A vietnamese american cross cutural study on the use of hedging in argument

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES -  - NGUYỄN THỊ DUYÊN A VIETNAMESE-AMERICAN CROSS CULTURAL STUDY ON THE USE OF HEDGING IN ARGUMENT NGHIÊN CỨU GIAO VĂN HÓA VIỆT - MỸ VỀ CÁCH RÀO ĐÓN KHI TRANH LUẬN M.A MINOR THESIS FIELD: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS CODE: 60.22.15 HANOI-2012 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES -  - NGUYỄN THỊ DUYÊN A VIETNAMESE-AMERICAN CROSS CULTURAL STUDY ON THE USE OF HEDGING IN ARGUMENT NGHIÊN CỨU GIAO VĂN HÓA VIỆT - MỸ VỀ CÁCH RÀO ĐÓN KHI TRANH LUẬN M.A MINOR THESIS FIELD: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS CODE: 60.22.15 SUPERVISOR: PHAN THỊ VÂN QUYÊN, M.A HANOI– 2012 DECLARATION I certify that the work contained in this thesis is the result of my own research I confirm that this thesis has not been submitted for any other degrees to any other university or institution Signature: Name: Nguyễn Thị Duyên Date: Octocber 2,2012 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First of all, I would like to send my great gratitude to my supervisor, Mrs Phan Thị Vân Quyên for her insightful instructions, detailed comments and correction of my drafts of this thesis I am deeply indebted to her enthusiastic assistance as well as her encouragement during my course of writing this thesis In addition, I wish to express my sincere thanks to my colleagues at ThaiNguyen Univeristy of Information and Communication Technology for their useful suggestions and cooperation to obtain indispensable data for this study report I would also like to convey my big thanks to those who are candidates of Master course 19 – ThaiNguyen for their invaluable materials and references of this study Last but not least, my thanks go to my family, my friends who stimulated and supported me to accomplish this research ii ABSTRACT This study aims to find out the similarities and the differences in the use of hedges in argument by American and Vietnamese students Additionally, the goal of the thesis is to help Vietnamese learners of English avoid potential problems when using hedges to argue with English native speakers Participants of the study were 30 American students and 30 Vietnamese students who are at the age of 20-25 The data was collected via a discourse completion task (DCT) which was accompanied by the sample of questionnaire The survey questionnaire was designed in two versions- one in English delivered to American participants, one in Vietnamese version for Vietnamese informants Finally, contrastive analysis was discussed and some suggestions were made for Vietnamese learners of English in using hedges to argue with English native speakers iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii ABBREVIATION vi PART A: INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale Aims of the Study Scope of the Study Design of the Study PART B: DEVELOPMENT…………………………………………………… 1.1 Communication 1.1.1 Verbal communication 1.1.2 Non- verbal communication 1.2 Culture 1.3 Cross-cultural communication 1.4 Potential problems in cross-cultural verbal communication .8 1.5 Cross-cultural study 1.6 Politeness 11 1.6.1 Face 11 1.6.2 Politeness Strategies 12 1.7 Argument 13 1.8 Hedges and Use of hedges in argument 15 iv 1.9 Review of previous studies 18 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY 20 2.1 Research question 20 2.2 Subjects of the Study 20 2.3 Data collection instruments 20 2.4 Procedures 22 2.5 Methods of the study 22 3.1 Realization of hedges used in argument 23 3.2 The frequency of using hedges in argument 25 3.3 Use of hedges as seen from informants’ parameters 27 Use of hedges as seen from communicating partners’ parameters 30 3.5 Contrastive analysis 35 3.5.1 Similarities 36 3.5.2 Differences 36 3.6 Implications 37 PART C: CONCLUSIONS 38 Summary 38 Suggestions for further Studies 39 RERERENCES 40 APPENDIX I v ABBREVIATION DCT Discourse completion task FTAs Face threatening acts H Hearer S Speaker vi LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES AND CHARTS TABLES Table 1: Holliday‟s view of culture Table 2: DCT‟s features 21 Table 3: Frequency of using hedges in argument 25 Table 4: Frequency of hedging types used by American and Vietnamese informants 28 FIGURES Figure 1: Elements of Commnunication (Hybels & Weaver II, 1992:7-10) Figure 2: Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown & Levison, 1987) .12 Figure 3: Use of hedge in argument from gender perspective .27 Figure 4: Use of hedges to different kinds of partners 30 Figure 5: Use of hedges from communicating partner as parents 31 Figure 6: Use of hedges from communicating partner as close friend 32 Figure 7: Use of hedges from communicating partner as classmate 34 CHART Chart 1: Distribution of hedging categories in argument 26 vii PART A: INTRODUCTION Rationale In many species, human beings have the highest development with the use of language It is the language that made human different from the other species and put an important mark in the human‟s evolution The appearance of language helps man communicate to each other easily The more developing the society is, the more complicated the language is In the trend of globalization, all countries together would like to be loyal friends and potential partners not only in economy but also such other field as cultures and politics It is the opening-policy applied by many governments that stimulates the exchanging and studies different cultures which has been increased promptly Hence, cross-cultural communication attracts more and more attentions and the studies of the linguists As the world has been so far changing, it is extremely essential to researches on how people from different cultures communicate to each other Therefore, there have been plenty of studies on cultural diversities as well as the differences between cultures Language is indispensable factor affecting the intercultural communication Language is used to communicate but how to get a successful conversation concerns with different elements, for instance, the topic of the conversation, the mutually interesting connections among the speakers and the hearers, the understanding of each other Obviously, argument is unavoidable in communication The participants of the conversation, especially those in familiar relationship are at a high rate of having conflict in every communicating Actually, the struggle may be developed to be a debate or a strong disagreement through the conversation However, as considered to be the most intelligent living creatures, human know how to put an end to a debate That is when hedge is employed as a useful means of communicating The expressions as I think, I suppose,… (Con nghĩ rằng, cho rằng,… ) are the most frequent hedges used E.g -I think he is unreliable Ok father But…I suppose I, myself, can decide to everything at my age - Con nghĩ chuyến bổ ích cho Con cho trưởng thành du lịch Vietnamese culture has rules in behaving between families members in which the younger has to obey and respect the older, especially their parents Hence, to talk with parents, Vietnamese people often use “thưa/ thưa + kinship term/tittle + ạ” It can be calculated form Figure 5, there is no utterances of Vietnamese informants applied hesitation as ừ, ờ, …, while 12% American use this type of hedges to argue As American cultures tend to praise the individual, freedom and equality, American participants, to some extent, feel free and comfortable to argue with their parents E.g - Well…I might have So what? We can always buy another one - Uhm…I'm quite sure he's a cheater Believe me  Close friend Close friend is the communicating partner who has influence on the students to choose types of hedges to argue Close friend has equal power with the informants (=P), and they are all familiar with to each other (-D) Figure 6: Use of hedges from communicating partner as close friend 32 From Figure 6, it is clearly shown that plausibility shields are, again, used with the highest frequency to argue with close friend by both American and Vietnamese participants As can be seen from the figure, the number of American informants using plausibility shields is 44% - more than 40% Vietnamese informants This is the same in case of expressing pessimism and adaptors 24% American students employ such expressions as I may be wrong but, I may be mistaken but, If I may say so (Có thể sai tớ, tớ nhầm nhưng, tớ nói điều bạn đừng giận in Vietnamese) to argue with their close friends Meanwhile, only 18% Vietnamese students use this type of hedges American respondents employ little more adaptors than Vietnamese ones (7% and 5%) It can be noted that Vietnamese informants, in argument, not mind giving their opinions directly to their close friend who are intimate to them On the other hands, American participants pay attention to mitigate the force of arguing on their close friends and save face for the H E.g - I may be wrong but he is untruthful - He is sort of butcher Believe me! - Tớ sợ cậu bị lừa nhé! Tớ muốn nói với bạn chuyện này, có khơng phải bạn bỏ qua As can be shown in Figure 6, it can be calculated that the Vietnamese use more hedges of attribution shields and hesitation than the American The biggest difference of using by both sides is shown in hesitation When 21% Vietnamese students employ hesitation, only 12% American use this type in argument The reason for this is that Vietnamese participants are aware of FTAs and try to avoid threatening their close friends‟ face Additionally, this also explains the needs of finding the common point of Vietnamese students with their close friends in arguments This reveals the feature of Vietnamese cultures that people often try to avoid debating to maintain the good relationship between each other, especially those who have close relationship to the speakers E.g - Ừ…nhưng tớ muốn lần cho biết cậu (Uhm…I still want to travel alone) 33 To each partners of the communication, the informants express their different choices of hedges to argue The ways they hedge to their parents is certainly different from that to their close friends as well as their classmates, which is discussed as follow  Classmate The communicating partners as classmates of the participants receive different ways of hedging compared to the partners as parents and close friend The informants of the study and their classmates have equal power (=P) and in acquaintance with each other (+D) Figure 7: Use of hedges from communicating partner as classmate As can be seen from Figure 7, American informants employ all five types of hedges to argue with their classmates, while Vietnamese participants apply four types as plausibility, attribution, expressing pessimism and hesitation As considered to be the most popular type of hedges in arguments, plausibility shields are still preferred to use by both American and Vietnamese participants by 42% and 45% Besides, expressing pessimism shows the more frequent use of Vietnamese students than the American (27% Vietnamese and 21% American) It can be explained that Vietnamese informants are cautious to give their opinions of argumentative point to those who are not familiar with them Consequently, they try to lessen the impact on the H by expressing pessimism 34 E.g - I think you should be careful with him - I may be mistaken but he always tells lies - Tớ nghĩ cậu nên xem xét lại người - Có thể nhầm khơng tốt cậu nghĩ đâu From Figure 7, hesitation shows the difference of the using of hedges to argue with classmates by American informants in comparison with Vietnamese ones To argue with classmates, American students apply more hedges of hesitation than those of Vietnamese (14% American and 10% Vietnamese) It can be noted that the American tend to avoid threatening their classmate‟ face in argument E.g - Well…but I love travelling alone - Uhm…You may right But I still want to try this time As shown in Figure 7, it can be calculated that Vietnamese students not employ any adaptors to argue with their classmates It can be inferred that Vietnamese students make sure about their utterances‟ preciseness when argue with their classmates In addition, Vietnamese informants may consider it to be unimportant to seek for the agreement of the classmates The explanation can be that the classmates are just friends of the participants who are not very familiar with them Therefore, the need of maintaining the relationship is not necessary In short, American and Vietnamese informants hedge differently to argue with different communicating partners To see more clearly about the similarity and differences of using hedges by both American and Vietnamese, a contrastive analysis is discussed in section 3.5 3.5 Contrastive analysis Basing on the analysis of hedging classification, the frequency of hedge using and the use of hedges as seen from different communicating partners, the similarities and differences of using hedges in argument by American and Vietnamese students are briefly summarized in this section 35 3.5.1 Similarities  Plausibility shields and expressing pessimism are two types of hedges which are used at the highest rate by both American and Vietnamese students to argue with three different partners  Female informants of both groups use types of hedges as adaptors, attribution shields and expressing pessimism more frequently than male informants  Adaptors are the least frequently used by both American and Vietnamese participants  Both American and Vietnamese parties not hedge much in situation 3: being blamed for breaking the vase 3.5.2 Differences Basing on the data analysis, there is variety of dissimilarities of hedging using by both American and Vietnamese students in argument Below is the list of differences in brief  From the gender view, Vietnamese female hedge in argument more frequently than the American However, American male use hedges with more frequent than Vietnamese male in argument  In terms of hedging categories, American informants employ all five types of hedges to argue with communicating partners as adaptors, plausibility shields, attribution shields, expressing pessimism and hesitation Meanwhile, Vietnamese participants make a choice of hedging types to argue with each communicating partner  In terms of communicating partners, the Vietnamese not use hesitation to argue with their parents, and adaptors to argue with their classmates Hesitation is type of hedge that Vietnamese informants employ much in arguing with their close friends only  Vietnamese students tend not to say sorry to their both their close friends and their classmate, except for their parents 36  Statics show that Vietnamese informants are more likely to maintain the good relationship with their close friends by using more hedges of plausibility shields and hesitation  American females apply five types of hedges in the higher rate than American male It is the same as Vietnamese female and male except hesitation Vietnamese male tend to employ more hedges of hesitation than Vietnamese female 3.6 Implications In cross-cultural communication, there are many reasons causing the misunderstanding of the S and the H Hedging in arguments consists of potential problems that Vietnamese may face when communicating to American people These implications shown below are aimed to help Vietnamese learners of English avoid mistranslating when hedging to argue with English native speakers  The more familiar people are, the less frequency of hedges using to argue in Vietnamese The intimacy between the Vietnamese students and their partners in argument determines the frequency of hedges in communication However, the American still hedge very frequently to their interlocutors, even their close friends Hence, Vietnamese students should employ hedges in argument frequently to those who are intimate Plausibility shields and expressing pessimism are the most popular types of hedges used to argue with such communicating partners  Traditionally, Vietnamese people hardly say sorry to others, except for mistakes This may lead the communication break-down As the American tend to say sorry very often to all their communicating partners to show respect, even those who are intimate Such expressions as I’m afraid that, I’m sorry but seem to be used widely by American These expression helps the S give their doubtful attitude and give the contrastive ideas of the problem without threatening the H‟s face Therefore, when arguing with English native speakers, Vietnamese learners should hedge such expressions above 37 PART C: CONCLUSIONS Summary In this study, hedging in arguments has been seen from the communicative functions Basing on the theory and the data collection, five categories of hedges are classified as Adaptors, Plausibility shields, Attribution shields, Expressing pessimism and Hesitation The classification of hedges plays an extremely important role in the data analysis of the research Additionally, the communicating partner consisting of parents, close friend, and classmate is another category to analyze the data Such factors as gender, relative power, social distance among the informants and their partners in arguments have been explored Generally, the result of the study gives the answer for the research question What are the similarities and differences of the use of hedges in argument by American and Vietnamese learners of English? The result of the study shows that gender decides the use of hedges It is concluded that 91% and 85% of Vietnamese and American female hedge in arguments, while the number of Vietnamese and American male is 70% and 78% In total of five types of hedges, the most popular type used is plausibility shields in which I think, I guess, I mean, I suppose (Tôi nghĩ rằng, cho rằng) appear with the high rate of frequency by both Vietnamese and America parties to argue with three different partners It is concluded that American informants employ all five types of hedges to argue with communicating partners However, Vietnamese participants use certain types of hedges to argue suitably to different partners Statics show that, in argument, American participants employ hedges to three different partners of communication more frequently than Vietnamese participants Arguing with those who have intimate relationship as parents and close friends, Vietnamese informants tend to hedge less than American ones 38 The similarities and differences are brief summarized with the aim to give the remarkable analysis of the study Consequently, potential problems that may occur between Vietnamese students and American ones when hedging to argue are also discussed The purpose is to help Vietnamese learners of English avoid getting troubles when use hedge to argue with the American Suggestions of using hedges when arguing with English native speakers were made for Vietnamese students To sum up, distinctive features of culture have influence on the use of hedges in argument by both groups of participants Suggestions for further Studies This paper, to some extent, makes benefit for English language teachers and learners in using hedges in argument Moreover, the thesis suggests possible problems that may appear in argument among intercultural communicators It is suggested that further study of hedging in arguments should be carry out for a longer span of time and in a wider scope of the participants Moreover, it is better to carry out on the survey on participants randomly Further studies should involve suggestions of activities as well as solutions to help Vietnamese students avoid problems in hedging to argue with English native speakers Studying hedges in different situations of communication is interesting ideas for the next study Finally, the author would be grateful for any reflecting ideas, comments, supports and criticisms from readers 39 RERERENCES Aneas, M.A.&Sandin, M.P (2009), Intercultural and Cross-Cultural Communication Research: Some Reflections about Culture and Qualitative Methods, Volume 10, No 1, Art 51 Retrieved June 10, 2012 from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1251/2738 Brown, P & Levison, S.C (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Carol, R and Ember, M (2002), Cultural Anthropology, Tenth Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River Ember, C, R & Ember, M (2002), A Basic Guide to Cross-Cultural Research Retrieved July 2, 2012 from http://www.yale.edu/hraf/basiccc.htm Grundy, P (200), Doing Pragmatics, Arnold, London Gudykunst, W.B & Mody, B (2002), Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication, Second edition Hall, E.T (1959), The Silent Language, Doubleday, New York Holliday, A & Hyde, M & Kullman, J (2004) Intercultural communication, Routledge Hua, J (2011), A Study on Pragmatic Functions of Hedges Applied by College English Teachers in the Class, School of Foreign Studies, Henan Polytechnic University, China Hybels, S & Weaver II, R.L (1992), Communicating Effectively, McGrawHill, Inc Levison, S.C (1983), Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Lakoff, G (1972), Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concept, Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol Majeed, R.K.A (2010), Analysis of Grammatical Forms and Semantic Functions of Hedging in Political Discourse: American President Debate, College of Education for Women, Vol 21 (3) 40 Mehrabian, A (1981), Silent messages: Implicit communication of emotions and attitudes, Wadsworth, Belmont Perelman, C & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L (1969), The new rhetoric A treatise on argumentation, University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, London Prince, E., J Frader and C Bosk (1982), „„On hedging in physician-physician discourse‟‟, in R J Di Pietro(ed.), Linguistics and the professions Proceedings of the second annual delaware symposium on language studies, Ablex, 83–97, Norwood Richards, J & Platt, J & Weber, H (1992), Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics, Longman, London Samovar, L.A & Porter, R.E & McDaniel, E.R (2007), Communication between Cultures, Wadsworth, Belmont Samovar, L, A & Porter, R.E (1991), Communication between cultures, Wadsworth, Belmont Van, E & Grootendorst, R & Snoeck, H F et al (1996), Fundamentals of Argumentation Theory A Handbook of Historical Backgrounds and Contemporary Developments, Erlbaum, Mahwah Yule, G (1996) Pragmatics Oxford: Oxford University Press Đặng Thị Kim Chung (2003) Hedging in Invitation Declining: A VietnameseAmerican Cross-cultural Study M.A Theis VNU-CFL, Hanoi Nguyễn Quang (2002), Giao tiếp giao tiếp văn hoá, Đại học Quốc Gia, Hà Nội Võ Đại Quang (2009), Một số phương tiện biểu đạt nghĩa tình thái tiếng Anh tiếng Việt, Đại học Quốc Gia, Hà Nội 41 APPENDIX SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE This survey questionnaire is designed for the study entitled “A Vietnamese( ) American Cross-Cutural Study on the Use of Hedging * in Argument” Your cooperation of giving responses to the following items is greatly appreciated All information will be used only for the purpose of this research  Please tick ( ) where appropriate Age Gender Below are some argumentative situations Would you please write down exactly what you would say in the normal conversation Situation 1: You want to travel alone in your summer holiday, but one person prevents you: - I am not sure if this makes sense, but travelling alone is so boring What would you say to argue with him/her? If that person is your father/mother ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… If that person is your best friend ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… If that person is your classmate ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ( ) * Hedging is a way of speaking in which you use words or phrases like: I mean, I guess, I think, I may be mistaken but, somehow, kind of, sort of, in a way, to a certain extent, up to a point… I Situation 2: You know for sure that a person‟s friend is a cheater but he/she does not believe you He/she says that - I may be mistaken, but he is kind What would you say to argue with him/her? If that person is your father/mother ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… If that person is your best friend ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… If that person is your classmate ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Situation 3: A person accuses you of breaking a vase because there was only you in the room: - I guess you broke the vase What would you say to argue with him/her? If that person is your father/mother ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… If that person is your close friend ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… If that person is your classmate ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Thank you for your co-operation! II CÂU HỎI ĐIỀU TRA Bảng câu hỏi điều tra nhằm thu thập liệu cho nghiên cứu với đề tài: “Nghiên ( ) cứu giao văn hóa Việt-Mỹ cách rào đón * tranh luận” Xin bạn vui lòng dành thời gian trả lời câu hỏi bảng điều tra THÔNG TIN CÁ NHÂN  Hãy đánh dấu( )vào chỗ thích hợp Tuổi Giới tính CÂU HỎI KHẢO SÁT Dưới số tình gây tranh cãi Bạn cho biết bạn nói tình sau? Tình 1: Bạn muốn du lịch kỳ nghỉ hè ngườiđã ngăn cản bạn: - (Tôi) không điều có ý nghĩa khơng du lịch nhàm chán Bạn nói để tranh luận? Nếu người bố/mẹ bạn ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Nếu người bạn thân bạn ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Nếu người bạn lớp ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ( ) * Dấu hiệu rào đón từ cụm từ như: tơi cho rằng, tơi đốn/nghĩ rằng, cách hay cách khác, là, kiểu như, nhầm lẫn nhưng, tới mức độ đó… đựợc sử dụng để làm cho quan điểm hay bất đồng mờ nghĩa đi, làm giảm mức độ de dọa thể diện người nghe III Tình 2: Bạn biết chắn bạn người kẻ lừa đảo người khơng tin bạn nói với bạn rằng: - Có thể (tơi) nhầm anh người tốt Bạn tranh luận nào? Nếu người bố/mẹ bạn ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Nếu người bạn thân bạn ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Nếu người bạn lớp ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Tình 3:Bạn bị nghi người làm vỡ lọ hoa có bạn phịng: - (Tơi) đốn (bạn) làm vỡ lọ hoa Bạn tranh luận nào? Nếu người bố/mẹ bạn ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Nếu người bạn thân bạn ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Nếu người bạn lớp ……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… Xin chân thành cảm ơn đóng góp bạn! IV ... data analysis of how participants of the study use hedges in argument is mainly done using the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods The study mainly concentrates on the relations of. .. focal points of this study Van (1996) defines argument as follow: Argumentation is a verbal and social activity of reason aimed at increasing (or decreasing) the acceptability of a controversial... study, the American President 18 Debate was analyzed basing on the categories of hedges in grammatical forms and functions The detail and careful analysis of the researchers marked the valuable findings