977) definition, which emphasizes the degree of inequality in power between individuals within the same social system Understanding power distance is crucial for analyzing interpersonal dynamics and institutional hierarchies.
Compared with power over discussed by Wartenberg (1990), power distance
Power distance, as discussed by Mulder (1977) and Hofstede (1991, 2001), examines the dynamics between the powerful and the powerless, emphasizing the extent of inequality within various social systems This concept varies across cultures, leading to distinct behavioral traits shaped by the way power is perceived and enacted in different societal contexts.
The nature of power, as discussed by authors such as Watts (1991, 2003) and Locher (2004), suggests that its exercise often involves conflict between interactants This conflict can arise from differing interests (Watts, 2003: 214) or the challenge of balancing the need to assert one’s argument while safeguarding the face of oneself and the addressee (Locher, 2004: 4).
Power, despite being defined through various technological terms by different authors, fundamentally represents an interpersonal dynamic of dominance and submission within institutionalized networks Its exercise inherently involves latent conflict and requires contextualization for a comprehensive understanding.
3.1.2 Previous studies of power and language in social interactions
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among power-unequal individuals in English and Vietnamese contexts, focusing on cross-cultural pragmatics It examines how cultural differences influence the way disagreements are expressed and managed, highlighting the role of power relations in communication The findings reveal significant variations in pragmatic strategies used by speakers from both cultures, emphasizing the importance of understanding these nuances for effective intercultural communication By analyzing these interactions, the research contributes to a deeper understanding of how language and culture intersect in the realm of disagreement.
As stated, the power concept and its interconnectedness with communication and society have been investigated by a number of researchers, including Hofstede
(1991, 2001), Ng & Bradac (1993), Spencer-Oatey (1996, 1997), Holmes (1985,
1992, 2003) and Locher’s (2004) Other researchers whose studies or discussions more or less related to the concept of power include Leech (1983), B&L (1987), Tanen (1987), Wartenberg (1990), Wierzbicka (1996), Rees-Miller (2000), Gipson
(2002), Samovar & Porter (2001), Ting-Toomey & Chung (2005), Fairclough
Despite contributions from researchers like Nguyen Quang and Nguyen Quang Ngoan, comprehensive studies on the dynamics of power in social interactions specific to the Vietnamese context remain scarce.
3.1.3 Major findings and shortcomings in the previous studies of power 3.1.3.1 Power and language are closely interconnected
The correlation between language and power has been discussed by a number of researchers
According to Thomas (1985), the dynamics of power and the prevailing social norms within communication institutions play a crucial role in how discourse is created and understood She emphasizes that the power dynamics among participants and the institutional frameworks governing their interactions are key factors influencing the formation and interpretation of individual statements.
B&L (1987) emphasize that social distance and the rating of imposition, along with relative power, are key factors in understanding linguistic politeness strategies, particularly in the context of face-threatening acts (FTAs) Their model outlines various politeness strategies for performing FTAs and discusses the factors that influence the selection of these strategies, highlighting that more direct approaches to disagreement may be employed under certain circumstances.
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals of unequal power in English and Vietnamese contexts, focusing on cross-cultural pragmatics It highlights that speakers with greater power tend to prefer more direct strategies when expressing disagreement Understanding these differences is crucial for effective communication across cultures, as it sheds light on how power dynamics influence conversational strategies in both languages.
Holmes (1992) supports B&L's (1987) view that relative power and social status are essential factors in sociolinguistic studies She highlights how these power dynamics lead to significant linguistic variations, suggesting that individuals' speech patterns reflect their social status within a community.
Along with this line of argument on the correlation of language and power, Tanen
In her 1987 study, the author explores the multifaceted nature of language in reflecting power dynamics and social solidarity She argues that the same linguistic tools can express both power and solidarity, illustrated by the use of first names: a sign of friendship or an indication of hierarchical superiority.
In their comprehensive study on the dynamics of power in verbal interactions, Ng and Bradac assert that language both influences and is influenced by societal power relations They demonstrate that language not only reveals and creates power but also reflects and can obscure or depoliticize it Furthermore, Ng emphasizes that the language employed by those in power differs from that of the powerless, and even when similar language is utilized by both groups, it must be interpreted in distinct ways.
Perception of P in the present study
This article presents and discusses the results of subjects' perceptions of power (P) across various situations within different groups Power is categorized into three values: -P (low power), =P (equal power), and +P (high power) The focus is on -P and +P situations, which represent unequal power dynamics where one subject (S) holds less or more power than another (H) The analysis is structured around four key contexts: family (situations 1 to 6), university (situations 7 to 12), work (situations 13 to 18), and social settings (situations 19 to 30), providing a comprehensive exploration of power perceptions among the subjects.
3.2.1 The perception of P in the family context
Of the six investigated situations in the family context, as perceived by the VNS, situation 3 and situation 6 are equal-power situations, while the other four are unequal-power ones
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals of unequal power in both English and Vietnamese contexts It focuses on cross-cultural pragmatics, examining how cultural norms influence the ways in which disagreement is expressed and managed The research highlights the differences and similarities in communicative strategies between the two languages, providing insights into the role of power dynamics in interpersonal communication Understanding these variations can enhance cross-cultural communication and improve interactions in diverse settings.
3.2.1.1 Equal-power situations in the family context
Situation 3 and situation 6 reflecting the husband-wife interaction at home were perceived by the subjects as =P situations Here are the results of the chi-square statistics of the situations
Situation 3 represents the wife-husband interaction at home on the topic of redecorating the house
+P≈ High Power *** ≈ p≤0.001 ≡ ≈ all or none
(These same abbreviations and conventions are applied to all the tables in this chapter)
Table 3.3: Family equal-power situations (Sit 3 and 6)
Graph 3.1A: Sit.3, husband- wife, house decoration
Graph 3.1B: Sit 6, husband- wife, diary
Graph 3.1: Family equal-power situations (Sit 3 and 6)
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores the nuances of disagreement in interactions where power dynamics are at play It examines how cultural differences influence the ways individuals express disagreement, particularly between English and Vietnamese speakers The research highlights the pragmatic strategies employed in these contexts, shedding light on the implications for effective communication across cultures Understanding these dynamics is essential for fostering better interpersonal relationships and minimizing misunderstandings in cross-cultural exchanges.
The chi-square statistics indicate that the differences in participants' perception of P are not significant, with an unexpected lack of variation in the perception of =P Remarkably, 49 out of 50 subjects across all three groups believed that S and H in situation 3 held equal power As illustrated in Table 3.3 and Graph 3.1A, nearly 98% of participants in all groups perceived this scenario as an equal-power situation.
In situation 6, a wife-husband interaction centers on the wife's reaction to her husband reading her diary without permission A significant majority of participants across three groups (VNS, ANS, and VLE) perceived the power dynamics as equal, with 94%, 76%, and 98% agreement, respectively Chi-square statistics indicate no significant differences in power perception between the VNS and VLE However, a notable statistical difference (p≤0.01) exists between the VNS and ANS regarding the perception of the situation as equal power (=P) and positive power (+P) Specifically, only 4% of the VNS viewed it as +P, compared to 20% of the ANS, highlighting that while both groups largely agree on equal power, a significant portion of the ANS perceives the situation as +P This discrepancy may stem from the cultural emphasis on negative politeness in English-speaking contexts, leading some to feel that the wife has more power due to the violation of her privacy.
3.2.1.2 Unequal-power situations in the family context
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals of unequal power in both English and Vietnamese contexts It highlights the cultural pragmatics that influence how disagreements are expressed and managed across these two languages By examining the nuances of communication styles, the research aims to provide insights into the impact of power relations on conversational practices Understanding these differences can enhance cross-cultural communication and foster better interactions in diverse settings.
In family dynamics, power imbalances were identified through two scenarios of powerlessness (situations 1 and 4) and two scenarios of power (situations 2 and 5), with a notable divergence in perspective observed in situation 4 regarding the ANS.
3.2.1.2.1 Powerless situations in the family context
Situation 1 and situation 4 representing the child-parent interaction in the family context were categorized as powerless situations The results of the chi-square analysis of P perception by the three groups of subjects are presented in table 3.4
Table 3.4: Family powerless situations (Sit 1 and 4)
Graph 3.2A: Sit 1, child-parent, house decoration
Graph 3.2B: Sit 4, child-parent, diary
Graph 3.2: Family powerless situations (Sit 1 and 4)
Situation 1 describes an interaction at home between a child and his/her parent on the topic of redecorating the house As observed in table 3.4, a majority of subjects in all the three groups thought that it was a -P situation This is shown in the frequency description as 94% of the VNS, 66% of the ANS, and 90% of the VLE
The study "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" reveals that both Vietnamese native speakers (VNS) and Australian native speakers (ANS) perceived a specific situation as -P, indicating a lack of significant differences in their perceptions Notably, 94% of VNS identified it as -P, compared to only 66% of ANS Additionally, a higher percentage of ANS rated the situation as =P and -P, suggesting that ANS are more inclined to view the situation positively than VNS These findings support the hypothesis that Australian culture exhibits a smaller power distance compared to Vietnamese culture, as illustrated by the significant differences in perception highlighted in the study's statistics and graphical representations.
Situation 4 highlights the child-parent relationship, specifically when a parent reads their child's diary without permission, violating the child's privacy Data indicates no inverse perception of this situation among the VNS and VLE groups, as both saw it largely as a powerless scenario, with 88% of VNS and 82% of VLE agreeing However, significant differences emerged between the VNS and ANS regarding their perceptions of the situation, with a 99.9% confidence level (p≤0.001) While 88% of VNS viewed it as a negative situation, only 12% of ANS shared that perspective Conversely, 64% of ANS considered it a neutral situation, compared to just 10% of VNS This reinforces the hypothesis that Australia is perceived as a smaller-distance culture than Vietnam.
3.2.1.2.2 Powerful situations in the family context
The study "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores how disagreement is expressed in English and Vietnamese contexts, particularly when there is a power imbalance It highlights the cultural nuances that influence communication strategies, revealing distinct approaches to managing disagreement based on social hierarchy The research emphasizes the importance of understanding these pragmatic differences for effective cross-cultural interactions and conflict resolution By examining the linguistic and contextual factors involved, the study contributes to a deeper appreciation of intercultural communication dynamics.
Situations 2 and 5, illustrated with table 3.5 and graph 3.3A and 3.3B, remain the two representatives of powerful situations in the family context
Table 3.5: Family powerful situations (Sit 2 and 5)
Graph 3.3A: Sit 2, parent-child, house decoration
Graph 3.3B: Sit.5, parent-child, diary
Graph 3.3: Family powerful situations (Sit 2 and 5)
Situation 2 represents the parent-child interaction at home on the topic of redecorating the house The results of the chi-square statistics in table 3.6 show that there were no significant differences between the VNS and VLE in their perception of the situation as -P, =P, and +P It is amazing that exactly the same number of subjects in both groups considered the situation as a +P situation (96%) and as a =P one (4%) None of the subjects in either group perceived it as a -P situation It can be interpreted that there was no inverse PT in this situation However, according to the chi-square statistics, there were significant differences (p≤0.001) between the VNS and ANS in their perception of the situation as +P and = P These differences
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" reveals significant differences in perceptions of power dynamics between Vietnamese and Australian participants Graph 3.3A and Table 3.5 illustrate that while 96% of Vietnamese respondents viewed a specific situation as one of power imbalance (+P), only 68% of Australian respondents shared this perspective Notably, 30% of Australians considered the parent-child relationship in this context to be equal in power These findings reinforce the hypothesis that Vietnam exhibits a higher power distance culture compared to Australia.
3.2.1.3 Concluding remarks of P perception in the family context
The statistical results of P perception across six family context situations, analyzed by three subject groups, have been presented and discussed, revealing significant findings.
CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND PRAGMATIC
Disagreeing politeness strategies realized in the invested situations
4.1.1 Disagreeing strategies based on B&L’s Framework
The study identified twenty-eight disagreeing politeness strategies based on B&L’s framework, utilized as either standalone strategies or in combinations Each strategy is briefly discussed with examples from the collected data, although some strategies lack examples from certain subject groups due to their absence in the data The provided examples are representative and do not encompass all aspects of each strategy, with key elements highlighted For a comprehensive understanding of each strategy, refer to B&L (1987, pp 91-227), and for additional examples of disagreeing strategies and combinations, consult Appendix B.
The primary motivation for utilizing the bald on record (bald-on R) approach is that the speaker aims to achieve the goal of face-threatening acts (FTA) with optimal efficiency, prioritizing effectiveness over maintaining the listener's face.
(4.1) What you did was wrong … (Sit 5 – ANS) (4.2) I’m not pleased with what you have done … (Sit 27 – VLE) (4.3) Làm gì có Tôi nói nhỏ đấy chứ (Sit 27 – VNS)
Do what for yes-I-talk-softly- … (No, I’m talking softly …) 4.1.1.2 Positive politeness
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals of unequal power in both English and Vietnamese contexts By examining cross-cultural pragmatics, it highlights how cultural norms influence communication styles and disagreement strategies The research reveals significant differences in how power dynamics shape the expression of dissent, providing valuable insights for effective intercultural communication Understanding these nuances is essential for fostering respectful dialogue and minimizing misunderstandings in diverse settings.
Individuals may manipulate their statements to create an illusion of agreement or to mask their true dissent, often using token agreements, pseudo-agreements, white lies, or polite hedging to soften their opinions.
(4.4) I think blue is OK but white will last longer and not dated (Sit 1 – ANS) (4.5) OK, but you should try your best … (Sit 13 – VLE)
(4.6) Màu xanh cũng rất đẹp nhưng con thích màu trắng hơn (Sit.1 – VNS)
Blue-also-very-nice-but-I-like-white-more (Blue is also very nice, but I prefer white.)
4.1.1.2.2 Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants
S may indicate that S and H are cooperators to persuade H to cooperate with S by asserting or implying S’s knowledge of or concern for H’s wants and showing S’s willingness to meet them
(4.7) I understand that you would like assignment in on time … (Sit 9 – ANS) (4.8) I know you like blue, but … (Sit 1 – VLE)
(4.9) …Con biết bố mẹ muốn sơn nhà màu xanh nhưng … (Sit.1 – VNS)
I-know-parents-want-paint-house-blue-but …(… I know you want to paint the house blue but …)
4.1.1.2.3 Presuppose/ raise/ assert common ground (henceforth Common G)
Doing this strategy, S has ample opportunity to stress the common ground (common concerns and common attitudes towards interesting events) that he shares with H
I learned about this at university as well I suggest we consider painting our house white, as I believe that color would suit our home better.
I-think-white-will-fit in-our house-more (I think white fit in our house better) 4.1.1.2.4 Condolence, encouragement (henceforth Encourage)
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores how disagreement is expressed in contexts where power dynamics differ between speakers in English and Vietnamese cultures It examines the pragmatic strategies employed by individuals when navigating disagreements, highlighting cultural variations in communication styles This research contributes to understanding intercultural communication and the role of power in shaping conversational dynamics, emphasizing the importance of context in pragmatic analysis.
Nguyen Quang (2004: 78-84) introduces a strategy within B&L’s framework that emphasizes showing sympathy, understanding, or cooperation through actions such as condoling or encouraging Notably, this strategy was absent in the Australian data.
(4.13) … They are easy You only need to work hard, and then you can finish them (Sit
12 – VLE) (4.14) Cô nghĩ là đề tài không quá khó Chỉ cần các em cố gắng một chút (Sit 12 – VNS)
I-think-topic-not-too-difficult Only-need-you-try-a bit.(I don’t think the topic is too difficult You just need to try a little bit.)
4.1.1.2.5 Give gifts (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation) to H
S can fulfill H's positive desires through the act of gift-giving, which encompasses both physical gifts and the emotional needs for connection, such as being liked, admired, cared for, and understood However, this approach was not observed in the Vietnamese context.
(4.15) … How are you today, anyway? (Sit 27 – ANS) (4.16) … Have a good trip, Sir (Sit 27 – VLE) 4.1.1.2.6 Use in-group identity markers (henceforth In-group)
S can effectively implement this strategy through various methods that communicate in-group memberships These methods include specific address forms, the use of particular languages or dialects, specialized jargon or slang, and the use of ellipsis.
(4.17) No Mum, white must look much better (Sit.1 – ANS) (4.18) Dad, I also like blue but …(Sit 1 – VLE)
(4.19) Bố ơi! Con thích màu trắng hơn (Sit 1 VNS)
Daddy! I-like-white-more (Daddy, I prefer white.) 4.1.1.2.7 Include both S and H in the activity (henceforth Include S & H)
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores the nuances of disagreement in interactions where power dynamics differ between speakers It examines how cultural contexts influence communication strategies in both English and Vietnamese, highlighting the pragmatic approaches individuals take when addressing disagreements The research aims to shed light on the varying degrees of politeness, directness, and indirectness employed in these interactions, ultimately contributing to a deeper understanding of cross-cultural communication.
By using an inclusive we form, including Let’s in English, when S really means you or me, he can call upon cooperative assumptions and thereby redress to possible
(4.20) Let’s have a look at the work we’ve got to cover … (Sit 12 – ANS) (4.21) … Please, let’s choose white, Dad
(4.22) … Có gì thì góp ý để chúng ta cùng thay đổi cho hợp lý (Sit 12 – VNS)
If you have any suggestions, please share them so we can collaboratively implement reasonable changes.
4.1.1.2.8 Intensify interest to H (henceforth Interest)
S can enhance engagement in conversations by employing tag questions or phrases that invite H to participate, like “you know?”, “see what I mean?”, or “isn’t it?” However, this tactic was absent in the data from Australian and Vietnamese learners.
(4.23) Đây là những bài tiểu luận rất thú vị và bổ ích, các em biết không? (Sit 12 – VNS)
These-are-essays-very interesting-and-useful, you-know-or not? (These are extremely useful and interesting assignments, you know?)
In this strategy, S presumes that H shares S's desires and will assist in achieving them, reflecting S's expectation of H's cooperation This assumption implies a mutual commitment, as S is equally bound to support H in their endeavors.
(4.24) I trust in your ability to complete this report in the shortest possible time (Sit 13 –
(4.25) … We should paint it white I’m sure you agree that it will look more beautiful (Sit
1 – VLE) (4.26) Con chắc bố mẹ cũng thích màu trắng nên sẽ chiều con mà (Sit 1 – VNS)
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals of unequal power in both English and Vietnamese contexts, highlighting the nuances of cross-cultural pragmatics It examines how power imbalances influence communication styles and the strategies employed to navigate disagreements The research aims to shed light on the cultural differences in expressing dissent and the implications for effective interpersonal communication By analyzing these interactions, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of how cultural factors shape the way disagreements are managed in varying power dynamics.
I-sure-parents-also-like-white-so-will-please-me (I’m sure you also like white and will please me.)
S asserts that their desires align with H's, committing to assist H in achieving those goals This dynamic emphasizes S's goodwill through offers and promises, highlighting their intention to fulfill H's positive-face needs.
Disagreeing politeness strategies in powerless situations
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals of unequal power in both English and Vietnamese contexts It examines how cultural norms influence the pragmatics of disagreement, highlighting the differences and similarities in communicative strategies By analyzing these interactions, the research sheds light on the impact of power relations on discourse and offers insights into cross-cultural communication Understanding these nuances is essential for effective dialogue in multicultural settings.
Situation 1 describes an interaction between a child (S) and his/her parent (H) at home on the topic of redecorating the house The statistic results of the subject’s perception of P, D, and Se in the situation by all the three groups are presented in table 4.1
The chi-square statistics reveal significant differences in the perceptions of VNS, ANS, and VLE regarding power dynamics, with 94% of ANS and 90% of VLE viewing the situation as -P, compared to only 66% of ANS In contrast, 6% of ANS perceived it as =P, while none of the VNS and VLE saw it as +P, and only 6% of ANS did These findings indicate that Vietnam exhibits a higher power-distance culture than Australia, as a greater proportion of VNS and VLE believe that children hold less power than parents, whereas more ANS view children as equal or even possessing more power than their parents.
(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 1
All participants across the three groups unanimously agreed that the situation represented a +D scenario, indicating a strong familiarity between S and H.
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals of unequal power in both English and Vietnamese contexts, focusing on cross-cultural pragmatics It examines how cultural norms and communication styles influence the way disagreements are expressed and managed in these two languages By analyzing various interactions, the research highlights the differences and similarities in pragmatic approaches to disagreement, emphasizing the importance of understanding cultural nuances in effective communication The findings aim to enhance awareness of cross-cultural communication strategies, particularly in situations involving power imbalances.
The chi-square statistics reveal significant differences in the perception of the situation among VNS, ANS, and VLE groups regarding Se, specifically in their classifications of -Se, =Se, and +Se.
In a comparative analysis, 64% of the VNS and 80% of the VLE rated the situation positively, while a significant 96% of the ANS shared this sentiment Conversely, 28% of the VNS and 14% of the VLE classified it as a neutral situation, in stark contrast to only 4% of the ANS Additionally, while 8% of the VNS and 6% of the VLE viewed it as a negative situation, none of the ANS held this perspective This indicates that the ANS tends to exhibit a less formal outlook compared to both the VNS and VLE.
Despite notable differences in the perception of power (P) and social environment (Se) between the VNS, ANS, and VLE groups, most participants across all three groups viewed the situation as -P, +D, and -Se This indicates that, according to the majority, in scenario 1, the subject (S) holds less power than the host (H), is familiar with H, and the context is informal.
Table 4.2: Realization of 6 major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 1
Graph 4.1: Realization of 6 major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation
Bald-on R Positive P Negative P Off-record Mixed No FTA
Graph 4.1: Realization of 6 major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 1
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores the nuances of disagreement in interactions where power dynamics are present It examines how cultural contexts influence communicative strategies in both English and Vietnamese, highlighting the differences and similarities in pragmatic approaches Understanding these variations can enhance cross-cultural communication and improve interpersonal relations in diverse settings The research emphasizes the importance of recognizing power imbalances and their impact on conversational dynamics, offering valuable insights for effective dialogue across cultures.
The realizations of six major groups of disagreeing politeness strategies used by the three groups in situation 1 are illustrated with table 4.2 and graph 4.1
Table 4.2 reveals significant differences in chi-square statistics (p≤0.05) between the VNS and ANS, as well as the VLE and ANS, in the use of positive P strategies Notably, a higher proportion of subjects employed positive P strategies, with VNS at 52% and VLE at 48%, compared to ANS at only 30% These findings illustrate cultural differences in communication strategies and support the hypothesis that Vietnamese speakers utilize positive P strategies more frequently than their Australian counterparts.
Statistically significant differences were observed between the VNS and ANS regarding the use of mixed strategies, with only 26% of the VNS employing this approach compared to 42% of the ANS (p≤0.05) However, this disparity did not negatively impact performance, as 52% of the VLE utilized the mixed strategy, a figure not significantly different from the 42% of the ANS It is important to highlight that a considerable number of subjects across all groups employed a combination of strategies.
The percentages of VNS, ANS and VLE using the negative P were 8%, 18% and
The study revealed significant differences in the use of negative P and off-record responses between VLE and ANS, with p-values of ≤0.01 and ≤0.05, respectively Despite these differences, they do not suggest a negative PT Interestingly, more ANS participants utilized negative P compared to VNS, although this difference was not statistically significant.
None of the participants in the three groups selected the no FTA option, with only a small percentage opting for the bald-on-record strategy: 10% from the VNS group, 4% from the ANS group, and none from the VLE group This may indicate that the speaker (S) holds less power in the communication context.
The study titled "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores the nuances of disagreement in interactions where power dynamics are at play It examines how cultural contexts influence the ways individuals express disagreement, particularly in English and Vietnamese settings The research highlights the differences in pragmatic strategies employed by speakers from these two cultures, shedding light on the implications for effective communication across cultural boundaries Understanding these variations is crucial for fostering better interpersonal relationships and enhancing cross-cultural communication skills.
Table 4.3 provides detailed insights into the use of disagreeing strategies, categorized into twelve subgroups, while Graph 4.2 visually represents this data Notably, six subgroups—multiple N, multiple O, P + O, N + O, P + N + O, and no FTA—were not observed in situation 1.
Table 4.3: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 1
Graph 4.2: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 1
Graph 4.2: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 1
The single P was used by 18% of the VNS, 20% of the ANS but only 6% of the
VLE According to the chi-square statistics, the difference between the VLE and ANS in their use of this group was significant (p≤0.05) However, this difference
Major findings
1.1 On inverse PT and CC differences in power perception
The study examined power perception across thirty scenarios categorized into four contexts: family, university, work, and society It focused on the relative roles, such as the dynamics between a child and a parent, and various aspects of power, including age and gender.
Inverse PT is a rare occurrence in this study, representing just 4.44% of all cases examined Notably, it is completely absent in family, university, and work contexts, and it is infrequently observed in social contexts, where it constitutes only 11.11% of the cases.
The findings support the idea that Vietnam exhibits a higher power distance culture compared to Australia, although Australia does not entirely represent a low power distance society This cultural difference is most evident in family settings, less so in university environments, and least noticeable in workplace contexts.
In family dynamics, parent-child interactions (situations 2 and 5) are predominantly viewed as positive experiences by a greater number of VNS compared to ANS, while fewer VNS perceive them as neutral Conversely, child-parent interactions (situation 1) are considered negative by more VNS than ANS, with fewer VNS rating them as neutral Additionally, in mature child-parent interactions (situation 4), most VNS view the situation negatively, whereas a significant portion of ANS regard it as neutral.
In university settings, both student-lecturer and lecturer-student interactions often reveal a perceived power imbalance, with a significant number of individuals in both groups recognizing this inequality Notably, more VNS (Very Non-Satisfied) participants than ANS (Average Non-Satisfied) individuals acknowledge these dynamics in situations where power disparities are evident.
This study explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals of unequal power in English and Vietnamese contexts It highlights that fewer Vietnamese native speakers (VNS) perceive certain situations as equal power dynamics compared to American native speakers (ANS) The research emphasizes the cultural nuances in how disagreement is navigated in these unequal power situations, shedding light on the pragmatic differences between the two languages.
In the workplace, interactions such as manager-employee (situations 13 and 14) and employee-boss (situation 16) are perceived as unequal-power dynamics by more Vietnamese than Australians, suggesting that Vietnam may exhibit a higher power distance culture compared to Australia Although these findings are not statistically significant (p>0.05), they provide some support for this hypothesis Interestingly, situation 15 (junior-senior interaction) is viewed as an equal-power situation by a majority of Vietnamese respondents, while a significant number of Australians see it as unequal, highlighting a cultural divergence in perceptions of power dynamics.
In both cultures, gender, economic status, and physical strength are not the primary determinants of power; instead, age, intellectual capacity, and authoritative status play significant roles Specifically, age is a more prominent factor in Vietnam, while intellectual capacity is more emphasized in Australia Interestingly, authoritative status is observed to be more pronounced in Australia than in Vietnam, particularly in interactions between passengers and customs officers 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
In family dynamics, Situation 1 (-P+D-Se) illustrates a child-parent interaction where the child (S) holds less power than the parent (H) in an informal setting, highlighting their close social bond Conversely, Situation 9 (-P=D=Se) depicts a student-lecture interaction characterized by a semi-formal environment, where the student (S) again possesses less power than the lecturer (H), with a slight familiarity between them Additionally, Situation 27 (-P-D-Se) represents an interaction between a younger individual and an elder, further emphasizing the varying power dynamics in different social contexts.
This article explores the dynamics of disagreement among individuals with unequal power in English and Vietnamese contexts, emphasizing cross-cultural pragmatics It examines various interaction scenarios, such as informal settings where the speaker (S) has less power than the hearer (H) and they are not acquainted Additionally, it analyzes parent-child interactions, where S holds more power and they share a close social bond The study also includes semi-formal lecturer-student exchanges, where S has more power but there is some familiarity, as well as formal manager-employee interactions characterized by a power imbalance and slight acquaintance Understanding these nuances is crucial for effective communication across cultures.
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
When the major groups of strategies are examined, PT appears in five out of six situations Particularly, in situation 1, the positive P is used by more VLE than
In situation 5, the bald-on record (R) strategy is preferred by a greater number of ANS users compared to VLE users, while the mixed strategy is favored by more VLE users than ANS In situation 9, the mixed strategy again sees more use among VLE users than ANS, whereas the no face-threatening act (FTA) strategy is utilized more by ANS than VLE In situation 12, the negative politeness (P) approach is employed more frequently by ANS than by VLE Finally, in situation 27, the bald-on R strategy is again more commonly used by ANS than by VLE.
In the analysis of subgroups, PT is present in five distinct situations Notably, in situation 1, multiple P forms are utilized more frequently by VLE compared to ANS Similarly, in situation 5, P+N combinations are also more prevalent among VLE than ANS This trend continues in situation 9, where P+N is again favored by VLE over ANS However, in situation 12, single N and multiple N forms are predominantly used by ANS, while multiple P and P+N are more commonly employed by VLE than ANS.
13, the multiple N is used by more ANS than VLE
It should also be noted that in many other cases, there remain significant differences between the VLE and ANS in their realizations of the strategy groups (i.e., those
The study "Disagreeing Among Power Unequals in English and Vietnamese: A Cross-Cultural Pragmatics Study" explores the nuances of disagreement in interactions between individuals of differing power dynamics in both English and Vietnamese contexts It highlights that while there are distinct cultural differences in how disagreement is expressed, these variations do not necessarily indicate negative politeness The findings suggest that understanding these cultural pragmatics is essential for effective communication across different social hierarchies.
Bald-on R VLEANS
No FTA VLE