A Vietnamese-American cross cultural study of giving comments on contestants’ performance by judges in Vietnam Idol and American Idol

A Vietnamese-American cross cultural study of giving comments on contestants’ performance by judges in Vietnam Idol and American Idol Trần Thị Hoàng Ngân Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ Luận văn ThS. Chuyên ngành: English Linguistics; Mã số: 60 22 15 Người hướng dẫn: Nguyễn Thị Thơm Thơm Năm bảo vệ: 2011 Abstract: This thesis focuses on cross-cultural similarities and differences in giving comments on contestants’ performance by judges in Vietnam Idol and American Idol. Politeness strategies realized for giving comments are analyzed with data taken from the video clips of the two shows. The thesis falls into two major chapters: Chapter I: “Theoretical preliminaries” deals with the notion of culture, cross-culture, speech acts, classifications of speech acts, politeness, and politeness strategies. Chapter II: “Data analysis and findings”: Video clips are used to collect data for the study. Giving comments which resorts to various strategies of politeness is a flexibly and effectively communicative act in both Vietnamese and American cultures. Keywords: Tiếng Anh; Giao văn hóa; Tiếng Việt Content PART A: INTRODUCTION I. RATIONALE It is of little doubt that language plays a very important role in human’s life. Then, English, nowadays, has become an international means of communication in our modern life. However, almost all of people learning English find very difficult to understand or to convey English native speakers’ ideas or thinking, maybe, because of the cultural difference between Vietnam and English speaking countries. Besides, the lack of the learners’ awareness of the target language culture and the cultural differences is also the source of culture shock in every aspect of cross-cultural communication. It is the reason why those days, the study of communication and cross-cultural communication has become an urgent need thanks to the popularity of mass media and the increasing demand of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Doing research on communicative acts has, therefore, been of great significance. With the development of society, the need of entertainment has been increasing more rapidly. People seek many ways to relax their mind such as go for holiday, go camping and so on. However, the simplest way of entertainment is music. Many music shows and games have been broadcasted on TV attracting the interest of most of people. Vietnam Idol and American Idol are very famous shows of music nowadays. Besides selecting an excellent contestant to become the idol of music, the audience also concern the manner the judges give comments on the performance of contestants. Thus, Vietnamese – American cross-cultural studies appear useful and vital in this way. Commenting is common in many languages and cultures. It is realized by comforting, showing concern or expressing likes or dislike or reaction, etc. with the hearer. Cross- cultural study on judges’ commenting on contestants’ performance has not received much concern form linguistics and researchers. Then, how do Vietnamese and American judges give comments on contestants’ performance? How are the two manners different? Which manner is a positive way? This leads the author to the decision to conduct a research into “A Vietnamese-American cross-cultural study of giving comments on contestants’ performance by judges in Vietnam and American Idol” to find out the similarities and differences in the manner of giving comments of Vietnamese and American judges on contestants’ performance. The findings from the study hopefully would be a source of assistance in understanding between the two cultures American and Vietnamese. II. AIMS OF THE STUDY The aims of the study are: - To convey ways which judges give verbal comments on contestants’ performance in Vietnam Idol 2010 and American Idol 2011. - To point out the similarities and differences in the manner American and Vietnamese judges commenting in their target language and culture. - To answer the two research questions: + Which politeness strategies are used by Vietnamese judges and which ones are chosen by American judges? + Who employs more politeness strategies in verbal communication: Vietnamese judges and American ones? - To contribute to raise cross-cultural awareness in using verbal cues for foreign language teachers and learners as well as other potential interactants of international communication. III. SCOPE OF THE STUDY The study is focused on the verbal aspect of the act of giving comments by judges on contestants’ performance after live show in the two latest shows: Vietnam Idol 2010 and American Idol 2011 basing on the politeness theory by Brown and Levinson and other linguistics researchers. Because of some limitations, the author only focuses on the final round: top 4 and top 3 perform. IV. METHODOLOGY This part is focused on a detailed depiction of the methodology applied in the research paper. More specially, the size and characteristics of the research subject altogether with research instruments, data collection procedure as well as data analysis procedure are put into description and justification. IV.1. Selection of subjects In order to conduct this study, the researcher has employed top 4 and top 3 performs of Vietnam Idol 2010 and also two ones of American Idol 2011. the research subjects in this study have been chosen under the procedure of information-oriented sampling, as opposed to random sampling. In these two performs of American Idol 2011, the researcher has obtained 51 utterances of commenting; meanwhile, she has got 36 commenting utterances of Vietnam version, which makes a total of 87 utterances. This size of the samples could somehow be considered eligible enough for the researcher to carry out a reliable study. IV.2. Research methods To conduct the study, the researcher has employed two methods namely quantitative and qualitative ones. The combination of these two methods has offered the researcher valid data for later analysis. Regarding the aim of the study, the researcher has found that quantitative is the most feasible method to deal with the research problems. It is because in the social sciences, quantitative research refers to the systematic empirical investigation of quantitative properties and phenomena and their relationships. The objective of quantitative research is to develop and employ mathematical models, theories and/ or hypotheses pertaining to phenomena. The process of measurement is central to quantitative research because it provides the fundamental connection between empirical observation and mathematical expression of quantitative relationships. Besides, qualitative research is a method of inquiry employed in many different academic disciplines, traditionally in the social sciences, but also in market research and further contexts. Qualitative researcher aims to gather an in-depth understanding of human behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior. The qualitative method investigates the why and how of decision-making, not just what, where, when. Hence, smaller but focused samples are more often needed, rather than large samples. IV.3. Data collection procedures The data collection procedure has been divided into two successive phases. Phase 1: This phase has concentrated mainly on collecting 4 shows of American Idol and another 4 shows of Vietnam Idol. To be more specific, the researcher has spent a lot of time finding then watching 12 Vietnamese episodes and 12 American ones then collected 4 episodes of each version. Phase 2: The researcher has watched then taken notes all the transcripts of the commenting parts of totally 8 American and Vietnamese shows. Afterwards, she has identified the strategies of politeness used in every commenting utterance transcripted. Simultaneously, prominent examples of each strategy have been noted down to exemplify the researcher’s later analysis. IV.4. Data analysis procedures First, the verbal data have been interpreted into subtypes of politeness strategies. As observed, there are seven strategies that are most commonly used by both Vietnamese and American judges. After that, the researcher has calculated the frequency of commentators’ using the above politeness strategies. This step has been followed by her converting the frequency into the percentile forms for comparison. Finally, the researcher has compared the frequencies of politeness strategies used by Vietnamese judges and American ones. V. COMMENTS ON THE INFORMANTS In the two shows Vietnam Idol and American Idol, there are two groups of informants. The Vietnamese group consists of 3 informants (one female and two males), but in the final round, one informant is added. The second group was 3 judges (also one female and two males). Details of the informants’ parameters are: - Vietnamese group: + Two females: singer (Siu Black) and editor (Diem Quynh) + Two males: director (Quang Dung) and composer (Quoc Trung) - American group: + One female: singer/actress and record producer Jennifer Lopez + Two males: singer-songwriter Steven Tyler and music manager Randy Jackson. VI. DESIGN OF THE STUDY The thesis consists of three parts Part A: INTRODUCTION This part includes the rationale, aims, scope of the study, methodology and design of the study. Part B: DEVELOPMENT This part is divided into two chapters: Chapter I: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES In this chapter, theories of culture, cross-culture, culture–shock, language-culture interrelationship, speech act, and classifications of speech acts, politeness, politeness principles and politeness strategies, definition of the two shows are critically discussed. Chapter II: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS In this chapter, the author focuses on analyzing the manner of giving comments of judges through the two shows with the illustration of video clips (if necessary). The similarities and differences in the way of giving comments by Vietnamese and American judges are drawn from detailed and critical analysis of data. Part C: CONCLUSION Summary of the major findings and suggestions for further research are mentioned in this part. REFERENCES In English 1. Austin J.L (1962). How to do things with words, Cambrige, Mass: Havard University Press 2. Bach, K. & R.M. Harnish (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press 3. Bock P.K. (1970). Culture Schock – A reader in modern Cultural Anthropology, USA: Alfred A.Knopf, Inc, New york 4. Berko R. M. et. al, (1989). Communicating, Houghton Mifflin Comapany, Boston 5. Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or Different?. Journal of Pragmatics, ii, 131-14-6. 6. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.). (1989). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corperation. 7. Brown P., Levinson S. (1978). Politeness some universals in language usage, CUP 8. Brown P., Yule G. (1989). Discourse Analysis, CUP 9. Cook G. (1990), Discourse, OUP 10. Crystal, D. (1992). An Encylopedic Dictionary of Language and Languages, England: Blackwell 11. Crystal, D. (1996). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of language, Cambridge: CUP 12. Condon J. C. (1975). An introduction to Intercultural communication, Macmillan publishing company, New York 13. Dinh Thi Be (2008). A Vietnamese – English Cross - Cultural study of Promising, M.A. Minor Thesis, VNU-CFL 14. Downes W. (1998). Language and society, CUP 15. Geis M. (1998). Speech Acts and conversational interaction, CUP 16. Green G. M. (1989). Pragmatics and natural language understanding, Lawrence Eribaum Associates 17. Grundy, P. (2000). Doing Pragmatics, USA: Anorld 18. Homes, J. (1992). An introduction to Sociolinguistics, London & New York: Longman 19. Holliday, A. et. al. (2004). Intercultural Communication, Routledge 20. Hymes D. (1966). Language in culture and society, Harper international Edition 21. Hymes D. (1972). Socio linguistics, CUP 22. Hudson R. A. (1990), Sociolinguistics, CUP 23. Kaplan, J. (1972). Culture thought patterns in Intercultural Education and Language Learning, 16, pp.1-20, St. Paul 24. Karen Risager (2006). Language and Culture: Global Flows and Local Complexity, Multilingual Matters LTD, Canada. 25. Kramsch C. (1998). Language and culture, OUP 26. Lakoff G. (1977). What can you do with words, politeness, pragmatics and performatives, In Roger, Andy, Wall, Bob and Murphy, John (eds.), Proceddings of the Taxas Conference. 27. Lakoff G. (1973). The Logic of Politeness; or Minding your p’s and q’s. Paper from the 9 th Regional Meeting, ed. Claudia Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark, and Ann Weiser, 292-305. Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society 28. Leech, G. (1974). Semantics, England: Penguin Books, Ltd 29. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New Yorl: Longman 30. Levine, D. R. & Aldeman, M. B. (1993). Beyond Language Intercultural Communication for English as a Second Language. UK: Prentice/Regents Hall 31. Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics, UK: CUP 32. Lyons J. (1977). Semantics, CUP 33. Nguyen Quang (1998). Cross-cultural Communication. CFL - Vietnam National University - Hanoi. 34. Nguyen Quang (1994). Intercultural Communication. CFL - Vietnam National University – Hanoi. 35. Nguyen Quang Ngoan (2004). Some Vietnamese-American Cross-Cultural similarities and differences in disagreeing with power-unequals. M.A. Thesis, VNU, CFL, Hanoi 36. Nguyen Thi Thom Thom (2005). A Vietnamese-American Cross-Cultural Study on Extending condolences to the relatives of the deceased, M.A. Thesis. VNU-CFL, Hanoi 37. Nguyen Van Do (2007). Language Culture and Society, sl. 38. Nunan D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning, UK: CUP 39. Phan Thi Van Quyen (2001). Some English-Vietnamese Cross-Cultural Differences in Refusing A Request. M.A. Thesis, VNU, CFL, Hanoi 40. Phillip R. Harris and Robert T. Morgan (1998:226). Managing Cultural Differences, cited in Culture Shock at www.northtexasism.net/Resources/CultureShock.pdf 41. Richard, J.C. & Schmidt, R.W. (1983). Language and Communication, London and New York: Longman 42. Richard, J.C. et al (1992). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, UK : Longman 43. Samovar, L.A and Porter, R.E. (1991), Communication between Cultures. California: Wadworth, Inc. 44. Saville-Troike, M. (1986). The enthnography of communication: An introduction, New York: Basil Blackwell 45. Saville – Troike, M (1982). The enthnography of communication, Oxford: Basil Blackwell 46. Searle J.R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language, CUP 47. Searle J.R. (1971). Speech acts, Cambridge, England, OUP 48. Tomalin B., Stwmpleski S. (1993). Cultural Awareness, OUP 49. Trudgill P. (1983). Sociolinguistics, An introduction to Language and Society, Penguin Bools. 50. Valdes J.M (ed.) (1995). Culture Bound, Cambridge, CUP 51. Verderber R. (1981). Communicate, Wadsworth publishing company 52. Watts R.J. (2003). Politeness, CUP 53. Wesley A. (1998). Longman Dictionary of language and culture, Longman 54. Wierzbicka (1987). An English speech act verbs, Academic press 55. Yule G. (1996). Pragmatics, OUP 56. Yule G. (1997), Pragmatics, OUP 57. (U.S. Army, 1983) at http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadcom.html 58. George M. Foster. Understanding Culture Shock at http://www.rotary5080ye.org/understanding_culture_shock.htm 59. Wardhaugh, R. (1992). An introduction to Sociolinguistics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers 60. Hill et al (1986:349) cited in The Universality of face in Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory: A Japanese perspective by Peter Longcope at www.justinecassell.com/discourse09/ /longscope.pdf In Vietnamese: 1. Đỗ Hữu Châu (1995). Giáo trình giản yếu về dụng học, NXB Giáo dục 2. Nguyễn Hòa (2003). Phân tích diễn ngôn – Một số vấn đề lý luận và phương pháp. NXB Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội. 3. Nguyễn Văn Độ (2004). Tìm hiểu mối liên hệ ngôn ngữ văn hóa, Nhà xuất bản Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội. 4. Nguyễn Văn Chiến (1992). Ngôn ngữ học đối chiếu và đối chiếu các ngôn ngữ Đông Nam Á, Nxb, Trường Đại học Sư phạm Hà nội 5. Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (2002). Dụng học Việt Ngữ, Nxb, ĐHQG – Hà Nội 6. Hoàng Phê (1992). Từ điển Tiếng Việt, Nhà xuất bản Khoa học xã hội, Hà Nội 7. Nguyễn Quang (1999). Một số khác biệt giao tiếp lời nói Việt-Mỹ trong cách thức khen và tiếp nhận lời khen, Luận án Tiến sỹ, ĐHKH-XHNV, ĐHQG Hà nội 8. Nguyễn Quang (2002), Giao tiếp và giao tiếp giao văn hóa, ĐHQG Hà Nôị 9. Nguyễn Quang (2003). Giao tiếp nội văn hóa và giao văn hóa, Nxb ĐHQG Hà Nôị 10. Trần Ngọc Thêm (1997). Cơ sở văn hóa Việt Nam, Nxb Giáo dục . judges in Vietnam and American Idol to find out the similarities and differences in the manner of giving comments of Vietnamese and American judges on contestants’ performance. The findings. comments by Vietnamese and American judges are drawn from detailed and critical analysis of data. Part C: CONCLUSION Summary of the major findings and suggestions for further research are mentioned. (1983). Language and Communication, London and New York: Longman 42. Richard, J.C. et al (1992). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, UK : Longman 43. Samovar, L .A and