MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING DONG THAP UNIVERSITY
LE THU HA
DIRECTNESS IN CONVERSATIONS IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE Ở- A COMPARATIVE STUDY
Branch: English Pedagogy Degree: Higher education
BA THESIS
Supervisor: Phan Ngoc Thach M.A
Trang 2I confirm that the thesis entitled ỘDirectness in conversations in American English and Vietnamese - A comparative studyỢ has been performed and interpreted exclusively by myself I clarify that the work is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the BA degree and has not been submitted elsewhere in any other form for the fulfillment of any degree or qualification
Trang 3ACKNOWLEGMENTS
I would first and foremost like to thank my supervisor, Phan Ngoc Thach M.A for giving me support, guideline, and feedback when I carried out my thesis
I would also like to extend my gratefulness to all of the teachers in Foreign Language Department who provide me with necessary help as well as good suggestions whenever I get into trouble
Last but not least, my special thanks are sincerely sent to my parents, my friends and so many others who continuously offer spiritual support and encouragement during the process of doing this thesis
Trang 4Students of English in Vietnam need a general consciousness of directness and indirectness since they will benefit in many aspects First, knowing how and when to use directness and indirectness for communicating purposes is a way serving politeness and face saving That good point is for social interaction In the field of teaching, directness and indirectness can be used by the teacher to balance the quality and quantity of work- share between the teacher and the students and improve the teacher-student relationship
Vietnamese students of English have difficulties in adjusting the degree of
directness and indirectness in their conversations Evidently, various cross- cultural
values build up diverse language styles Directness and indirectness in conversations do not except and the cultural gap between Eastern and Western countries
unintentionally causes difficulties for the students Moreover, the condition for
students to sharpen their flexibility in choosing appropriate degrees of directness and indirectness is still limited because their sensitivity to directness and indirectness 1s not put in the adequate attention
The thesis ỘDirectness in conversations in English and Vietnamese- A comparative studyỢ is carried out with four specific purposes The first purpose is to remind students of English of the values of directness and indirectness in aspects of life and career as discussing about the importance of directness and indirectness Secondly, a general summary about directness and indirectness is given to provide people with a firm
foundation about directness and indirectness Thirdly, directness in English as well as
Trang 5CONTENT I5 Ôi .V.VNIÔ))EHtd 1 ACKNOWLEGMENTTS - L LH Tờ 1 / in) v.(G(lJÚ% ằ 11 CONTENT LH nọ kh 1 0:0 4 Ii\4Ọ 4ệ) )đẶ ệỌ Ọ¡93))EiiđiáắđdỎ 4 I0 /(Uio dtddddtdadẦẢẦ 4 I0 000/00/0 2 (+ 5 IRONMINI váy i00) 000 1 ẠOOÝÝ 5 I N20 000602 U0ỉì 0 IẠIẠIẠIIŨ 6 I0 iá0i2200) 000) l2 7 IN,N9)y32:00107/:1019)) 09) 0)ì)-lđìì:=-:aaiaiiiiaiii 8 ử0: 0.1 9 IBINSIG.VNDI4504 5) AIs)x:iiiiiiiii 9 ỘJin coam Ở 9 2.1.1 `AÁ successfuÌ COnVẠTSAfIOI HH ni và 9 2.1.2 Cooperatlon 1n CORVẠTSAfIOTI S 090011019 1 111 vn ng kg 10 2.1.3 Speech acts 20 ccccceccccccssssssececceceeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeseeeeceeeesaeaeeeeeeeeseeaganeeess 11 2.2 Directness 1n CORVẠTSAfIOTS .- HH và 13 2.2.1 Definttion of direcfness 1n CORVẠTSAfIOTS SG SG và 13 2.2.2 The significance of directness 1N CONVETSALIONS .ccccccceceeeeseeeececeeeeeeeeeeees 14 2.2.3 The influences On directness USAGE ce ceeeeccceccecceeeneeeecceceeeaeseeeeeeeeeseeaaeeeens 14
Trang 600:0 ae 20 I/1530s19)9/9)89 Gà 3+ a 20 3.1 Research qUẠS(IOIS 1111 Q S911 1n ng và 20 SN >0 006 0ì9ì0ì0)1.6C 20 S5 in ae 20 3.2.2 The SUDJOCtS 20 3.3 Research DrOCẠdUTC - - 101111 nọ và 20 3.4 Research metHhO(S - - - + + 3002299131131 1 HH nh 21 SN Lo c6 nh 21 3.4.2 Material generalization .ccccceceecsseeeccecceeeeseeeeceeceeeaaseeeeeeeceeaaaeeeeeeeeeaenees 21 3.4.3 COMPALISON .La 21 B.S SUMIMALY 0 21 0010 Ở 22 0 9)/122 25119) ỀỀ41311 4 22 "hờ 22 4.1.1 Both Vietnamese and American English involve some commonly general purposes of using directness and indirectness 1n cCOnVerSafIO'S - - 22 4.1.2 Devices of indirectness are the same in Vietnamese and American English .22 4.1.2.1 Rhetorical strategies and markers .ccccceccccneseseeeeececceeeeeeeeeeeeeeenaaeeeeees 22 4.1.2.2 Lexical and Referential Markers - - + + << 31311 1 vs 24 4.1.2.3 Syntactic Markers and SfẨrUC{UTẠS S S11 r 26 4.1.3 Both Vietnamese and American use directness and indirectness abiding the COOperafIVẠ DTIICIDÌẠS 2 1+ 2908101101110 1111111 111 1n ng 26
Trang 7ADL Styles ca 27 ÔÝÔ P.00 Ầ 33 4.2.3 Reasons and purposes of using directness and 1ndirectness 37 4.3 Conclusion about directness and indirectness in American English and
VICINAMESE cee ceceececccceccececccceccecsccsceccecnccececsctscecsceceecscsceceectceectcesctseecscescnseecs 41
010/50 277 42
IMPLICATIƠONS - - HH HH no non no no ST nh nh ky 42
Trang 8INTRODUCTION
1.1Motivation
Ochs states that humans learn norms and rules of social interaction through
socialization in specific contexts (1986) Gayle (2002) also affirms that different
contexts regulate peopleỖs interaction behaviors and perceptions of behavioral interactions of others in various ways Therefore, people in different areas of the world behave differently Their behaviors also vary from one group to another in the same nation Differences also exist among various communities in terms of status, gender, and context Inevitably, it causes culture shocks According to Deena and Mara (1982), directness is one of the most necessary parts in the American English using Meanwhile, Jeffrey and Chinh (1997) believe that in
Asian cultures including Vietnamese one, directness is not a valued trait Hence,
there are significant differences in using directness between American English and Vietnamese, particularly in conversations Certainly, these differences can cause certain cross-cultural problems for American and Vietnamese speakers Approaching cross-culture seems to be one of the good ways to help students get used to diverse conducts and improve their communicative competence Learning the use of directness in conversations in the two languages is a very essential part to promote interactive effectiveness
Cross-cultural study demands learner remarkable efforts Therefore, doing research on the use of directness in conversations is believed to be one of the very first steps to approach it Because of the limited time of exposure to cross- culture, an absolute perception is obviously unconceivable to students of English at Dong Thap University However, learnersỖ capacity for understanding and interpreting communication styles and patterns will be widened once they work hard to deal with intercultural problems They not only can use appropriate styles
and patterns of communication, contact naturally but also can be more confident
Trang 9Conversations are very important in researches as well as in daily life People can raise communication effectiveness when they know the right way of exchange either directly or indirectly in daily language However, the number of communication styles is uncountable, which cause problems for students of English at Dong Thap University, especially students who work in English- speaking environment and communicate with English-speaking people Consequently, it is more and more essential for them to know how to use conversations effectively to promote their communication skills Actually, suitable directness in conversations and teaching support more flourishing
communication, improved achievements, better relationships, and successful
teaching
Such complexity and problems mentioned above, it makes the necessity of this thesis ỘDirectness in conversations in American English and Vietnamese - A comparative studyỢ The research needs to be done A desire to enrich knowledge of English is indispensible In addition, if the research is exact and becomes a
factual science one, it will be an adding reference about directness in
conversations for students of English at Dong Thap University 1.2 Aims of the study
The research aims to:
- Realize similarities and differences between American English and
Vietnamese directness in conversations
- Indicate implications of learning and using directness in conversations for students
- Support students in using conversationsỖ directness in both English and Vietnamese more effectively in order to avoid culture shocks
1.3 The research questions
Are there any similarities and differences in using directness in conversations between American English and Vietnamese?
Trang 10Directness plays a very essential role in daily life of American people as Deena and Mara say, ỘAmerican English strongly emphasizes directness in verbal interactionỢ (2002, p 20) They need brief and straight dialogues Deborah (2007) supposes that sometimes telling the complete truth can actually get communicators into trouble When people converse daily, unpredicted situations
may occur with their directness In addition, Gayle asserts, ỘThe more direct the
refusal, the more the threat to the personỖs face.Ợ (2002, p 3) Brown and Levinson (1987) affirm Ộsome degree of indirectness usually existsỖ? (p 56) To balance directness and indirectness in conversations is not easy Conversing used in the right way brings about a lot of advantages It gives people chances to develop their personality and emotion, spend time more effectively, and improve relationships and confidence
Appropriate directness in conversations helps people understand and support each other They could recognize what the partner needs and what they should do Also, they could acknowledge their strong points and weak points from which they could get lessons and experiences through frank advice Apposite conversations are good for communityỖs sake because it could increase the solidarity
Clever and straight conversations have positive psychological effects on students In teaching, the teacher evaluates his students constructively and gives them advice in a frank way, which could support students to know their strengths and shortcomings They may learn from the mistakes TeacherỖs advice shows students exactly what they need to do to perfect themselves Sincere and straight comments from the teacher could inspire students This makes the students feel that they are well-treated and cared
Trang 11teacher can adjust the way of teaching Moreover, open and _ practical conversations can improve the relationship between teacher and students In general, appropriate directness in conversations helps teaching and studying
more successful
In conclusion, appropriate directness helps people to avoid unexpected troubles and struggles appearing in daily conversations, as well it supports teacher to be helpful and reliable consultant This thesis ỘDirectness in conversations in American English and Vietnamese - A comparative studyỢ intentionally recommends directness in daily life talk and in teaching to students Furthermore, an exciting point is that directness in conversations between American English and Vietnamese are compared, which support students more cross cultural knowledge and appropriate way of using directness in conversations
1.5 Related previous study
Many scholars have been done researches on ỘdirectnessỢ Arthur (2001) performs ỘDirectness in the Use of African-American EnglishỢ He presented the
form, meaning and function of directness Nevertheless, his work is not a
comparative study and it is about African-American English only Gayle, Mahmoud, and Waguida (2002) are also successful with their thesis ỘDirectness vs Indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English communication styleỢ They make clear communication style, directness and indirectness in term of refusals Their results were analyzed according to the frequency of strategy usage and directness as related to country, gender, and status However, their study is a comparative study on Egyptian Arabic and American English Both of the works above are not related to Vietnamese language
Trang 12Do Thi Mai Thanh and Tran Thi Le Quynh in 2011 However, all the researches
mentioned above do not determine popularly same points and different points
between the
two languages
This thesis, a comparative study on directness in conversations in both American English and Vietnamese, will demonstrate some common similarities and differences between them, indicate implications of learning and using directness in conversations for students, and support them in using conversationsỖ directness in both English and Vietnamese more effectively in order to avoid culture
shocks
1.6 Organization of the thesis
The thesis comprises five main parts as introduction, literature review,
methodology, comparative study and implications
The first chapter, introduction, includes motivation, aims of the study, research
questions, significance of the study, previous related studies, and organization of
the thesis
The literature review chapter gives information about directness in conversations
with three sections The first one is about related theories, the second is about directness in conversations, and the last one is about low-context and
high-context cultures
The third chapter, methodical chapter, composes of research questions, research participants, research procedures, research methods, and summary
Comparative study chapter will show similarities and differences between directness in conversations in American English and Vietnamese
Trang 13Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Related theory
2.1.1 A successful conversation
Effective communication requires many things One of the requirements is the level of directness To make a successful conversation, people need to adjust the
level of directness and indirectness in it But first of all, a successful conversation
must be defined
Joan (2002) defined ỘConversation is discourse mutually constructed and
negotiated in time between speakers; it is usually informal and unplannedỢ (p 28) She also affirms that conversations usually occur in strings of related and combined utterances It means that each speaker is affected by what the previous speaker said, and what speaker says affects what the next speaker says
According to Joan (2002), a real conversation must perform required standards which are exchange structure, turn-taking, adjacency pairs, and sequences
Firstly, the exchange structure must be carried out in a fixed order of moves
There are three basic moves: the initiation, the response, and the follow-up which
is abbreviated into IRF (Initiation-Response-Follow-up) In other words, participants start up a conversation, response, and then follow up it
Secondly, turn-taking helps participants show their cooperation in conversations Next, adjacency pairs are known as frequently occurring patterns in pairs of utterances Particularly, the utterance of one speaker makes a certain response of the next speaker
Trang 14embedded within other adjacency pairs Openings tend to contain a greeting, an enquiry after health and past reference Pre-closing can be drawn out on occasions and it can be long in British and North American conversations (Joan, 2002)
A successful conversation brings people a lot of benefits such as widening and deepening peopleỖs relationship ỘEven the most casual of conversations have an interactional function Casual conversations in parties can have the practical task of ascertaining whether the future social cohesion is possible or desirable and, for some, whether establishing an intimate relationship is going to be feasibleỢ said
Joan in 2002 (p.28)
2.1.2 Cooperation in conversation
Cooperation in conversations is also expressed through the way people talk - direct or indirect Use directness in a right way can reduce Ộface-threateningỢ and show communicatorsỖ collaboration Therefore, cooperation theory provides a basic knowledge for directness researching
Conversations are carried on efficiently with cooperation Cooperation also helps participants focus on the already identified items and use simple language to mention the items in their own way It makes sure that the participants can get their partnerỖs ideas
Cooperation in conversation is nurtured by the cooperative principles, which are frequently mentioned many books such as ỘPragmatics and DiscourseỢ by Joan Cutting or ỘStudies in the Way of WordsỢ by Paul Grice According to Paul Grice (1991), there are four maxims of the principles including maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner which ensure a successful conversation The first maxim of the cooperative principles is the maxim of quantity Ộwhich says that speaker should be as informative as requiredỢ (Joan, 2002, p 35) It means that maxim of quantity shoes people what should be included in their
Trang 1511
The second maxim is the maxim of quality Joan (2002) affirms that maxim of
quality says people to be genuine and truthful It encourages partakers to say true things
The maxim of relation is the third one of cooperative principles It says participants in conversation to say something relevant to what they have heard or what they have been said
The last one is the maxim of manner which says people to be brief and orderly, and avoid obscurity and ambiguity (Joan, 2002)
Those principles are also described clearly by Paul Grice in 1991 (p 26, 27):
Quantity:
1 Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange)
2 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true
1 Do not say what you believe to be false
2 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence Relation: Be relevant Manner: Be perspicuous 1 Avoid obscurity of expression 2 Avoid ambiguity 3 Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) 4 Be orderly 2.1.3 Speech acts
Trang 16Three students are sitting at the Ộbun-lunchỖ, the social occasion at which the university lays on filled rolls and fruit juice on the first day of the course, to welcome the students and help them get to know each other
MM I think I might go and have another bun AM I was going to get another one
BM Could you get me a tuna and sweetcorn one please? AM Me as well? (Joan, 2002, p 15)
The first level of the analysis is locutionary act which is the form of the words uttered The second one is illocutionary force or the function of the words, the specific purpose of the speaker The last one is perlocutionary effect known as
the effect on the hearer, the hearerỖs reaction
Searle (as cited by Joan, 2002, p 16) classifies speech acts into five macro-
classes which are declarations, representatives, commissives, directives, and
expressives The first class is declaration including words and expressions such as ỘI begỖ, ỘI declareỢ, and ỘI resignỢ The second one is representatives which contain words of cases such as describing, claiming, hypothesizing, insisting, and predicting The third class is commissives which excites the speakerỖs future action with promising, offering, threatening, refusing, vowing and volunteering The fourth class is the directives which are known as forces making hearer do something such as commanding, requesting, inviting, forbidding, suggesting, etc Expressives is the class in this analysis It comprises speakerỖs feels like apologizing, praising, congratulating, deploring, and regretting
In addition, according to George (1996), there are two general types of speech acts The first one is direct speech act and the second one is indirect speech act We have a direct speech act when an easily recognized relationship between the
three structural forms (declarative, interrogative, imperative) and the three general communicative functions (statement, question, command/ request) And
whenever there is indirect relationship between structure and a function, we have an indirect speech act
Trang 1713
directness in some speech acts Speech act theory provides the author of this study a firmer theoretical background to do the research
2.2 Directness in conversations
2.2.1 Definition of directness in conversations
Directness, the subject of this chapter, is a highly important aspect of American verbal culture
It involves speech events such as cussing out (cursing directed to a particular addressee), playing the dozens (a game of ritual insults), snapping, reading people (theatrically delivered negative criticism), verbally abusing people (see below), going off on someone (a sudden, often unexpected burst of negatively critical, vituperative speech), getting real (a fully candid appraisal of a person, situation, event, etc.), and trash talk (talk in competitive settings, notably athletic games, that is boastful and puts down opponents)
(Arthur, 2001,p 2)
Moreover, directness can be characterized as a willingness to bring up certain topics in certain contexts, for example talking about someone's being fat, foolish, or ignorant, briefly or at length (Arthur, 2011) It 1s demonstrated in the example
below
When passing a professorỖs office, a students may say, ỘExcuse me, Id like to ask you a couple of questions.Ợ Her professor may respond, ỘSure, go right ahead WhatỖs the problem?Ợ In this interaction, the student stated her purpose and the
professor responded immediately (Deena & Mara, 1982, p 20, 21)
Directness is also showed at a dinner party
Host Would you like some more dessert?
Guest No, thank you ItỖs delicious, but IỖve really had enough Host OK, why donỖt we leave the table and sit in the living room?
(Deena and Mara, 1982, p 21)
Trang 182.2.2 The significance of directness in conversations
Directness plays a very important role in conversations Directness is available in
educational, work, and legal contexts where formal communication is defined
in relation to tasks and individual activities and where power relationships
are extreme In addition, direct conversations are often used to disambiguate a situation, determine truth, among other functions (Marcyliena, 1998) Therefore,
directness used in conversations in a right way could help interlocutors elucidate
a situation and reveal truth
According to Marcyliena (1998), directness is considered to be functional rather than truthful or dishonest Because direct discourse is void of intent which can be co-constructed, it is often view suspiciously outside of institutional contexts This is especially true for direct questions Direct questions are institutional ways of knowing which are not based on the truth (intentionality) of the questioner or respondent
Arthur (2001) states that direct speech can be used to maintain propriety, teach,
inform, aid in negotiating roles, role hierarchies, entertain, pass time,
demonstrate verbal wit and creativity, express the speaker's emotional state, and define a social situation The functions of directness are very numerous, which makes its importance in conversations larger and larger
2.2.3 The influences on directness usage
The deepest factor which concerns the usage of directness in conversations is the culture because the language always has relations to culture which has many
dimensions such as ideas, customs, skills, arts, and tools in a given period of
time Henry (1961) affirms that Ộlanguage is not only the product of culture, but
also is the symbol of cultureỢ (p.7) Larry, Richard, and Nemi (1981) state that
Trang 1915
In addition, directness in conversations is also influenced by high or low-context culture as stated by Benjamin (2005) ỘỔThere is a difference in directness between high and low context cultures, with low context cultures relying on directness and high context cultures exhibiting a more indirect communicative styleỖ(p 15) Therefore, culture has a strong impact on directness usage Together with this main factor, there are some more factors affecting on directness usage in
conversations
Context where a conversation happens is an element influencing its directness
Directness is available in educational, work, and legal contexts where formal
communication is defined in relation to tasks and individual activities and where power relationships are extreme (Marcyliena, 1998) Therefore, the more
formal the context is, the more direct the conversation 1s
Arthur (2001) affirms that direct speech is normally multilayered in terms of meaning and function, both of which are mostly dependent on emotional states of interlocutors and audience response He also asserts that the kinds of speech
events associated with directness merit theoretical attention In sum, the level of
directness is various in different emotional states
Another factor that has much influence on directness is relationship Depending on the association and the position of communicators, the conversation can be
direct or indirect Deena and Mara (1982, p 21) say, ỘThere are limits to the
degree of directness a person allowed to express, especially with people of higher status such as teacher and employers.Ợ Their theoretical point is illustrated in the example below
A male student was surprised at the reaction of his female teacher when he said, ỘWhat has happened to you? You look like you gained a lot of weight!Ợ When the teacher replied, ỘThatỖs none of your business,Ợ he answered in an embarrassed tone, ỘI was just being honest.Ợ In this case, his honesty and directness were inappropriate because of the
teacher-student relationship (Deena & Mara, 1982, p 21)
In addition to the factors above, the consciousness of directness in conversations
Trang 20directness, the more levels of directness may be applied to the practical situation in real life However, lessons on directness in conversations and their practice are not really available in Vietnam, for example students of English at Dong Thap University are introduced to directness in American English briefly when learning unit 2 ỘVerbal PatternsỢ of Cross Culture course by Deena and Mara (1982, p 19-41) As a result, the students can hardly use directness in a right way in their conversations To know about correct directness for different situations 1s essential for limiting unexpected misunderstandings from the listener and avoiding
offence listener
ỘIn sum, directness, in all social settings, comes in degrees, affected in complex ways by the many mental and material factors that come into play in any social situation.Ợ (Arthur, 2001, p 15)
2.2.4 Indirectness versus directness
Besides directness, indirectness is also a very important definition to be
discussed in this chapter Indirectness, in fact, 1s opposed to directness
Directness is a method people use when they want to refer to something as Deborah defined, directness is Ộthe way people mean what they donỖt exactly sayỢ (2007, p 55) Directness is demonstrated more clearly in the example
below
B says, ỘAre you wearing that dress to the concert?Ợ to conveys a non-question speech act, like a statement ỘI donỖt think you should wear that dress to the concert.Ợ or even a command ỘGo put on another dress.Ợ
Thai (2007, p 12) also asserts, ỘIndirectness in interpersonal communication
exists in various cultures around the world; however, it occurs in greater
Trang 2117
topic or central themeỢ to supplement the definition of indirectness (L2 here is
Vietnamese)
Indirectness also has some advantages Thai (2007) alleges that the indirect approach to an issue is employed when the speaker needs to avoid or postpone a certain sensitive point in a conversation or composition and even a delayed theme or digressive development in writing is meant to respect the readerỖs judgment Indirectness is also a strategy used to avoid Ộface-threatening-actsỢ Furthermore, indirectness is a good choice to maintain politeness as in ỘIndirectness is thus most generally attributed to politenessỢ (p.13)
In addition to indirectnessỖ advantages Thai alleges, Deborah (2007) supposes that sometimes telling the complete truth can actually get communicators into trouble, for example a communicator asks a question and his partner gives him a
truthful answer with no explanation, the communicator may think the answer is
suspicious even though the partner is telling the truth Therefore, directness is not always the best choice as Deborah states, Ộreason we canỖt solve the problems of indirectness by being direct is that there are always unstated assumptionsỢ (p.66) 2.3 High-context versus low-context culture
High and low contexts are factors that influence on directness in conversations (Benjamin, 2005) In this section, high-context and low-context are compared to highlight the difference in directness between Vietnamese and American
According to Hall (1976), a high-context communication or message is Ộone in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in
the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the
messageỢ (p 91) On the contrary, in low context communication, most of the information is in the explicit code
In addition, Hall (1976) also contrast high context culture with low-context
Trang 22Factor High-context culture Low-context culture Overtness of messages
Many covert and implicit
messages, with use of
metaphor and reading
between the lines
Many overt and explicit messages that are simple
and clear
Locus of control and attribution for failure
Inner locus of control and personal acceptance for
failure
Outer locus of control and blame of others for failure Use of non-verbal communication Much nonverbal communication
More focus on verbal
communication than body language Expression of reaction Reserved, inward reactions Visible, external, outward reaction Cohesion and separation of groups
Strong distinction between in-group and out-group, strong sense of family
Flexible and open grouping patterns, changing as needed
People bonds
Strong people bonds with affiliation to family and community
Fragile bonds between people with little sense of loyalty Level of commitment to relationships High commitment to long-term relationships Relationship more
important than task Low commitment to
relationship Task more important than relationships
Trang 2319
Flexibility of time Time is open and flexible |Time is highly organized Process is more important |Product is more important than product than process
Fathi (1978) says that some misunderstandings could arise when people from high-context cultures interact with people from low-context cultures These
misunderstandings rise from the fact that in low-context cultures, communication
is more explicit and rule governed whereas in high-context cultures, communication is not as open and overt When high-context members interact
with low-context member, both form and content of the interaction are different
Low-context members focus on the figure On the other hand, high-context members concentrate on the ground
William (1991) maintains that when low-context communicators make
attributions about high-context communicators, they overestimate dispositions, while high-context communicators overestimate the influence of the situation on
the individualist
As HallỖs model, Vietnamese culture is considered high-context (Mark and Diep, 2005) while American culture is low-context (Gayle, Mahmoud & Waguid, 2002) Evidently, Vietnamese is less direct compared with American people Of course, there are some misunderstandings occurring when Vietnamese people communicate with American people In addition, Americans focus on the figure while Vietnamese concentrate on the ground Lastly, Americans overestimate dispositions when Vietnamese overestimate the influence of the situation on the
Trang 24Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY
The chapter provides the way the study was carried out and the details of the research including research questions, the author and the subjects of the research,
the research procedure, the data collection instruments and the summary
3.1 Research questions
Ở Are there any similarities and differences between using directness in conversations in American English and Vietnamese?
Ở What are some implications for learning and using directness in
conversations?
3.2 Research participants 3.2.1 The author
Le Thu Ha, the author of the research, has been studying at Dong Thap University, which is located in Cao Lanh city, Dong Thap province She is now a senior student of English O8B from Department of Foreign Languages
3.2.2 The subjects
A literature work, conversations, previous related studies
3.3 Research procedure
It takes six months for the research to be finished at Dong Thap University Although it is not a very long time for a research, it is planed flexibly and carried out in the correct order so as to increase the findings of the thesis The order is clearly drowned up
Trang 2521
Ở Writing discussions and pointing out solutions
3.4 Research methods
Research articles are collected and analyzed using methods such as material analysis, material generalization, and comparison
3.4.1 Material analysis
Consciousness of directness in conversations is a very significant factor which provide researcher basic knowledge It is very important to read directness in conversations and relevant theories The author needs to have an overall view of directness in conversations in both American English and Vietnamese in order to recognize confusing points Through literature works containing conversations, confusing points will be elucidated It is the time the author was supported with a firm groundwork by predecessors, which helps the author comprehend the usages and deepen the knowledge of directness in American English and
Vietnamese conversations
3.4.2 Material generalization
Basing on analyzing directness in conversations in American English and Vietnamese, structures of directness are formed and appropriate usages of directness are suggested
3.4.3 Comparison
A comparison between directness in conversations in American English and Vietnamese are performed to make clear the differences between them and the dissimilarities in using them The material for the method is from daily and ordinary conversations, literature works and other helpful material related to
directness
3.5 Summary
To achieve the study, a high responsibility is indispensable Difficulties and challenges are always available; however, they must be repelled It is also crucial
Trang 26Chapter 4
COMPARISION
4.1 Similarities
4.1.1 Both Vietnamese and American English involve some commonly general purposes of using directness and indirectness in conversations
The purposes of using directness in conversations are to disambiguate a situation and to determine a truth (Marcyliena, 1998) Directness indicates Ộimpatience with avoiding issuesỢ (Deena & Mara, 1982, p 20) Both Vietnamese and American people use directness in conversations when they want to elucidate a situation, reveal a truth, or get to the point briefly
Like Vietnamese people, American people sometimes talk indirectly when they want avoid or postpone a particular sensitive point in conversations In the both languages, indirectness is used to prevent Ộface-threatening-actsỢ and to preserve
politeness (Thai, 2007) In addition, indirectness sometimes can _ help communicators get out of troubles (Deborah, 2007) Thai also says that
indirectness takes away listenerỖs social self-image from being undermined and thus expresses speakerỖs nice purpose as well as cooperation, which will foster social harmony or solidarity (2007) Moreover, indirectness used in the form of strategic vagueness can safeguard speaker from the responsibility for information accuracy or protect the message from the shock of direct expressions This helps
to save both interlocutors from conceivable conflicts (Thai, 2007)
4.1.2 Devices of indirectness are the same in Vietnamese and American
English
Hinkel (1997) classified many indirectness devices in three groups: rhetorical
strategies and markers, lexical and referential markers, and syntactic markers and
structures, which are used in both American English and Vietnamese 4.1.2.1 Rhetorical strategies and markers
Trang 2723
i Rhetorical Questions and Tags
This type of question was found in the two languages Example:
Vietnamese American English Như thế chăng bất công lắm ư? Nothing is wrong, is it?
Ban ciing mong thé nhi? You have never been there, have you? (Thai, 2007, p 91) (Betty, 1989, A16)
ii Disclaimers and Denials
Disclaimers and denials are used when the communicator realizes the possibility of disagreement or dislike Example: Vietnamese American English Nhuững đăng cay với nước ta không phải | It wasn't difficult to find their là đễ chịu đựng house
Khó khăn lại không ắt (Betty, 1989, p 172)
(Thai, 2007, p 92) She doesnỖt have many friends (Betty, 1989, p 212) iil Vagueness and Ambiguity Example: (Thai, 2007, p 93)
Kinds Vietnamese American English Numerical Nhiéu Lots/ a lot of
Quantifiers Xap xi Approximately
Trang 28
Hang tan/ ta/ ngàn Tons/ dozens/ thousands etc of
Dam ba/ vai Several
Non- Tệ lắm thì At least
Numerical Í Giái lắm thì At best
Quantifiers
Scalar Bao gio cting Always Qualifiers Vô cùng Extremely
Classifiers tuong tu nhu thế/ na ná như things/stuffs (like that) ai mà biết được who knows
có Trời mới biết God knows
ỘIn general, these words/phrases offer information of an extensive range or of an ambiguous nature so as to evade responsibility from specificity and certainty Surprisingly, vagueness can also be achieved with exaggerations like always or neverỢ (Thai, 2007, p 93)
4.1.2.2 Lexical and Referential Markers
i Hedges
Hedges allow communicators to ỘỘwe statements over a disagreement with a co
asel outỖ? of responsibility for their
nversational partner Therefore, hedges
Trang 2925
Như người ta vẫn thường nói As people say
Theo như tôi được biết As far as I know
Tôi thắc mắc là I wonder
Tôi thật sự không biết là I really donỖt know
ii Point-of-view distancing
These devices help the speaker reduce his assertiveness or aggressiveness by introducing the matter as a limited issue to his subjectivity Example: (Thai, 2007, p 96-97) Vietnamese American English
Tôi cảm thấy/ hy vọng/ thắc mặc/ lo | Ifeel/ hope/wonder/worry that
rang I would like to think/ believe/
Tôi tạm nghĩ/ tin/ hiéu/ cho rang understand/ suggest that iii Downtoners Downtoners moderate the force of propositions Example: (Thai, 2007, p 97) Vietnamese American English Co chang Hardly Phan nao Partly Trén thuc té Practically Hoi hoi Slightly Có phân/ một chút Somewhat
Iv Understatement markers
Understatement markers reduce the truth-value of the claim for safe removal of
the speakerỖs responsibility, increasing the chance of acceptance
Trang 30
Example: (Thai, 2007, p 100)
Vietnamese American English Kha, hoi Fairly/ pretty + adj
Khá/ hơi Rather/ quite + adj Không mấy / Không là bao Not too/ very + adj
4.1.2.3 Syntactic Markers and Structures Conditionals
Hypothetical rather than factual conditions express a hedging effect on the illocutionary force of the proposition Example: (Thai, 2007, p 102) Vietnamese American English
Giá như tôi là một tỉ phú If only I were a billionaire
Nếu tôi là bạn, thì tôi sẽ nam lay cơ hội | If I were you, I would take the chance
`
này
4.1.3 Both Vietnamese and American use directness and indirectness abiding the Cooperative principles
Cooperation in conversation is always nurtured by the cooperative principles (Joan, 2002) Therefore, when Vietnamese and American people communicate, they always try to follow the Cooperative principle (as mentioned in chapter two) to guarantee that the degrees of directness or indirectness in their conversations are appropriate In all speech acts, they always maintain in Cooperative principle in three types, direct speech act, indirect speech act, and direct and indirect speech act, depending on their relationship, social status, situation etc It means both Vietnamese and American English are flexible in using directness and indirectness In other words, American English is not always direct and Vietnamese is not always circuitous Take the research of Ngan (2010) as an
Trang 3127
example She says that refusing an offer, the native speakers of English as well as Vietnamese have many ways of responding They can use direct or indirect speech acts or they can combine both direct and indirect To sum up, people always adjust the degrees of directness and indirectness to be in Cooperative principle
4.2 Differences
People in Vietnam can slowly get to the point by mentioning another point (Mark & Diep, 2005) English, on the other hand, reflects a low-context culture in which words signify truth (Gayle, Mahmoud & Waguid, 2002) Directness is much
disliked in Vietnam to avoid pains or offence Unlike Vietnamese, Americans
prefer communicating Ộstraight from shoulderỖ, stating explicitly ỘỔwhat has to be
saidỢ (Gayle, Mahmoud & Waguid, 2002, p 40) In short, directness is dominant
in American English and indirectness is dominant in Vietnamese In this section, styles, degrees, and reasons and purposes of directness and indirectness will be analyzed to highlight the differences between them
4.2.1 Styles
In this section, only some noticeable speech acts are raised to compare for the purpose of illuminating the differences between Vietnamese indirect style and American direct style
i Expressing ideas
Mark and Diep (2005, p 84) say that the best thing is that people should tell something like it is This viewpoint is illustrated through some expressions such as ỘYes means yes,Ợ or ỘWhat you see is what you getỢ or ỘBusiness first, chit- chat later,Ợ or ỘThe message is more important than the messenger.Ợ Getting to the point is so highly valued in most Western societies, especially American one All communicators need to express their ideas is to introduce their main point and offer supporting evidence and justification
Trang 32direction of the main point Doing so, they are not trying to play the stereotypical Ộinscrutable OrientalỢ or make the matter more complicated but they are simply respectful and tactful Mark and Diep (2005, p 84) prove this point through a humorous story
One Vietnamese writer illustrates indirectness with this humorous story of a mandarinỖs sumptuous feast A servant waiting on guests compliments the mandarin on his robe The servant describes how the mulberry trees were planted and how they grew and how their leaves were gathered; how the silkworms were fed and how they grew and how they spun their cocoons; how (speaking a bit faster now) the cocoons were boiled and how silken thread was gathered from the wormsỖ cocoons and spun; how (speaking even faster) the brocade was woven
with gold and silver threads and then embroidered, too; and how (speaking faster
still) robe was perfectly tailored to fit the mandarinỖs august and magnificent frame Finally, the breathless servant blurts: ỘSire, your robe is on fire!Ợ
Here is another example of directness and indirectness in daily life by Mark and Diep The example in involves a recently married Vietnamese woman and her mother-in-law As a custom, the young woman and her husband would live in the same house with her parents-in-law The young woman tells a story that her sister say that she will not visit her regularly unless she and her husband have their own place ỘỘWhat she is saying, indirectly, is that she would prefer to live with her husband on their own when they can afford itỢ, said Mark and Diep (2005, p 45) In the same situation, an American woman will simply say ỘI would like to live with my husband on our own when we can afford itỢ
Example: (Mark & Diep, 2005, p 45)
Vietnamese American English
Chị con bảo sẽ tiện ghé thăm con hon | I would like to live with my husband
khi tui con ra riéng (My sister said she | on our own when we can afford it would visit me more regularly when my
husband and I had our own place.)
Trang 33
29
Bam 6ng con tam no 4n 14 dau, né nha | Hey sir! Your robe is on fire ra tơ Người ta mang ra chợ bán Người
Trung Quốc mua tơ đem về kéo sợi, dệt
thành the, rồi mang the sang bán cho ta Ông mua the về may áo Hôm nay, ông mặc áo vào, rồi ông ngôi hút thuốc Tàn thuốc rơi vào áo ông Áo ông đang cháy đấy a! (Hey Sir! Silkworms were fed mulberry leaves They spun their cocoons People took the cocoons to market to sell Chinese people bought them to make silken threads and then sold them to us You bought them to have your robe tailored Wearing the robe, you smoke today The cigarette ash fell on your rope And your robe is
on fire)
Mark and Diep also confirm the different styles, ỘSeveral expats explained how they speak with a Vietnamese voice by first describing how an issue is dealt with elsewhere and only then proceeding to the main pointỞwhich, with a Westerner, they would normally make first.Ợ (1982, p 86)
il Requesting
Thanh and Le (2011) prove that when requesting Vietnamese people usually use Solidarity, Familialization, Apologizing strategies while American people often used strategies of Minimizing the imposition and Indicating deference
In other words, Vietnamese communicators use inclusive terms and address
Trang 3499 66 35 66
usually address the others with kinship terms such as ỘuncleỢ, ỘauntỢ, ỘsisterỢ, or
ỘbrotherỢ to minimize the distance between speaker and hearer Also, they would start up their request with an apology
Unlike Vietnamese people, Americans prefer to use Minimizing the imposition and Indicating deference It means they often try do decrease as much imposition on someone as possible when requesting by giving optionality like ỘcouldỢ,
ỘcanỢ, ỘwouldỢ, or Ộa tiny/bit, a little bit, a drop, a bit etcỖỢỖ Moreover, they
would use deferential factors to convey social hierarchy and rank with terms as sir and ỘỘmadamỢỖ Example: (Thanh & Le, 2011, p 5) Vietnamese American English
Sao chúng mình không cùng làm nốt Please help me finish this work việc nay nhi?Ợ (Why donỖt we together
finish this work?)
Chị làm giúp em bản điều tra này chị Could you help me fill in nhé! (Sister, help me fill 1n this questionnaire?
questionnaire, please?)
Em trai, đóng dùm ch? cánh cửa nhé ỘCould you close the window just a (Close the door, my little brother!) tiny bit?Ợ
Chú có thể chỉ dùm cháu đường vào Excuse me, sir, could you tell me the
trung tâm thành phố không ạ? (Could | way to the city center, please? you please tell me the way to the city
centre, uncle ?)
Em biết anh đang rất bận lúc này, Could you explain the lesson a little
nhưng chắc anh có thể dành cho em vài | bi? phút để giải thắch bài này được không
a? UI know you are very busy now but could you spend me a few minutes to explain the lesson?)
Trang 35iii, Refusing an offer
31
Refusals an offer are different between Vietnamese and American English
Vietnamese communicators focus on the delicateness, consideration in their
language use to maintain the affection and gratitude of their friends, their neighbors whereas American people are more direct and blunt in expressing their thought (Ngan, 2010)
When being offered to receive help, American people usually refuse directly with
structure ỘNegative word+ Thanking word+ ReasonỢỖ Unlike Americans,
Vietnamese people often refused indirectly with structure ỘExclamation+ Reason+ Thanking wordỢ (Ngan, 2010) Example: (Ngan, 2010, p.11-12) Vietnamese American
Exclamation | Reason Thanking Negative Thanking | Reason
word word word
Da Em/ Tô/ Cảm on chi/ | No -Thanks -I can
Ừ Chị tự làm | bạn/ -Thank manage it
được rồi | em.(Thanks/ you -But I can (but [can | Thank you/ | Thank do it by solve it by | Thank you myself anyway myself/ but | very much/ -But ?m I can Thanks a -Thanks really full manage) lots.) ever so Ư much
Da, em tu lam dugc roi Cam on anh
(Yes, I can solve it by myself Thank
you ) No, thanks I can manage it
Trang 36Clearly, although Vietnamese refuse, they use ỘYesỢ Americans simply say ỘNo,
thanksỢ
When being offer to give help, Vietnamese people tend to use the politeness mode of refusing an offer like ỘAddressee term+ Apology+ ReasonỢ while American people tend to use Ộquestion attentivenessỢ strategy which allows them to employ different refusal strategies in other that the problems in questions can be solved A mode of polite refusing an offer is ỘAppreciation+ Reason+ ApologyỢ Example: (Ngan, 2010, p.10-11) Vietnamese American Addressee | Apology Reason Appreciation | Reason Apology term
Phươngà | Em thành | Tôi bận I would like | Iam too Sorry Chị à thật xin loi/| qud (IỖm | to help you | busy
(sister) Xin ldi nhé | too busy.) I'm in L ll as Anh ơi (I'm ` Y | Téi dang hurry SOTTY Lp (brother) gdp (Vm in hurry.)
Phuong a, xin loi nhé Tớ đang gấp I would like to help you but IỖm too lam nên không giúp cậu được rồi busy Sorry
(Phuong, IỖm sorry Ỗ'm too busy to
help you.)
Trang 37
33
4.2.2 Degrees of directness
The degrees of directness used in American English and Vietnamese are very different In this section, like the previous section, only some speech acts are analyzed to illustrate the differences in degrees of directness
i Expressing ideas
Mark and Diep (2005, p 85, 86) provide some indirect statements of Vietnamese They also give relevant direct responses of Western people including Americans
No | Vietnamese American English 1 Đó là một quan điểm rấtthú | I donỖt agree
Yh (That 18 a very Interesting | We need to talk more about this viewpoint.)
You re wrong We donỖt like it 2 Lời đề nghị này cần được cân | It needs work
nhac them (This proposal Propose something else deserves further
3 Tôi biết rất ắt về nó IỖm something of an expert on this but nhung (I know very little am too polite to say so
about this, but ) We understand your proposal very well
4 Anh con cai nao khac khong? | We donỖt like it (Do you have another one?)
5 Tôi có nghe bàn tán một vài | I donỖt agree with what you said about điêu về dự án đó (I heard that proJect
another story about that project.)
6 Chiing ta c6 thé chuyén sang | We donỖt want to talk about this now một chủ đê khác không? (Can
we move on to the next topic?)
Trang 38
In the first statement, instead of expressing disagreement directly with negative form like ỘI donỖt agreeỢ, ỘWe donỖt like itỢ or with a judgment like ỘYou are wrongỖ, Vietnamese try to avoid directness They could express their ideas with an opposite statement They even give praises Ộinteresting view pointỢ instead of saying ỘYou are wrongỢ Different form Vietnamese people, Americans just give their opinions frankly with negative form or a true judgment
In the third statement, if an American knows a matter very well, he simply says
that he understands it, he knows it In the same situation, a Vietnamese person
would say in a very modest way as if he does not know much about the matter Clearly, this shows an obvious contrast in directness between the two languages Moreover, when Vietnamese people want to negate an issue they would double-
talk with a request like statement four, or they would mention another issue
related to the target issue like statement five On the contrary, negative form is used to negate something very directly by Americans with ỘNoỢ or ỘNotỢ
To sum up, directness is used at high level in American English while indirectness is dominant in Vietnamese when giving opinion
ii Offering and responding
Deena and Mara (1982, p 21) assert that offers and responses is a very obvious example of directness in verbal interaction The conversation is at a dinner party in the US
HOST Would you like some more dessert?
GUEST No, thank you ItỖs delicious, but IỖve really had enough HOST OK, why donỖt we leave the table and sit in the living room?
Deena and Mara (1982) analyze that the host does not repeat the offer more than
Trang 3935
Ngan (2010) affirms that offering and responding in Vietnamese is more indirect than in American English An typical example about the Ty, the first daughter of the Dau sister, in chapter ten of the novel ỘTat dénỢ by Ngo Tat To can show directness of offering and responding in Vietnamese When her mother asks her to eat sweet potatoes, she responds indirectly that she is not hungry even though she is very hungry that time The conversations which are similar to the conversation between the daughter and her mother are not rare in Vietnam It partly represents Vietnamese communicating culture The indirectness in the example is not on the purpose of politeness, but it is a tolerance and sacrifice Example: Vietnamese American English
A: Con ăn nữa đi kẻo đói (Would you | A: Would you like some more?
like some more? / Eat more, please!)
B (hungry): Con khong doi nia (It's B (hungry): Yes, I would like some
enough IỖm full now.) more, thank you
C (full): Con no réi (ItỖs enough IỖm C (full): No, thank you
full now)
(Deena & Mara, 1982, p 21)
(To, Tat den)
Trang 40
iii, Refusing
Mark and Diep (2005, p 87) states that a refusal in Vietnam causes a loss of face like the Vietnamese expression ỘBetter to die than to lose face.Ợ They also say that ways of communicating disagreement and negative decisions are certainly available, but Westerners often misunderstand and misinterpret these messages Vietnamese usually say ỘNoỢ indirectly through expressions like these: ỘItỖs
complicatedỢ, ỘItỖs a little difficultỢ, ỘItỖs not the right timeỢ or ỘThereỖs a
problem.Ợ They hardly say ỘNoỢ frankly and immediately In addition, Vietnamese people show nonverbal indications ỘNoỢ with silence However, American people can say ỘNoỢ more freely In short, the degree of directness in Vietnamese refusals is reduced as much as possible In refusing, Vietnamese people often maintain a lower level of directness comparing to Americans
Example: (Mark & Diep, 2005, p 87)
Vietnamese American people
Phuc tap that (ItỖs complicated) Sorry I canỖt
Hoi khé day (ItỖs a little difficult)
Rac r6i day.(ThereỖs a problem)
Không đúng lúc rồi (ItỖs not the right | No, thanks time) Tiéc that (What a pity!) A: Anh ơi giúp em bài tap nay với? (Could you help me with this exercise, brother?)
B: Rắc rối thật Tao dang ban (ThereỖs
a problem IỖm busy.)
A: Ăn miếng bánh này Lan? (Would
you like some cake, Lan?)
L: Tiếc thật Tớ vừa ăn tối xong (What
a pity! I just finished my dinner.) A: Could you help me with this exercise? B: Sorry I canỖt Ỗ'm too busy to help you
A: Would you like some cake? B: No, thanks IỖm really full now