Disagreeing among power unequals in english and vietnamese a cross cultural pragmatics study

TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS II ABSTRACT IV TABLE OF CONTENTS VI ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS X LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND GRAPHS XII PART A: INTRODUCTION 1 2.1 2.2 Rationale Aims of the study Overall purpose Specific aims Research questions Scope of the study Contributions of the study Methodology Organization of the study PART B: DEVELOPMENT 11 CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW 11 1.1 Cross-Cultural pragmatics (CCP) and interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) 11 1.1.1 Notion and scope 11 1.1.2 Pragmatic transfer and relevant issues 12 1.2 Speech act theory and disagreeing as a speech act 14 1.2.1 Notion of speech acts 14 1.2.2 Classification of speech acts 16 1.2.3 Disagreeing as a potential face threatening act 18 1.3 Politeness theory and its application to the present study 24 1.3.1 Definitions of politeness 24 1.3.2 Politeness approaches in literature 25 1.3.2.1 The strategic view 25 1.3.2.2 The normative view 35 1.3.2.3 Concluding remarks 39 VI 1.3.3 Application of politeness approach in the present study 40 1.4 Disagreeing in previous studies and in the present study 41 1.4.1 Previous studies of disagreeing in English and Vietnamese 41 1.4.2 Summary of findings and shortcomings in the previous studies 47 1.4.3 Disagreeing in the present study 50 CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY 51 2.1 Research methods 51 2.1.1 An overview of research methods in inter-language pragmatics 51 2.1.1.1 A brief description of the two major research methods in ILP 52 2.1.1.2 Common trends in applying research methods to ILP studies 58 2.1.1.3 Some concluding remarks on ILP research methods 61 2.1.2 Research methods in the present study 62 2.1.2.1 The chosen research methods 62 2.1.2.2 Reasons for choosing the methods 64 2.2 Research design 65 2.2.1 Data collection instruments 65 2.2.1.1 Meta-pragmatic assessment questionnaires (MAQ) 65 2.2.1.2 Discourse completion task (DCT) 67 2.2.2 Subjects 69 2.2.3 Procedures of developing instruments and gathering data 70 2.3 Data analysis 71 2.3.1 Validity test (T-Test) for developing data-gathering instrument (DCT) 71 2.3.1.1 A description of the T-Test 71 2.3.1.2 Interpretation of the T-Test scores 72 2.3.1.3 Results of the T-Test 75 2.3.2 Chi-square analysis of the MAQ and DCT 79 2.3.2.1 A description of the Chi-square 79 2.3.2.2 Interpretation of the Chi-square 82 2.3.2.3 Results of the Chi-square analyses 90 CHAPTER III: CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND PRAGMATIC TRANSFER IN THE PERCEPTION OF RELATIVE POWER 91 3.1 Power and language in social interactions in previous studies 91 3.1.1 3.1.2 The concept and nature of power in social interactions 91 Previous studies of power and language in social interactions 92 VII 3.1.3 Major findings and shortcomings in the previous studies of power 93 3.1.3.1 Power and language are closely interconnected 93 3.1.3.2 Power is conceptualized differently in different cultures 95 3.1.3.3 Factors that need taking into concern when studying power 97 3.1.4 Concluding remarks 101 3.2 Perception of P in the present study 102 3.2.1 The perception of P in the family context 102 3.2.1.1 Equal-power situations in the family context 103 3.2.1.2 Unequal-power situations in the family context 104 3.2.1.3 Concluding remarks of P perception in the family context 108 3.2.2 The perception of P in the university context 110 3.2.2.1 Equal-power situations in the university context 110 3.2.2.2 Unequal-power situations in the university context 111 3.2.2.3 Concluding remarks of P in the university context 115 3.2.3 The perception of P in the work context 117 3.2.3.1 Equal-power situations in the work context 117 3.2.3.2 Unequal-power situations in the work context 119 3.2.3.3 Concluding remarks of P in the work context 122 3.2.4 The perception of P in the social context 124 3.2.4.1 Equal-power situations in the social context 124 3.2.4.2 Unequal-power situations in the social context 133 3.2.4.3 Concluding remarks of P in the social context 136 CHAPTER IV: CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND PRAGMATIC TRANSFER IN THE USE OF DISAGREEING POLITENESS STRATEGIES 139 4.1 Disagreeing politeness strategies realized in the invested situations 139 4.1.1 Disagreeing strategies based on B&L’s framework 139 4.1.1.1 Bald on record 139 4.1.1.2 Positive politeness 139 4.1.1.3 Negative politeness 144 4.1.1.4 Off record 146 4.1.1.5 Don’t the FTA (No FTA) 148 4.1.2 Disagreeing strategies in the analytical framework of the present study 148 4.2 Disagreeing politeness strategies in powerless situations 150 4.2.1 Situation 150 VIII 4.2.2 Situation 155 4.2.3 Situation 27 159 4.2.4 Concluding remarks 164 4.3 Disagreeing politeness strategies in powerful situations 168 4.3.1 Situation 168 4.3.2 Situation 12 173 4.3.3 Situation 13 178 4.3.4 Concluding remarks 182 PART C: CONCLUSION 188 Major findings 188 1.1 On inverse PT and CC differences in power perception 188 1.2 On negative PT and CC differences in the use of disagreeing politeness strategies 189 1.2.1 On negative PT in the use of disagreeing politeness strategies in specific situations 190 1.2.2 On CC differences in the use of disagreeing politeness strategies in specific situations 191 1.2.3 On the use of disagreeing politeness strategies in powerful and powerless situations 193 Implications 196 Suggestions for further studies 196 ARTICLES AND PROJECTS RELATED TO THE DISSERTATION 198 REFERENCES 199 APPENDICES 209 APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES 209 APPENDIX B: CODING SYSTEM OF DISAGREEING POLITENESS STRATEGIES 224 APPENDIX C: STATISTIC RESULTS 263 IX ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS A: ANS: B&L: CC: CCP: D: DCT: FTA: H: IL: ILP: MAQ: P: PT: R: S: Se: VLE: VNS: Addressee Australian native speaker Brown and Levinson Cross-cultural Cross-cultural pragmatics Social Distance Discourse completion task/test Face Threatening Act Hearer Interlanguage Interlanguage pragmatics Metapragmatic assessment questionnaire Relative Power Pragmatic transfer Ranking of imposition Speaker Setting Vietnamese learner of English Vietnamese native speaker Politeness strategies: Avoid D: Avoid disagreement Bald-on R: Bald on record Common G: Presuppose/ raise/ assert common ground Concern: Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of or concern for H’s wants Conventionally ind: Be conventionally indirect Deference: Give deference Encourage: Condolence, encouragement FTA as a GR: State the FTA as a general rule Gift: Give gifts to H Hint: Give hints Impersonalize: Impersonalize S and H In-group: Use in-group identity markers Include S&H: Include both S and H in the activity Interest: Intensify interest to H Ironic: Be ironic Minimize the imp: Minimize the imposition, Rx Multiple P: Multiple positive politeness Multiple N: Multiple negative politeness Multiple O: Multiple off record Negative P: Negative politeness X No FTA: N + O: Optimistic: Positive P: Promise: =P: P + N: P + O: P + N + O: Reciprocity: Reason: Rhetorical Q: Single P: Single N: Single O: Vague: Don’t the FTA Negative politeness plus off record Be optimistic Positive politeness Offer, promise Equal-power Positive politeness plus negative politeness Positive politeness plus off record Positive politeness plus negative politeness plus off record Assume or assert reciprocity Give (or ask for) reasons Use rhetorical questions Single positive politeness Single negative politeness Single off record Be vague In tables and sample analyses: CCD: Cross-cultural difference +D: Small social distance =D: Not-large-nor-small social distance -D: Large social distance -P: Powerless/Low power =P: Equal-power +P: Powerful/High power +Se: Formal setting =Se: Semi-formal setting -Se: Informal setting Sit.: Situation No PT: No pragmatic transfer In numbered examples: Examples are numbered for ease of reference For example, (4.9) signifies the ninth example in the fourth chapter Underlined: used to highlight what is being demonstrated In the text: Italics: used for emphasis, examples, politeness strategies, or technical terms mentioned for the first time &: used to replace “and” for linking the names of co-authors of references XI LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND GRAPHS FIGURES In chapter I: Figure 1.1: Classification of communicative illocutionary acts 17 Figure 1.2: Lakoff’s rules of pragmatic competence 27 Figure 1.3: B&L’s framework of politeness strategies 30 Figure 1.4: Taxonomy of disagreement (Adapted from Miller, 2000: 1095) 44 In chapter II: Figure 2.1: Methods of data elicitation 51 Figure 2.2: Procedures of developing instruments and gathering data 71 Figure 2.3: T-Test description 72 Figure 2.4: Interpretation of P, D, and Se values in the T-Test 74 Figure 2.5: Description of the Chi-square analysis of P perception 79 Figure 2.6: Description for the Chi-square test of the use of disagreeing strategies 80 TABLES In chapterII: Table 2.1: 13 valid and reliable situations in which S & H are not equal in power 75 Table 2.2: Six selected situations for the DCT 78 Table 2.3: General notation x contingency table 81 Table 2.4: An example of a x contingency table in the present study 81 Table 2.5: The Chi-square distribution table 82 Table 2.6: The analytical framework of the present study 90 In chapter III: Table 3.1: Power distance index values for 50 countries and regions 96 Table 3.2: Role relationships used for Equal/Unequal dyads (Spencer-Oatey, 1996: 11) 99 Table 3.3: Family equal-power situations (Sit and 6) 103 Table 3.4: Family powerless situations (Sit and 4) 105 Table 3.5: Family powerful situations (Sit and 5) 107 Table 3.6: CC differences and inverse PT in P perception in the family context 108 Table 3.7: University equal-power situations (Sit and 8) 110 Table 3.8: University powerless situations (Sit and 10) 112 Table 3.9: University powerful situations (Sit 11 and 12) 114 Table 3.10: CC differences and inverse PT in P perception in the university context 116 Table 3.11: Work equal-power situations (Sit 15, 17, and 18) 117 Table 3.12: Work powerless situation (Sit 16) 120 XII Table 3.13: Work powerful situations (Sit 13 and 14) 121 Table 3.14: CC differences and inverse PT in P perception in the work context 123 Table 3.15: Social equal-power situations with gender aspect (Sit 19 and 20) 125 Table 3.16: Social equal-power situations with social status (Sit 21 and 22) 127 Table 3.17: Social equal-power situations with economic status (Sit 23 and 24) 129 Table 3.18: Social equal-power situations with physical strength (Sit 25 and 26) 130 Table 3.19: Social equal-power situations with intellectual capacity (Sit 29 and 30) 132 Table 3.20: Social powerless situation with age aspect (Sit 27) 134 Table 3.21: Social powerful situation with age aspect (Sit 28) 135 Table 3.22: CC differences and inverse PT in P perception in the work context 136 In chapter IV: Table 4.1: Perception of P, D, and Se in situation 151 Table 4.2: Realization of major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 152 Table 4.3: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 154 Table 4.4: Perception of P, D, and Se in situation by the three groups 156 Table 4.5: Realization of major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 157 Table 4.6: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 158 Table 4.7: Perception of P, D, and S in situation 27 by the three groups 160 Table 4.8: Realization of major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 27 161 Table 4.9: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 27 163 Table 4.10 CC differences and negative PT in the subject’s use of six major groups of strategies in the powerless situations 164 Table 4.11 CC differences and negative PT in the subject’s use of 12 subgroups of strategies in the powerless situations 165 Table 4.12: Perception of P, D, and Se in situation by the three groups 169 Table 4.13: Realization of major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 170 Table 4.14: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 171 Table 4.15: Perception of P, D, and Se in situation 12 by the three groups 173 Table 4.16: Realization of major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 12 175 Table 4.17: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 12 176 Table 4.18: Perception of P, D, and Se in situation 13 by the three groups 178 Table 4.19: Realization of major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 13 179 Table 4.20: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 13 180 Table 4.21 CC differences and negative PT in the subject’s use of six major groups of strategies in the powerful situations 182 Table 4.22 CC differences and negative PT in the subject’s use of 12 subgroups of strategies in the powerless situations 183 XIII In part C: Table C.1 Negative PT, as seen from the six major groups of strategies 191 Table C.2 Negative PT, as seen from the twelve subgroups of strategies 191 Table C.3 CC differences, as seen from the six major groups of strategies 192 Table C.4 CC differences, as seen from the twelve subgroups of strategies 192 GRAPHS In chapter III: Graph 3.1: Family equal-power situations (Sit and 6) 103 Graph 3.2: Family powerless situations (Sit and 4) 105 Graph 3.3: Family powerful situations (Sit and 5) 107 Graph 3.4: University equal-power situations (Sit and 8) 110 Graph 3.5: University powerless situations (Sit and 10) 112 Graph 3.6: University powerful situations (Sit 11 and 12) 114 Graph 3.7: Work equal-power situations (Sit 15, 17, and 18) 119 Graph 3.8: Work powerless situation (Sit 16) 120 Graph 3.9: Work powerful situations (Sit 13 and 14) 121 Graph 3.10: Social equal-power situations with gender aspect (Sit 19 and 20) 125 Graph 3.11: Social equal-power situations with social status (Sit 21 and 22) 127 Graph 3.12: Social equal-power situations with economic status (Sit 23 and 24) 129 Graph 3.13: Social equal-power situations with physical strength (Sit 25 and 26) 130 Graph 3.14: Social equal-power situations with intellectual capacity (Sit 29 and 30) 132 Graph 3.15: Social powerless situation with age aspect (Sit 27) 134 Graph 3.16: Social powerful situation with age aspect (Sit 28) 135 In chapter IV: Graph 4.1: Realization of major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 152 Graph 4.2: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 154 Graph 4.3: Realization of major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 157 Graph 4.4: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 158 Graph 4.5: Realization of major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 27 161 Graph 4.6: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 27 163 Graph 4.7: Realization of major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 170 Graph 4.8: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 172 Graph 4.9: Realization of major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 12 175 Graph 4.11: Realization of major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 13 179 Graph 4.12: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 13 181 XIV PART A: INTRODUCTION Rationale In the process of globalization, English has played an increasingly important role in various fields, such as: science, business, education, and especially, cross-cultural (henceforth CC) communication As a consequence, there have been a large number of worldwide studies on cross-cultural pragmatics (henceforth CCP) which have been thoroughly presented in (1) Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper’s (1989) Cross-cultural pragmatics: request and apologies, (2) Wierzbicka’s (1991) Crosscultural pragmatics – the semantics of human interaction, (3) Kasper & BlumKulka’s (1993) Interlanguage pragmatics, (4) Trosborg’s (1995) Interlanguage pragmatics – requests, complaints and apologies, and (5) Gass & Neu’s (1996) Speech acts across cultures – challenges to communication in a second language CCP, according to Trosborg (1995: 45), is a particular field of contrastive pragmatics that is concerned with contrasting pragmatics across cultural communities The major reasons for the appearance and development of this field are, as clarified by Wierzbicka (1991: 69), that in different societies and cultural communities, people speak differently Being profound and systematic, those differences reflect different cultural values, different ways of speaking, and different communicative styles One of the objectives of those studies is to focus on comparing and contrasting the similarities and differences between a language and English in certain speech acts in particular contexts, which leads to the trend of contrastive pragmatics studies Another objective is to figure out potential features of pragmatic transfer (henceforth PT) from one language to English, which results in another common trend, namely interlanguage pragmatics (henceforth ILP) studies The overall purpose of the CCP studies is to help learners and non-native speakers of English become aware of potential similarities and differences between their language and culture and English language and culture as well as potential PT, especially P VALUE AS PERCEIVED BY A MAJORITY OF SUBJECTS ACROSS THE THREE GROUPS Social context Work context University context Family context Con text Sit 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Relative Role Child to Parent Parent to Child Husband & Wife Mature Child to Parent Parent to Child Husband & Wife Student & Student Student& Student Student to Lecturer Student to Lecturer Lecturer to Student Lecturer to Student Manager to Employee Manager to Employee Junior to Senior Employee to Boss Colleague & Colleague Colleague & Colleague Same-gender S & H Different-gender S & H Citizen to Officer Officer to Citizen Poorer to Wealthier Wealthier to Poorer Weaker to Stronger Stronger to Weaker Younger to Elder Elder to Younger Less Intel to More Intel More Intel to Less Intel P Perception by a majority of subjects VNS ANS VLE -P (94%) -P (66%) -P (90%) +P (96%) +P (68%) +P (96%) =P (98%) =P (98%) =P (98%) -P (88%) =P (64%) -P (82%) +P (96%) +P (76%) +P (98%) =P (94%) =P (76%) =P (98%) =P (98%) =P (80%) =P (100%) =P (96%) =P (88%) =P (100%) -P (88%) -P (84%) -P (92%) -P (82%) -P (72%) -P (88%) +P (92%) +P (78%) +P (94%) +P (92%) +P (84%) +P (94%) +P (94%) +P (88%) +P (98%) +P (82%) +P (80%) +P (72%) =P (74%) -P (80%) =P (82%) -P (82%) -P (80%) -P (86%) =P (100%) =P (98%) =P (96%) =P (100%) =P (98%) =P (96%) =P (98%) =P (86%) =P (98%) =P (100%) =P (84%) =P (90%) =P (66%) -P (78%) =P (58%) =P (72%) +P (88%) =P (58%) =P (94%) =P (82%) =P (90%) =P (96%) =P (86%) =P (92%) =P (90%) =P (82%) =P (96%) =P (84%) =P (80%) =P (98%) -P (64%) =P (80%) -P (72%) +P (62%) =P (68%) +P (78%) =P (62%) -P (62%) -P (52%) =P (60%) =P (50%) =P (56%) CCD ≈ Cross-Cultural Difference * ≈ p≤0.05 ** ≈ p≤0.01 272 Significant Difference CCD (***) CCD (***) CCD (***) CCD (***) CCD (**) CCD (***) CCD (*) CCD (***) CCD (*) CCD (***)-PT (*) CCD (***) CCD (***)-PT (*) CCD (*) CCD (*) CCD (***) CCD (***) CCD (***)-PT (*) Sit ≈ Situation *** ≈ p≤0.001 FREQUENCY STATISTICS OF STRATEGY USE: SITUATION Strategies and strategy combinations strategy groups Bald-on Bald-on R R Avoid D Concern Single P Common G In-group Reason Optimistic Reciprocity Avoid D + In-group Avoid D + Reason Avoid D + Reason + Reciprocity Concern + Reason Concern + Reciprocity In-group + Reason In-group + Reason + Avoid D In-group + Reason + Common G Multiple In-group + Reason + Concern P In-group + Optimistic In-group + Reason + Avoid D + Common G In-group + Concern + Common G In group + Reciprocity In-group + Common G In-group + Reason + Avoid D + Concern In-group + Reason + Concern + Common G + Reciprocity In-group + Concern + Common G + Optimistic Avoid D + Common G Single Q-H N Single Over-generalize O Deference + Concern Q-H + Deference + Concern Q-H + Reason Q-H + Reason + Concern Q-H + Reason + In-group Q-H + Reason + Avoid D Q-H + Concern Q-H + Concern + In-group Q-H + Concern + Common G 273 ANS N % Subject groups VNS VLE N % N % 4.0 10.0 4.0 8.0 6.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 1 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 12.0 1 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 18.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 1 1 2.0 4.0 8.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 2 4.0 4.0 2 4.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 4.0 P+ N Q-H + In-group Q-H + Avoid D Q-H + Common G Q-H + Interest Q-H + Reciprocity Q-H + Reason + In-group + Avoid D Q-H + Reason + Common G Q-H + In-group + Avoid D Q-H + In-group + Avoid D + Common G Q-H + In-group + Common G Q-H + Apologize + Common G Q-H + Apologize + Common G + In-group Q-H + Reason + Concern + In-group Q-H + Concern + In-group + Avoid D Q-H + Concern + In-group + Common G Q-H + Concern + In-group + Common G + Avoid D Q-H + In-group + Include S & H Missing Total 2 1 4.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0 50 100.0 274 1 4.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 1 4.0 6.0 8.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 0 0 50 100.0 50 100.0 FREQUENCY STATISTICS OF STRATEGY USE: SITUATION Substrategy groups Bald-on R Single P Multiple P Single N Multiple N Single O P+N P+O N+O P+N+O No FTA Missing Total Strategies and strategy combinations Bald-on R In-Group Avoid D Common G Reason Reciprocity Reason + Common G In-group + Reason + Common G In group + Concern + Reciprocity In-group + Common G Impersonalize Q-H Q-H + Apologize Vague Over-generalize Rhetorical Q In-group + Impersonalize Q-H + In-group Q-H + In-group + Avoid D In-group + Over-generalize In-group + Rhetorical Q Reason + Rhetorical Q Q-H + Over-generalize Q-H + In-group + Rhetorical Q No FTA ANS N 30 4 50 275 Subject groups VNS VLE % N % N % 60.0 19 38.0 16 32.0 4.0 2.0 18.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 10.0 14.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 10.0 6.0 8.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 0 100.0 50 100.0 50 100.0 FREQUENCY STATISTICS OF STRATEGY USE: SITUATION Substrategy groups Bald-on R Single P Multiple P Single N Multiple N Single O P+N Strategies and strategy combinations Bald-on R Concern Avoid D Concern + Reason + Avoid D Apologize Conventionally Ind Impersonalize Q-H Deference Apologize + Deference Q-H + Conventionally Ind Q-H + Apologize Q-H + Deference Q-H + Apologize + Conventionally Ind Deference + Conventionally Ind Q-H + Apologize + Deference Vague Apologize + Deference + Reason Apologize + Deference + Concern Apologize + Deference + Concern + Conventionally Ind Deference + Avoid D Deference + Promise Deference + Reason Deference + Reason + Conventionally Ind Deference + Concern Deference + Concern + Common G Concern + Conventionally Ind + Promise Q-H + Apologize + Deference + Concern Q-H + Apologize + Deference + Avoid D Q-H + Apologize + Deference + Conventionally Ind Q-H + Apologize + Deference + Avoid D + Promise Q-H + Apologize + Reason Q-H + Deference + Reason Q-H + Deference + Avoid D Q-H + Deference + Concern Q-H + Deference + Common G + Conventionally Ind Q-H + Concern 276 Subject groups ANS VNS VLE N % N % N % 6.0 10.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 16.0 6.0 2.0 14.0 6.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 14.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 8.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 4.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3 1 2.0 6.0 6.0 N+O P+N+O No FTA Missing Total Q-H + Avoid D Deference + Over-generalize Q-H + Deference + Rhetorical Q Q-H + Apologize + Deference + Rhetorical Q Apologize + Deference + Avoid + Common G + Rhetorical Q No FTA 277 6.0 17 34.0 0 50 100.0 4.0 2.0 10.0 2.0 50 100.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 50 100.0 FREQUENCY STATISTICS OF STRATEGY USE: SITUATION 12 Substrategy groups Bald-on R Single P Multiple P Single N Multiple N Single O Multiple O P+N Strategies and strategy combinations Bald-on R Concern Avoid D Common G In-Group Reason Promise Encourage Reciprocity Reasons + Common G Reasons + Encourage Concern + Reason Concern + Reason + Common G Concern + Reason + Encourage In-group + Reason In-group + Reason + Interest In-group + Reason + Include S & H In-group + Reason + Promise + Encourage In-group + Reason + Concern + Encourage Promise + Encourage Promise + Include S & H FTA as a GR Impersonalize Minimize the Imp Q-H Q-H + FTA as a GR Ironic Over-generalize Ironic + Rhetorical Q Apologize + Reason Apologize + Reason + Concern FTA as a GR + Avoid D FTA as a GR + Promise Q-H + Apologize + Reason Q-H + Reason Q-H + Concern Q-H + Avoid D Q-H + Reason + Common G 278 ANS N 1 Subject groups VNS VLE % N % N % 4.0 8.0 18.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 14.0 16 32.0 16.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 16.0 2.0 4.0 14.0 8.0 2.0 1 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 1 10.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 P+O N+O Q-H + Reason + Impersonalize Q-H + Reason + Encourage Q-H + Reason + Avoid D + Conventionally Ind Q-H + Concern + Minimize the Imp Q-H + In-group + Include S & H + FTA as a GR Q-H + Encourage Reason + Impersonalize Reason + Minimize the Imp Concern + Impersonalize In-group + Reason + Minimize the Imp Encourage + Understate In-group + Over-generalize In-group + Rhetorical Q Reason + Rhetorical Q Reason + Vague Reason + Over-generalize Reason + In-group + Over-generalize Common G + Over-generalize FTA as a GR + Hint Q-H + Over-generalize Q-H + Rhetorical Q Missing Total 279 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 1 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 50 100.0 4.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 50 50 100.0 50 50 100.0 FREQUENCY STATISTICS OF STRATEGY USE: SITUATION 13 Substrategy groups Bald-on R Single P Multiple P Single N Multiple N Single O P+N P+O N+O Strategies and strategy combinations Bald-on R Concern In-Group Avoid D Common G Encourage Optimistic Reason Reciprocity Concern + Reason Concern + Include S & H Concern + Promise Reason + Common G Reason + Promise Reason + Encourage In-group + Reason Avoid D + Reason Avoid D + Promise Promise + Encourage Conventionally Ind Impersonalize Q-H FTA as a GR Impersonalize FTA as a GR + Impersonalize Q-H + Apologize Rhetorical Q Vague Concern + FTA as a GR Concern + FTA as a GR + Impersonalize Concern + Impersonalize + Promise Conventionally Ind + Include S & H Q-H + Reason Q-H + Avoid D Q-H + Encourage Q-H + Concern Reasons + Conventionally Ind Apologize + Reason Reason + Rhetorical Q Reason + Concern + Rhetorical Q Apologize + Ironic Q-H + Conventionally Ind + Rhetorical Q No FTA Missing Total 280 ANS N 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 49 50 Subject groups VNS VLE % N % N % 24.0 26 52.0 12 24.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 8.0 10.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 8.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 12.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 50 50 100.0 50 100.0 50 100.0 FREQUENCY STATISTICS OF STRATEGY USE: SITUATION 27 Substrategy groups Bald-on R Single P Multiple P Single N Multiple N Single O Multiple O P+N N+O No FTA Missing Total Strategies and strategy combinations Bald-on R Avoid D Promise Reason + Promise Apologize Deference Q-H FTA as a GR Apologize + Deference Q-H + Apologize Q-H + Apologize + FTA as a GR Q-H + Apologize + Deference Q-H + Deference Q-H + Apologize + Nominalize Hint Ironic Vague Ironic + Rhetorical Q Apologize + Promise Apologize + Promise + FTA Apologize + Reason Apologize + Reason + Promise Apologize + Promise + Gift Deference + Promise Q-H + Apologize + Deference + Promise Q-H + Apologize + Promise Q-H + Apologize + Reason Q-H + Deference + Promise Q-H + Reason Q-H + Include S &H Q-H + Promise Apologize + Ironic No FTA 281 ANS N % 12.0 2.0 17 1 34.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 12.0 1 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 50 100.0 Subject groups VNS VLE N % N % 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 13 26.0 14 28.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 10.0 13 26.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 2.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 11 1 22.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 2.0 1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 50 50 100.0 50 50 100.0 FREQUENTLY-USED STRATEGIES IN ISOLATION AND IN COMBINATION Groups of strategies Single P Multiple P Single N Powerless situations Sit.1: Sit.9: Sit 27: Family University Social -P+D-Se -P=D=Se -P-D-Se Concern In-group Avoid D Common G In-Group Reason Q-H Q-H Apologize Deference Q-H Deference Apologize Multiple N Single O P+N Avoid D Common G In-Group Reason Concern Powerful situations Sit 12: Sit 13: University Work +P=D=Se +P=D=Se In-group Reason In-Group Common G Q-H Impersonalize Reason Reason Reason Concern FTA as a GR Q-H Q-H Rhetorical Q Rhetorical Q Q-H Deference Apologize Reason Concern Avoid D Reason Apologize Q-H Deference Overgeneralize Q-H Sit.5: Family +P+D-Se Apologize Q-H Promise Reason 282 Impersonalize In-Group Q-H Apologize Impersonalize Reason Concern Encourage Q-H Concern Reason SIX MAJOR-GROUPS OF STRATEGIES USED BY THE ANS VERSUS VNS IN THE SIX SITUATIONS OF THE DCT Groups of strategies Bald-on R Positive P Negative P Off record Mixed Situation -P+D-Se ANS VNS 15 26 21 13 No FTA Missing Total 50 50 Situation +P+D-Se X2 (P) 1.382 5.002 * 2.210 0.211 2.852 * ANS VNS 30 19 11 50 50 Situation -P=D=Se X2 (P) 4.460 * 1.188 1.034 0.868 7.686 *** 0.323 - ANS VNS 21 19 18 17 50 50 X2 (P) 0.544 1.043 1.169 1.010 9.601 *** 8.440 *** Situation 12 +P=D=Se X2 ANS VNS (P) 11 29 22 11 50 283 14 50 0.626 12.478 *** 20.449 *** 2.127 0.333 - Situation 13 +P=D+Se X2 ANS VNS (P) 12 26 10 9 13 2 1 50 50 7.919 *** 0.093 1.427 1.691 9.772 *** 0.365 - Situation 27 -P-D-Se X2 ANS VNS (P) 1 23 23 2 13 20 1 50 50 3.953 * 1.001 0.009 0.000 2.020 1.960 - SIX MAJOR-GROUPS OF STRATEGIES USED BY THE ANS VERSUS VLE IN THE SIX SITUATIONS OF THE DCT Groups Situation Situation of -P+D-Se +P+D-Se strategie X AN VL X2 ANS VLE (P) s S E (P) 7.89 2.041 Bald-on 30 16 R *** 7.48 3.405 Positive 15 24 19 * P *** 1.09 9.890 Negative 9 *** P 0.12 3.093 Off * record 8.69 1.004 Mixed 21 26 *** 2.04 No FTA Missing 0 0 Total 50 50 50 50 Situation -P=D=Se AN VL X2 S E (P) 3 Situation 12 +P=D=Se AN VL X2 S E (P) 1.043 - 4.703 * 3.095 2.623 11 19 * - 0.000 21 21 22 = 26.19 *** 0.002 - 22.45 2.623 27 11 19 *** 20.56 17 *** 1 2 50 50 50 50 284 Situation 13 +P=D+Se AN VL X2 S E (P) 0.00 12 12 3.69 10 19 * 2.32 1.03 1.04 13 2.08 50 50 Situation 27 -P-D-Se AN VL X2 S E (P) 6.51 ** 0.00 1 = 6.45 23 36 ** 0.36 0.08 13 12 4.25 * 50 50 TWELVE SUBGROUPS OF STRATEGIES USED BY THE ANS VERSUS VNS IN THE SIX SITUATIONS OF THE DCT Groups of strategies Situation -P+D-Se Situation +P+D-Se Situation -P=D=Se Situation 12 Situation 13 Situation 27 +P=D=Se +P=D+Se -P-D-Se 2 2 X X X X X X2 ANS VNS (P) ANS VNS (P) ANS VNS (P) ANS VNS (P) ANS VNS (P) ANS VNS (P) 1.382 4.460 0.544 0.626 7.919 3.953 30 19 12 26 * *** * 0.065 0.002 0.344 4.235 0.287 0.323 7 10 20 Single P 10 * Positive P 8.392 4.253 1.010 6.771 1.960 0.990 Multiple 17 1 1 *** * *** P 2.210 1.034 0.511 14.433 0.126 0.845 Single 13 10 18 19 15 *** Negative N P 0.071 4.344 3.157 1.427 Multiple 4 *** * N 2.211 0.868 1.010 1.052 1.691 0.323 Single 1 Off O Record Multiple 1.052 1.031 1 O 2.852 4.253 6.282 0.030 8.491 1.488 21 13 15 10 13 19 P+N * * ** *** 2.083 4.003 0.000 1 P+O * = Mixed 3.095 1.130 2.083 0.990 3 N+O * 1.031 P+N+O 0.323 8.440 0.365 1.960 No FTA 17 No FTA *** Missing 0 1 1 Total 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Bald-on Bald-on R R 285 TWELVE SUBGROUPS OF STRATEGIES USED BY THE ANS VERSUS VLE IN THE SIX SITUATIONS OF THE DCT Groups of strategies Situation -P+D-Se ANS VLE Situation +P+D-Se X2 (P) ANS VLE Situation -P=D=Se X2 (P) ANS VLE 2.041 7.890 30 16 *** 4.332 5.482 17 Single P 10 * ** Positive P 13.306 2.041 Multiple 21 *** P 9.890 2.174 Single 13 *** Negative N P 1.010 Multiple 16 N 3.093 0.101 Single * O Off Record Multiple O 1.004 3.093 21 26 25 P+N * 2.041 P+O Mixed 2.041 N+O 1.010 1 P+N+O 2.041 No FTA 17 No FTA Missing 0 0 1 Total 50 50 50 50 50 50 Bald-on Bald-on R R 286 X2 (P) 1.043 2.042 1.010 4.356 * 3.532 * Situation 12 Situation 13 Situation 27 +P=D=Se +P=D+Se -P-D-Se 2 X X X2 ANS VLE (P) ANS VLE (P) ANS VLE (P) 10 13 18 19.216 *** 15 1.010 1.010 20.568 *** 50 50 4.703 * 0.364 3.631 * 19.748 *** 4.344 * 0.303 1.052 2.424 4.003 * 3.224 * 12 12 12 3 10 0.003 2.299 0.854 0.491 3.157 * 1.034 - 6.517 ** 0.000 = 0.244 12.353 19 *** 0.000 1 = 1.031 0.715 0.084 13 12 0.323 2.083 19 17 2.083 4.253 * 1 50 50 50 50 ... Addressee Australian native speaker Brown and Levinson Cross- cultural Cross- cultural pragmatics Social Distance Discourse completion task/test Face Threatening Act Hearer Interlanguage Interlanguage pragmatics. .. relative power affect the speaker’s use of disagreeing strategies realized in Vietnamese by Vietnamese native speakers and in English by Vietnamese learners of the language and Australian native... discussion of each particular situation - Vietnamese- Australian PT in disagreeing among power- unequals is what the study aims to investigate Thus, comparison and contrast of disagreeing strategies by