A cross cultural study on criticizing in english and vietnamese

THESIS A CROSS- CULTURAL STUDY ON CRITICIZING IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ GIAO THOA VĂN HOÁ TRONG VIỆC ĐƯA RA LỜI CHỈ TRÍCH TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT TRAN HOAI NINH

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS

A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY ON CRITICIZING IN

ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ GIAO THOA VĂN HOÁ TRONG VIỆC ĐƯA RA

LỜI CHỈ TRÍCH TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

TRAN HOAI NINH

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY

M.A THESIS

A CROSS- CULTURAL STUDY ON CRITICIZING IN

ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ GIAO THOA VĂN HOÁ TRONG VIỆC ĐƯA RA LỜI

CHỈ TRÍCH TRONG TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

TRAN HOAI NINH

Field: English Language Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Dr Nguyen Thi Van Dong

Hanoi, 2016

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled A Study on criticizing on English and Vietnamese submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in English Language Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis could not have been completed without the help and

support from a number of people

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr Nguyen Thi Van Dong my supervisor, who has patiently and constantly supported me through the stages of the study, and whose stimulating ideas, expertise, and suggestions have inspired me greatly through my growth as

an academic researcher

A special word of thanks goes to my family, my husband and many others, without whose support and encouragement it would never have been possible for me to have this thesis accomplished

ABSTRACT

This study is about the similarities and differences in giving criticism

in English and Vietnamese cultures through verbal cues The findings from the research would partly help teachers and learners of English, especially Vietnamese learners of English, avoid miscommunication, hence cultural shock and communication breakdown

The research is intended to thoroughly contrast verbal criticism in English and Vietnamese from cultural perspective, thus partly helping to increase the awareness of the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese cultures in giving criticisms To achieve this overall purpose, the study aims at:

• Describing and classifying the criticizing strategies in English and Vietnamese

• Comparing and contrasting different strategies employed by Vietnamese and English people when they give criticism in their own language and culture

For the limited time and scope, paralinguistic and extra linguistic, factors, important though they obviously are and the author is well aware of, play a vital part of effective interpersonal communication in accompanying and amending the spoken word(s), the study is only confined to the verbal

aspect of the speech act of giving criticism

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: Result of survey on direct and indirect strategies in

English and Vietnamese

Table 5: The distribution of criticism internal modifiers by

the two languages

62

3.2.1 Major methods versus supporting methods 33

criticizing in English and Vietnamese cultures:

Chapter I INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

In the light of Communicative Language Teaching, language is taught for but communication In other words, to teach language is to provide learners with communicative competence However, the teaching and learning of English in Vietnam are more or less under the influence of the traditional ways of teaching and learning language, which mainly focused on the development of linguistic competence – lexis, grammatical rules, vocabulary, and pronunciation Meanwhile, little attention has been paid to oral skills and even less to cultural aspects This leads to a fact that Vietnamese learners of English, though they have fairly good knowledge of linguistic competence, usually find themselves unable to communicate in a natural way or face up with communication breakdown in the target language, especially with native speakers of English Moreover, it is the lack of the target language culture and cultural differences that lead Vietnamese learners of English experience culture shock in every aspect of cross-cultural communication Therefore, learners must have mutual understandings and awareness of cultural differences to be successful cross-

cultural communicators

A study on the similarities and differences in giving criticism in English and Vietnamese cultures through verbal cues is believed to be of great importance and significance The findings from the research would partly help teachers and learners of English, especially Vietnamese learners

of English, avoid miscommunication, hence cultural shock and communication breakdown

2 Aims of the study

The research is intended to thoroughly contrast verbal criticism in English and Vietnamese from cultural perspective, thus partly helping to increase the awareness of the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese cultures in giving criticisms To achieve this overall purpose, the study aims at:

• Describing and classifying the criticizing strategies in English and Vietnamese

• Comparing and contrasting different strategies employed by Vietnamese and English people when they give criticism in their own language and culture

3 Scope of the study

For the limited time and scope, paralinguistic and extra linguistic, factors, important though they obviously are and the author is well aware of, play a vital part of effective interpersonal communication in accompanying and amending the spoken word(s), the study is only confined to the verbal aspect

of the speech act of giving criticism

Secondly, to raise learner’s awareness of the wide application of criticizing strategies, the data used for illustration and exemplification are taken mainly from short stories and novels in English and Vietnamese The collection of the data in this ways brings us some convenience for the contrastive study: it yields a wide range of strategies, used by people from different cultures in different situations, which a questionnaire or an interview, highly or to some extent controlled, would not have offered

Finally, by English, the author means the English language as a mother tongue; no distinction will be made between American English, British English, Australian -English and so on

4 Research questions

The author plans to answer the three main questions:

- What kind of analysis of the Speech act criticizing in English and Vietnamese?

- What are strategies of criticizing in English and Vietnamese?

- What are the similarities and differences in the criticism strategies in English and Vietnamese?

5 Structure of Thesis

As for the design of the study, it is composed of five main parts:

Chapter I- Introduction - introduces the rationale, scope, aims and

methodology of the study as well as the way to collect the data

Chapter II – Literature review- consists of two main parts They are:

- Review of previous studies

- Review of theoretical background:

- The notions of speech acts, theories of politeness, as well as the aspects of C.A in culture, which are relevant to the purpose of the study

- The relationship between language and culture,

Chapter III- Methodology - this part aims at: describes the research methodology in details and comprises the information of the subjects, instruments of data collection and methods of data analysis

Chapter IV: Finding and discussion: this chapter investigates the

similarities and differences in the criticism strategies in English and

Vietnamese In this chapter, what is meant by criticizing in this study is

taken into account Then the criticism strategies as well as the criticism modifiers in the two languages will be described, compared, and contrasted The later part of chapter works with some implications to the teaching of the criticism strategies in English to the Vietnamese learners of English from a socio-cultural perspective

Chapter V – Conclusion – draws conclusions of the study and proposes

some suggestions for further research

Chapter II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Review of previous studies

The speech act of criticizing has been studied by different researchers such as House and Kasper (1981), Tracy, van Dusen, and Robison (1987), Tracy and Eisenberg (1990), Wajnryb (1993, 1995) and Toplak and Katz (2000) and others

Tracy, et al (1987) investigated the characteristics of criticisms by people from different cultural backgrounds and distinguished “good” from

“bad” criticisms According to him, a good criticism is one that displays a positive language and manner; suggests specific changes and possible critic; states justified and explicited reasons for criticizing and does not violate the relationship between interlocutions and is accurate Supporting that point of view, Wajnrub (1993) holds “an effective criticism must be kept simple specific, well-grounded, linked to strategies for improvement and delivered as

an attempt to share experience It also needs to be softened by means of a number of strategies These include ‘measuring words’ (to avoid being too negative), ‘soft-pedaling’ (i.e using internal and external modifications to lessen the harshness of the criticism), ‘using affirmative language’ such as comforting messages, ‘distancing and neutralizing’ (to depersonalize the criticism) and ‘using negotiating language’ (to avoid imposing on the addressee.) (Wajnryb, 1993; cited by Minh, 2005: 15) That point of view seems to be supported by Wajnryb (1995) who preferred a direct and

‘economical’ criticism rather than indirect, wordy, and ‘time-wasting’ one

Along these perceptions, Toplak and Katz (2000) focused on the difference between the speaker and the addressee when giving their judgments

of the criticism given, “The addressee tented to view sarcasm as more severe than the speaker intended.” However, they also discovered that sarcasm was not perceived by the recipient as having as negative an impact on the relationship between the interlocutors as direct criticisms

Tracy and Eissenberg (1990) in their investigation into the preferences for message clarity and politeness in giving criticism found that among people from different races and gender the superiors tended to give more weight to message clarity that did subordinates and that this preference also varied according to gender and race

Overall, the speech act of criticizing has attracted many researchers thanks to its great contribution to thoroughly deep understanding of the field Yet, the definition of this speech act is still not mentioned, which makes it difficult to compare and contrast the findings of the various studies Therefore, the author of this study finds that studying on criticizing as a speech act across cultures should be carried out with the hope of contributing to the successful cross-cultural communication

2.2 Review of theoretical background

2.2.2 Theoretical framework

In real-life communication, the speech act of criticizing – as in the case of complaining - has proven to be composed of different speech acts and of great risk of causing face threatening act (FTA) It is, therefore, suggested that studies on criticizing as a speech act across cultures should be carried out with the hope of contributing to the successful cross-cultural communication

One of the most widely-used definition in the study of the field is Tracy et al’s (1987), in which they consider both criticizing and complaining as the act of

‘finding fault’ and define these two speech acts as ‘negative evaluation of a person or an act for which he/she is deemed responsible.’ However, Tracy et

al’s (1987: 56) suggest two main points to distinguish between criticizing and complaining, which are “content and form and the salient role identity” of the giver and the receiver: criticisms are usually associated with higher social status and complaints with lower social status, although there may also be exceptions

Another definition of criticism is found in House and Kasper (1981), who consider criticisms, accusations, and reproaches as different kinds of complaints Their reasons for this are that all of these speech acts share the same two features, namely “post-event” and “anti-speaker” However, one might argue against this definition at least on the following grounds Firstly, a criticism does not necessarily have to be always targeted at an event which happens earlier in the sense used by House and Kasper It can also be made about something static, permanent, and independent of chronological time such

as a person’s personality or appearance Secondly, the feature “anti-speaker” seems more applicable to complaints than to criticisms as pointed out by Tracy

et al (1987) Both the illocutionary force and the illocutionary point that a critic and a complainer intend are inherently different In criticizing, S may intend H to try to improve to his or her own benefits, or S just may wish to express his or her opinion known In complaining, S implies that something bad has happened to himself or herself, or that H has done something bad to him or her and therefore expects a repair from the latter Thus, criticisms are usually, though not necessarily, associated with constructive attitudes or at least with non-self involvement, which is not the case with complaints

In light of this discussion, it is apparent that compared to other speech acts, our understanding of the speech act of criticizing is rather limited due to the fact that this speech act is under-researched in literature It is therefore necessary that more studies be conducted to shed lights on the pragmatic

properties of criticizing, thus supplementing the existing body of speech act research, which is presently confined to a rather small set of speech acts (Ellis, 1994)

2.2.2 Theoretical background

2.2.2.1Contrastive analysis (C.A.)

Contrastive Analysis dates back to the 1950s when it was first developed and practiced as an application of structural linguistics to language teaching As regards its definition James, C (1980: 3) declares:

“Contrastive Analysis is a linguistic enterprise aimed at producing inverted (i.e contrastive, not comparative) two-valued typologies (a C.A

is always concerned with a pair of languages), and founded on the assumption that languages can be compared.”

(Carl Jame, 1980: 3) James also claims that there are three branches of two-valued (two languages are involved) interlingual linguistics: translation theory – which is concerned with the process of text conversion; error analysis; and contrastive analysis – these last two having as the object of enquiry the means whereby a monolingual learns to be bilingual Among these branches of linguistics, C.A seems to be the most effective way in comparing between the first language and the second language as well as a pairs of languages foreign language

learners are learning

Hence, in the preface of his book Contrastive Analysis, Carl James (1980)

states,

“In the heyday of structural linguistics and the pattern practice language

teaching methodology which derived insights and justification from such an approach to linguistic description, nothing seemed of greater potential value to

languageteachers and learners than a comparative and contrastive description of the learner’s mother tongue and the target language.”

(In the Introduction of Contrastive Analysis by Carl James, 1980)

Contrastive analysis is defined, according to James (1980), as a form of interlanguage study and a central concern of applied linguistics As a matter of fact, C.A has had much to offer not only to practical language teaching, but also to translation theory, the description of particular languages, language typology and the study of language universals In relation to bilingualism, C.A

is concerned with how a monolingual becomes bilingual; in other words, it is concerned with the effects exerted by the first language (L1) on the foreign language being learnt (L2) Thus, C.A has been a preferable method used by Vietnamese linguists in recent years as it enables them to contrast Vietnamese with other languages not only of the same typologies, but also of different ones It also helps bring out many interesting differences and similarities between languages, which make a great contribution to lightening the language teaching and learning burden

It has been suggested that there are two kinds of C.A.: theoretical and applied ones According to Fisiak et al (cited by James, C., 1980:142),

theoretical C.As “do not investigate how a given category present in language

A is presented in language B Instead they look for the realization of a universal category X in both A and B.” Meanwhile, applied C.As are

“preoccupied with the problem of how a universal category X, realized in

language A as Y, is rendered in language B.” That means applied C.As are unindirectional whereas theoretical C.As are static, because they do not need

to reflect any directionality of learning, which is illustrated in the following diagram:

X X

Figure 1 Theoretical C.As and Applied C.As

As James (1980: 142-143) states, applied C.As are interpretations of theoretical C.As rather than independent executions, since an applied C.A executed independently is liable to lose its objectivity; that is, its predictions will tend to be based on teachers’ experience of learners’ difficulties rather than derived from linguistic analysis

2.2.2.2 Language and culture

2.2.2.2 1 The relationship of language and culture:

Language, according to “Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary”

(1992: 506), is defined as “systems of sounds, words, patterns, etc used by

humans to communicate thoughts and feeling” Crystal (1992: 212) also gives

this definition of language when the researcher considers language as “the

systematic, conventional use of sounds, signs, or written symbols in a human

society for communication and self-expression” Thus, language is one of the highest and the most amazing product of human being that helps distinguish them from other creatures and that serves the main purpose of communication

Language, according to Kramsch (1998:3), is “the principle means

whereby we conduct our social lives” That means language is considered as the medium through which a culture is reflected That point of view is also

shared by Saville-Troike (1982; 35), which says, “there is a correlation

between the norm and content of a language and the beliefs, values and needs

present in the culture of its speaker” In addition, sharing with Brown’s and Saville-Troike’s idea about the relationship between language and culture,

Kramsch in his book Language and Culture (1998) emphasizes this correlation

by presenting three functions of language related to culture:

- Language expresses cultural reality

- Language embodies cultural reality

- Language symbolizes cultural reality

Therefore, it is widely believed that the correlation between language and culture is obviously undeniable

What can be derived from the above discussions is the relationship between language and culture In order to make this interrelation more explicit,

it is necessary to clarify what we mean by culture

Culture is so popular a notion in our daily life that many researchers

have defined it in many ways

According to Veresiaghin, Kostomarov (1990), “culture” is considered

as a social phenomenon, which consists of both material and spiritual values In other words, there are two catergories of culture “tangible culture” (architectual buildings, costumes and the art of food…) and “invisible culture” (folk songs, festivals …) Whereas, others hold the idea that “culture” is limited to products

of culture which include visible expressions and invisible patterns –the hidden ones Therefore, culture in this point of view also refers to the often hidden patterns of human interactions, expressions and viewpoints that people in one culture share Because of its submergence, it is difficult for most people to realize cultures deeply and encounter in communication

When defining the notion of culture, Goodenough (1981; in Wardhaugh,

1991: 217) affirms, “Culture is a sort of knowledge which everyone must

possess to function within a society ” What is more, “culture is everything that

people have, think and do as a member of a society” (Gary Ferrando, 1996; in Quang, N., 2005: 38) It can be interpreted from these points of view that culture is the knowledge of patterns (models/ schemes/ behaviors) learned and shared by a set of people in a community and that the process related to the products of culture and the dynamic factors of the creations of cultural products are paid more attention

Culture is also defined as ‘human’s behaviors’ by another group of researchers, who emphasize on the mechanisms of human’s behaviors One of the typical definitions of ‘culture’ related to human’s behaviors is Clinfford Geertz’s (1973: 383), in which culture is:

a The total way of life of a person

b The social legacy that individual acquires from his group

c The way of thinking, feeling and believing

d An abstraction from behavior

e A theory on the part of the anthropologist about the way in which a group of people in fact behave

f A store house of pooled learning

g A set of standardised orientation, to recurrent problems

h Learned behavior

i A mechanism for the normative of behavior

j A set technique for adjusting both of the external environments, to other men

k A precipitate of history

l A behavior map, sieve, matrix

In addition, sharing the idea about the influence of culture on people’s behaviors, Seelye (in Fantini, A.E., 1997: 23) has his own definition:

“Culture is the systematic, rather arbitrary, more or less coherent,

group-invented, and group-shared creed from the past that defines the shape of

“reality” and assigns the sense and worth of things; it is modified by each generation and in response to adaptive pressures; it provides the code that tells people how to behave predictably and acceptably, the cipher that allows them

to derive meaning from language and other symbols, the map that supplies the behavial options for satisfying human needs”

Parson, T (1949: 8) also argues, “Culture … consists in those patterns

relative to behavior and the products of human action…” Thus, “culture” influences behaviors and it is structured system of patterned behavior (Lado, R., 1957:110)

Laying the emphasis on the invisible and non-natural aspect of “culture”,

a number of researchers consider “culture” as the products of “consciousness” and “behavior” One representative of this group, Levin and Adelman (1993: XVIII) states,

“Culture is a shared background resulting from a common language and

communication style, customs, beliefs, attitudes and values” Richards etal (in Clyne, 1996: 94) shares the same idea with Levine and Adelman’s and Banks et al’s (1989:72) when he defines “Culture is a total set of belief, attitudes, customs, behaviors, and social habits.”

In short, learning about cultures is absolutely enriching The more one knows others, the more she sees her own culture more clearly Therefore,

Quang, N (2005:5) states, “by learning about contrast, we can better

understand how cultures influence individuals and their communication with others”

2.2.2.2.2 The culture of Vietnam

The culture of Vietnam, according to Wikipedia encyclopedia, is considered as one of the oldest in the Southest Asia region Although Vietnam lies geographically in Southeast Asia, long periods of Chinese domination and influence has resulted in the emergence of many East Asian characteristics in Vietnamese culture While Chinese culture has the largest foreign influence on traditional Vietnamese culture, there is also a much smaller influence from the Cham and later Western cultures (most notably that of France, Russia and the United States)

Vietnam’s population (in 2006) was 84.402.966, with a population density of 253 persons per km² Most people live in or near the densely populated Red River or Mekong deltas, which are Vietnam’s two major cultivated areas The Red River Delta, in the North, is the cradle of the Vietnamese civilization and rice culture The Mekong Delta, a very fertile land

in the South with a favorable climate, is the largest rice growing area in Vietnam It can be said that Vietnamese culture has evolved on the basis of the rice culture Thus, the lifestyle of the Vietnamese population is closely related

to the village and native land It helps to shape the community value and especially patriotism among the Vietnamese It is the fact that the Vietnamese people are well known for fiercely protectors of their independence sovereignty for 2000 years Most of the Vietnamese are always willing to devote all through their lives of struggle for national liberation and independence when needed

Another noticeable feature is the familial relation of Vietnamese culture value If it can be said that Western cultures value individualism, then it can also be said that Eastern cultures value the roles of family (from Wikipedia encyclopedia) Indeed, you cannot understand the Vietnamese until you first understand the importance of the family As in many other Asian countries,

family is the foundation of Vietnamese society Many families have 3 generations living under one roof Today, however, more and more couples are choosing to move into their own homes In Vietnamese society, decision-making is a family affair Children cannot make decisions for themselves if their parents are still alive

About 74% of Vietnamese currently live in rural areas, and although many are being influenced by the process of Westernization, traditional rural customs and traditions still play a vital role in shaping the culture of Vietnam

In rural Vietnam, kinship plays an important role As a result, there is a complex hierarchy of relationships This complex system of relationships is conveyed particularly through the Vietnamese language, which has an extensive array of honorifics to signify the status of the speaker in regards to the person they are speaking to This helps to form the personalism in Vietnamese culture value This is also in agreement with Phan Ngoc (cited by Nguyễn Văn Độ, 2004:146), who says, “Western culture value is individualism, whereas Vietnamese culture value the personalism.”

Furthermore, a Vietnamese proverb says, “While drinking water, we

must be grateful for its source” This is why, in almost every rural village or urban district, a temple has been built to worship the tutelary spirit who founded the locality Today people still worship the tutelary spirit along with the national heroes who sacrified their lives for the country

In addition, religion has exerted a deep influence on Vietnamese culture and the Vietnamese concept of life Vietnamese religious beliefs have been influenced by combined values of the three traditional religions forming the

Tam Giáo (“triple religion”) Buddhism, introduced in Vietnam in the 2ndcentury, is considered as the official ideology The ideological influence of Buddhism remained very strong in social and cultural life Confucianism,

originated from China and propagated to Vietnam in the early Chinese domination period, is a moral doctrine advising people that they have a part of responsibility in their fate, that they must love one another, must not think of abstract things of the next world, and pay much attention to education Due to the influence of Confucianism, the Vietnamese became more hardworking, friendly and scholars with knowledge The central idea of Taoism, founded by Lao Tseu, is to live purely and simply It replies on harmony between Man, Nature and a Universal Order

Besides the “triple religion”, Vietnamese life was also profoundly influenced by the practice of ancestor worship as well as native animism Most Vietnamese people, regardless of religious denomination, practice ancestor worship and have an ancestor altar at their home or business, a testament to the emphasis Vietnamese culture places on filial duty

In sum, Vietnam is at the crossroads between South East Asian and the offshore islands Its culture bears common features of the South East Asian cultural region, while also having absorbed the quintessence of cultures from other parts of the world However, the Vietnamese highest culture values are patriotism, community value, familial value and personalism It is culture values that help to shape patriotism, peace loving, closeness, friendliness, sincerity, straightforwardness and interdependence in each of Vietnamese people

2.2.2.2.3 The culture of England

British customs and traditions are famous all over the world When people think of Britain they often think of people drinking tea, eating fish and chips and wearing bowler hats, but there is more to Britain than just those things We have English and British traditions of sport, music, food and many royal occasions There are also songs, sayings and superstitions

Britain, the largest island of the British Isles, includes the countries of England, Wales and Scotland Being an island has affected the British people’s characteristics British people still have an island mentally: independent, separate and on the edge of things British families are often criticizegd for they way they do things separately, though many people believe that it is good for children to learn to be independent From an early age, children are encouraged to decide what they want to do, eat or wear, and their parents try to respect their opinions Upon reaching their appropriate age, children are encouraged to “live the nest” and begin an independent life Compared to that familial culture value of Vietnam, the members of a family in Britain usually

do not share the rame roof In Britain, it is common for members of the extended family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.) to live far away Some grandparents see very little of their grandchildren Families try to stay in contact with each other by writing and telephoning, by visiting occasionally, and sometimes by holding big family reunions Since they see less of each other, their concern for each other is not so strong It is the fact that although family loyalty is still important, and many people feel they have a duty to care for members of their family when they need it, it is not the part of British culture for old people to live with younger members of their family Most elderly people live in their own homes and, when they cannot care for

the community value is concerned, it is rare to find people who have lived all their lives in one community As a result, the British also have no the same community value as the Vietnamese do

Furthermore, the British are known as perfectly polite and proper, always saying “please”, “thank you” and “excuse me” British people are also famous for their reserve and their “stiff upper lip” (not giving their opinion or

showing their feeling in public), which makes them seem formal and distant The view of Britain as a country where everyone behaves in a strange but nice way is not realistic For many American people the British are snobbish and do not seem very friendly In addition, the British often cause confusion and upset

by not saying what they mean; for example, they usually say, “That’s no problem” when they know that it will be a big problem

Modern Britain is a multi-faith community, in which many religions are practiced, but the main religion is Christianity The Church of England functions as the established church in England Both the Church of England and the Catholic Church in England and Wales trace their formal history from the 597 Augustinian mission to the English Other churches which have started

in England include the Methodist church, the Quakers and the Salvation Army

Many British people believe that luck plays an important part in their lives, they thus usually wish somebody luck (good luck) in many situations British people learn superstitions while they are children, and though few adults will admit to being superstitious, many act on superstitions out of habit The British are also interested in fate and in knowing what will happen to them

in the future Most people know which sign of the zodiac they were born under, and read their horoscope or “stars” in magazines, though only a few take what

is said seriously British people may thank their lucky stars for a piece of good fortune When things go wrong thay may say “Just my luck!”, blaming their own bad luck, or look back on an unlucky act that has, in some unexplained way, caused their current problem

In short, Britain according to many Western scholars contains a rich mixture of many different cultures (England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland) However, it is word-wide agreed that British people are independent, separate, and reserve In addition, individualism is also the main ego in British culture

2.2.2.3 The theory of speech acts

According to Levinson (1983), speech act theory is one of the central issues in the study language use In this section, the works by Austin, Searle, and Yule - the pioneers in the field, are briefly reviewed in order to provide theoretical frameworks

2.2.2.3.1 Notion and classification of speech acts:

The notion of speech acts dates back the British philosopher of language

John Austin (1962) In his very influential work, ‘How to do things with

words’, Austin defines speech acts as the actions performed in saying something or actions performed using language In fact, when speaking, we perform certain linguistic actions such as giving reports, making statements, asking questions, giving warnings, making promises and so on In other words, speech acts are all the acts we perform through speaking – all the things we do when we speak Austin (1962) distinguished between the three kinds of acts,

namely locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary then Of these, a

locutionary act is the act of saying something in the full sense of “say” An

illocutionary act is the one of using the sentence to perform a particular

function; and a perlocutionary act is the one of producing some kinds of

effects that are produced by means of saying something Among above three

kinds of acts, the illocutionary act which Austin later termed “speech act” is the core interest of Austin as well as of other pragmatists (Levinson, 1983)

Meanwhile, Searle (1974) argue that each type of illocutionary acts requires certain expected or appropriate conditions called felicity conditions These conditions relate to the beliefs and attitudes of the Speaker and the Hearer and to their mutual understanding of the use of the linguistic devices for information What is more, Searle (1965), cited by Minh, (2005, p 11) emphasized that Austin’s felicity conditions are not only dimensions in which

utterances can go wrong but they are also constitutive of the various illocutionary forces, and therefore, can differentiate illocutionary acts from one anther Searle classified those felicity conditions into four kinds, which are:

(1) Preparatory conditions: The person performing the speech act has to

have quality to do so

(2) Sincerity conditions: The speech act must be performed in a sincere

Austin (1962) categorizes five classes of speech acts as:

(1) Verdictives : “the giving of a verdict”, e.g assess, appraise …

(2) Exercitives : “exercising of powers, rights, or influence”, e.g

command, direct

(3) Commissives : “committing the speaker”, e.g promise, propose … (4) Behabitives : “reaction to other people’s behavior and fortunes”, e.g

apology, thank …

(5) Expositives : “expounding of views, the conducting of arguments and

the classifying of usages and of references”, e.g accept, agree However, this classification is criticized for basing mainly on the performative verb through which a speech act is expressed and having no clear

or consistent principle or set of principles based on which Austin constructed

his taxonomy Thus, many speech acts according to his classification, may belong to two different categories

Searle (1979), finding fault with Austin’s, suggests his own classification of speech acts These speech acts are further described as follows:

(1) Representatives: representing states of affairs (e.g.: assertions,

conclusions, or descriptions)

(2) Directives: getting the hearer to do something (e.g.: suggestions,

commands or requests)

(3) Commissives: committing the speaker to doing something (e.g.:

threats, refusals, or promises.)

(4) Expressives: expressing feelings about states of affairs (e.g.:

apologies, compliments or congratulations)

(5) Declarations: bringing about changes of some state of affairs (e.g.:

resignations, declarations or baptism )

Wardhaugh (1992) summarizes and explains Austin’s (1962) and Searle’s (1975) speech act theories and then concludes:

In contrast to Austin, who focused his attention on how speakers realize their intentions in speaking, Searle focused on how listeners respond to utterances, that is, how one person tries to figure out how another is using a particular utterance […] what we see in both Austin and Searle is a recognition that people use language to achieve a variety of objectives

“Whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a

function, we have a direct speech acts Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure and a function, we have an indirect speech act.”

The utterance “Turn on the fan, please”, for example, the speaker (S)

has directly requested the hearer (H) to turn on the fan The syntactic structure

of this utterance indicates a straightforward request in English Nevertheless, the same request can be made in a more tacit, indirect manner to achieve the

same result; S may say something like “It’s hot in here”

2.2.2.3.2 Speech acts across cultures:

Speech acts like greeting, complimenting, requesting, thanking or giving advice and so on are present in almost all cultures In principle, these speech acts can be fulfilled in any language, but they are performed in different manners and by different means Sharing the same point of view, Hymes (1964) and Saville-Troike (1982) state that there is a close connection between language, society and culture and that all speech acts and speech behaviors are governed by social norms That explains why Wierzbicka (1985: 146) observes,

“Cultural norms reflected in speech acts differ not only from one

language to another, but also from one regional and social variety to another.”

What is more, “Every culture has its own repertoire of characteristic speech

acts and speech genres.”

(Wierzbicka, 1991: 149) Hence, governed and conditioned by our culture and though the contact with other members in our cultural environment, everyone sets own “cultural schemata” that helps him/her interpret what is wrong and what is right These standards are appropriate in our community, but when coming into contact with

a new culture, if we interpret other’s behavior according to these standards, there may be arise some cross-cultural problems in our own communication that potentially lead to cultural conflict

Therefore, the study on speech acts across cultures is believed to be essential or vital for not only a person who expects to survive in a new environment, but also for a learner of a foreign language who expects to succeed in communication

2.2.2.3.3The speech act of criticizing:

Criticizing as the act of “finding fault” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) or “saying that you disapprove of something or somebody, or what you do not like/think is wrong about something” (Oxford Learner’s Dictionary) , or “expressing disapproval of something or somebody” (Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary) is highly facethreatening Besides its two major functions: to point out a negatively perceived behaviour or problem to the offender and to request some repair, criticizing is sometimes performed to vent the speaker’s negative feeling or attitude to the hearer or the hearer’s work, choice, behaviour, etc Consequently, criticism may impair the hearer’s face, which leads to the unfavourable reaction and judgments of the hearer toward the speaker, resulting in conflicts and damage to the relationship However, criticism has a number of advantages They can help clear up a problem, lessen irritation, and as Wajnryb points out, criticism may provide a

“rich, timely potentially fruitful opportunity for learning” When the speaker finds that an action performed or a choice made by the hearer is inappropriate

or unsatisfactory, he/she has to make a very careful decision: Should he/she perform the act of criticism, or should he/she not? And if yes, how should he/she do it so that the realization of the speech act would most effectively bring about the desired results? In order to come to such decisions, the speaker

has to judge whether the situation and the relationship between himself/herself with the hearer are suitable for him/her to make the criticism In other words, the speaker has to decide whether the necessary conditions for the appropriateness of the speech act are actually satisfied Nguyen Thi Thuy Minh

in her interlanguage study of criticisms made by Vietnamese learners has identified four conditions for the speech act of criticism relating to the speaker’s perception of the hearer’s offence and the speaker’s attitude toward the offence and his/her desire for a change in the action or attitude of the hearer Tracy et al in distinguishing the speech acts of complaining and criticising also point out an important condition for criticism that it is performed by people of higher social status to those of lower social status However, Nguyen Thi Thuy Minh argues that the role relationship is not a necessary condition for criticism performance as it is not uncommon for people

in lower social position to be invited to make criticism to their superiors She also adds that speech acts are context dependent, and contexts can sometimes

be a more influential factor in determining the illocutionary force of a speech act As has been discussed in the previous part, the impact of contextual factors

on speech act performance can vary with cultures, and the role relationship can

be perceived differently in different cultures resulting in the variation in the conditions for speech act realisation across cultures, as Green has suggested: speech acts are not necessarily carried out by reference to the same pragmatic preconditions in all languages Although the existence of the speech act of criticism is universal across languages, its frequency, the situational contexts in which it is found, and the types of linguistic forms Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa / VNU Journal of Science, Foreign Languages 23 (2007) available and used are culture-specific Criticizing, like other speech acts, reflect fundamental values

of the society, so the study of criticisms in one culture can provide important insights into social norms and values that are embedded in that culture

2.2.2.4 Theories of politeness

“Politeness is basic to the production of social order, and a precondition

of human cooperation … any theory which provides an understanding of this phenomenon at the same time goes to the foundation of human social life.”

It can be interpreted from Gumper’s words that politeness is so crucial a notion in real-life communication That partially explains why most research into politeness as a linguistic dimension has been centred on one of the following four perspectives: conversational-maxims (Lakoff, 1973; Leech, 1983), face-saving (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987), social norms (Jespersen, 1965), and conversational-contracts (Fraser, 1975; Fraser and Nolen, 1981; Fraser, 1990) These perspectives are presented as below:

2.2.2.4.1 Conversational-maxims

Lakoff (1973), basing on Grice’s construct of Conversational Principles, has described the following three different politeness sub-rules a speaker might follow in choosing to be polite :

Rule 1 DON’T IMPOSE

This is the most formal rule and appropriate to situations in which there is an acknowledged difference in power and status between the participants Accordingly, S will avoid, mitigate, or ask permission or apologize for making the addressee do anything which A does not want to do More particularly, a speaker chooses his acts so as to minimize the extent which he imposes on the hearers, which means not giving or seeking personal opinions, avoiding personal reference, avoiding reference to family, personal

problems, habit, and even avoiding earthy, slangthy, merely emotional language, and any topics which are considered taboo

Rule 2 OFFER OPTIONS

It is a more informal rule and appropriate to situations in which the participants have approximately equal status and power, but are not socially close In general, if S wishes to persuade A of some view or course of action, S will phrase his speech so that A does not have to acknowledge S’s intent

Rule 3 ENCOURAGE FEELINGS OF CAMARADERIE

This rule is appropriate for close friends or intimates In intimate politeness, almost any topic of conversation is fair game, assuming that with a close friend, one should be able to discuss anything In contrast to informal politeness, the governing principle here is not only to show an active interest in the other, but asking personal questions and making personal remarks, but also

to show regard and trust by being open about the details of one’s own life, experiences, feelings, and the like

In a later work, Lakoff (1990) states that those three sub-rules of politeness may not necessarily have an equal weight in different cultures European cultures, for example, may prefer Distance (sub-rule 1), while Asian cultures can be Deferential (sub-rule 2) and modern American culture to Camaraderie (sub-rule 3)

Leech (1983) introduces a number of maxims based on Gricean Cooperative Principle that explain the relationship between sense and force in conversations The main maxims are presented as follows:

(1) Tact Maxim: Minimize hearer’s costs; maximize hearer’s benefit (2) Generosity Maxim: Minimize your own benefit; maximize your

hearer’s benefit

(3) Approbation Maxim: Minimize hearer’s dispraise; maximize hearer’s

praise

(4) Modesty Maxim: Minimize self-praise; maximize self-dispraise

(5) Agreement Maxim: Minimize disagreement between yourself and

others; maximize agreement between yourself and others

(6) Sympathy Maxim: Minimize antipathy between yourself and others;

maximize sympathy between yourself and others

Like Lakoff, Leech also suggests these maxims have different weightings in different cultures, which accounts for cross-cultural variations in

politeness norms For example, the Maxim of Tact, according to Leech, is

considered as the most important kind of politeness in English-speaking countries

2.2.2.4.2 Face-saving:

“The most influential theory of politeness was, however, put forward by

Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987)” and “Central to Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness is the concept of face.”

(Thomas, 1995: 168)

In fact, the face-saving view of politeness was adopted by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987) This view is grounded principally on the concepts of

positive and negative face, which come from Goffman’s notion of face ‘Face’

is defined as “the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself”

(Goffman, 1967: 319)

Basing on this definition, Brown and Levinson also distinguish between two components of face : ‘positive face’ and ‘negative face’, which are two related aspects of the same entity and refer to basic ‘desires’ or ‘wants’ of any individual in any interaction and define ‘positive face’ as one’s desire to be

approved or accepted by others and ‘negative face’ as one’s desire to be free from imposition from others

Since these two types of face operate pan-culturally, they need to be continually attended in the process of communication so that politeness can be achieved Furthermore, Brown and Levinson also claim that certain speech acts are inherently face-threatening, i.e they may threaten either the positive or negative face of the interlocutors involved

On these grounds, Brown and Levinson (1978: 60) propose a chart of five strategies to minimize risk of losing face, numbering from 1 to 5 or from

greater to lesser risk of face losing, respectively (see Figure 2) This chart

receives high appreciation from many researchers

As can be seen from Figure 2, S can choose either to “go on record”, i.e perform a direct speech act, or to “go off record”, i.e opt for more indirect strategies such as metaphor, irony, rhetorical questions, and all kinds of hints

If S chooses a direct strategy, he/she can either “go bald on record” without compensating for it or “soften” it by various politeness strategies In case S decides to modify the illocutionary force of the speech act he/she intends to perform, he/she will have to consider the pay-off that the use of each type of politeness strategy brings and then decisions accordingly

In a word, cultures seem to differ in the way they realize their languages via speech acts Thus, this view of politeness and their claim to its universality have still been discussed

2.2.2.4.3 Social-norms:

The social- norm approach is principally based on a number of studies of oriental politeness and thus serves as an appropriate model for accounting politeness in these cultures Nwoye (1992), for example, claims that in a society where public face ( related to social norms and expected behavior) is

placed over private face (related to individual desire), it is more important for individuals to discern what is appropriate and act accordingly than to act according to strategies designed to accomplish a particular inter-personal goal Whereas, Matsumoto (1989) and Ide (1989) basing on the studies on the honorific system in Japanese argue that in a culture where the individual is more concerned with comforting to the social norms, it is discernment but not face that underlines the notion of politeness and governs the interactant’s behavior

Supporting that point of view, Gu (1990: 245) defines the politeness principle

as “a sanctioned belief that an individual’s social behavior ought to live up to

the expectations belief that an individual’s social behavior ought to live up to the expectations of respectfulness, modesty, attitudinal warmth and refinement.” What is more, Gu on the basis of Leech’s (1983) model proposed

his own model which involved four maxims such as Self-denigration, Address,

Tact and Generosity The Self-denigration Maxim dictates S to ‘denigrate Self and elevate Other’ The Address Maxim admonishes S to address H with an

appropriate address term based on H’s social status, role and the S-H

relationship The Tact and Generosity Maxims are close to Leech’s

2.2.2.4.4 Conversational-contracts:

Conversational-contract approach was adopted by Fraser (1990), who also adopts the Gricean Cooperative Principle in its general sense and recognizes the importance of Goffman’s notion of face The principle view in Fraser’s conversational-contract approach is that interlocutors bring into their conversation an understanding of certain initial contractual rights and obligations, which are renegotiable as the conversation goes on and the context changes In Fraser’s (1990) point of view, politeness is considered as an on-going process and involves conformity to the expected social norms rather than

“making the hearer feel good a la Lakoff or Leech”, or “making the hearer not feel bad a la Brown and Levinson.” (Fraser, 1990: 233)

In sum, the notion of politeness in this approach has been discussed from various perspectives Furthermore, politeness is also argued to be a complex notion, which does not necessarily operate similarly in every society

2.3 Summary

In brief, this chapter reviewed previous studies relating to the research area and theoretical background that is employed for conducting the whole

graduation thesis Regarding the theoretical framework, the theory relating to

understanding of the speech act of criticizing is rather limited due to the fact that this speech act is under-researched in literature In terms of theoretical background, the author reviewed the theories and literature relevant to the topic under investigation in the present study The first two sections mention to contrastive analysis and the relationship of language and culture The final two sections offer two linguistic notions: speech acts and politeness

The review of literature dealt with so far holds a significant importance

in terms of providing the solid theoretical background for as well as setting up the analytical framework for the data collection procedure in the following part

of thesis

Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY

This chapter is done to show the orientations and methods that are employed to conduct the whole research It comprises of two main parts: (i) research-governing orientations and (ii) research methods

3.1 Research-governing orientations

3.1.1 Research questions

As it has been stated, the thesis was carried out in order to find out the similarities and differences in the criticism strategies and semantic in English and in Vietnamese It was designed in an attempt to seek answers to the following questions:

• What kind of analysis of the Speech act criticizing in English and Vietnamese?

• What are strategies of criticizing in English and Vietnamese?

• What are the similarities and differences in the criticism strategies

in English and Vietnamese?

3.1.2 Research setting

Criticizing can be made anytime or any situations not only in direct conversation, but also indirect ones As a matter of fact, for several years working as a teacher of English, the author found that the learners there have to meet big difficulty in using English, especially when they use idioms in English; they find it hard to use them correctly

In this paper, criticizing is divided into English and Vietnamese They are collected from different sources including books, dictionaries, websites and some other literature works After being collected, these idioms are reviewed,

selected and categorized literally and figuratively to serve the tasks of analyzing and comparing in the later part of the thesis

3.1.3 Research approaches

The research describes and compare the criticizing strategies and semantic formular in English and Vietnamese In order to achieve the aims and objectives of the study, the descriptive and comparative methods are employed accompanied with both qualitative and quantitative approaches Besides, in the particular case of this thesis, the criticizing in English and Vietnamese can also

be approached from the point of communcation

It should be noted that in the contrastive approach, idioms collected in English are compared with its equivalents in Vietnamese with the focus being placed on the mutual equivalence and language interference

3.1.4 Criteria for intended data collection and data analysis

The selective material related to making criticism in conversations plays a crucial role in terms of supplement data for the research The criticizing in English and Vietnamese for the research has been collected from the most trusted sources

Firstly, the following books and researches which are concerned with criticizing are collected and studied to gather necessary knowledge Main

materials are: Giving criticisms: a multiple goal case study Research on

Language and Social Interaction Tracy, K., & Eisenberg, E (1990), Good and

bad criticism: a descriptive analysis Journal of Communication Tracy, K.,

Van Dusen, D., & Robinson, S (1987), Ngôn ngữ học xã hội- Những vấn đề cơ

bản Nguyễn Văn Khang (1999), Một số khác biệt giao tiếp lời nói Việt Mỹ

trong cách thức khen và tiếp nhận lời khen Nguyễn Văn Quang (1999)

Sencondly, previous theses in linguistics and literature words which are involved in the content of the study are also collected to grab related

information

Last but not least, prestigious and reliable websites with a huge source of idioms are also made use of including En.wikipedia.org, News.google.com, Books.google.com and www.learn-english-today.com

3.2 Research methods

3.2.1 Major methods versus supporting methods

As mentioned above, the study is intended to thoroughly contrast verbal criticism in English and Vietnamese from cultural perspective, thus comparative and contrastive method seems to be the most suitable methodology for the study In addition, such methods as analyzing, describing, prove to be the best candidates of all

3.2.2 Data collection techniques

As mentioned previously, idioms, after being collected from different sources, are selected literally and figuratively and organized in alphabetical order to be followed with ease Data from some stories and novels are also an input Details of data collection procedures and analysis are

as follows:

- Identify strategies of criticism in both English and Vietnamese stories

in the source of books

- Classify them into sub-strategies

- Describe them in each language to find out the typical features of each sub-strategy

- Analyse, compare, and contrast criticizing strategies based on the cultural features in two languages to point out the basic similarities and differences in this aspect

3.2.3 Data analysis techniques

After being collected, the data was analyzed using descriptive method