A cross cultural study on american vietnamses verbal expressions in offering a gift and responding to a gift offer

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES ********** ƯNG THỊ THU QUYÊN A CROSS – CULTURAL STUDY ON AMERICAN – VIETNAMESE VERBAL EXPRESSIONS IN OFFERING A GIFT AND RESPONDING TO A GIFT OFFER NGHIÊN CỨU GIAO THOA VĂN HÓA VIỆT – MỸ VỀ CÁCH SỬ DỤNG NGÔN TỪ ĐỂ TẶNG QUÀ VÀ NHẬN QUÀ SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH Field : ENGLISH LINGUISTICS Code : 602215 Supervisor : Dr Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa Hµ Néi - 2010 v TABLE OF CONTENTS  Certificate of originality of project report  Acknowledgements  Abstract  Abbreviations Part A Introduction I Rationale II Aim of the study III Scope of the study IV Design of the study Part B Development Chapter I Theoretical background I.1 Language and communication I.2 Language and culture I.3 Communicative competence I.4 Speech acts I.4.1 Definition I.4.2 Types of speech acts I.4.3 Politeness strategies: I.4.3.1 Bald on – record I.4.3.2 Positive politeness I.4.3.3 Negative politeness I.4.3.4 Off – record I.5 Offering as a speech act I.6 Gift offering Chapter II Methodology 10 II.1 Instrument 10 II.2 Procedures 10 II.3 Informants 11 II.4 Coding of the data and mode of data analysis 12 Chapter III Strategies in gift offering 15 III.1 Communicative strategies used in gift offering 15 III.2 Similarities and differences of gift offering between American and Vietnamese 21 III.2.1 Data analysis 21 III 2 Major similarities and differences 21 vi III.2.3 Concluding remarks 22 Chapter IV Strategies in responding to gift offers 24 IV.1 Agreeing to receive a gift 24 IV.1.1 Communicative strategies in receiving a gift 24 IV.1.2 Similarities and differences of gift receiving between American and Vietnamese 28 IV.1.2.1 Data analysis 28 IV.1.2.2 Major similarities and differences 28 IV.1.3 Concluding remarks 29 IV.2 Refusing a gift 29 IV.2.1 Communicative strategies used in refusing a gift 29 IV.2.2 Similarities and differences of gift refusing between American and Vietnamese 33 IV.2.2.1 Data analysis 33 IV.2.2.2 Major similarities and differences 33 IV.2.3 Concluding remarks 34 Part C Conclusion I Summary of the findings 35 I.1 Offering a gift 35 I.2 Receiving a gift 37 I.3 Refusing a gift 39 II Implications: 41 Implications for cross-cultural communicators 41 Implication for ELT 41 III Limitations and suggestions for further research 42 References 43 Appendix A: Survey questionnaires Appendix B: Data analysis iv ABBREVIATIONS S : Speaker H : Hearer G : Giver R : Receiver FTA : Face Threatening Act FT : Face Threat ELT : English Language Teaching DCT : Discourse Completion Task/Test Part A Introduction I Rationale Language is very important for international communication nowadays People from different cultures when using a second language as a main means of communication, more or less, experience misunderstandings Why does communication breakdown may occur in cross-cultural communication? Why are many utterances grammatically correct but communicatively and culturally meaningless? This is mainly because participants lack knowledge of each other’s culture For example, the following is a story I heard from my friend The students gave their American volunteer-teacher a carefully wrapped gift on the Vietnamese Teachers’ Day They were very surprised at seeing the teacher open the gift in front of them And he said “Thank you very much It’s very nice!” The disappointment immediately appeared on the students’ faces as they expected longer and more formal sentences than that and thought how impolite the teacher opened the gift at once Vice versa, the teacher seemed to be impatient and embarrassed when listening to the monitor’s words “On the occasion of Vietnamese Teachers’ Day, we have a special gift for you We hope that you’ll love it We wish you happiness, good health and big success.” What was wrong in that situation? The American teacher was completely reasonable in his behavior and there was nothing grammatically wrong in the monitor’s words Obviously, cultural differences here confused the participants and make the communicative process unsuccessful From her personal observations in teaching career, the writer would like to have an insight into a really nice social manner- offering gifts and responding to gift offers from cross-cultural communication perspective As a result of that, to seek a proper answer of what and how to say to offer a gift and respond to a gift offer Why a gift offer, traditionally considered to bring benefit to the Receiver, is occasionally still refused? And why sometimes the Receiver’s behavior hurts the Giver? II Aim of the study and research question The aim of this study is: To compare and contrast the strategies employed by Vietnamese and American people when they offer a gift and respond to a gift offer in their own language and culture The study aimed to get the answers to the following question: What are the similarities and differences in American and Vietnamese when offering a gift and responding to a gift offer? III Scope of the study This study is limited to the verbal aspects of the act of offering gifts Nonverbal aspects of the act such as paralanguage, extra-language and the like are not investigated Conclusions will be based on the analysis of the data collected from the questionnaires, not spontaneous discourse It is said that data obtained from questionnaires about what people might say in certain situations may not always be the same as what they actually say in real life It may be because the answers in written form seem to be more formal than speaking one Obviously, it takes longer thinking so the answers are less natural But it was felt that the data would indicate possible similarities and differences between American and Vietnamese ways of giving gifts and responding to the offers The informants feel free from time pressure and their names are unknown so the data would be reliable The Northern Vietnamese dialect and the English spoken as the first language in the United States are selected for contrastive analysis Thus, the study will not go to a fixed conclusion but based on statistic data, give remarks, comments and assumption on the frequency of some verbal ways of offering gifts This study is only confined to one aspect of language in action: what strategies are most commonly found in association with gift offering Moreover, gift offering in this study is simply understood as a nice cultural behavior in daily life expressing deep gratitude, concern and attention to the Receiver Of course, gifts can be offered without saying a word but the non – verbal aspect of gift offering, as mentioned before, is beyond the scope of this study Moreover, this is as minor thesis so what kind of present should be given, to whom (the influence of informants’ parameters on the choice of strategies: age, gender, etc.) and what kind of present should be avoided are not touched in this study although the author is highly aware of them as a cultural characteristics of each nation IV Design of the study Part A: Introduction: All the academic routine required for the study is represented Part B: Development: This is the focus of the study and consists of four chapters Chapter I Theoretical background Chapter II Methodology Chapter III Strategies in gift offering Chapter IV Strategies in responding to gift offers Part C: Conclusion Part B Development Chapter I Theoretical background I.1 Language and communication Language is considered as one of the highest and the most amazing achievements of human kind in labor process In the Oxford “Advanced learner’s encyclopedic dictionary” (1998:506), language is defined as a “system of sounds, words, patterns, etc used by humans to communicate thoughts and feelings” Thus, language is a means of communication and communication is the aim of language According to Richard et al (1992:28) communication is “the exchange of ideas, information, etc between two or more persons The sender/speaker transmit message to the receiver/listener” However, communication is not merely an exchange of information An important function of communication is to keep a particular society going Individuals cooperate with one another to sustain reality and they use language as one of the means to so In communication, whether or not the language is intended and spoken, any communication behavior is perceived and interpreted Such factors as the speaker’s communicative intention, the interlocutor’s expectation and communicative effects of the message are contributive to the success of communication This means, “The communicative effects match the intentions” (Clyne, 1996:144) Thus, the speaker’s idea is grasped and the hearer’s interpretation is relevant to what the speaker (S) desires Communication breakdown is a hidden risk in any communication settings It falls into two types: non-communication where no message is communicated and miscommunication where any unintended message is communicated In conclusion, through language we can affect every aspect of our relationships and successful communicators must be aware of their own and their interlocutors’ expectations of communication I.2 Language and culture Anna Wierzbicka (1992:371) regards “language as a mirror of culture and national character.” People can understand the cultural characteristic of the nation through the language they use Different cultures use language differently, even though some cultures possess the same language such as American culture, British culture, and Australian culture Richard et al (1992:94) defines: “Culture is the total set of beliefs, attitudes, customs, behavior, social habits of the members of a particular society” This definition not only helps us understand what culture is, but also lists the components of culture Obviously, culture is a sort of knowledge, which everyone must possess to function within a society Beliefs, attitudes, customs, behaviors and social habits are not innate or born naturally but they are learnt through the socialization process in which you grow up a full member of a society That is why culture does not belong to any single person but to all people It is believed that language and culture are interrelated, language contains culture in itself and culture is expressed via language Language, as a means of communication, is also bound up with culture in complex ways Kramsch (1998:4) views the relationship between language and culture as follows: language expresses cultural reality When people express their ideas, they use a stock of knowledge about the world that they share with one another; language embodies cultural reality Members of a community create experience through language; language symbolizes cultural reality Language is a system of signs with cultural values Language of a group can be viewed as a symbol of their social identity It can be obviously seen that language and culture are interrelated and interwoven with each other Every cultural reality is expressed, embodied and symbolized by language From a broader point of view, Nguyen Van Do (2004:71) mentions the relationship between language-culture and the society in which human beings are central According to his argument, without people, culture and society would not exist So, it is possible to interpret and describe a culture in its language In its turn, culture influences the way in which language is used It provides guidelines for our linguistic behavior I.3 Communicative competence When learning a new language, the students must learn its grammatical rules to make a sentence correctly in grammar This ability is called “linguistic competence” If the linguistic competence of students is good, he can grammatical exercises fluently and get high marks in exams But that is not enough In real-life communication, we also need “communicative competence” It is the Students’ ability to know “when and where to use these sentences and to whom” (Richard et al (1992:65)) In order to communicate appropriately, students are supposed to have shared knowledge According to Saville-Troike (1982:26), communicative competence consists of three components: linguistic knowledge, interaction skills, and cultural knowledge The relation of these communicative components consolidates that knowledge of language and interaction skills are not enough Choosing what to say and how to say to fit into a community and its language are very essential For successful communication, especially cross-cultural communication, learners must be aware of the target culture and the difference between the target and the source cultures In other words, both knowledge of language and its culture decide successful communication I.4 Speech acts I.4.1 Definition According to Searle (1969:50), whenever we make a speech, we carry out an act A speech act is an act that a speaker performs when making an utterance, including the following: a general act (illocutionary act) that a speaker performs, analyzable as including the uttering of words (utterance acts), making reference and predicating (propositional acts), and a particular intention in making the utterance (illocutionary force); an act involved in the illocutionary act, including utterance acts and propositional acts; the production of a particular effect in the addressee (perlocutionary act) I.4.2 Types of speech acts According to Austin (1996:51), there are four kinds of speech acts: 1, illocutionary act is a complete speech act, made in a typical utterance, which consists of the delivery of the propositional content of the utterance (including references and a predicate) and a particular illocutionary force, whereby the speaker: asserts, suggests, demands, promises, or vows; perlocutionary act is a speech act that produces an effect, intended or not, achieved in an addressee by a speaker’s utterance; propositional act is a speech act that a speaker performs when referring or predicating in an utterance; an utterance act is a speech act that consists of the verbal employment of units of expression such as words and sentences According to Searle (in Levinson 1983:240), there are five broad classes of illocutionary points: declaratives, representatives, expressives, directives and commissives In order to understand the speaker’s intention behind the words, the hearer can rely on some conventional way to predict, called “speech event” For instance, when a student comes to class late, his teacher may ask “What’s the time?” All the students in the class understand that the teacher is annoyed, but he does not want to know the time of the moment I.4.3 Politeness strategies Politeness strategies are used to formulate messages in order to save the hearer’s face when face-threatening acts are inevitable or desired In Brown and Levinson (1987: 180), there are four main types of politeness strategies: bald on-record, negative politeness, positive politeness, and off-record (indirect) I.4.3.1 Bald On-record Bald on-record strategies usually not attempt to minimize the threat to the hearer’s face, although there are ways that bald on-record politeness can be used in trying to minimize FTAs implicitly Often using such a strategy will shock or embarrass the addressee, and so this strategy is most often utilized in situations where the speaker has a close relationship with the audience, such as family or close friends Brown and Levinson (1987:181) outline various cases, in which one might use the bald on-record strategy, including: great urgency or desperation: Watch out! Speaking as if great efficiency is necessary: Hear me out ; task-oriented: Pass me the hammer; little or no desire to maintain someone's face: Don't forget to clean the blinds! ; doing the FTA is in the interest of the hearer: Your headlights are on! ; Offers: Leave it, I'll clean up later Eat! I.4.3.2 Positive Politeness Positive politeness strategies seek to minimize the threat to the hearer’s positive face They are used to make the hearer feel good about himself, his interests or possessions, and are most usually used in situations where the audience knows each other fairly well In addition to hedging and attempts to avoid conflict, some strategies of positive politeness include statements of friendship, solidarity, compliments, and the following examples: attend to hearer’s interests, needs, wants: You look sad Can I anything? ; Use solidarity in-group identity markers: Hey, mate, can you lend me a dollar?; be optimistic: I’ll just come along, if you don’t mind; include both speaker (S) and hearer (H) in activity: If we help each other, I guess, we’ll both sink or swim in this course; wish or promise: If you wash the dishes, I’ll vacuum the floor; exaggerate interest in H and his interests: That’s a nice haircut you got; where did you get it?; avoid Disagreement: Yes, it’s rather long; not short certainly I.4.3.3 Negative Politeness Negative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearer’s negative face and emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer These strategies presume that the speaker will be imposing on the listener and there is a higher potential for awkwardness or embarrassment than in bald on record strategies and positive politeness strategies Negative face is the desire to remain autonomous so the speaker is more apt to include an out for the V …………………………………………………………………………………………….… ………………………………………………………………………………………… b Nếu quí vị định từ chối quà đó? …………………………………………………………………………………………….… ………………………………………………………………………………………… VI APPENDIX B DATA ANALYSIS I Offering a gift: A new friend/colleague: 60 50 50 % 40 30 28 26 American 28 Vietnamese 22 20 20 12 10 6 0 0 0 Strategy * American: This is the communicating partner for whom the American informants use “direct offer” at the highest rate (50%) in comparison with the use of this strategy with other communicating partners “Showing modesty about the gift value” is also used at 28% - the second commonly used in this situation, but the most frequently used compared to that in other situations “Showing concern for the R” comes next at 20% and “giving the R a surprise” only at 2% Some informants interviewed replied without any hesitation that they not offer gifts to a new friend/ colleague Others thought they would not say anything or say very little The languages used in this situation are often short and sounds unfriendly: “Here is a gift” Only the four strategies above are resorted to and the rest are not available: - Stating reason of gift offering - Wishes - Expressing the G’s feeling - Asking for permission to offer a gift * Vietnamese: VII While American informants seem to be very straightforward to people they dislike, the Vietnamese ones favor “wishes” accounting for 28% “Direct offer” makes up 26% - the second most commonly used “Showing modesty about the gift value” is used at a little lower rate: 22%, followed by “stating reason” at 12% The percentage of Vietnamese used strategy “showing concern for the R” and “expressing the G’s feeling” is quite low at 6% equally Of the strategies in table 1, only strategies are not used: - Giving the R a surprise - Asking for permission to offer a gift Close friend: 35 30 32 28 26 25 % 20 20 15 American 16 14 12 10 Vietnamese 12 8 0 Strategy * American: To offer a close friend a gift, the American informants use the strategy “direct offer” at the highest rate: 26%, “showing concern for the R” at a slightly lower rate: 20% Strategy “stating reason of gift offering” comes next at 16% “Giving the R a surprise” and “expressing the G’s feeling” are also resorted to at the same rate: 12% Some informants say that saying something surprising or secret to their close friend is as pleasant as giving a gift Only 8% of the informants employ strategy “showing modesty about the gift value” This shows that to close friends, “showing modesty about the gift value” is not very much favored by the American informants While strategy “wishes” is very popular among Vietnamese informants, it is not commonly used by the American ones (only 6%) All strategies are touched, except for strategy “asking for permission to offer a gift” * Vietnamese: The most preferable strategies are “direct offer” and “wishes” Interestingly, the number of informants using strategy “direct offer” is a little higher than VIII the number using strategy “wishes” (32% vs 28%) and even much higher than the number of the Americans employing them (26% vs 6%) The rest strategies are used at rather lower rate: “showing concern for the R” at 14%, but it is the highest rate of this strategy compared to that in other situations “Stating reason of gift offering” is used at 8% and strategy “expressing the G’s feeling” is used at 8% Strategy “giving the R a surprise” is used at 6% The lowest rate belongs to strategy “showing modesty about the gift value” at 4% Like the American informants, Vietnamese ones not employ the last strategy: “asking for permission to offer a gift” Brother/sister: 38 40 35 30 30 % 25 28 24 American 18 18 20 Vietnamese 14 15 10 10 6 0 0 Strategy * American: Unlike the previous situations, for family members of the same rank, strategy “showing concern for the R” is dominant with 28%, higher than strategy “direct offer” (24%) And the concern is expressed by adverbs “sincerely”, “really”… or superlative adjectives and the language sounds moving and affectionate: - I sincerely hope you need it - I really hope you like it Strategy “stating reason of gift offering” is used at 18% Strategy “expressing the G’s feeling” is resorted to the most in this situation, at 14% compared to that in other situations Strategy “showing modesty about the gift value” is used at 10% The American informants not employ such strategies as: “wishes” and ““asking for permission to offer a gift” IX * Vietnamese: On the contrary to the American informants, the most commonly used strategy employed by the Vietnamese informants is “wishes” (38%), followed by “direct offer” (30%) Interestingly, strategy “expressing the G’s feeling” is used at 8% Two strategies which are not resorted to in this situation are: “showing concern for the R” and “asking for permission to offer a gift” Employee: 50 46 45 40 36 34 35 % 30 32 26 American 25 Vietnamese 20 14 15 10 0 2 0 Strategy * American: Unlike the previous situations, for employees, the G likes using strategy “stating reason of gift offering” the most: 46%, much more frequently used than strategy “direct offer” (36%) The G often appreciates work, effort and support of the R by giving a present as a reward and assumes that the R deserves the reward The rest strategies are not much favored: “showing concern for the R” at 14%, strategy “showing modesty about the gift value” and “wishes” are equally employed at 2% There are three strategies out of use: - giving the R a surprise - expressing the G’s feeling - asking for permission to offer a gift * Vietnamese: Interestingly, strategy “stating reason of gift offering” is also the most frequently used by the Vietnamese informants”: 34%, while “wishes” is used at lower rate: 32% In Vietnamese culture, people of higher social status are often decisive and bossy They are supposed to have the right to impose on those who are of lower social status This clearly reflects a hierarchical society This suggests that to those who are of lower social status, repressive actions are not necessarily required Also, in this situation, strategy X “direct offer” is quite frequently used: 26% Only informant employ strategy “expressing the G’s feeling” and informants use strategy “showing modesty about the gift value” There are strategies out of use: - showing concern for the R - giving the R a surprise - asking for permission to offer a gift Employer: 50 44 45 44 40 35 % 30 25 American 22 20 15 Vietnamese 18 20 12 10 10 10 0 2 0 Strategy * American: Like situation 5, the American informants employ the strategy “stating reason of gift offering” at the highest rate (44%), a little lower than the percentage of this strategy in the previous one (46%) This confirms that, for them, low or high social status has not much influence on their choice of this strategy The second highest percentage belongs to strategy “direct offer” at 22%, followed by “showing concern for the R” at 20% Strategy “showing modesty about the gift value” accounts for 12% Only one informant (2%) resorts to strategy “asking for permission to offer a gift” The strategies not in use are: giving the R a surprise, wishes and expressing the G’s feeling * Vietnamese: Strategy “wishes” keeps showing its dominant place at a rather high rate (44%) as usual while the second most commonly used is strategy “showing modesty about the gift value” at only 18% For the Vietnamese, showing modesty about the gift value, as well as showing modesty of themselves is one way of showing respect to their status superiors Strategy “direct offer” and “stating reason of gift offering” come next with the same rate: 10% It is the lowest rate of strategy “direct offer” compared to other situations XI This statistics shows that Vietnamese people are always aware of their social status and abase themselves before those who are at a higher rank Therefore, they tend to limit using the direct speech to offer gift to their employer Strategies “showing concern for the R” and “expressing the G’s feeling” are equally employed with 8% Especially, this is the only situation in which strategy “asking for permission to offer a gift” is employed by both American and Vietnamese informants at the same rate: 2% There is only one strategy unemployed: “giving the R a surprise” (like American informants) II Receiving a gift: A new friend/ colleague: 35 32 30 30 26 25 22 22 % 20 20 American 14 15 12 Vietnamese 12 10 10 5 Strategy * American: This is the communicating partner for whom the American informants use “thanking” at the highest rate (32%) in comparison with the use of this strategy with other communicating partners It also makes up the biggest percentage in comparison with other strategies in this situation Strategy “complimenting the G” is the second highly used at 22%, followed by strategy “token refusal” at 20% and strategy “complimenting the gift” at 14% The lowest rate belongs to strategy “expressing the R’s feeling” (12%) All strategies are employed * Vietnamese: While the American favor “thanking” to a new friend, the Vietnamese prefer “token refusal”, and this accounts for 30% “Thanking” makes up only 26% and this is the second largest number Strategy “complimenting the G” used by the Vietnamese is equal to that by the American: 22% Interestingly, the number of the informants using “expressing the R’s feeling” is also the smallest: 10% No strategy is out of use Close friend: XII 35 30 30 28 24 % 25 20 18 16 20 20 18 American 16 Vietnamese 15 10 10 5 Strategy * American: Like the previous situation, strategy “thanking” still keeps the dominant place in the order (28%), followed by strategy “complimenting the G” at 24% This suggests that the American informants use “thanking” so frequently, no matter what distance is Strategy “expressing the R’s feeling” comes next with 20% and “complimenting the gift” with 18% The lowest rate is for strategy “token refusal” (10%) and this is the lowest percentage compared with that in other situations * Vietnamese: Unlike the previous situation, to a close friend, the Vietnamese informants choose strategy “complimenting the G” most (30%) and this is the highest rate of this strategy in comparison with its use with other communicating partners This may show that: to close friends, the Vietnamese seem to be generous with compliments on the G Strategy “expressing the R’s feeling” stands at the second place with 20%, the same rate of this strategy in American “Thanking” and “complimenting the gift” are the least frequently used at the same rate: 16% while “token refusal is employed a little higher: 18% XIII Brother/sister: 35 30 30 24 24 25 % 20 20 16 14 15 22 20 16 American 14 Vietnamese 10 5 Strategy * American: “Thanking” is the most favored at 30% A bit lower is strategy “complimenting the gift” at 24%, followed by “complimenting the G” and “expressing the R’s feeling” at same rate (16%) Strategy “token refusal” still holds the last place with 14% * Vietnamese: Strategy “complimenting the gift” is the most chosen with 24% and it is equal to that in American The followed strategy belongs to “complimenting the G” at 22% This suggests that the Vietnamese often much use “complimenting the G” with the partners of close distance Both strategy “thanking” and “token refusal” stand at a moderate rate: 20% The lowest rate belongs to strategy “expressing the R’s feeling” at 14% Employee: 40 38 36 35 30 28 26 % 25 20 20 American 18 16 Vietnamese 15 10 10 0 Strategy XIV * American: The American informants keep using strategy “thanking” at the highest rate: 36%, much higher than other strategies “Complimenting the G” comes second with only 20%, followed by “expressing the R’s feeling” with 18% and “token refusal” with 16% In communicating with this partner, the informants choose “token refusal” most, similar to the situation of someone you dislike “Complimenting the gift” is resorted to at the smallest rate: 10% * Vietnamese: In this situation, the Vietnamese informants prefer using “token refusal” most at 38% and this is the highest rate compared with its use in communicating with other partners This suggests that to partner of lower social status, the Vietnamese ones often complain a little about the giving behavior before receiving Strategy “token refusal” is aimed to increase the positive politeness of the R, which is favored by the Vietnamese “Complimenting the G” comes next with 28%, followed by “thanking” with 26% The Vietnamese often feel that if they just say thanks to the G, it seems to be direct and flat This is considered to be rude or impolite if you receive the gift so directly Thus, the Vietnamese are used to declining first by using other strategies before receiving even though they really want to get the gift Only 8% of informants employ strategy “expressing the R’s feeling” while none of them use strategy “complimenting the gift” Employer: 50 45 44 40 34 35 28 % 30 28 24 22 25 American Vietnamese 20 14 15 10 0 Strategy * American: Strategy “thanking” holds the first place with 44% and this is the highest rate compared with its use in communicating with other partners Surprisingly, no informant uses “token refusal” and “complimenting the gift” “Complimenting the G” and XV “expressing the R’s feeling” are equally used at 28% This shows that to partner of higher social status, the American only focus on a few strategies * Vietnamese: Similarly to employee, the Vietnamese still keep using “token refusal” most at 34% This is seen that in working relation, the Vietnamese favor this strategy as a polite expression that no other strategy can replace “Complimenting the G” comes the second with 24% then “thanking” accounts for 22% “Expressing the R’s feeling” is much less used: 14% while only very few informants (6%) resort to “complimenting the gift” Some informants interviewed considered that “complimenting the gift” seems to be rude and insensitive III Refusing a gift: A new friend/ colleague: 70 64 60 50 % 40 40 30 34 American 26 26 Vietnamese 20 10 10 0 Strategy * American: To refuse a new friend/colleague, the American informants use the strategy “flat refusal” at the highest rate: 64%, much higher than other strategies This is communicative partner that receives the most flat refusals This shows that to someone they not know much; the informants often refuse flatly without hesitation Strategy “negating the necessity of gift offering” comes the second with 26% Strategy “giving reason for refusal” accounts for 10% and this is the lowest rate of this strategy compared with its use in other situations Strategy “delay” is not available * Vietnamese: Meanwhile, strategy “giving reason for refusal” is dominant in Vietnamese with 40%, followed by strategy “negating the necessity of gift offering” with 34% While strategy “flat refusal” is the most commonly used in American, it is the least favored in Vietnamese: 26% For the Vietnamese, “flat refusal” seems to be very impolite and rude XVI The refusal, itself, is an act of face threatens, and the flat refusal is a very high face – threatening act Although they not like the G, they find all ways to avoid a flat refusal because the gift offering, first of all, brings benefit to the R If a flat refusal is performed, the G will feel hurt and face lost Obviously, this is one of the negative politeness strategies that the Vietnamese informants avoid using This shows that for someone they dislike, the American informants employ the negative politeness strategy at a much higher rate than the Vietnamese ones Like the Americans, no Vietnamese informant uses strategy “delay” in communicating with someone they dislike Close friend: 40 38 36 35 32 30 30 26 % 25 22 American 20 16 Vietnamese 15 10 0 Strategy * American: Refusing a close friend’s gift offer, strategy “giving reason for refusal” is the most used at a rather high rate: 38% “Negating the necessity of gift offering” comes next with 34%, followed by “flat refusal” with 26% The statistics show that for a close friend, the American not favor “flat refusal” much, but they prefer giving reason for their refusal * Vietnamese: Similar to the Americans, the Vietnamese also choose “giving reason for refusal” most with 32%, a little lower than that in American (38%) “Negating the necessity of gift offering” comes second with 30% “Flat refusal” is used with 22% and the percentage of users for strategy “delay” is the smallest: 16% It can be seen that, for a close friend, the informants of the both groups have the same choice of strategies in the order of priority: “giving reason for refusal” first, then “negating the necessity of gift offering”, next “flat refusal” and at last “delay” XVII Brother/sister: 45 40 40 40 35 32 % 30 26 26 25 American 20 20 16 Vietnamese 15 10 0 Strate gy * American: Like the previous strategy, in communicating with family members if the same rank, the American informants favor strategy “giving reason for refusal” and “negating the necessity of gift offering” most (40%) “Flat refusal” still keeps the lowest rate: 20% This shows that for their brother/sister as well as their close friend, the American informants not employ strategy “flat refusal” very often * Vietnamese: The Vietnamese informants favor strategy “negating the necessity of gift offering” most with 32% Both strategy “flat refusal” and “giving reason for refusal” account for 26% While no American mentions strategy “delay”, up to 16% of the Vietnamese employ it Although in this situation, it is the lowest rate of this strategy compared with other strategies, it is the highest percentage in comparison with all the other communicating partners Employee: 50 44 45 38 40 35 30 % 30 28 26 American 25 Vietnamese 18 20 16 15 10 0 Strategy XVIII * American: To refuse their employee, the American informants choose strategy “flat refusal” most: 44% This is the second highly used rate of this strategy among other communicative partners (the second to “someone you dislike”) Obviously, for someone they dislike or their employee, “flat refusal” is still the most favored “Negating the necessity of gift offering” comes next with 30%, followed by “giving reason for refusal” with 26% * Vietnamese: Strategy “giving reason for refusal” is the most frequently used by the Vietnamese informants: 38% “Flat refusal” comes next with 28% In general, “flat refusal” is not much favored by the Vietnamese informants The smallest percentage belongs to strategy “delay” with 16% Employer: 60 52 50 44 42 % 40 30 American 30 Vietnamese 18 20 14 10 0 Strate gy * American: Strategy “negating the necessity of gift offering” is the most commonly used at 44% and this is the greatest number of this strategy compared with all other communicating partners A little lower rate is accounted for “giving reason for refusal”: 42% And this is the biggest percentage of this strategy in comparison with other situations Only 14% of the informants employ “flat refusal” and this is the lowest rate in this situation and in comparison with its use in other situations This shows that, though the American informants are opener and more straightforward, they seem to avoid using “flat refusal” in communicating with their status superiors * Vietnamese: Unlike the Americans, no Vietnamese informant resorts to “flat refusal” And this is the only case of all, in which this strategy is out of use This indicates social power plays an important role in the society of Vietnam For the Vietnamese, “flat refusal” XIX to their boss in considered to be rude, impolite and sometimes impossible Thus, all of the informants avoid using this strategy By contrast, “giving reason for refusal” rises up to 52% and is the highest rate compared with other strategies, and the biggest one compared with all other communicating partners as well Strategy “negating the necessity of gift offering” comes the seconds with 30%, followed by strategy “delay” with 18% ... analysis In this study, a response was everything an informant said in responding to a situation in order to make a gift offer or a response to a gift offer, which can be an utterance or a number... offers from cross- cultural communication perspective As a result of that, to seek a proper answer of what and how to say to offer a gift and respond to a gift offer Why a gift offer, traditionally... cultural study on American – Vietnamese verbal expression in offering a gift and responding to a gift offer? ?? Your assistance in completing the following items is highly appreciated You can be confident