a cross-cultural study on american-vietnamses verbal expressions in offering a gift and responding to a gift offer = nghiên cứu giao thoa văn hóa việt - mỹ về cách sử dụng ngôn từ để tặng quà và nhận quà

Aim of the study and research question The aim of this study is: To compare and contrast the strategies employed by Vietnamese and American people when they offer a gift and respond to

FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES

**********

ƯNG THỊ THU QUYÊN

A CROSS – CULTURAL STUDY ON AMERICAN – VIETNAMESE VERBAL EXPRESSIONS IN OFFERING A GIFT AND RESPONDING TO A GIFT OFFER

NGHIÊN CỨU GIAO THOA VĂN HÓA VIỆT – MỸ VỀ CÁCH

SỬ DỤNG NGÔN TỪ ĐỂ TẶNG QUÀ VÀ NHẬN QUÀ

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH

Field : ENGLISH LINGUISTICS

Code : 602215

Supervisor : Dr Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa

Hµ Néi - 2010

 Acknowledgements

 Abstract

 Abbreviations

Part A Introduction

I Rationale 1

II Aim of the study 1

III Scope of the study 2

IV Design of the study 2

Part B Development Chapter I Theoretical background 3

I.1 Language and communication 3

I.2 Language and culture 3

I.3 Communicative competence 4

I.4 Speech acts 5

I.4.1 Definition 5

I.4.2 Types of speech acts 5

I.4.3 Politeness strategies: 5

I.4.3.1 Bald on – record 6

I.4.3.2 Positive politeness 6

I.4.3.3 Negative politeness 6

I.4.3.4 Off – record 7

I.5 Offering as a speech act 7

I.6 Gift offering 8

Chapter II Methodology 10

II.1 Instrument 10

II.2 Procedures 10

II.3 Informants 11

II.4 Coding of the data and mode of data analysis 12

Chapter III Strategies in gift offering 15

III.1 Communicative strategies used in gift offering 15

III.2 Similarities and differences of gift offering between American and Vietnamese 21

III.2.1 Data analysis 21

III 2 2 Major similarities and differences 21

IV.1 Agreeing to receive a gift 24

IV.1.1 Communicative strategies in receiving a gift 24

IV.1.2 Similarities and differences of gift receiving between American and Vietnamese 28

IV.1.2.1 Data analysis 28

IV.1.2.2 Major similarities and differences 28

IV.1.3 Concluding remarks 29

IV.2 Refusing a gift 29

IV.2.1 Communicative strategies used in refusing a gift 29

IV.2.2 Similarities and differences of gift refusing between American and Vietnamese 33

IV.2.2.1 Data analysis 33

IV.2.2.2 Major similarities and differences 33

IV.2.3 Concluding remarks 34

Part C Conclusion I Summary of the findings 35

I.1 Offering a gift 35

I.2 Receiving a gift 37

I.3 Refusing a gift 39

II Implications: 41

1 Implications for cross-cultural communicators 41

2 Implication for ELT 41

III Limitations and suggestions for further research 42

References 43 Appendix A: Survey questionnaires

Appendix B: Data analysis

S : Speaker

H : Hearer

G : Giver

R : Receiver FTA : Face Threatening Act

FT : Face Threat ELT : English Language Teaching DCT : Discourse Completion Task/Test

of what and how to say to offer a gift and respond to a gift offer Why a gift offer, traditionally considered to bring benefit to the Receiver, is occasionally still refused? And why sometimes the Receiver’s behavior hurts the Giver?

II Aim of the study and research question

The aim of this study is: To compare and contrast the strategies employed by Vietnamese

and American people when they offer a gift and respond to a gift offer in their own language and culture The study aimed to get the answers to the following question: What are the similarities and differences in American and Vietnamese when offering a gift and responding to a gift offer?

III Scope of the study

This study is limited to the verbal aspects of the act of offering gifts Nonverbal aspects of the act such as paralanguage, extra-language and the like are not investigated Conclusions will be based on the analysis of the data collected from the questionnaires, not spontaneous discourse It is said that data obtained from questionnaires about what people might say in certain situations may not always be the same as what they actually say in real life It may

be because the answers in written form seem to be more formal than speaking one Obviously, it takes longer thinking so the answers are less natural But it was felt that the data would indicate possible similarities and differences between American and Vietnamese ways of giving gifts and responding to the offers The informants feel free from time pressure and their names are unknown so the data would be reliable The Northern Vietnamese dialect and the English spoken as the first language in the United States are selected for contrastive analysis Thus, the study will not go to a fixed conclusion but based on statistic data, give remarks, comments and assumption on the frequency of some verbal ways of offering gifts This study is only confined to one aspect

of language in action: what strategies are most commonly found in association with gift offering Moreover, gift offering in this study is simply understood as a nice cultural behavior in daily life expressing deep gratitude, concern and attention to the Receiver Of course, gifts can be offered without saying a word but the non – verbal aspect of gift offering, as mentioned before, is beyond the scope of this study Moreover, this is as minor thesis so what kind of present should be given, to whom (the influence of informants’ parameters on the choice of strategies: age, gender, etc.) and what kind of present should

be avoided are not touched in this study although the author is highly aware of them as a cultural characteristics of each nation

IV Design of the study

Part A: Introduction: All the academic routine required for the study is represented

Part B: Development: This is the focus of the study and consists of four chapters

Chapter I Theoretical background

Chapter II Methodology

Chapter III Strategies in gift offering

Chapter IV Strategies in responding to gift offers

Part C: Conclusion

Part B Development Chapter I Theoretical background

I.1 Language and communication

Language is considered as one of the highest and the most amazing achievements of human kind in labor process In the Oxford “Advanced learner’s encyclopedic dictionary” (1998:506), language is defined as a “system of sounds, words, patterns, etc used by humans to communicate thoughts and feelings” Thus, language is a means of communication and communication is the aim of language According to Richard et al (1992:28) communication is “the exchange of ideas, information, etc between two or more persons The sender/speaker transmit message to the receiver/listener” However, communication is not merely an exchange of information An important function of communication is to keep a particular society going Individuals cooperate with one another to sustain reality and they use language as one of the means to do so

In communication, whether or not the language is intended and spoken, any communication behavior is perceived and interpreted Such factors as the speaker’s communicative intention, the interlocutor’s expectation and communicative effects of the message are contributive to the success of communication This means, “The communicative effects match the intentions” (Clyne, 1996:144) Thus, the speaker’s idea is grasped and the hearer’s interpretation is relevant to what the speaker (S) desires Communication breakdown is a hidden risk in any communication settings It falls into two types: non-communication where no message is communicated and miscommunication where any unintended message is communicated In conclusion, through language we can affect every aspect of our relationships and successful communicators must be aware of their own and their interlocutors’ expectations of communication

I.2 Language and culture

Anna Wierzbicka (1992:371) regards “language as a mirror of culture and national character.” People can understand the cultural characteristic of the nation through the language they use Different cultures use language differently, even though some cultures possess the same language such as American culture, British culture, and Australian culture Richard et al (1992:94) defines: “Culture is the total set of beliefs, attitudes, customs, behavior, social habits of the members of a particular society” This definition not

only helps us understand what culture is, but also lists the components of culture Obviously, culture is a sort of knowledge, which everyone must possess to function within

a society Beliefs, attitudes, customs, behaviors and social habits are not innate or born naturally but they are learnt through the socialization process in which you grow up a full member of a society That is why culture does not belong to any single person but to all people It is believed that language and culture are interrelated, language contains culture

in itself and culture is expressed via language Language, as a means of communication, is also bound up with culture in complex ways Kramsch (1998:4) views the relationship between language and culture as follows: language expresses cultural reality When people express their ideas, they use a stock of knowledge about the world that they share with one another; language embodies cultural reality Members of a community create experience through language; language symbolizes cultural reality Language is a system of signs with cultural values Language of a group can be viewed as a symbol of their social identity

It can be obviously seen that language and culture are interrelated and interwoven with each other Every cultural reality is expressed, embodied and symbolized by language From a broader point of view, Nguyen Van Do (2004:71) mentions the relationship between language-culture and the society in which human beings are central According to his argument, without people, culture and society would not exist So, it is possible to interpret and describe a culture in its language In its turn, culture influences the way in which language is used It provides guidelines for our linguistic behavior

I.3 Communicative competence

When learning a new language, the students must learn its grammatical rules to make a sentence correctly in grammar This ability is called “linguistic competence” If the linguistic competence of students is good, he can do grammatical exercises fluently and get high marks in exams But that is not enough In real-life communication, we also need

“communicative competence” It is the Students’ ability to know “when and where to use these sentences and to whom” (Richard et al (1992:65))

In order to communicate appropriately, students are supposed to have shared knowledge According to Saville-Troike (1982:26), communicative competence consists of three components: linguistic knowledge, interaction skills, and cultural knowledge The relation

of these communicative components consolidates that knowledge of language and interaction skills are not enough Choosing what to say and how to say to fit into a

community and its language are very essential For successful communication, especially cross-cultural communication, learners must be aware of the target culture and the difference between the target and the source cultures In other words, both knowledge of language and its culture decide successful communication

I.4 Speech acts

I.4.1 Definition

According to Searle (1969:50), whenever we make a speech, we carry out an act A speech act is an act that a speaker performs when making an utterance, including the following: a general act (illocutionary act) that a speaker performs, analyzable as including the uttering of words (utterance acts), making reference and predicating (propositional acts), and a particular intention in making the utterance (illocutionary force); an act involved in the illocutionary act, including utterance acts and propositional acts; the production of a particular effect in the addressee (perlocutionary act)

I.4.2 Types of speech acts

According to Austin (1996:51), there are four kinds of speech acts: 1, illocutionary act is a complete speech act, made in a typical utterance, which consists of the delivery of the propositional content of the utterance (including references and a predicate) and a particular illocutionary force, whereby the speaker: asserts, suggests, demands, promises,

or vows; 2 perlocutionary act is a speech act that produces an effect, intended or not, achieved in an addressee by a speaker’s utterance; 3 propositional act is a speech act that a speaker performs when referring or predicating in an utterance; 4 an utterance act is a speech act that consists of the verbal employment of units of expression such as words and sentences

According to Searle (in Levinson 1983:240), there are five broad classes of illocutionary points: declaratives, representatives, expressives, directives and commissives In order to understand the speaker’s intention behind the words, the hearer can rely on some conventional way to predict, called “speech event” For instance, when a student comes to class late, his teacher may ask “What’s the time?” All the students in the class understand that the teacher is annoyed, but he does not want to know the time of the moment

I.4.3 Politeness strategies

Politeness strategies are used to formulate messages in order to save the hearer’s face when face-threatening acts are inevitable or desired In Brown and Levinson (1987: 180), there

are four main types of politeness strategies: bald on-record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record (indirect)

I.4.3.1 Bald On-record

Bald on-record strategies usually do not attempt to minimize the threat to the hearer’s face, although there are ways that bald on-record politeness can be used in trying to minimize FTAs implicitly Often using such a strategy will shock or embarrass the addressee, and so this strategy is most often utilized in situations where the speaker has a close relationship with the audience, such as family or close friends Brown and Levinson (1987:181) outline various cases, in which one might use the bald on-record strategy, including: great urgency

or desperation: Watch out! Speaking as if great efficiency is necessary: Hear me out ; task-oriented: Pass me the hammer; little or no desire to maintain someone's face: Don't

forget to clean the blinds! ; doing the FTA is in the interest of the hearer: Your headlights are on! ; Offers: Leave it, I'll clean up later Eat!

I.4.3.2 Positive Politeness

Positive politeness strategies seek to minimize the threat to the hearer’s positive face They are used to make the hearer feel good about himself, his interests or possessions, and are most usually used in situations where the audience knows each other fairly well In addition to hedging and attempts to avoid conflict, some strategies of positive politeness include statements of friendship, solidarity, compliments, and the following examples:

attend to hearer’s interests, needs, wants: You look sad Can I do anything? ; Use solidarity in-group identity markers: Hey, mate, can you lend me a dollar?; be optimistic: I’ll just

come along, if you don’t mind; include both speaker (S) and hearer (H) in activity: If we help each other, I guess, we’ll both sink or swim in this course; wish or promise: If you wash the dishes, I’ll vacuum the floor; exaggerate interest in H and his interests: That’s a nice haircut you got; where did you get it?; avoid Disagreement: Yes, it’s rather long; not short certainly

I.4.3.3 Negative Politeness

Negative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearer’s negative face and emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer These strategies presume that the speaker will be imposing on the listener and there is a higher potential for awkwardness or embarrassment than in bald on record strategies and positive politeness strategies Negative face is the desire to remain autonomous so the speaker is more apt to include an out for the

listener, through distancing styles like apologies Here are some examples: be indirect:

Would you know where Oxford Street is?; use hedges or questions: Perhaps, he might have taken it, maybe Could you please pass the rice?; be pessimistic: You couldn’t find your way to lending me a thousand dollars, could you?; minimize the imposition: It’s not too much out of your way, just a couple of blocks; apologize: I’m sorry; it’s a lot to ask, but can you lend me a thousand dollars? Favor seeking, or a speaker asking the hearer for a

favor, is a common example of negative politeness strategies in use Held observes three main stages in favor-seeking: the preparatory phase, the focal phase, and the final phase:

 The preparatory phase is when the favor-seeking is preceded by elaborate precautions against loss of face to both sides It often involves signals of openings and markers to be used to clarify the situation (e.g ‘You see,’ or ‘so,’) The request

is often softened, made less direct, and imposing (e.g past continuous ‘I was wondering’; informal tag ‘What d’you reckon?)

 The focal stage is subdivided into elements such as asker’s reasons or constraints (e.g ‘I’ve tried everywhere but can’t get one’), the other’s face (e.g ‘you’re the only person I can turn to’), and more

 The third stage is the final stage which consists of anticipatory thanks, promises, and compliments (e.g ‘I knew you would say yes You’re an angel.’)

I.4.3.4 Off-record (indirect)

The final politeness strategy is the indirect strategy This strategy uses indirect language and removes the speaker from the potential to be imposing For example, a speaker using the indirect strategy might merely say “wow, it’s getting cold in here” insinuating that it would be nice if the listener would get up and turn up the thermostat without directly asking the listener to do so

I.5 Offering as a speech act

According to Searle’s speech act classification (in Levinson 1983:245), the position of offers can be easily recognized in the class of commissives But Hancher (in Wierzbiska, 1987:192) states that offering has “a double nature”, being “a commissive” like a promise but also “a directive” like a request This statement is reasonable as offering something to somebody is both to try to direct that person’s behavior, and also commit oneself to a corresponding course of behavior Anna Wierzbiska (1987:191) states the following meaning of offers: I think of X as something that could be good for you, I say: I will cause

X to happen if you say you would want me to do it, I think that you may want it to happen,

I don’t know if you want it to happen, I say this because I want to cause you to know that I would cause it to happen if you said that you wanted it to happen, I assume that you will say if you want it to happen

Offer falls into two types: offer something and offer to do something Offering to do something means to say that one is willing to do it Offering something to somebody

“shows or expresses willingness or intention to do or to give something, etc.” (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: 623) The speaker assumes that the proposed course of events could be good for the hearer, but it is not quite clear how the relevant component should be formulated Wierzbicka (1987) argues that the formula “I think of X as something that you may want” may be more appropriate than the formula “I think of X as something that would be good for you” Also, according to Wierzbicka (1987: 191 – 192) offering shares some common features with such other speech acts as inviting, volunteering and promising but there are still differences among them:

- In the case of inviting the action is to be performed by the hearer whereas it is to be

performed by speaker in that of offering

- Volunteering does not have to be directly beneficial for hearer, or indeed for other people We volunteer to do something that has to be done Consequently, we will free some other people from the burden of having to do it and thus benefit them indirectly

- Promising refers to actions situated in distant or indefinite future and consequently they are normally hypothetical than offering, which refers to the present of the immediate future

Offering can be more or less tentative, but they always embody a degree of uncertainty “I don’t know if want me to do it” Consequently, they always call for an answer from the hearer One might suggests that offering has a double illocutionary purposes: (i) to let hearer know of speaker’s willingness to do something for him/her and (ii) to cause hearer

to say “yes” or “no” to enable speaker to act accordingly

I.6 Gift offering

Gift offering belongs to the type of offer something Gift is defined as “a thing given willingly without payment” (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1998:379) Offering a gift is a culture – specific behavior What gift to offer, on what

occasion, how to offer gifts and respond to the offer are not the same among different cultures Here are some instances: In France, if you receive an invitation to a person’s home, take good chocolates, flowers or a good bottle of cognac You should not take wine because they drink that everyday, so it is too ordinary In Germany, for social invitations, flowers or chocolates are suitable gifts And you should give an odd number of flowers, say, eleven or thirteen, not twelve and the present them without the wrapping paper (Liz Taylor, 1996:128) The most suitable gift in Vietnam when you come to someone’s home

is fruit put in plastic bags, and other kinds of gifts carefully wrapped in colorful wrapping paper Unlike the Westerners, the Vietnamese “will not open your gift in front of you but will accept it, place it aside and open it later” (Claire Ellis, 1996:157) Claire Ellis (1996:157) also states that in Vietnam, “presents are given on numerous occasions” And if

“in the West, a gift is a symbol of thanks from the giver, in Vietnam, where the Buddhism prevails, giving a gift is one way in which the giver can gain greater merit for the next life Hence, the whole action is to the benefit of the giver, not the receiver” There are thousands of reasons leading to the behavior of offering gifts, from ordinary occasions such as coming to visit a friend, returning from a trip, etc to important events like attending

a wedding party, getting a job promotion, etc Besides, in Vietnam, offering gifts also comes from the reason of religion They believe and expect to receive more in their future

Chapter II Methodology

II.1 Instrument

The theoretical background of the study relies on the research of various home and foreign authors concerned with the subject In order to achieve the objectives of a cross-cultural research, the main method of the study is the quantitative one All the considerations, comments and conclusions in this thesis are largely based on: survey questionnaires, statistics, description and analysis of the collected data and personal observation It was clearly necessary to study gift offering made by the two groups of informants in similar situations involving the same social and contextual variables (namely social distance and relative status) Considering the necessity for variable control and practical effectiveness, the DCT was the most appropriate methodological instrument for this study The DCT would allow the researcher to gather a great deal more data in comparable situations from more subjects than would have been possible through random observations of naturally occurring discourse The questionnaire contains two social situations with high frequency

of occurrence The first situation is that “how would you actually say when you offer a birthday gift to the following person?” The second one is that “how would you actually say

in response to a gift offer on your birthday from the following person?” In this thesis, we only choose a specific setting for research, that is “on the occasion of one’s birthday” because by using the same situations, which hopefully would be able to elicit responses for gift offering from both the Vietnamese and Americans, for both groups of respondents, we could directly compare the strategies used by them to determine similarities and differences in the relationship of strategy use to the social power and distance The habit of offering birthday gift is very popular in America but in Vietnam, now it is just almost common in the city Therefore, all the Vietnamese informants selected for the questionnaire are living in Hanoi, one of the biggest cities in Vietnam

II.2 Procedures

In order to collect sufficient data for the analysis, a survey questionnaire was designed The survey was conducted with both Vietnamese and American speakers They was required to fill it out with specific utterances used when they give and receive a present in specific situations and under certain variables such as age, social distance, social hierarchy, etc

These utterances were then analyzed from the cross-cultural perspective, in the light of politeness theories The full text of the questionnaires is given in Appendix A The informants were required to express verbally when they offer a birthday gift to and respond

to a gift offer from the following people: a new friend/colleague you have just met for a very short time (far social distance), their close friend (close social distance), their brother

or sister (intimate relationship, same family rank), their employee (lower social status), their employer (higher social status) The survey was done in some language centers in Hanoi (Apollo center, Clever Learn Center); in the Embassy of the United States at Lang

Ha Street, Hanoi and at some universities in Hanoi (Foreign Trade University, University

of Industry and Vietnam National University, Hanoi) It took each participant about 10 minutes to complete the DCT The researcher was sitting there to provide any information

or clarify any point that was unclear to the informant, and to make sure that the informants did not skip any situation

However, it should be noted that there are some aspects of communication, which the questionnaire fails to capture, for example: Paralinguistic factors: pitch, rate, volume, vocal filers, etc Non – verbal factors: gestures, body motions, facial expressions, etc Setting of communication: place, time, conversational distance, kind of presents, on what occasions, etc With respect to these limitations, the study is only regarded as a preliminary study and any conclusions are tentative and suggestive

II.3 Informants

American informants: The questionnaire was mostly handed to American people who

work at the Embassy of the United States in Hanoi and teach at some English centers in Hanoi, Vietnam such as Apollo center, Clever Learn center, etc The rest was sent by email The total number of American informants is 50

Vietnamese informants: The same number of Vietnamese informants as the American

ones was chosen, with the hope to collect as accurate data as possible for the contrastive analysis The Vietnamese informants come from Hanoi and the North of Vietnam as the language in this area is temporarily taken as standard Vietnamese These informants all are lecturers at Hanoi University of Industry, Foreign Trade University and Vietnam National

University All the informants are assured that they would not be identified in any discussion of the data with the hope of obtaining more authentic replies from them

50% of the informants is male and 50% of the informants is female The questionnaire was handed to equal number of informants within two age ranges (24-39, 40-61) Care was taken so that the informants in Vietnam matched with the American ones in terms of gender, age, educational background and residence (urban) As a result, the mean age of both groups was identical (average: 35 years, range: 24 – 61), minimizing any possible effect the age of the speakers in this intergroup comparison

The informants selected for this study do not totally represent American and Vietnamese They only have some features in common of a specific group of people For example: they have the same age range (24-61); they all are living in the urban; and to some extent, they have the same educational background

II.4 Coding of the data and mode of data analysis

In this study, a response was everything an informant said in responding to a situation in order to make a gift offer or a response to a gift offer, which can be an utterance or a number of utterances In order to arrive at a set of strategies, we first divided the response into discourse components, which, in the present study, is an utterance (phrase, sentence,

or several sentences) constituting a part or whole of an offer or a response The discourse components were next coded into relevant categories of pragmatic strategies The strategies used as the framework for the analysis of the present study were built on the results of a number of previous research studies, of which the study on the speech act of gift offering and responding to a gift offer (Ha, N.T.H., 2005) was the main source, and studies on the speech act of offering and responding to an offer (Blum-Kulla, 1978; Hoang, 1998; Lan, 2000; Lanier, 1973; Nhat, 1997; Hanh, 2003) were supplementary Following

Ha, N.T.H (2005), the strategies were arranged in a table as follows:

1 Direct offer Usually made when the G shows his/her

straightforwardness without any hedging or hesitation

- Hey! I have got a gift for you (Situation 1)

- This is a small gift for you

- Just a small present for you (Situation 1) 5.Stating

reason

of gift offering

- On the occasion of your birthday, I have a gift for you.(Situation 1)

6 Wishes An expression of a desire or longing for

good things to the R

- Best wishes for you!

- Happy birthday to you! (Situation 1) 7.Expressing

Table 1.Offering gift strategies

1 Thanking An expression of gratitude - Oh, thank you so

of the G Often using modal verbs

“should” or “need” in negative form

- Wow, this is a wonderful/great gift (Situation 2)

4 Complimenting

the Giver

Adjectives like: kind, nice, sweet, etc are of frequent us

- You are very kind

- It’s so sweet of you (Situation 2)

7 Giving reason

for refusal

The R lets the G know that he/she already possesses the same gift or the gift is not his/her taste

- Oh, I already have this

- It’s not appropriate (Situation 2)

8 Flat refusal This gives the H almost no further

chance to insist

- No, thank you

anyway! (Situation 2)

9 Delay Would be direct with an excuse or

reason to save the G’s face

- Let it next time Thanks (Situation 2)

Table 2.Responding to gift offer strategies

The list of strategies, however, would be modified based on the data of the present study Thus, may be some categories were collapsed, and the categories that were not reflected in the data were dropped from the classification scheme Apart from the strategies, we found linguistic modifiers embedded in the offering and responding made by the informants but due to limitation of this thesis, they were not analyzed and compared including the external modifiers and internal modifiers

Chapter III Strategies in gift offering

The focus of this study is on the verbal expression in offering gifts and responding to gift offers in Vietnamese and American languages and cultures from cross – cultural perspective In fact, what to say to give a gift, and how to respond to a gift offer are culture – specific and depend very much on the parameters of the communicating partners, the relationship between the Giver (G) and the Receiver (R), the context and reason of gift offers And, in addition, paralinguistic and extra linguistic also include in this speech act, but, as we mentioned earlier, they are beyond the scope of the thesis

Analyzing data collected by conducting the survey questionnaire, we realized that informants’ parameters did not much influence their choice of strategies of offering gifts and responding to gift offers, so the use of the strategies as seen from informants’ parameters is not analyzed in this study From our knowledge of cross – cultural communication, we would like to provide a descriptive account of the strategies employed

to offer gifts and respond to gift offer by speakers of American and Vietnamese Moreover,

we want to indicate the similarities and differences of verbal expression in the two languages

III.1 Communicative strategies used in gift offering

In our observation, the following strategies are found from the survey questionnaire:

Table 3.Strategies used to offer a gift

It can be easily seen from the above table that all strategies are employed by both groups of informants Both groups use the strategy “asking for permission” at the lowest rate In our

observation, sometimes, in some situations the informants resort to several strategies at the

same time, not only one, to produce more effective offers

1 Direct offer

According to politeness strategy theory in Brown and Levinson (1987:180), this is bald on – record strategy Both American and Vietnamese employ this strategy at a rather high rate, but the Americans use it at a considerably higher rate: 31.6% in American and 24.8%

in Vietnamese This is the most commonly used strategy by the Americans, but only the second by the Vietnamese This strategy is realized in different utterances which have the same illocutionary effect

For example:

By the American informants:

- Hi! This is a gift for you

- Hey! I have got a gift for you

- Here is a nice present for you

By the Vietnamese informants:

- Em xin tặng anh/chị một món quà (I want to give you a present)

- Tặng cậu này! (Here is a gift for you)

- Chị có món quà tặng em này (I have a gift for you)

It can easily be seen that Vietnamese informants often use the per formative verb tặng/xin

tặng in their utterances while Americans do not Instead of that, they use preposition for so

frequently This suggests that, for this strategy, the degree of directness in utterances in Vietnamese is higher than in English This is opposite to what we expect before the research that the degree of directness in offering gifts by the Americans would be considerably higher than that by the Vietnamese

2 Showing concern for the R

Relying on the relationship with the R, the G tries to say in way that makes the R know and feel that the G really understand his/her taste, hobby, etc Thus, the gap between them would be smaller Surprisingly, this strategy is used by the Americans much more often than by the Vietnamese (20.4% vs 5.6%) The Americans often resort to short sentences but the Vietnamese prefer using longer utterances They can be:

By the American informants:

- I thought you like this gift

- I thought you might enjoy it

- I know you will love this

By the Vietnamese informants:

- Em biết là sếp rất thích cái này nên đã mua tặng sếp ạ (I know you like this so I

buy it for you)

- Mình nghĩ chắc là bạn sẽ rất vui khi nhận được món quà này (I am sure that you’ll

be happy getting this gift)

Brown and Levinson (1987:190) state that when giving a gift, the G assumes that the R will like or likes it Thus, by employing this strategy, the G makes the positive face want of the R be satisfied The G notices and understands the R’s taste, hobby, need, want, etc and

to some extent, the G has or appears to have the same taste as the R It is positive politeness strategy

3 Giving the R a surprise

This strategy is often accompanied by nonverbal behaviors For example, hiding the gift behind the back, the G wears a mysterious expression of the face and says:

By the American informants:

- I have something for you Can you guess what it is?

- Hey, I have a nice surprise for you

By the Vietnamese informants:

- Này, đố mày biết cái gì đấy! (Hey, guess what it is!)

- Chị thử đoán xem em có cái gì tặng chị đây này (Please guess what I have for you)

- Mình có cái này rất hay muốn tặng bạn, thử đoán xem! (I’d like to give you

something very nice, please make a guess!)

This strategy is used at a rather low rate by the both of groups However, the Americans resort to this strategy more often than the Vietnamese (4.00% vs 2.00%) Usually, when giving gifts to their close friend, the informants employ this strategy This is also positive politeness strategy

4 Showing modesty about the gift value

The Americans often use the words like “small”, “just”, and “little” This would mean that the gift is modest in order that the R can be happier to receive the gift without any wonder This is positive politeness, according to politeness strategy theory The rate of the

Vietnamese employing this strategy is slightly lower than the rate of the Americans (10.4%

vs 12% respectively) The utterances can be:

By the American informants:

- This is a small gift for you

- Just a small present for you

- I have got a little gift for you

By the Vietnamese informants:

- Em có món quà nhỏ xin biếu sếp ạ (I have a little present to give you)

- Chẳng đáng là bao, xin chị nhận cho em vui (It’s not much I’ll be very happy if

you take it)

- Của ít lòng nhiều, mong sếp nhận cho ạ (A little gift, great emotion, I hope you

will take it)

In Vietnamese utterances, the words expressing small quantity like “nhỏ”, “chút”, “chẳng đáng”, “ít” are often used Vietnamese people frequently place more significance on the spiritual aspect of the act of offering gift than on the material aspect of the gift itself Thus, the idiom “của ít lòng nhiều” (a little gift, great emotion) is used by many Vietnamese informants Showing modesty about the gift value, the G would like to make the R not worried too much about the receiving behavior as the gift is humble Therefore, this is also

an effective way to persuade the R to receive the gift

5 Stating reason of gift offering

Giving reason is one of the positive politeness strategies Sometimes, the informants state the reason for offering gift Here are some examples:

By the American informants:

- On the occasion of your birthday, I have a gift for you

- Today is your birthday, so please receive this gift

- Here is a gift for your birthday

By the Vietnamese informants:

- Mừng bạn món quà nhân dịp sinh nhật! (I have a gift for you on the occasion of

your birthday)

- Em xin tặng sếp món quà nhỏ nhân dịp sinh nhật (I have a small gift for you on

your birthday)

It can be easily seen that this is the second most frequently used strategy by the American informants And they tend to favor short and simple utterances while the Vietnamese, similar to strategy “showing concern for the R”, often use longer sentences We had interviewed some American informants, they considered roundabout expressions to be unsure, insincere and lack of involvement Moreover, they said that such wordy roundabout expression is not necessary because they already know why to offer a gift, no need to speak out Meanwhile, if too short or simple sentences are used in Vietnamese, the

G may be considered to be rude, impolite or informal Although this strategy is less used often in Vietnamese than in American (16.4% vs 24.8%), the utterances in Vietnamese are various Besides using the same reason as the Americans above, the Vietnamese often resort to so – called “on – the – occasion” strategy This way makes the R implicitly understand that the G does not offer the gift intentionally, but accidentally Thus, the R will feel comfortable to receive the gift Nevertheless, in practice, in some cases the G does not

do this accidentally, but intentionally It is noticeable that, this strategy is mainly used in the situation of offering gift to boss or employee

6 Wishes

This strategy is the most frequently used by the Vietnamese: 34% compared to only 1.6%

by the Americans The Vietnamese often expect good health, happiness, property, success, etc and their utterances are conventional and formulaic Wishes by the Americans are often short and simple while the Vietnamese tend to make long utterance of wishes It is believed that the more wishes they get, the more likely they become true:

By the American informants:

- Best wishes for you!

- Happy birthday to you!

By the Vietnamese informants:

- Chúc anh/chị/em sinh nhật vui vẻ! (Happy birthday to you!)

- Chúng em chúc sếp sức khỏe, hạnh phúc và thành đạt (Wish you health, happiness

and success)

- Sang tuổi mới, chúc chị ngày càng trẻ đẹp và tràn đầy niềm vui (On your birthday,

wish you long youth, beauty and full pleasure)

One interesting is that, although the wishes are conventional and formulaic, wishes in American are often expressed by nouns “wishes” or by adjectives “happy” Meanwhile, the verb “chúc” is usually appeared in almost Vietnamese wishes

7 Expressing the G’s feeling

This strategy is more employed by the Vietnamese than the American ones (6.4% and 5.2% respectively) The G’s feelings toward the R are expressed by nouns “love”, “heart” The Vietnamese informants prefer using verb “yêu” (love), and adjectives “hạnh phúc” (happy), “may mắn” (lucky), “vui mừng” (pleasant) These utterances are reinforced by the intensifier “much”, “very” (rất) or “really” (thật)

By the American informants:

- Much love from all of us

- This is something from my heart

By the Vietnamese informants:

- Xin vui mừng tặng anh món quà này (I’m pleasant to give you this gift)

- Rất vui được tặng cậu món quà sinh nhật (I’m very happy to give you this birthday

gift)

The American informants seem to be quite open and extrovert when revealing their feelings while the Vietnamese ones tend to be more reserved and introvert They apparently mind expressing real emotion and try to hide it The Vietnamese informants often express their feeling when giving gifts to their close friend or family member of the same rank because the distance between the communicative participants is very close On the other hand, when interviewed, some Americans stated that they are very happy to let the R know their feeling

8 Asking for permission to give a gift

Surprisingly, both American and Vietnamese informants employ this strategy at the same rate (0.4%) And this is the least frequently used strategy by both groups of informants They are:

By the American informants:

- Sir, may I give you something?

- Could I make you happy?

By the Vietnamese informants:

- Em xin mạn phép gửi đến anh món quà này nhân dịp sinh nhật (I ask for

permission to give you this present on the occasion of your birthday)

One special thing here is the American express their offer in the form of question with modal verb “may” or “can” and the Vietnamese one uses a statement Both two kinds of requests have the same aim: asking for permission According to Brown and Levinson (1987:224), this is one of the negative politeness strategies showing deference Brown and Levinson (in Nguyen Quang 2004:125) regard making question as an effective negative politeness strategy and the question form “May I…? / Can I…?” is more frequently used

by the American informants In the term of degree of formality, the words “xin mạn phép”

in Vietnamese seems to sound more formal than the modal verb “Can “or “Could” in American

III.2 Similarities and differences of gift offering between American and Vietnamese III.2.1 Data analysis

The data analysis of the employment of gift offering strategies in interaction with different informants has shown that all the strategies mentioned above are available to both speakers

of American and Vietnamese However, the use of these strategies differs from partner to partner The most preferred strategies by the Vietnamese informants with all partners are

“wishes” and “direct offer” Dominating the choice of the American informants is “direct offer” and “stating reason” The detailed analysis is presented in Appendix B (1)

III.2.2 Major similarities and differences

+ American informants use the following strategies with:

o All the informants: direct offer, showing concern for the R and showing modesty about the gift value

o 80% of the informants: stating reason of gift offering

o 60% of the informants: giving the R a surprise

o 40% of the informants: wishes and expressing the G’s feeling

o 20% of the informants: asking for permission to offer a gift

+ Vietnamese informants use the following strategies with:

o all the informants: direct offer, showing modesty about the gift value, stating reason of gift offering, wishes and express the G’s feeling

o 60% of the informants: showing concern for the R

o 40% of the informants: giving the R a surprise

o 20% of the informants: asking for permission to offer a gift

- The data analysis has revealed the domination of strategy “direct offer” in the choice of American informants In almost situations, this strategy is used at a considerably high rate Only when offering gift to employees or employers they prefer employing strategy “stating reason of gift offering”

- On the other hand, strategy “wishes” is the most popularly used by Vietnamese informants with all partners in almost situations Only when the gift is offered to their close friend, strategy “direct offer” is more favored, and when to their employee, they resort to strategy “stating reason of gift offering” more frequently

III.2.3 Concluding remarks

Above is the realization of all the strategies employed to offer a gift in both American and Vietnamese For the purpose of analysis, we have just made an attempt to classify them into smaller groups so as not to ignore any one What is noticeable here is that, in reality, such a clear – cut distinction is not always the case All the strategies can, of course, be used separately or combined with one another to perform the act of gift offering There have been numerous examples in both cultures and languages, in which speakers use sort

of integrative strategies to make their gift offering more effective For the American informants, strategy “direct offer” accounts for the greatest rate of all (31.6%), followed by

“stating reason of gift offering” (24.8%) The American informants favor strategy “direct offer” in offering gift to: a new friend/colleague and their employee The Vietnamese informants seem to be less straightforward than their American counterparts Their most commonly used strategy is “wishes”: 34%, while strategy “direct offer” makes up only 24.8% The strategy “wishes” is the most frequently used in offering gift to: a new friend/colleague, their brother/sister and their employee The strategy “direct offer” shows

its dominant percentage when the gift is offered to: their close friend and their brother/sister

In short, the utterances of the American informants are often short and simple while the Vietnamese informants prefer longer and more complex sentences Also, this reflects the Vietnamese’s way of thinking The mannerism of the American people tends to be straightforward and direct while the Vietnamese people are more likely to adopt roundabout and indirect expressions The Vietnamese people seem to prefer lengthy sentences when offering a gift

Chapter IV Strategies in responding to gift offers

Offering gift is one of the positive politeness strategies First and foremost, it brings benefit

to R Thus, in responding to the offers we realize that the R welcomes it and avoids FTA of the G, even though he/she does not want to receive the gift Some Americans got very surprised when they were filling in our survey questionnaire They said that they rarely, if not never, refuse to receive a gift They usually open the gift and thank the G and showing their feeling If the gift is declined, they take it back without hesitation Because they explained that they do not want to force the partner to do the thing he/she dislikes In contrast, the Vietnamese often insist until the R agrees to take the gift If not, sometimes they quietly leave the gift in the R’s house, hardly ever take it back

IV.1 Agreeing to receive a gift

IV.1.1 Communicative strategies in receiving a gift

The following strategies are realized from the data collection:

Table 4 Strategies used to receive a gift

As we can see from the table above, the American employ strategy “thanking” the most while the Vietnamese prefer using strategy “token refusal” In contrast, this strategy is used

at the lowest rate by the Americans For the Vietnamese, the smallest percentage belongs

to strategy “complimenting the gift”

1 Thanking

This strategy is used by the Americans and dominant in almost their utterances Their thanking often includes intensifiers like “so much, very much, etc” It is similar to words like “chân thành, rất nhiều, etc” in Vietnamese This is the most commonly used in American: 34% while it stands at the third place in Vietnamese utterances When uttering

“thank you”, the Vietnamese, who have an intimate relationship with each other, often feel

a certain distance between the S and the H, so this expression is not frequently used in the case of close friend or family member Here are some examples:

By the American informants:

o Wow! Thank you very much

o Oh, thank you so much!

o Thank you a lot!

By the Vietnamese informants:

o Cảm ơn em nhiều (Thank you very much)

o Xin chân thành cảm ơn (Sincerely thank you)

o Rất cảm ơn bạn (Thank you so much)

By the American informants:

o Oh, no You shouldn’t do like this Thank you anyway

o Thanks a lot, what is it for?

o Oh, you don’t need to give me a gift

By the Vietnamese informants:

o Cậu bày vẽ quá Lần sau không phải làm thế này đâu nhé! (How formal you

are! Don’t do that next time!)

o Bày đặt làm gì cho tốn kém vậy em? (Why do you have to spend so much

money on me?)

o Trời, quà cáp làm gì Mình chỉ nhận lần này thôi nhé! (Oh! What a gift! I

only receive it this time)

o Ồ, chú em khách sáo quá! (Oh, how formal you are!)

For the Vietnamese, when you are invited for a meal or a drink, if the hosts do not have a close relationship with you, you should not immediately accept the invitation The hosts

may regard you as a greedy and rude type of person if you receive the gift and say “thanks” right away Thus, the Vietnamese often agree to have a meal or drink when they are insisted by the host several times It is quite similar to the case of gift offering Although the R, in his/her minds, really wants to get the gift, he/she still gives a refusal at first, but it

is only a token refusal That is called “từ chối chiếu lệ” or “từ chối lấy lệ” in Vietnamese, which is the most favored by the Vietnamese informants Many of them interviewed, replied that by employing this strategy, they show their politeness so that the G do not misunderstand about them Generally, in the cases relating to material element, the Vietnamese seem to be more cautious and formal

3 Complimenting the gift

This strategy in American stands at the fourth place (13.2%) while it stands at the last place in Vietnamese (11.6%) As we discussed above, the Vietnamese never open the gift immediately when receiving it so this strategy may not be favored The Americans often use adjectives like “nice, great, wonderful, etc” in their compliments and sometimes an exclamation preceded by thanking:

By the American informants:

o Wow, this is a wonderful present

o Thank you What a great gift!

o Oh, thanks a lot It is very lovely

By the Vietnamese informants:

o Món quà đẹp lắm, cám ơn em nhé! (This is a wonderful gift Thanks)

o Món quà của cậu thú vị thật, cám ơn cậu nhiều! (Your gift is very

interesting Thank you so much!)

o Đây là món quà rất ý nghĩa với em Cám ơn chị nhiều lắm! (This gift is very

useful for me Thank you very much!) The difference between the rate of this strategy employed in American and Vietnamese shows that compliments of the American informants tends towards the object (the gift) a little more than the Vietnamese ones

4 Complimenting the G

This strategy is employed at a higher rate by the Vietnamese than by the American (25.2% and 22% respectively) This suggests that, on the contrary to the American informants, the compliments of the Vietnamese ones tend towards the subject (G) a bit more than the

American ones The percentage of the informants using strategy “complimenting the Giver” is much bigger than that in “complimenting the gift” (22% vs 13.2% in American and 25.2% vs 11.6% in Vietnamese) This shows that both cultures appreciate the gift offering and the G more than the gift itself Adjectives like: kind, nice, sweet, etc are of frequent use in both languages Here are some examples:

By the American informants:

o Thank you so much You are very kind

o Oh, you are so wonderful

o How kind of you! Thank you!

o It’s so sweet of you!

By the Vietnamese informants:

o Ôi, em đáng yêu quá, cám ơn em nhiều (Oh, you’re my lovely sister Thank

you so much)

o Cám ơn sếp nhiều, sếp chu đáo quá ạ! (Thank you very much, you are so

considerate)

o Cám ơn nhé, mày hiểu ý tao ghê (Thanks, you really know my taste)

5 Expressing the R’s feeling

The American informants employ this strategy at a higher rate than the Vietnamese (18.8% and 13.2% respectively) The verb “thích” (like) with intensifiers “rất, quá, lắm” (really, a lot, much) are often used in Vietnamese while the adjectives like “honored” and

“surprised” are much resorted to in American:

By the American informants:

o Oh, I’m so honored

o Wow, I’m so surprised with this

By the Vietnamese informants:

o Cảm ơn em, chị rất thích nó (Thank you, I like it very much)

o Ôi, cảm ơn sếp rất nhiều, em bất ngờ quá! (Thank my boss, I’m so

surprised!)

o Thật bất ngờ! Mình rất vui khi nhận được món quà này (What a surprise!

I’m very happy to receive this gift) Once again, the high percentage of this strategy in American shows that the American seem to be more open and extrovert than the Vietnamese in expressing their feelings

although the sentences in American are often shorter and simpler More than that, the Vietnamese often attach some promise to show their gratitude to the G They are probably

so highly appreciated about the gift offering that they make some promise to meet the feeling of the G The utterances like these will make the G satisfied

IV.1.2 Similarities and differences of gift receiving between American and Vietnamese

IV.1.2.1 Data analysis

The data analysis has shown that all the strategies mentioned above are employed by both groups of informants However, the frequency of use of these strategies is not the same Among the strategies, “thanking” is the most commonly used in American while the choice

of the Vietnamese informants seems to be more complicated Their choice much depends

on the relationship between the G and the H For detailed analysis, please see Appendix B (II)

IV.1.2.2 Major similarities and differences

* Similarities:

- All strategies are employed by both groups of informants

- Strategy “complimenting the G” holds the second place in the order of percentage in both American and Vietnamese

* Differences:

In the same situation, with the same partner, the American and Vietnamese have employed different strategies

American informants use the following strategies with:

+ all the informants: “thanking”, “complimenting the G” and “expressing the R’s feeling” + 80% of the informants: “complimenting the gift” and “token refusal”

Vietnamese informants resort to the following strategies with:

+ all the informants: “thanking”, “complimenting the G”, “token refusal” and “expressing the R’s feeling”

+ 80% of the informants: “complimenting the gift”

- The data analysis has revealed the domination of “thanking” in the choice of the American while the Vietnamese prefer “token refusal”

- The lowest rate of “thanking” falls in communicating with their close friend and brother/sister in American whereas this rate of “token refusal” in Vietnamese belongs to the case of their close friend

IV.1.3 Concluding remarks

Although receiving is not an FTA, the informants have tactfully chosen different strategies All the five strategies are resorted to by both groups However, each group has employed them differently The most commonly chosen strategy by the American informants is

“thanking”: 34% This has been shown in its constantly dominating percentage over all other strategies In the ranking of occurrence of strategies, the second place belongs to

“complimenting the Giver” The Vietnamese informants favor strategy “token refusal” most: 28% For most of the Vietnamese, before receiving a gift, first they often refuse it as

a polite manner The refusal here is only token or conventional for the reception later However, strategy “token refusal” is the most frequently resorted to some certain communicative partners: a new friend/colleague, employee and employer

Strategy “complimenting the Giver” comes the second with 25.2%, a slightly higher than the rate of the American informants (only 22%) This suggests that the Vietnamese tend to use the negative politeness strategies more than the Americans

IV.2 Refusing a gift

IV.2.1 Communicative strategies used in refusing a gift

After analyzing the data, we can categorize the refusing utterances of the informants as in the table below As we discussed above, some informants interviewed said that they rarely refuse the gift If they have to refuse it, they choose utterances which reduce the face threat

to the minimum because as far as we know, giving a gift is a behavior that the G is willing and voluntary to perform to bring benefit to the R The following table shows the strategies the informants used to refuse a gift:

1 Negating the necessity of gift offering 34.6% 28.8%

Table 5.Strategies used to refuse a gift offer