In order to become competent in a foreign language

it is important for language learners not only to acquire new vocabularies and a new set of phonological and syntactic rules

1 Part A: Introduction I Rationale In order to become competent in a foreign language, it is important for language learners not only to acquire new vocabularies and a new set of phonological and syntactic rules but also to learn what Wilson (1986) calls the rules of speaking: the patterns of sociolinguistic behavior of the target language The rules of speaking involve us in knowing when and how it is suitable to open a conversation, what topics are appropriate to particular speech events, how speech acts are to be given and interpreted In many cases, this interpretation goes beyond what the language learners might intend to convey and includes assessments such as “polite” and “impolite” In Vietnam, as the economy grows and international business develops, English proficiency becomes a master tool for young people to get a job They encounter foreigners in everyday settings where communication is necessary In the modern society, the need for communication is increasing, especially in the process of globalization, when communication spreads beyond the boundary of a country During the last decades, linguistic researchers have broadened their focus of their interests from the development of grammatical competence to other areas of target language development, such as discourse and pragmatic competence, common speech routines, for example, requests, apologies, complaints, compliments, refusals, and the like have been most frequently studied in cross-cultural and interlanguage pragmatics According to Tsui (1994), there seems to be little empirical research that has been conducted in responses to questions For a long time, questionresponse has been considered one of the most basic structures of conversation (Schegloff, 1974) but as Tsui (1994; p 160) points out: “responses have been given little attention in the speech acts literature Most of the acts characterized and listed in the various taxonomies are illocutionary acts which are often done by making the function of utterance in discourse, and as many responding acts not have a corresponding responding performative verb, this kind of analysis inevitably neglects responses” A characterization of utterances (based on observation of real-life discourse) is not likely to neglect the importance of responses Let’s consider an example illustrated by Tsui (1994) A: What’s the time? B: (a) Eleven (b) Time for coffee (c) I haven’t got a watch, sorry (d) How hold I know (e) Ask Jack (f) You know bloody well what time it is (g) Why you ask? (h) What did you say? (i) What you mean? Various possible responses from (a) to (i) shows us the complicated relationship between question and a proper answer For the same question, the speaker A may be replied in different ways with different intentions by the addressee Obviously, a response can be a proper answer, an indirect or implicit reply, an evasive answer, a refusal or denial, an outright lie or even a challenge to the speaker’s questioning act Moreover, the question-answer exchange cannot always be a simple relationship in the actual communicative process It is the addressee’s response that may establish, deepen and maintain the conversation, develop the intimacy among interlocutors, or interrupt the interactional process and even badly change the participants’ role, for example, from friends to enemies There is no doubt that the addressee’s responses depend on so many social factors: the speaker’s intent; the hearer’s perception of that intent, the various fits between actual and perceived intents, concurrent gestures, facial expressions, movements and some decisions as to how the two parties are to deal with this complex mix of factors (Wardhaugh,1997) A question which is now posed to us is how we can precisely understand and interpret the speaker’s intents to a question; what types of question responses are; what strategies the speaker uses to respond to questions; and what factors affect speaker’s responding behavior This is the reason that motivated our choice of the research to present a contrastive analysis of responses to questions in English and Vietnamese conversation Through the study, we hope to gain some insights which highlight both the similarities and the differences between English and Vietnamese response types, strategies used to respond to question by Native Speakers of English and Vietnamese The study will also try to present difficulties as well as some practical recommendations for the process of teaching and learning English II Aims of the study In order to distinguish the different ways of replies and responses to questions as well as different responding strategies in English and Vietnamese, this research aims at: - describing and analyzing different types of responses to questions in English and Vietnamese conversation - investigating how verbal responses to question express cultural values by examining the relationship between gender, closeness of relationship and status of the interlocutors and the kinds of responses to questions - putting forward some implications for teaching and learning the functions of responses to questions in everyday conversation III Scope of the study In this research, we mainly concentrate on some types of responses to seekinginformation questions The term, “question”, whose illocutionary focus is to elicit information and knowledge, is defined as a functional or speech act label A question is asked when the questioner does not really know the answer and wants the addressee to supply a piece of information (Tsui, 1994) As we mentioned the name of the study “ An investigation on some types of verbal responses to questions in English and Vietnamese conversation” above, non-verbal responses such as silence, gestures, movements and the like will be outside the scope of the study IV Research questions What are the various types of verbal responses to questions in English and Vietnamese conversations? What are the differences and similarities in the choice of response patterns to questions between native speakers of English and Vietnamese? V Organization of the study The study contains three parts Part A: Introduction establishes the rationale of the study, the aims, and the scope of the study; the research questions and organization of the study Part B: Contents consists of four chapters Chapter one points out comprehensible review of theoretical background on speech acts, discourse and conversation analysis, and it is concerned with literature review in which attention is paid to the classification of questions and responses in the theoretical framework by Tsui (1994) Chapter two gives the method to collect and analyze data The next is chapter three, in which we compare and contrast various types of responses to questions and their pragmatic functions in English and Vietnamese conversations This chapter also analyses the data collected from linguistic books, articles, novels, tape records, find out some similarities and differences in verbal responses to questions in English and Vietnamese conversation In the chapter four, we investigate sociolinguistic variables affecting to some typical types and strategies of responses to questions in English and Vietnamese conversation Part C is the conclusion and some implications for English learning and teaching PART B: development CHAPTER 1: THEORITICAL BACKGROUND Conversational theory 1.1 Conversation First and foremost, it is necessary to clarify the term “conversation” Conversation is the primary means for human communication Many linguists have given different definitions of what a conversation is, as follow: “conversation is the exchange of language through language” (Hornby et al, 1963), or “conversation is a friendly, natural talk in which people exchange information, ideas, and emotion to one another” (Collins, 1987) Levinson (1983: 284) sees conversation as “familiar predominant kind of talk in which two or more participants freely alternate in speaking, which generally occurs outside specific institutional settings like religious services, law courts, classroom, and the like” However, the definition of Finegan et.al (1994: 316) about the conversation may help us understand deeply “a conversation can be viewed as a series of speech acts- greetings, enquiries, congratulations, comment, invitations, requests…to accomplish the work of these speech acts, some organization is essential: we take turns to speak, answer questions, mark the beginning and end of conversation, and make corrections when they are needed ” 1.2 Conversation structure When we are talking to each other we are not just pronouncing words By saying something we are also doing something An utterance such as “Could you close the door?” can function as a request for information or a warning depends on the circumstances When we say something, we also expect the addressee to respond in one way or another, by answering a question, by agreeing or disagreeing to a proposal, by acknowledging receipt of information, and so on, in other words by being an active partner This is what interaction is about The term “interaction” could actually apply to a very large number of quite different social encounters For example, a teacher talking to a student in a classroom is one kind of interaction Others include a boss talking to his assistant at the workplace, a doctor to patient in a clinic…The basic pattern “I speak – you speak – I speak – you speak” is what linguists call the structure of conversation The study of question responding acts in conversation is necessary There are two approaches to examine the conversation structure: conversation analysis and discourse analysis 1.2.1 Conversation analysis Many conversational analysis researchers have defined ordinary conversation as the kind of casual, social talk that routinely occurs between friends and acquaintances, either face-to-face or on the phone According to Markee (2000) “conversation analysis concerned with naturally occurring instances of everyday talk follow still another, separate academic tradition of inquiry, which concentrates on the actual discourse mechanisms that serve to allocate turns of speaking, to negotiate changes in focus and to manage and direct the flow of interaction” Conversation analysis, like ethnomethodology, focuses on the common, everyday competencies that make the social interaction possible It examines oral dialogue to determine the social and pragmatic principle whereby speakers and hearers negotiate, structure and interpret conversation The general strategy in conversation analysis is to examine actual verbal interactions in order to bring the structural properties of talk The descriptive units that the conversation analysis has been using in describing the structure of conversation are Turn, Adjacency pair and Sequence  Turn Conversation is a collaborative process A speaker does not say everything he or she wants to say in a single utterance Conversation progresses as a series of turns Turn is seen as everything one speaker says before another begins to speak Turn might be short or long Some short turns consist of a single word like turn (1) and (4) in the following telephone closing: TURNS < 1> B: right (1) A: Yes thanks very much (2) B: OK bye (3) A: bye (4) (36: 4)  Adjacency Pair Schegloff (1974) observe that a conversation is a string of at least two turns which are produced by different speakers and are related to each other in such a way they form a pair type They call them an adjacency pair The adjacency pair always consists of a first part and a second part The utterance of a first part immediately creates an expectation of the utterance of a second part of the same pair There is a class of first pair parts which include Questions, Greetings, Offers, Requests, etc For some first pair parts, the second pair part is reciprocal (Greeting – Greeting); for some there is only one appropriate second (Question – Answer), for some more than one (Complaint – Apology/Justification) For examples: First past Second Part A: Hello B: Hi A: What time is it? B: About eighty-thirty A: Morning, Bob! Late again! B: I’m ever sorry I promise it won’t happen again In a second part pair, there is often a choice of two likely responses A request is most likely to be followed by either an acceptance of refusal An assessment is responded by an agreement or disagreement In such cases, one of the responses is termed the preferred response and the other the dispreferred response The preferred is the structurally expected next act and the dispreferred is the structurally unexpected next act The following general patterns are presented by Levinson (1983, p 336) First part Second part Preferred Dispreferred Assessment Agree Disagree Invitation/Offer Accept Refuse Request Accept Refuse Question Expected answer Unexpected answer or non-answer Blame Deny Admission Table Correlation of content and format in adjacency pair  Sequence The structure of adjacency pair described so far has been linear: The first pair part followed by the second pair part However, there are also cases of embedding: one pair occurring inside another Sometimes, either because the listener does not understand or because he does not want to commit himself until he knows more or because he is simply stalling, a next speaker produces not a second part but another first pair part This conversational fragment is referred to as insertion sequence Tapes of sequence are illustrated in and : Agent: Do you want the early flight? (=Q1) Client: What time does it arrive? (=Q2) Agent: Five-fifty (=A2) Client: Yeah – that’s great (=A1) (71: 78) This sequence takes the form of Q1 - Q2 - A2 - A1, A1 is the answer of Q1, and A2 is the answer of Q2 Therefore, the middle pair Q2 - A2 is called an insertion sequence A: Your jewellery looks very nice (Assessment) B: Which one you mean exactly? (Question) A: The necklace (Answer) B: Well, I don’t think the same (Disagreement) In this conversation, there is pair which consists of making an assessment disagreement with an insertion sequence of question answer pair which seems to function as a condition on the disagreement being provided 1.2.2 Discourse analysis Coulthard (1985) proposed a descriptive framework for analyzing conversation They discovered a typical classroom exchange that is made up of three moves: an initiating move, a responding move, a follow-up move, as the following example: T: What does the next one mean? You don’t often see that one round here, Miri Initiating move P: Danger falling rocks Responding move T: Danger, falling rock Follow-up move However, Sinclair and Coulthard (1985) also pointed out that when a move consists of more than one act, then one of the acts is the main act called head act which carries the discourse function of the entire move It is obligation The rest are subsidiary acts called prehead act if they precede the head act, or post-head act if they follow the head act They are optional Sinclair and Coulthard (1985) illustrated the following conversation: A: Why are you standing? Do sit down B: Thanks (Sit down) (1) (2) In this conversation, (1) consists of two acts: a question “Why are you standing?” and an invitation “Do sit down” Obviously, the main discourse function of move (1) is an invitation (not a question) B’s response to the invitation is obligatory B’s response “Thanks” can be understood as accepting the invitation A cannot challenge B for not responding to his question If B says “Well, I’ve been sitting all day”, B’s response is not only an answer to the question, but rather a declination of the invitation A will not challenge B for having only responded to the question but also not the invitation However, the fact that an initiating move sets up the expectation of a responding move does not mean that the former will always be followed by the latter After the production of an initiation, the next speaker makes a systemic choice of whether, to support or reject it The following is an illustration of how the system works in conversation form (Tsui, 1994) Tsui supposes a tourist in Birmingham City Centre asks a passer-by “Can you tell me where New Street station is?” The followings are examples of the choices that are available to the passer-by: Tourist: Can you tell me where New Street station is? Passer-by: (a) It’s just round the corner (b) Do you know where the shopping centre is? (c) Sorry, I’m a stranger here (66: 20) The illustration shows the passer-by the choice of supporting the utterance or rejecting it altogether If he chooses the former, then he has the choice of producing a response, which supplies the information (7a) Or he may produce another elicitation before supplying the information (7b) If the choice is to reject the utterance, he may reject the assumption that he is able to supply the requested information (7c) 1.3 Conversational principle 1.3.1 Co-operation and implicature It has become clear from the studies of conversation that conversation proceeds on the basis that participants are “reasonable” people who can be expected to deal decently with one another In considering the suitability of participants’ moves in conversation, Grice (1975, p 45) formulates a rough general principle which participants will be expected to observe as follows: “Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the state at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged One might label this the cooperative principle” Grice has described four categories of special cases of this principle which he called “Maxims” These maxims can briefly be characterized in modified form below: 1) Maxim of Quantity: Be brief Make your contribution as informative as is required and no more 2) Maxim of Quality: Be true Do not say what you believe to be false and not say that for which you lack adequate evidence 3) Maxim of Relation: Be relevant 4) Maxim of Manner: Be clear Avoid obscurity and ambiguity Grice points out that speaker not always follow these maxims They may violate, exploit the maxims That is to say, they not give as much of the relevant information as he could, or he may offer utterances ambiguously, etc In such instances, the conversation maxims provide a basis for the hearer to construct a sequence of inferences which make it relevant or at least cooperative Grice called this process “implicature” Let us consider this example: A: What you think of our new boss? B: Not very nice A: Not nice? I think he’s great This conversation is constructed on the basis of the observation that when a speaker questions a proposition stated by the previous speaker, he is often signaling disagreement by questioning is not relevant unless the speaker is implying disagreement with that statement In brief, conversation is a cooperative activity Conversation makes use of the cooperative principle Speakers and hearers are guided by considerations of quantity, quantity relation, manner and the process of implicature which allow them to figure out relationships between the said and the unsaid According to Thomas (1998) a speaker can say one thing and manage to mean something else or something more by exploiting the fact that he may be presumed to be cooperative, in particular, to be speaking truthfully, informatively, relevantly, and otherwise, appropriately The listener relies on this presumption to make a contextually driven inference from what the speaker says to what the speaker means In other words, the hearer has to work out from what is said by appealing to the rules governing successful conversational interaction Sometimes the speaker’s reply is untrue and uncooperative but in fact this is the sort of sarcastic reply we encounter everyday and have no problem at all in interpreting How we interpret it? There are two ways of inferring the meaning by the speaker: Observation to maxims and Non-observation to maxims  Observation to maxims: observing maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner  Non-observation to maxims: flouting maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner 1.3.2 Politeness principles In the aspects of politeness, different ways of responses to questions ultimately influence someone’s behavior or attitude According to Green (1996), politeness is seen as trade in commodity called face Face is defined as consisting of the freedom to act unimpeded (Negative Face) and the satisfaction of having one’s value approved of (Positive Face) To maintain face requires the cooperation of others’ actions and value systems, so interactants trade face, paying face whenever they must perform a face-threatening act in 10 the course of accomplishing their goals Brown and Levinson (1987) argues that when speaker does an act, which he believes may threaten addressee’s face, speaker must calculate how much he is risking in performing the face – threatening act Therefore, there are some factors affecting to this calculation: speaker’s estimates of the social distance assumed to separate speaker and hearer, the relative social power of speaker and hearer, and the extent to which the act contemplated is considered to be an imposition in the culture of which speaker and hearer are members 1.4 Verbal communication Communication can be understood as “the exchange of ideas, information, etc between two or more persons” Successful communication should not only send information to another but also ensure that this information is understood by the receivers in more or less the way it is intended by the sender Communication can take in many different ways Generally speaking, two categories of communication can be identified The first is verbal communication, that is communication using language and speech to share or exchange information The second is non-verbal communication; that is communication without the use of language but depending rather on other channels such as body language, eye contact, physical appearance, attitude distance and physical contact Due to the limitation of the small study, we only research verbal communication that verbal responses to questions in English and Vietnamese conversations are specifically taken into the consideration Speech act theory The theory of speech act was first discussed in Austin’s book entitled How to things with words (1962) In this book, Austin assumes that language not only functions as stating and describing things but also as performing acts He examples that an apology or a promise conveys psychological or social practice and takes place at the right time when someone apologizes or promises, not before the actual action He also modifies that many declarative sentences are defined as the doing or part of, the doing of a certain action although they not only make any description, report, or statement Based on Austin’s work, Searle (1976; p.16) pointed out that “the unit of linguistic communication is not, as has generally been supposed, the symbol, word or sentence, but rather the production or issuance of the symbol or word or sentence in the performance of the speech act” This is only expresses information through words but also performs certain functions such as promising, inviting, questing, wishing, etc, in everyday communication In 28 Q: Con muốn bố mua quần bò áo thun A: Bố đà mua quần bò (17: 134) Q: Anh biết anh Dịu chứ? A: Ông Thiếu uý lò gạch à? (25: 129) Q: Chị đẹp phải không? A: Có lẽ phải đem năm bảy chị phụ nữ khác nén lại may đợc chÞ (2: 65) In (30), A gives the response that could be interpreted as an indirect confirmation to Q’s doubt 1.2.2 Indirect responses fail to observe the maxim of Manner (Flouts exploiting the maxim of Manner) Ann: Where are you going with the dog? Sam: To the V-E-T (Vi- I- Ti) (71: 43) Sam produces a more elaborate, spelled out version of his massage, implicating that he does not want the dog to know the answer to the question just asked, because the dog may be recognize the word “vet”, and hate being taken there Chång: BÐ Trµ Mi hôm ngoan, phải thởng cho bé chứ? Vợ: Cờ Em Mờ (KEM) (16: 287) The wife exploits the maxim of Manner when replying her husband’s question She indirectly implicates they should not let their daughter know about their plan 1.2.3 Indirect responses fail to observe the maxim of Relation (Flouts exploiting the maxim of Relation) The maxim of Relation is exploited by making a response or observation which is very obviously irrelevant to the topic in hand Leila: Whoa! Has your boss gone crazy? Mary: Let’s go get some coffee (71: 43) Q: Are you coming to the cinema? A: I’ve got an exam tomorrow (61: 139) In (34), the speaker gives indirect response implicates that he does not want to go to the cinema It is raining very hard and the driver (D), stops to offer of a walker (W) a lift D: Do you want a lift? 29 W: Well, if you’re going near the campsite (61: 132) W gives indirect response to D’s question by implying that he/she would only accept a lift to the campsite if the drive was going in that direction anyway In Vietnamese, indirect responses that exploit the maxims of Relation are various Consider the following: Q: Anh C d¹o khoẻ không? A: Nó Văn Điển Q: Sao? Thế gặp mụ Bọ Muỗm cha? A: Nó đánh gấy (17: 201) (6: 44) Q: Anh cã muèn chÕt kh«ng? A: Anh nµy hái míi dë chø (6: 98) In (36), the speaker gives indirect response Văn Điển implying that Mr C is seriously ill, close to death While in (37), the speaker implies his injury, a broken leg, to the questioner that he met his enemy In (38), the speaker who violates the maxim of Relevance implies that no one want to die, and so does he In both English and Vietnamese, the speaker often uses some “rhetorical questions”: “Do chickens have lips?”/ “Who understands Piaget?”/ “Why is the sky blue?” or some expressions, such as “War is War”/ “Boy is Boy”, “Woman is Woman”, “Fact is Fact” as indirect responses to questions Consider the followings: Bert: Do you like ice-cream? Ernie: Is the Pope Catholic? (71: 43) Bert: Do vegetarians eat hamburgers? Ernie: Do chickens have lips? (71: 44) In the example (39) above, Ernie’s response does not provide a “Yes” or “No” answer Ernie’s response also implicates that the answer to the question is “Obviously, yes” In (40), Ernie gives indirect response by implicating that the answer is “Of course not!” Q: CËu có cho thi vào đợc đại học không? A: Thế cậu đà thấy chó có váy lĩnh cha? Q: Tay Cán dạo nào? A: Cán Cán (16: 387) (16: 132) Q: Chị nhà dạo nói nhiều không? A: Đàn bà đàn bà (2: 140) 30 Challenges According to Tsui (1994), any utterances which not provide information, disconfirm the speaker’s assumption, disagree with the speaker’s goal, fail to repeat or clarify what being said before are realized as challenges When the addressee does not fulfill the illocutionary intent of the questioner’s elicitation, the addressee is said to challenge its pragmatic presupposition 2.1 Inability in supplying the expected information On some occasions, the speaker expresses his/her inability to provide information because it may be their lack of information needed, or their ignorance Consider the followings: Q: Do you know where a good restaurant is? A: Sorry, I’m new around here (60: 57) In (44), the addressee does not provide the information that the questioner needs because the fact is that he/she really does not know Q: And now you’re married, so when’s your anniversary? A: I can’t remember (60: 59) Q: When was the last time you went sailing? A: I can’t remember Inside, p.122 Q: Where and how did you first meet? A: Oh, I don’t know Q: Do you think you are faithful to your wife? A: I can’t tell you (50: 192) Q: So what you want to be? A: Uh…I’m not sure I’m not sure (50: 134) (48: 128) Q: And what sort of thing are you looking for? A: I don’t really know (50: 136) In the above examples, the addressee seems to ignore the speaker’s elicitation or give a declaration of unwillingness to supply information The situations are relatively common in Vietnamese The Vietnamese seem sensitive to the kind of face-threatening responses to questions They often use hedges, excuses or apologies for the failure to advance questioner’s goal Q: Nó tán tỉnh nào? Con ngời ngợm sao? Mặt mũi nào? 31 A: Em nữa, Hình nh cha có Q: Tại anh không bắn tôi? A: Tôitôi không rõ (2: 82) (2: 57) Q: Đến nhà hộ sinh có phải xuất trình giấy giá thú không? A: Em chịu (7: 136) The above illustrations of challenges are not significantly between English and Vietnamese The English often use some expressions, such as “I don’t know”, “I’m really not sure”, “I couldn’t tell you”, “I can’t remember”, “I have no idea”, “Sorry, I am a stranger here” or some hesitations responding “Well, let me see”, “Well, let me think”, “Where should I start?” to give a declaration of ignorance; or a declaration of unwillingness to supply information, the lack of information Meanwhile, the Vietnamese also have corresponding types, such as Không rõ lắm, Không biết, Không thấy gì, Chịu/ Chịu to give their inability to supply information that the speaker needs 2.2 Evasion in supplying information According to Thomas (1998), there are many expressions of evasion that the addressee uses in their responses 2.2.1 Topic – changing responses Leila has just walked into Mary’s office and noticed all the work on her desk: Leila: Whoa! Has your boss gone crazy? Mary: Let’s go get some coffee (71: 43) Mary cannot answer the question in that context because the boss may be nearby So she changes the topic in order to preserve the assumption of cooperation Sybil is in hospital; waiting an operation for an in-growing toenail Her husband, Basil, is hovering about: Basil: I said you’re sure you’ll be all right? Sybil: Will you get me my bed jacket? (61: 202) Similar cases appear in Vietnamese: Q: Nhng chị Lý cha lấy chồng anh tính sao? A: Tối nhiều khách đến chơi Nhà chè không? (10: 26) In (55), the husband evades his wife’s question about his old girlfriend by changing the topic with the questioning act Q: Đàn ông có vợ có khác, anh cháu rồi? 32 A: TôitôiBây đến nhà trớc nhỉ? Q: Anh đà gặp chị cha? Chị Thái ấy? A: Năm em học lớp rồi? (2: 412) (2: 234) Q: CËu Êy lµm nghỊ nhỉ? A: Ông công an hộ tịch Êy µ? (2: 313) 2.2.2 Delayed responses In the conversation, the addressees, sometimes, use the “delayed responses” pattern that challenges the speaker’s elicitation, to evade the questions They may have to clarify the questioner’s presupposition before giving the answer Consider the followings: Q: Is that your car? A: Why you want to know? (61: 141) Q: Are you sure you don’t want to see me? A: And then? Any more? (50: 136) Similarly, in Vietnamese: Q: Thu Thuỷ làm để sống? A: Hỏi để làm gì? Q: Tiến cha? A: Hỏi nã cã viƯc g×? (17: 79) Q: Anh mÊy tuổi? A: Chị thử đoán xem (17: 78) (2: 170) Q: Em vào xem phim không? A: Em ®Õn 18 ti cha? (17: 71) The addressee can delay because they need time to think for a moment, or check their facts: Q: So, what’s your favorite class? A: Uh…I really…I really like…English, you know, …um…science, science is good…um…history…Hmm…I like…let’s me think… (48: 128) Q: Xong cha thím? A: àCó Để hỏi cháu Mai ơi! (2: 103) 2.2.3 Outright lies When the addressees are not willing to give the information, they often use the simplest and straightforward cases, those are outright lies Thomas (1998) proposes that often 33 an individual tries to deflect unwelcome attention by giving an improbable or obviously untrue response Consider the follows: Q: What’s your name? A: I’m the Queen of Sheba (61: 68) In (67), the speaker asks the addressee about her name and she does not want to tell, so she might say like that Similarly, in Vietnamese, there are many responses as outright lies, such as: Q: Dạo trông Lan xinh Lan làm để sống? A: Làm vợ tổng thống (2: 472) Q: Cô đến đâu thế? A: Đến cổng trời, tha anh (2: 34) 2.2.4 Implicit responses The addressee gives implicit responses when he/she can not provide the expected answer, perhaps for legal or ethical reasons; or he/she assumes his/her information would hurt the questioner’s feeling Q: Will you give me a truthful answer? Is there another man? A: I thought you know the answer more clearly than me (61: 141) Q: What you think of our boss’s comments? It is bad, isn’t it? A: I see it the way you see (32: 137) Implicit responses are also a preferred type to evade the question found in Vietnamese: Q: Tức mẹ muốn đuổi đi, phải không mẹ? A: Cái tuỳ cô hiểu (2: 315) Q: Con sÏ kh«ng bá nã chø? A: Câu hỏi trả lời ®ỵc (10: 25) 2.2.5 Refusals Refusal to answer the question is considered a serious FTA to the addressee’s face The addressee, sometimes, denies the assumption that he interprets from the question, or when being asked a question that he/she thinks its presupposition is untrue or inappropriate, will reject the speaker’s presupposition Consider the following samples: Q: Well, what about credit cards? Are American credit cards accepted? A: How would I know? (66: 167) Q: Now, David, when did you meet Rossie? A: Uh…where can I start? (48: 137) 34 Q: Sao thế? A: Chẳng (6: 127) Q: Để làm ạ? A: Chẳng để làm (6: 127) Q: Nó hỏi hở bác? A: Hỏi đâu (17: 14) In Vietnamese, denial patterns are usually common with đâu, chẳnggì cả, chẳng cả, used to deny the questioners assumption Another kind of question responses occurs quite commonly in Vietnamese and often denies the questioner’s implicit meaning embedded in his question: Q: Hơng hay giận ngời yêu phải không? A: Em có ngời yêu đâu mà giận Q: Bao cậu giả tiền cho mình? A: Tớ vay tiền cậu mà giả? (17: 122) (5: 366) Q: Lóc Êy ®Ìn kho cã bËt sáng không? A: Tôi có đâu mà biết? (16: 120) In some cases, the speakers blatantly refuse to answer the question without any excuse for their failure to so This way of responding to a question can be considered objection-raising responses Q: What does John for a living? A: What have you got to with that? Q: What’s the time? A: Ask Jack (66: 213) Q: Mấy rồi? A: Đi mà hái Lan Êy (52: 334) (5: 331) Q: Trời ma à? A: Cứ nhìn qua cửa sỉ kh¾c biÕt (5: 331) The most face-threatening act in verbal communication is to challenge the speaker’s right to as; some kind of “mind your own business” Consider the followings: Q: How you know the devil can’t die? A: I’m just TELLING you (66: 167) Q: Why must I leave her? 35 A: Shut up, you want to be killed? (46: 73) Q: Tại cô lại đến đây? Hẹn gặp đâu nào? A: Làm mà anh hét lên nh thế? Tôi anh nào? Vợ anh ngời đánh xe cho anh (10: 25) Q: Sao nhµ nghèo mÃi thế? A: HÃy hỏi ông trời ây? (2: 322) Special types of question responses 3.1 Incomprehension responding The addressee often gives incomprehension responses when he/she misunderstands or has inattentiveness and difficulty in hearing Q: What colour does your girlfriend usually wear? A: What? Oh dear… Q: How you say companero in English? A: Pardon? (17: 81) Q: Sao thÕ anh? Anh cã giống nh không? A: Hả (2: 79) Q: Em mệt à? Bộ phim có hay không? A: Gì ạ? (17: 150) Q: Anh đà gặp chị cha? A: Cái gì? (48: 127) Q: Bao giê anh Tïng mua b¸nh cho Hun? A: Anh nãi cơ? (60: 52) Q: Excuse me! Can I get past? A: Pardon? (50: 5) Q: Where is the parking lot? A: Sorry, sir? (50: 136) (2: 417) Q: Không hiểu anh tỏ tình với bạn gái nh nhỉ? Chắc lại anh yêu em vì: thứ nhấtthứ hai à? A: Xin lỗi? (2: 405) In English, some expressions, such as: “Pardon?” “What?” “What was that?” “Sorry?” are used as incomprehension responses, while, in Vietnamese, the addressee uses corresponding types as Hả? Gì ạ? Cái gì?, Ai cơ? 36 3.2 Disbelief responding Q: The ball was made of leather It always- it felt really different from a basketball or a volleyball Do you remember? A: Really? (49: 53) Q: ChÞ vất vả hay mà gầy thế? A: Thế ? (6: 75) 3.3 Compliment responding In English, the speaker often uses some expressions: “Thank you”, “You’re well come” “That’s very kind of you”, “Well done” to give complement responding In Vietnamese, there are also some corresponds like that “C¶m ơn, Chào mừng bạn, Rất vui lòng Q: You need my hand, my darling? A: Thank you (66: 153) Q: Who is the first in our group? A: You’re well come (46: 90) Q: Cßn da muèi, cá kho, ngon lắm! anh ăn không? A: Cảm ơn (2: 233) Q: Em tham gia vµo nhãm cđa anh đợc không? Em thuộc đờng đấy? A: Rất vui (2: 217) Interestingly, the data analysis indicates these kinds of question responses in English and Vietnamese are much the same The different attitudes can be seen through the challenges This also reflects the differences between English and Vietnamese features We have just and discussed various patterns by native speakers of English and Vietnamese The next table is the summary of response types to question in English and Vietnamese Response types Replies Pragmatic function and examples These kinds of response patterns fulfill the speaker’s goal directly Direct or indirectly The responders supply the missing information without misleading or confusing the addressee The responders observe the maxims when giving the direct answers: informative, brief, sincere, relevant 37 Indirect The responders give indirect answer with flouting the maxims, but Challenges fulfill the addressee’s goal The responders not provide information, disconfirm the speaker’s assumption, disagree with the speaker’s goal, and fail to Ignorance clarify what being said before Inability in supplying the expected information: “I’m not sure” “No I’ve no idea”, “Kh«ng biÕt”, “Kh«ng hiĨu”… Evasion Avoiding to answers: Outright lies, Topic-changing, implicit replies, Hesitation: “Well, let me see”; “Hmm…I…err … you Refusals know…”; “Anh cịng biÕt råi ®Êy”… Unwilling to answer: Denials to the speaker’s presupposition; Objection-raising responses; Challenges to speaker’s right: “How should I know?”; “Don’t ask”, “Mind your own business; Gì đâu; Việc anh à? Other types Compliment For example: “You’re welcome!”; “Well done!”; “Thank you”; responding Cảm ơn, Rất vui lòng Incomprehension Inattentiveness or difficulty in hearing: Pardon?; You said response Disbelief what?, Gì cơ?, Nói gì? Really?, Is that right?, Thế à?, Vậy ?” responding Table Summary of response types to question in English and Vietnamese Chapter 4: Findings and discussion In this chapter, we will present the findings obtained from the data collected through the questionnaires in terms of status, closeness of relationship and gender 465 utterances are obtained from the two sets of questionnaires, of which 210 utterances are made by 14 native speakers of English and 255 utterances by 14 Native Speakers of Vietnamese As mentioned in the previous chapter, the response patterns to questions are grouped into: direct answers, indirect answers, challenges that consist of evasions, refusals, ignorance and some other special types Based upon the model suggested by Tsui (1994), in this chapter, the data is classified and analyzed The analysis on similarities and differences in the choice of response types to questions by native speakers of 38 English and Native Speakers of Vietnamese are presented Table shows the results obtained from the two groups of informants Response types NSE NSV No % No % Direct 129 61.4 107 42 Indirect 11 5.2 36 14.1 1.5 15 5.9 Challenges Ignorance Evasion 42 20 66 25.9 Refusal 25 11.9 31 12.1 Total 210 100 255 100 Table Overall response types to questions by native speakers of English and Native Replies Speakers of Vietnamese The findings from Table show that the NSE use more direct answers, 61.4% (129 responses) versus 42% (107 responses) Only 5.2% of NSE employs indirect answers while the percentage of NSV using indirect answers is 14.1%, approximately three times of that of NSE Hence, NSE tend to be much more direct in responding to questions than NSV This can be explained by the differences of cultural values that NSE and NSV hold NSE highly appreciate directness, for according to them, “Time is money”; “Direct and assertive personality is a virtue” (Tiersky.1990, p.22) On the contrary, the Vietnamese favour indirectness They are inclined to hesitate “not get to the point” and to “beat about the bush” (Them, p.156) The Vietnamese also value “time” They place great emphasis on time in action However, in the most cases of communication, the idea of “time” is yielded to the lines of conduct like “Lêi nãi gói vàng or Lời nói không tiền mua, lựa lời mà nói cho vừa lòng In the term of challenges, NSE use evasion (20%) and ignorance (1.5%) responding types at a lower frequency while NSV use evasion and ignorance responding types are 25.9% and 5.9% However, both the English and the Vietnamese not significantly differ in the frequency of refusals to answer, 11.9% versus 12.1% respectively The similarities and differences in question response types in English and Vietnamese are made clearer in the term of status; gender; closeness of relationship In term of status Tsui (1994) proposes that the status factor is counted as an important social variable that affects the language the interlocutors use to respond to questions The questionnaire is designed in three degrees in terms of status: one responds with someone of 39 higher status, one with someone of lower status and one with someone of equal status Consider the following Tables: 1.1 Higher to lower status Response types NSE NSV No % No % Direct 54 66.7 71 66.4 Indirect 6.5 Ignorance 0 0.9 Challenges Evasion 11 10 9.4 Refusal 14 17.3 18 16.8 Total 81 100 107 100 Table 5.1 Frequencies of Response Types to Questions by Native speakers of English and Replies Native Speakers of Vietnamese In the situations, we deal with response patterns between someone of a high status (a manager) and someone of lower status (an assistant, a staff) The response patterns occurring in the survey fall into different categories with various percentages as shown in Table 5.1 Similarly, both NSE and NSV share approximately the same percentage (66.7% and 66.4% respectively) in employing direct answers to questions when they are in a higher status Likewise, the percentage of both NSE and NSV using refusal strategy to questions is fairly the same (17.3% by NSE and 16.8 NSV) As most clearly seen in Table 5.1, the total number of evasive and indirect strategies realized by NSV is 10 (9.4%) and (6.5%) while those of NSE is (11%) and (5%) This means NSE are blunter and more direct than NSV 1.2 Lower to higher status Response types NSE NSV No % No % Direct 27 49 19 22 Replies Indirect 7.4 25 29 3.6 9.4 Challenges Ignorance Evasion 20 36.4 28 32.6 Refusal 3.6 7.0 Total 55 100 86 100 Table 5.2.Frequencies of Response Types to Questions by Native speakers of English and Native Speakers of Vietnamese In the situations, the response patterns are expressed from the lower-status assistant or staff to his or her manager The response frames fall into various strategies with different proportion shown in Table 5.2 Table 5.2 also reveals that NSE occupy higher proportion in direct answer usage NSE’s direct responses show 49% against 22% of NSV’s direct responses to questions In 40 contrast, as for indirect answer usage, NSE hold lower percentage than NSV While there are only indirect responses by NSE (7.4% of the corpus), NSV responses are 25 (29% of the corpus) From the result of the data collected in the situations, the major generalizations we can make are that native speakers of English tend to place more emphasis on directness; they use more direct answers to questions and most importantly, fewer indirect ones to a higher status interlocutor Conversely, Native Speakers of Vietnamese not sound blunt and direct when they are in an inferior status They are likely to create the social distance in his interaction with a higher-status interlocutor by using more indirect answers to questions but fewer direct ones realizations This finding applies what Thomas (1998) argues “speaker tends to use a greater degree of indirectness with the addressee who is superior to him than to the other who is not” The Table 5.2 demonstrates that NSV are more sensitive than the NSE There is a relative significant difference by the informants in responding to their employers’ or colleagues/ friends’ questions For NSE, these results might be well matched with the remarks by sociolinguistics like Tiersky (1990) According to Tiersky, NSE follow an ideology of an egalitarian, classless society and NSE have a democratic outlook, a strong belief that all people are entitled to equal respect This results in the fact that they assess power as small For the Vietnamese, the findings could be interpreted due to the fact that under the influence of Confucian rituals, the Vietnamese pay much respect not only the elderly but also to the people of high social status This reflects the hierarchy of Vietnamese culture in terms of age and status The superior has the option to be authoritative or to be friendly with his subordinate, but the subordinate is bound to deferential and respectful and obedient toward the superior The kinship relation is hierarchical, too It is the lifestyle that “experience” is given prominence to attach the importance to the respect for ông, bà, cha, mÑ” in order Especially, the elderly are held in great esteem for according to them “the more you respect the elderly, the longer you live” 1.3 Two informants are at equal status Response types Replies Challenges Direct Indirect Ignorance Evasion Refusal NSE No 48 13 NSV % 64.9 1.4 17.5 12.2 No 17 28 % 27.4 6.4 9.7 45.2 11.3 41 Total 74 100 62 100 Table 5.3 Frequencies of Response Types to Questions by Native speakers of English and Native Speakers of Vietnamese In the situations, the informants are asked to give responses with a friend or a colleague The two conversationalists share the equal power and their relationship is categorized into social solidarity The data collected are presented in Table 5.3 In regard to the similarities, Table 5.3 reveals that both NSE and NSV achieve higher frequencies in the use of direct answers than that of indirect answers, i.e 64.9% and 27.4% obtained by two groups respectively in giving direct answers Concerning the differences, indirect answers expressed by NSV overwhelm the ones by NSE (6.4% of the NSV group compared with 4% of the NSE data) Overall, the results in Table 5.1; Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 show a preference to directness by both groups of NSE and NSV to their counterparts However the similarities not outweigh the relative differences between the English and Vietnamese in the choice of responding types and strategies Although the direct answers account for a large proportion of the whole numbers, the evasions and refusals as well as ignorance are preferred by the Vietnamese Besides, the finding also indicates two English elderly informants (over 45) declare their answer to their manager blatantly and directly For example, to the question 2, an English male gives his answer directly to his manager by using refusal devices: “I have other plans I can’t change” Or to the question 6, an Australian male answers to his boss: “It is not my fault as I did not place coffee stains on them” This finding might follow Thomas (1998) account that the elders may sometimes be very direct with those younger than themselves Status factor has an important role in the choice of response types by the Vietnamese Most Vietnamese males and females seem to interpret the question by someone of higher authority as a doubt of their honour, so they prefer to expose their ignorance to their boss as much as possible For example, to the question 7, a Vietnamese males response is Tha Sếp, đâu ¹” or to the question 4, a Vietnamese female’s response is Xin lỗi Bác, cháu không biết. However, to the question by someone lower or equal authority, they calculate the meaning as a personal curiosity or sarcasm that intrudes their territories, so they often refuse to answer or challenge speaker’s right to ask For example, to the question 7, a Vietnamese males response to his friend: Mày điên à? Hỏi để làm gì? or Tao mày nói chun g×?” Or to question 6, a Vietnamese female answers to her colleague: Tôi không rõ lắm; Số đen thật làm In term of gender 42 In regard to gender, the results obtained from males and females in each group are presented in Table 5.4 and Table 5.5 below: Response types Male Female Total No % No % Direct 68 60.1 61 62.9 129 Indirect 1.8 9.3 11 Ignorance 1.8 1 Challenges Evasion 25 22.1 17 17.5 42 Refusal 16 14.2 9.3 25 Total 113 100 97 100 210 Table 5.4: Frequencies of Response Types to Questions by Native Speakers of English Replies Response types Male Female Total No % No % Direct 53 38.4 54 46.1 107 Indirect 21 15.2 15 12.8 36 Ignorance 4.3 7.7 15 Challenges Evasion 39 28.3 27 23.1 66 Refusal 19 13.8 12 10.3 31 Total 138 100 117 100 255 Table 5.5 Frequencies of Response Types to Questions by Native Speakers of Vietnamese Replies With regard to cross-gender, the findings reveal that no gender-based differences found significantly affect the choice of question responses in both groups of informants Both English and Vietnamese males and females generally prefer directness to indirectness (60.1% and 62.9% versus 38.4% and 46.1%) The English males and females in the database differ in their choice of indirect responses (1.8% of English males compared with 9.3% of English females) The finding also applies to Vietnamese males and females of using indirect responses (15.2% versus 12.8%) More than three times as many English males are found in using indirect responses as English females This is consistent with the finding of Holmes (1995) who assumes that men more willing than women to give direct responses Tsui (1994) proposes for this assumption focused on the personality that males and females own Males appear to be more competitive, aggressive and more concerned with dominating others and asserting status than women in discussion with others For example, to Question 2, an English female answers to her boss: “Well, I would be pleased to help out but I should let you know that I’m very tired and I need to be up early for work tomorrow If you can’t find anyone else I’ll help out” A Vietnamese female answers to her colleague that Mình e bị cảm cúm rồi, cậu cần trông lũ trẻ giúp cậu Mình sợ lây sang tụi nhá th«i.” ... example, a teacher talking to a student in a classroom is one kind of interaction Others include a boss talking to his assistant at the workplace, a doctor to patient in a clinic…The basic pattern... got a daughter Call’d Katherina, fair and virtuous? Bap: I have a daughter, sir, call’s Katherina (61: 69) By confirming that he has a daughter called Katherina, but omitting any mention to her... means of gathering a large amount of data quickly, creating an initial classification of semantic formulas and ascertaining the structures of speech acts under consideration.” However, a major