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

TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND GRAPHS PART A: INTRODUCTION Rationale Aims of the study 2.1 Overall purpose 2.2 Specific aims Research questions Scope of the study Contributions of the stud Methodology Organization of the stud PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Cross-Cultural pragmatics (CCP) and interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) 1.1.2 Pragmatic transfer and relevant issues 1.2 Speech act theory and disagreeing as a speech act 1.2.1 Notion of speech acts 1.2.2 Classification of speech acts 1.2.3 Disagreeing as a potential face threatening act 1.3 Politeness theory and its application to the present study VI 1.3.3 A 1.4 Disagreeing in previous studies and in the present study 1.4.1 Pr 1.4.2 Su 1.4.3 D CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY 2.1 Research methods 2.1.1 A 2.1.1.1 A brief description of the two 2.1.1.2 Common trends in applying re 2.1.1.3 Some concluding remarks on 2.1.2 Re 2.1.2.1 The chosen research methods 2.1.2.2 Reasons for choosing the meth 2.2 Research design 2.2.1 D 2.2.1.2 Discourse completion task (D 2.2.2 Su 2.2.3 Pr 2.3 Data analysis 2.3.1 Validity test (T-Test) for developing data-gathering instrument (DCT) 2.3.1.1 A description of the T-Test 2.3.1.2 Interpretation of the T-Test sco 2.3.2 Ch 2.3.2.1 A description of the Chi-squar 2.3.2.3 Results of the Chi-square anal CHAPTER III: CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND PRAGMATIC TRANSFER IN THE PERCEPTION OF RELATIVE POWER 3.1 Power and language in social interactions in previous studies 3.1.1 Th 3.1.2 Pr VII 3.1.3 3.1.3.1 Power and language are closely interconnected 3.1.3.2 Power is conceptualized differently in different cultures 3.1.3.3 Factors that need taking into concern when studying power 3.1.4 Co 3.2 Perception of P in the present study 3.2.1 Th 3.2.1.1 Equal-power situations in the family context 3.2.1.2 Unequal-power situations in the family context 3.2.1.3 Concluding remarks of P perception in the family context 3.2.2 Th 3.2.2.1 Equal-power situations in the university context 3.2.2.2 Unequal-power situations in the university context 3.2.2.3 Concluding remarks of P in the university context 3.2.3 Th 3.2.3.1 Equal-power situations in the work context 3.2.3.2 Unequal-power situations in the work context 3.2.3.3 Concluding remarks of P in the work context 3.2.4 Th 3.2.4.1 Equal-power situations in the social context 3.2.4.2 Unequal-power situations in the social context 3.2.4.3 Concluding remarks of P in the social context CHAPTER IV: CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND PRAGMATIC TRANSFER IN THE USE OF DISAGREEING POLITENESS STRATEGIES 4.1 Disagreeing politeness strategies realized in the invested situations 4.1.1 D 4.1.1.1 4.1.1.2 4.1.1.3 4.1.1.4 4.1.1.5 Don’t the FTA (No FTA) 4.1.2 4.2 Disagreeing politeness strategies in powerless situations 4.2.1 Si VIII 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.3 Disagreeing politeness strategies in powerful situations 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 PART C: CONCLUSION 1.Major findings 1.1 On inverse PT and CC differences in power 1.2 2.Implications Suggestions for further studies ARTICLES AND PROJECTS RELATED TO THE DISSERTATION APPENDICES APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES APPENDIX B: CODING SYSTEM OF DISAGREEING P APPENDIX C: STATISTIC RESULTS IX ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS A: ANS: B&L: AC: Addressee Australian native speaker Brown and Levinson Cross-cultural P: Social Distance Discourse completion task/test Face Threatening Act Hearer Interlanguage Interlanguage pragmatics Metapragmatic assessment questionnaire Relative Power R: S: Ranking of imposition Speaker D: DCT: FTA: H: IL: ILP: MAQ: Se: VLE: VNS: Politeness strategies: Avoid D: Bald-on R: Common G: Concern: Conventionally ind: Be conventionally indirect Deference: Encourage: FTA as a GR: Gift: Hint: Impersonalize: Impersonalize S and H In-group: Include S&H: Interest: Ironic: Minimize the imp: Multiple P: Multiple N: Multiple O: Negative P: 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: In tables and sample analyses: CCD: +D: =D: -D: -P: =P: +P: +Se: =Se: -Se: Sit.: No PT: 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) Crosscultural pragmatics: request and apologies, (2) Wierzbicka’s (1991) Cross-cultural pragmatics – the semantics of human interaction, (3) Kasper & Blum-Kulka’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 FREQUENCY STATISTICS OF STRATEGY USE: SITUATION 12 Substrategy S groups Bald-on R Single P Multiple P Bal Co Av Co InRea Pro Enc Rec Rea Rea Co Co Co +E InInInIn- Enc In- Single N Multiple N Single O Multiple O P+N Enc Pro Pro FTA Imp Mi Q-H Q-H Iro Ov Iro Ap Ap FTA FTA Q-H Q-H Q-H Q-H Q-H 278 Q-H Q-H Q-H Co Q-H Q-H as a Q-H Rea Rea Co InEnc InInRea Rea Rea Rea Co FTA Q-H Q-H P+O N+O Missing Total 279 FREQUENCY STATISTICS OF STRATEGY USE: SITUATION 13 Substrategy St groups Bald-on R Single P Multiple P Single N Multiple N Single O P+N P+O N+O Missing Bald Conc In-G Avoi Com Enco Optim Reas Reci Conc Conc Conc Reas Reas Reas In-gr Avoi Avoi Prom Conv Impe Q-H FTA Impe FTA Q-H Rhet Vagu Conc Conc Conc Conv Q-H Q-H Q-H Q-H Reas Apol Reas Reas Apol Q-H No F Total 280 FREQUENCY STATISTICS OF STRATEGY USE: SITUATION 27 Substrategy Str groups Bald-on R Single P Multiple P Single N Multiple N Single O Multiple O P+N N+O No FTA Missing Total Bald Avoi Prom Reas Apol Defe Q-H FTA Apol Q-H Q-H Q-H Q-H Q-H Hint Ironi Vagu Ironi Apol Apol Apol Apol Apol Defe Q-H Q-H Q-H Q-H Q-H Q-H Q-H Apol No F 281 FREQUENTLY-USED STRATEGIES IN ISOLATION AND IN COMBINATION Groups of strategies Concern Single P In-group Avoid D Common G Multiple P In-Group Reason Q-H Single N Multiple N OverSingle O generalize Q-H P+N Avoid D Common G In-Group Reason Concern 282 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 50 50 No FTA Missing Total X2 (P) 1.382 5.002 * 2.210 0.211 2.852 * 283 SIXMAJOR-GROUPS OFSTRATEGIESUSEDBYTHEANS VERSUS VLEINTHESIXSITUATIONSOFTHEDCT Groups Situation -P+D-Se of strategie ANS s Bald-on VLE R Positive 15 24 P Negative P Off record Mixed 21 26 0 50 50 No FTA Missing Total 284 TWELVE SUBGROUPS OF STRATEGIES USEDBYTHEANS VERSUS VNS INTHESIXSITUATIONS OFTHEDCT Groups of strategies ANS Bald-on Bald-on Positive Single P 10 P Multiple R R Negative P Single N P Multiple Off N Single O Record Multiple O P+N P+O Mixed 21 N+O P+N+O No FTA No FTA Missing Total 50 285 TWELVESUBGROUPS OFSTRATEGIESUSEDBYTHE ANS VERSUS VLEINTHESIXSITUATIONSOFTHEDCT Groups of strategies ANS Bald-on Bald-on Positive Single P 10 P Multiple R R Negative P Single N P Multiple Off N Single O Record Multiple O P+N P+O Mixed 21 N+O P+N+O No FTA No FTA Missing Total 50 286 ... great in empirical studies of different speech acts (i.e disagreeing, asking for permission, and inviting and declining invitations) in different languages (Vietnamese, Canadian English, and American... 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... 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