A Vietnamese - American cross-cultural study on disparaging

A Vietnamese - American cross-cultural study on disparaging Nguyễn Thị Hồng Vân Trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ Luận văn ThS.. RATIONALE Vietnamese learners usually find it difficult to commu

A Vietnamese - American cross-cultural study

on disparaging Nguyễn Thị Hồng Vân

Trường Đại học Ngoại Ngữ Luận văn ThS Chuyên ngành: English Linguistics; Mã số: 60 22 15

Người hướng dẫn: M.A Phan Thị Vân Quyên

Năm bảo vệ: 2010

Keywords: Văn hóa Việt Nam; Văn hóa Mỹ; Giao văn hóa; Giao tiếp

Content:

PART A – INTRODUCTION

1 RATIONALE

Vietnamese learners usually find it difficult to communicate appropriately in English with native speakers, especially American people despite their language competence Shyness and lack of confidence are common problems facing Vietnamese learners They sometimes even can not understand native speakers and feel uncomfortable to express themselves in particular situations This partly originates from the lack of socio-cultural knowledge and interaction skills among

Vietnamese learners

The differences between western and eastern culture can be referred to as a reason why Vietnamese learners often fail in communicating with native speakers Asian learners are not familiar with western cultural norms

It is concluded that language and culture have a close relationship Even an English-competent learner needs cultural knowledge of the target language to be successful in communication Therefore, learning about the target culture, and especially the differences between the source

and target cultures is an effective way for us to master the target language Cultural knowledge will help us to avoid misunderstanding, culture shock and breakdown in communication

A number of studies have been carried out so far on English-Vietnamese cross-cultural pragmatics / communication by Vietnamese authors such as Conveying Good and Bad News (Quang, 1992), Requesting (Thanh, 2000), Apologizing and Responding to Apologies (Phuong, 1999), Requesting (Tam, 1998), Greeting (Suu, 1990; Nguyen, 1997), Advising (Le, 1999), Thanking and Responding to Thanks (Hoang, 1998), Refusing a Request (Quyen, 2001), Expressing Sympathy (Nga, 2003), Making Suggestions (Lam, 2004), Expressing Annoyance (Phung, 2006), Promising (Be, 2008), but no research has been conducted on disparaging

There is a good reason for the choice of this act because it is a face-threatening act Therefore, it requires much sensitivity and cross-cultural awareness in order to gain effective communication without hurting the listeners

This research will hopefully provide learners as well as teachers and people working in intercultural environment with better understanding of the nature of this behavior across cultures and ability to reduce to the least negative effect on cross-cultural communication, and most importantly, to communicate safely and effectively

2 AIMS OF THE STUDY

 To investigate the way Vietnamese people and American people disparage in given situations

 To clarify the most noteworthy similarities and differences in the ways Vietnamese and American people disparage in their own languages and cultures

3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The research plans to address the following questions:

Question 1: How do American and Vietnamese people disparage in different situations and with

different communicating partners?

Question 2: What are the most noteworthy similarities and differences in the ways Vietnamese

and American disparage in their own languages and cultures?

4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

 The thesis focuses on strategies of expressing disparagement in Vietnamese and American culture Responding to disparagement is beyond the scope of this study

 The author is fully aware of the remarkable contribution of paralinguistic and extralinguistic aspects of disparaging, however, they are not taken in to consideration

 The Vietnamese Northern dialect and American – English are chosen for contrastive analysis

 The data are collected by conducting survey questionnaires both in English and Vietnamese, based on socially-differentiated situations in which disparagement takes place and three groups of informants in social, business, and family status Recorded and video taped face-to-face conversations are impossible due to limitations of time, geographical distance and financial difficulties

5 METHODOLOGY

In order to achieve the objectives of the cross-cultural research, the main method of the study is survey research All the considerations, comments and conclusions in this thesis are largely based on:

- reference to relevant publications

- survey questionnaires

- statistics, description and analysis of the collected data

- personal observation

- consultation with supervisor

- discussion with Vietnamese and foreign colleagues

6 DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The thesis consists of three main parts:

Part A: INTRODUCTION – All the academic routines required for an MA thesis are presented PART B: DEVELOPMENT – This is the focus of the study and consists of 3 chapters

Chapter 1: Literature Review

Chapter 2: Methodology of the study

Chapter 3: Strategies of disparaging

Part C: CONCLUSION: Review of the findings, implications and limitations of the study and

some suggestions for further research

BIBLIOGRAPHY

In English

1 Adler, P 1972 Culture Shock and the Cross-Cultural Learning Experience International

Education Vol.2

2 Austin J.L 1962 How to Do Things with Words Cambridge University Press

3 Bach, K and Harnish, R 1984 Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts The MIT

Press

4 Bentahila, A and Davies, E 1998 Culture and Language Use IRAL Journal, VOL

XXVII/2, MAY

5 Blum Kulka, S and Olshtain, E 1984 Requests and Apologies: a cross- Cultural Study

of Speech Acts Realisation Patterns (CCSSARP) Applied Linguistics, Vol.5 – No 3

6 Blum Kulka, S 1987 Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different?

Journal of Pragmatics II North Holland

7 Bock, P.K.1970 Culture Shock Alfred A Knoff Inc

8 Brown, G and Yule, G.1989 Discourse Analysis Cambridge University Press

9 Brown, P & Levinson, S 1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage

Cambridge University Press

10 Byram, M and Flemming, M 1998 Language Learning in Intercultural Perspective

Cambridge University Press

11 Canale, M & M Swains 1980 Approaches to Communicative Competence SEMEO

Regional Language Centre

12 Chomsky, N 1965 Aspect of theory of syntax Cambridge, Mass MIT Press

13 Clyne, M 1981 Culture and Discourse Structure Journal of Pragmatics 3, pp.61-66

14 Cook, G 1990 Discourse Oxford University Press

15 Conttrill, L 1996 Face, Politeness and Directness University of Canberra

16 Crystal, D 1996 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language Cambridge University

Press

17 Frawley, W 1992 Linguistic Semantics Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers

18 Ellis, C 1996 Culture Shock! Vietnam Times Editions Pte Ltd, Singapore

19 Green, G.M 1989 Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding LEA

20 Grundy, P 2000 Doing Pragmatics Oxford University Press

21 Gumper (in Wardhaugh, R.) 1992 An Introduction to Sociolinguistics Basil Blackwell

22 Haines, S and Steward, B 1994 First Certificate Masterclass Oxford University Press

23 Hymes, D 1996 Language in Culture and Society Harper International Edition

24 Hymes, D 1978 On Communicative Competence In J.B Dride and H.Holmes

25 Kaplan, J 1972 Cultural thought patterns Intercultural Education in Language

Learning, 16, pp 1- 20

26 Kasper, G 1997 Linguistic Etiquette The Handbook of Sociolinguistics, edited by

Florian Coulams, Blackwell Publishers

27 Keller, E and Warner, S.T 1998 Conversation Gambits Language Teaching

Publications, Canada

28 Kramsh, C 1998 Language and Culture Oxford University Press

29 Lado, R 1957 Linguistics across Cultures Ann Arbor – The University of Michigan

Press

30 Lakoff, R 1997 What Can You Do with Words: Politeness, Pragmatics and Performatives

31 Leech, G 1983 Principles of Pragmatics Longman: London and NewYork

32 Levine, D.R and Adelman, M.B 1993 Beyond Language – Intercultural

Communication for English as a Second Language Prentice Hall Regends

33 Levine, D.R., Baxter, J and McNulty, P 1987 The Culture Puzzle – Cross Cultural

Communication for English as a Second Language Prentice Hall Regends

34 Levinson, S.C 1983 Pragmatics Cambridge University Press

35 Nguyen Quang 1998 Intercultural Communication VNU – CFL

36 Porter, R and Samovar, L.A 1985 Intercultural Communication: A Reader (4 th edition)

Belmont, Ca: Watsworth

37 Prodromou, L 1992 What culture? Which culture? Cross – Cultural Factors in Language Learning

38 Searle, John R (1965) “What is a Speech Act?” In The Philosophy of Language Pp

130-140 edited by A.P Martinich, Oxford: Oxford University Press

39 Searle, John R 1969 Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language London:

Cambridge University Press

40 Searle, John Rogers, 1971 edited by The philosophy of language London: Oxford

University Press

41 Searl, J.R 1975 A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts – In K.Gunderson (ed.) Language,

Mind and Knowledge Mineapolis: Cambridge University Press

42 Searl, J.R 1975 Indirect Speech Acts – In Cole and L Morgan (eds.), Syntax and

Symantics 3: Speech Act New York: Academic Press

43 Searle, John Rogers 1976 A Classification of illocutionary Acts: Language in Society 5

pp.1-23

44 Searle, John Rogers 1979 A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts: In The Philosophy of

Language pp 141-155 edited by A.P Martinich, Oxford: Oxford University Press

45 Tillitt, B and Bruder, M.N 1995 Speaking naturally Cambridge University Press

46 Ting – Twomey, S 1999 Communicating Cross Cultures New York and London: The

Guiford Press

47 Thomas, I 1995 Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics London and

New York, Longman

48 Valdes, J.M (ed) 1995 Culture Bound Cambridge University Press

49 Wanning, E 1991 Culture Shock! America Times Editions Pre Ltd, Singapore

50 Weirzbicka, A 1985 Different Cultures, Different Languages, Different Speech Acts

Journal of Pragmatics 9, 145 – 1978

51 Weirzbicka, A 1987 English Speech Act Verbs Academic Press, Australia

52 Weirzbicka, A 1991 Cross – Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interation

Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter

53 Wright, A 1987 How to Communicate Successfully Cambridge University Press

54 Yule, G 1996 Pragmatics Oxford University Press

In Vietnamese

1 Đỗ Hữu Châu 1995 Giáo trình giản yếu về dụng học NXB Giáo dục

2 Đỗ Hữu Châu 1995 Các yếu tố dụng học của Tiếng Việt: Tạp chí Ngôn Ngữ số 4/ 95

3 Hoàng Tuệ 1996 Ngôn ngữ và đời sống xã hội - văn hóa NXB Giáo dục

4 Nguyễn Văn Chiến 1992 Ngôn ngữ học đối chiếu và đối chiếu các ngôn ngữ Đông Nam

Á Trường Đại học Sư phạm Ngoại Ngữ Hà Nội

5 Nguyễn Văn Chiến 2000 Giao văn hóa và giảng dạy ngoại ngữ: Kỷ yếu hội thảo khoa

học quốc gia: “Thành tố văn hóa trong dạy học ngoại ngữ” Trường Đại Học Ngoại Ngữ - ĐHQG Hà Nội

6 Nguyễn Quang 1996 Một số phạm trù giao thoa văn hóa Việt Mỹ trong hoạt động giao

tiếp Tập san Ngoại Ngữ số 4/96

7 Nguyễn Quang 2002 Giao tiếp và giao tiếp giao văn hóa NXB Đại học Quốc gia Hà

Nội

8 Nguyễn Quang 2003 Một số phương pháp nghiên cứu giao tiếp nội văn hóa và giao văn

hóa Trường Đại Học Ngoại Ngữ - ĐHQG Hà Nội