Nghiên cứu giao thoa văn hóa về sự khác biệt trong cách thức biểu hiện sự bực bội giữa người anh và người việt

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES NGUYỄN THỊ MINH THƯƠNG A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY ON DIFFERENCES IN EXPRESSING ANNOYANCE BETWEEN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE (NGHIÊN CỨU GIAO THOA VĂN HÓA VỀ SỰ KHÁC BIỆT TRONG CÁCH THỨC BIỂU HIỆN SỰ BỰC BỘI GIỮA NGƯỜI ANH VÀ NGƯỜI VIỆT) PROGRAM I M.A MINOR THESIS Field: English Linguistics Code: 60 22 15 Supervisor: Đỗ Thị Mai Thanh, M.A Hanoi, 2009 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS: Certification of originality of project report Acknowledgments Abstract Table of contents List of abbreviations List of tables and figures Part A: Introduction Rationale Aims of the study Scope of the study Methodology Comments on the data collection The questionnaire The informants Design of the study Part B: Development Chapter I: Literature review I.1 Speech Acts I.1.1 Notions of “Speech Acts” I.1.2 Types of Speech Acts I.1.3 Direct and Indirect Speech Acts I.1.4 Expressing annoyance as a speech act I.2 Politeness I.2.1 Notions of Politeness: I.2.2 Politeness Strategies I.2.3 Expressing annoyance as a face-threatening act Chapter II: Communicative strategies used to express annoyance in English and Vietnamese II.1 Realization of the strategies v II.2 Data analysis II.2.1 Use of strategies as seen from informants’ parameters II.2.2 Use of strategies in terms of communicative partners II.3 Major cross-cultural similarities and differences between the English and the Vietnamese informants II.3.1 Similarities and differences as seen from informants’ parameters II.3.2 Similarities and differences in terms of communicative partners Part C: Remarks and Recommendations Review of the findings Recommendations Recommendations for further studies Bibliography Appendix PART A: INTRODUCTION I RATIONALE Cross-cultural Communication describes the ability to successfully form, foster, and improve relationships with members of a culture different from one‟s own It is based on knowledge of many factors, such as the other culture‟s values, perceptions, manners, social structure, and decision-making practices, and an understanding of how members of the group communicate- both verbally and non-verbally, in person, in writing or in any other kind of communication Miscommunication is today‟s greatest workplace hazard And with the world becoming smaller and more diverse, miscommunication seems to be happening more and more People from different cultures encode and decode messages differently, increasing the chances of misunderstanding In other words, when miscommunication happens, it means that the speaker fails to achieve his utterance purposes Miscommunication even sometimes leaves the hearer a negative impression on the speaker as he/she misunderstands what the speaker wants to convey or express With its importance, Cross-cultural Communication has been the topic of a large number of Masters dissertations within Vietnam National University A number of aspects of Cross-cultural Communication has been tried to reveal such as greetings, requesting, prohibiting, thanking and so on However, another kind of emotion that is not easy to express, but can‟t helping expressing in some situations is the expression of annoyance It is not like the expression of thanking or any other positive emotion that are encouraged to express, annoyance is a negative expression that requires the addresser have to secondthink about how to express his/her feeling without deteriorating the relationship with others With such above-mentioned reasons, the author would like to spend time and effort to carry out a research on the same topic but focuses on other aspects in order to provide a more comprehensive picture of the speech act of expressing annoyance The subject receives much attention of my colleagues, including both English and Vietnamese as all of them are trying to further understand about others‟ culture to seek for a harmonization Due to the limited time, only verbal expressions are considered II AIMS OF THE STUDY The research is intended to investigate major similarities and differences in expressing annoyance in English and Vietnamese, particularly the communicative strategies used to express the negative emotion It aims to provide a better insight into cross-cultural similarities and differences between the two languages and cultures, thus helping to avoid any communication breakdown To achieve this overall purpose, the study aims to:  Provide a general picture of the theory of speech acts and politeness  Find out major similarities and differences in expressing annoyance in English and Vietnamese  Compare and contrast the communicative strategies used by Vietnamese and English when they want to show their annoyance in verbal communication  Contribute to raise cross-cultural awareness among foreign language users To achieve the objectives, following two questions are raised to be addressed: (1) What are different strategies of expressing annoyance verbally in English and in Vietnamese? (2) What are similarities and differences in the choice of strategies in verbal expressions of annoyance in English and Vietnamese culture? III SCOPE OF THE STUDY The study is limited to the data obtained from the survey questionnaire on ways of expressing annoyance in English and Vietnamese The answers from informants in the survey questionnaire and direct interviews are used as linguistic inputs Due to the limited time and the scope of a Minor Thesis, only 50 English (out of 65) and 50 Vietnamese (out of 80) informants were chosen for data analysis The study is also restrained to verbal aspects of the act of expressing annoyance only No matter how important non-verbal aspects such as paralanguage and extra-language are, they are excluded within the study Only Vietnamese Northern dialect and English native speakers are chosen for contrastive analysis By English native speakers, the author means those who speak English as their mother-tongue The study just focuses on social relationship and ignores the kinship between the informants (Speakers) and the communicative partners (Hearers) as it is pre-supposed that in family relationship, annoyance is seemed to be expressed more directly and frequently The informants were asked to express their annoyance to a certain person only, not a thing or object IV METHODOLOGY The survey is carried out with the following tools: (i) Relevant publications (ii) Survey questionnaire (iii) Statistics, description and analysis of the collected data (iv) Consultation with supervisor (v) Interview friends and colleagues (vi) Personal observation V COMMENTS ON THE DATA The survey questionnaire is designed to collect information for data analysis in the form of hand-outs and direct interviews The questionnaire includes main parts: Part was for getting general information on the informants, including nationality, age, gender, occupation and acquisition of foreign languages Part can be considered as the main part of the questionnaire which was designed for eliciting the uses of linguistic elements and communicative strategies in expressing annoyance in the three following situations: Situation 1: How would you say to express your annoyance if someone comes to your house and rings the doorbell continuously? Situation 2: How would you say to express your annoyance if someone installs computer software into your computer without your permission? Situation 3: How would you say to express your annoyance if someone continuously sounds his/her horn behind you when the traffic light is red? The informants were asked to express their annoyance verbally with the following communicative partners: close friend, acquaintance, colleague, boss and stranger However, there are some important dimensions that the questionnaire does not cover such as paralinguistic factors, body-language factors, communicative environment factors and mood factors A sample of the questionnaire in both English and Vietnamese is attached in the Appendix of the thesis VI DESIGN OF THE STUDY The study consists of main parts: PART I: Introduction Rationale, aims of the study, scope of the study, methodology and data collection are all provided in the part PART II: Development The main part consists of chapters Chapter 1: Literature review Chapter 2: Communicative strategies used to express annoyance in English and Vietnamese PART III: Conclusion In the part, the author aims to review the research findings and suggests some recommendations for Vietnamese users of English as well as for further studies PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW I.1 Speech Acts Speech Act Theory and a new revolution in linguistics are opening unexplored ground in how we understand human language Speech Act Theory has its foundation in a series of lectures by John L Austin at the Williams James lecture series given at Harvard in 1955, which later was gathered in a book, How to Do Things Words In his understanding language is not just a passive practice of describing a given reality, but a particular practice to invent and affect those realities The speech act theory of Austin is then further developed by a number of other talent philosophers such as John R.Searle, William P.Alston, Franỗois Rộcanati, Kent Bach and Robert M Harnish I.1.1 Notions of Speech Acts With the most influential book, Austin presented a new picture of analyzing meaning; meaning is described in a relation among linguistic conventions correlated with words/sentences, the situation where the speaker actually says something to the hearer, and associated intentions of the speaker His central question was what speakers with language The idea that meaning exists among these relations is described successfully by the concept of acts: in uttering a sentence, that is, in utilizing linguistic conventions, the speaker with an associated intention performs a linguistic act to the hearer The Speech Act Theory went on to look at the way language speakers shape its function and look at the different uses of language Austin‟s famous example of saying, “I do” in the right setting changes our status from unmarried to married “Do you take this woman to be your wedded wife?” “I do” In other circumstances, we can say “I do” and nothing much changes in world “Do you like Chocolate?” “I do.” In both cases, the words mean the same thing, but the action of the speaker is different One declares an ontological change from a bachelor to a husband The second expresses a preference for chocolate According to Austin, , constatives are utterances in which something is said and they can be evaluated along a dimension of truth while performatives are utterances in which something is done which cannot be evaluated along a dimension of truth but felicity Austin claimed that speakers might convey three levels of meaning by utterance “We first distinguished a group of things we in saying something, which together we summed up by saying we perform a locutionary act, which is roughly equivalent to uttering a certain sentence with a certain sense and reference, which again is roughly equivalent to “meaning” in the traditional sense Secondly, we said that we also perform illocutionary acts such as informing, ordering, warning, undertaking etc, ie utterances which have a certain (conventional) force Thirdly, we may also perform perlocutionary acts: what we bring about or achieve by saying something, such as convincing, persuading, deterring and even, say, surprising or misleading” (J.L.Austin, How to Do Things with Words, p 109) It is beyond doubt that the second great contribution to the development of speech act theory belongs to the American philosopher J.R Searle According to Searle (1960 & 1970), speech acts can be grouped in a small number of basic types based on the speaker‟s intention The approach will be discussed in details later I.1.2 Types of speech acts Austin classifies illocutionary acts into five types, i.e., verdictives, exercitives, commissives, behabitives, and expositives Verdictives: excercising judgment Exercitives: exerting influence, exercising power Commissives: assuming obligation, declaring intention Behabitives: adopting attitude, expressing feeling Expositives: clarifying reasons, argument, or communication Searle (1979: 12) was the second most influential person who took Austin‟s words in caution and revised his work For Searle, the basis for categorizing speech acts is the illocutionary point or the purpose of the act from the speaker‟s perspectives, including: Representatives: Illocutionary acts that undertake to represent a state of affaires Expressives: Illocutionary acts that express only the speaker‟s psychological attitude towards some state of affairs Directives: Illocutionary acts that S uses to get H to something or carry out some actions Commissives: Illocutionary acts that commit S to doing something Declaratives: Illocutionary acts that bring about the state of affairs/the changes in the world via their utterance they refer to Though there are many other classifications proposed by other linguistics such as Yule (1996:55), the classifications of Austin and Searle are the most influential and noteworthy It can be said that Austin‟s theory has laid basic and firm foundation for Searle to present the clearest and most useful working classification of speech acts I.1.3 Direct and Indirect Speech Acts In discussion of speech acts, it is common to make a distinction between direct and indirect speech acts Whenever there is a direct relationship between the structure and the function of an utterance, we have a direct speech act Let‟s consider the example: + “You make me annoyed” It can be understood in a structural direct way that the S tries to show his/her annoyance to the action of the H Whenever there is an indirect relationship between the structure and the function of an utterance, we have an indirect speech act Or in other words, it can be said that indirect speech acts means that what the speaker says does not mean what he/she implies or wants the hearer to In Brown & Levinson‟s belief (1987:134), “Indirectness is any communicative behavior, verbal or nonverbal that conveys something more than or different from what it literally means” For example, in the situation where the traffic light is red, but a person continuously sounds the horn behind you, so you say: + “Có mắt khơng đấy?” It can be easily understood that this is not a question by the S to know whether the H have eyes or not But he/she hints to notice the H that the traffic light is still red and requests the person to stop making such a noise In direct speech acts, the S says what he/she wants/means, while in indirect speech acts, the S means more than what he/she says (Searle, 1980:viii), i.e the speaker performs one illocutionary act implicitly by the way of performing another illocutionary act explicitly In English, indirect speech acts tend to be generally associated with greater politeness than direct speech acts I.1.4 Expressing annoyance as a speech act According to the “Oxford Advanced Learner‟s Dictionary Encyclopedic Edition 1992, expressing annoyance is “an act of expressing slight feeling of displeasure and hostility” (cited from Tien Phung, 2006 : 11) From the notions of speech act theory which has been described in the I.1.1, it can be asserted that expressing annoyance is an illocutionary act It not only denotes the speaker‟s 33  Str.2 „Hedging” is the second popular choice for Vietnamese and English informants with the same rate of 20% Differences:  Meanwhile 8% of Vietnamese choose Str.5 “Joking”, none of English informants use it Boss: Similarities:  Both don‟t use “Reciprocity” strategy  A majority of them choose to express their annoyance in a softer way and tries to minimize the face threatening Differences:  Although 8% of Vietnamese informants choose “Joking”, none of English informants prefer to use it  “Bald-on record” is ignored by Vietnamese while 20% of English use it Stranger: Similarities:  The three most common strategies employed by both groups are the same, i.e Str.1 “Bald-on record”, Str.7 “Using requesting utterance” and Str “Give or ask for reasons” It is very interesting to find that the order rank of the three strategies in terms of frequency level (from high to low) is exactly the same among the two groups Of which, “Bald-on record” is the highest, followed by “Using requesting utterance” and “Give or ask for reasons”  Both groups not use “Avoid giving opinion”, “Telling a white-lie”, “Joking” and “Reciprocity” Differences: There are few differences in terms of choosing the strategy to express their annoyance towards a stranger between Vietnamese and English informants The only difference is that while 4% of Vietnamese informants choose “Hedging”, none of English informants decide to use it 34 PART C: REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I Remarks Based on the theory of speech act and politeness from the perspective of cross-cultural communication, we have investigated the choice of communicative strategies Vietnamese and English informants make in expressing their annoyance, one of their negative emotions The findings from data analysis show that the two groups of informants have both similarities and differences in their cultural and linguistic behaviors towards annoyance expressions Similarities:  The percentage of informants using Str.4 “Joking” is the same among Vietnamese and English informants (4%)  In both Vietnamese and English annoyance expressions, “Bald-on record”, in spite of its high risk of face threat, occurs at a surprisingly high rate by both Vietnamese informants (12%) and English informants (20%)  The last strategy “Reciprocity” is the least commonly used by both Vietnamese informants (0%) and English informants (4%) The three mentioned-above similarities are the most general ones between Vietnamese and English informants in terms of expressing their annoyance towards the situations given However, when the data are taken in a deeper analysis, there are some other detailed similarities between the two groups according to their personal parameters (age, gender, living place, occupation and language acquisition) For example, both Vietnamese and English young informants tend to express their annoyance in a more direct and open way than older informants This may be because older people have much more living experience than younger people so they can calm down in an easier way and know how to avoid making others uncomfortable Similarly, in the aspect of gender, the finding is the same with the author‟s assumption, that is both Vietnamese and English males are mostly preferred to express their annoyance in a more direct way (Give or ask for reasons, Using requesting utterance and Bald-on record) while both Vietnamese and English females are more inclined to a more indirect strategy (Hedging) This is due to the natural instinct of each gender that is females are often softer and more flexible in communication than 35 males In other words, females often try to maintain and harmonize the relationship with other people in social life When the data are analyzed based on the criteria of communicative partner, some major similarities can be concluded that the choice of strategies is dependent on the social relationship or the power relationship between the S and the H In other words, the higher social distance of the H is, the less direct the strategies used by the S are For example, when the communicative partner is a close friend, almost Vietnamese and English informants employ direct strategies to express their annoyance According to the author‟s assumption, this may be because the close relationship between the S and the H, so the S thinks it is not necessary to express their annoyance in an indirect way so that the H can understand the annoyance of the S immediately To them, the annoyance expression not cause harm to their close relationship However, when the communicative partner is of a higher or at least equal social distance than and with the informants, almost in all situations, less direct strategies are employed by both Vietnamese and English informants They seem to think and choose the strategy to express their annoyance in a more careful way in order to not harm to their social relationship Particularly in the case of stranger, “Bald-on record” and “Using requesting utterance” are the most popular strategies among both Vietnamese and English informants Differences: As mentioned earlier, the data collected are deeply analyzed in two following aspects: (i) their personal parameters (age, gender, living place, occupation and language acquisition) and (ii) communicative partner (close friend, acquaintance, colleague, boss and stranger) The findings have shown a number of differences in the strategies used by Vietnamese informants and English informants to express their annoyance towards the situations given Firstly, when comparing the strategies used by Vietnamese and English informants based on their parameter, the findings show that most of the under-50 Vietnamese informants employ “Give or ask for reasons” and “Using requesting utterance”, while the under-50 English informants are more inclined to Str2 “Hedging” In other words, Vietnamese informants at the age of under 50 years old are more direct than the same age English informants However, it is very interesting to know that meanwhile none of over 50 Vietnamese informants employ the most direct strategy “Bald-on record”, a remarkably high rate of over-50 English informants (37.5%) decide to use it to express their 36 annoyance Another noteworthy difference between the Vietnamese and the English informants according to their occupation is that while 28.6% of Vietnamese working in social field are resorted the Str “Give or ask for reasons”, none of social English informants use the strategy Other differences between the two groups can be seen when the data are analyzed based on their language acquisition “Give or ask for reasons” is the most popular strategy for Vietnamese informants with fair and poor knowledge of foreign languages, while “Hedging” is the most common one for English informants with fair and poor knowledge of foreign languages Secondly, the strategies used by Vietnamese and English informants are analyzed and compared based on their communicative partner (close friend, acquaintance, colleague, boss and stranger) According to the findings, a noteworthy difference is that none of Vietnamese informants choose the direct strategy “Bald-on record” while this strategy is employed by 20% of English informants However, in general, it can be said that the choice of strategies in dislike expressions is not only decided by the socio-cultural factors of informants (age, gender, living area, occupation, knowledge of foreign languages) and the communicating partners but also depends on the communicative situations, the purposes of communication and the nature of specific speech act II Recommendations Due to the limited time, the minor M.A thesis just investigates a small aspect of annoyance expression However, the minor M.A thesis is hopefully to contribute to help English users, especially translators and teachers have a basic understanding of politeness strategies used to convey the negative emotion in Vietnamese and English Based on the results of a number of interviews and questionnaire feedbacks, it can be found that there are some typically common politeness strategies used by the Vietnamese informants and the English informants when expressing their annoyance The strategies are summarized in the following table: 37 Rank (from Vietnamese findings English findings high to low) Give or ask for reasons (32%) Hedging (38%) Using requesting utterance (24%) Bald-on record (20%) Bald-on record (13%) Give or ask for reasons (12%) Hedging (11%) Telling a white-lie (8%) From the table above, it can be said that the Vietnamese informants are likely to express their annoyance in a more direct way than the English informants In other words, the English informants are used to seeking for softer ways to express their annoyance than Vietnamese informants Vietnamese informants often try to find the reason why the action has been done or for which purposes the actions has been done or try to explain the reason why the action should have not been done as it has made them annoyed Another point is that the social distance influences on the choice of strategies by Vietnamese people People of higher social distance or older age can request younger people or lower people in terms of social distance to or not to something For English people, in the author‟s point of view, they often place an important emphasis on the concept of “face” Therefore, the need to keep the face of other people is also considered very vital and making others lose their face should be avoided However, one of the values of Western people, including English people is directness, that‟s why 32% of them are inclined to more direct strategies to express their annoyance There are situations assumed and designed by the author to seek for comments and responses of both Vietnamese and English in formants towards the negative emotion After the screening process, responses of 50 Vietnamese informants and 50 English informants are analyzed, compared and contrasted to produce the most commonly used structures and utterances are as bellows: In Vietnamese:  Người đâu mà (vơ dun/hâm/dở hơi) Bực q  ( Lần sau) (anh/chị/cơ/chú) đừng (bấm cịi)  Chẳng lẽ/Khơng lẽ (anh/chị/cơ/chú) khơng biết (cái máy tính này) có chủ à? 38  Xin lỗi, (em/tôi) e rằng/cho rằng/nghĩ (anh/chị/cơ/chú) nên (tháo chương trình khỏi máy tơi/em)  Xin lỗi, (anh/chị/cơ/chú) (giữ im lặng) không ạ? In English:  Don‟t (ever) this again  Stop (making that noise) Can‟t you (see the light is red?)  That is very rude/annoyed that you did that  You had not business doing that  What the hell are you doing?  I really sort of think/ wonder that the software is not useful to my work  I am sorry, but would you mind (removing the software out of my computer?) The above-mentioned are only some typical utterances used by Vietnamese and English informants to express their annoyance However, in reality, the expression of the negative emotion is very various and different by people from different cultures Therefore, English users such as translators should always bear in mind that the choice of annoyance expression strategies is not only decided by the socio-cultural factors of informants (age, gender, living area, occupation, knowledge of foreign languages) and the communicating partners but also depends on the communicative situations, the purposes of communication and the nature of specific speech act And as translators are communicators for not only at least two different languages, but rather than two different cultures, they should taken other socio-cultural factors into consideration to decide the true and the underlying meaning of any utterance so as to avoid any communication breakdown or miscommunication For teachers, they should be fully aware that the negative emotion is expressed quite regular in daily life besides other positive emotions such as happiness, liking or delightfulness Therefore, they should integrate annoyance structures or situations into their lesson plans to teach their students Furthermore, as annoyance is expressed and accepted differently by different cultures due to the different standards of behaviors, attitudes and beliefs, teachers should provide their students with a general beliefs picture of relevant cultural differences, especially between the Vietnamese and the English culture In doing so, students can avoid the communication breakdown 39 In short, all the English users should bear in their mind that language and culture are integral and can‟t be separated from each other To learn a language means to learn a culture Therefore, in order to master the English language, Vietnamese learners are encouraged to learn and study the English culture, belief, custom and practices III Suggestions for further studies As mentioned earlier, this minor thesis is only a partial investigation into the speech act of expressing annoyance in different social relationships Many aspects still remain uninvestigated, of which the followings would promising to be interesting:  Impact of social distance on expressing annoyance  Impact of communicative partners‟ parameters like age, gender, occupation…on the choice of strategies  Paralinguistic factors and extra-linguistic factors in expressing annoyance The minor thesis has been completed with author‟s best efforts with the hope that it could, to some extent, help readers raise their awareness of cross-cultural differences in communication 40 41 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE This survey questionnaire is designed for my research into “A Cross-Cultural Study on differences in expressing annoyance between English and Vietnamese.” Your assistance in completing the following items is greatly appreciated You can be confident that you will not be identified in any cases in the discussion of the data Thank you very much for your assistance Please tick (√) where appropriate: Your nationality (Please specify):………… Your age: 21-35 Over 50 35-50 Your gender: Male Female Area where you spend most of your time: Urban Rural Your occupation (Please specify):……………… Do you know other language(s) besides your mother tongue? Yes No If yes, what is the level of that/those language(s): Excellent Fair Good Poor How would you say to express your annoyance to the following people in the following situations? Situation 1: Suppose that someone comes to your house and rings the door bell continuously How would you say to express your annoyance if the person is: Your close friend Your acquaintance Your colleague Your boss A stranger Situation 2: Suppose that someone installs computer software into your computer without your permission How would you say to express your annoyance if the person is: Your close friend Your acquaintance Your colleague Your boss A stranger Situation 3: Suppose that someone continuously sounds his/her horn behind you when the traffic light is red How would you say to express your annoyance if the person is: Your close friend Your acquaintance Your colleague Your boss A stranger THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE BẢN KHẢO SÁT Chúng thiết kế điều tra nhằm phục vụ cho đề tài “Nghiên cứu Giao thoa văn hóa cách thức biểu khó chịu tiếng Anh tiếng Việt” Mong Q vị vui lòng bớt chút thời gian trả lời câu hỏi điều tra giúp Xin khẳng định Q vị rằng, chúng tơi khơng nêu danh Q vị trường hợp Xin chân thành cảm ơn Quí vị Xin Quý vị đánh dấu (√) vào thích hợp điền vào chỗ trống Quốc tịch Quý vị (làm ơn nêu rõ):Việt Nam Tuổi Quý vị: Từ 21-35 √ Trên 50 Từ 35-50 Giới tính Quý vị: √ Nam Nữ Nơi Quí vị sống chủ yếu: Thành thị √ Nghề nghiệp Quý vị: Nông thơn Lập trình viên Q vị có thêm thứ tiếng khác ngồi tiếng Việt: Có √ Khơng Nếu có, trình độ Q vị thứ tiếng là: Giỏi/Xuất sắc Trung bình Khá Kém √ Q vị nói để thể khó chịu người sau tình sau: Tình 1: Giả sử người đến nhà Q vị bấm chng liên tục Q vị nói để thể khó chịu người là: Bạn thân Quí vị.: Người quen Quí vị : Đồng nghiệp Quí vị : Sếp Quí vị.: Người xa lại với Quí vị.: Tình 2: Giả sử người tự cài chương trình vi tính vào máy tính Q vị mà khơng hỏi ý kiến Q vị Q vị nói để thể khó chịu người là: Bạn thân Quí vị.: Người quen Quí vị.: Đồng nghiệp Quí vị.: Sếp Quí vị : Anh làm này, lỡ dính vi rút chết em Người xa lại với Quí vị Tình 3: Giả sử người thổi cịi liên tục đằng sau Q vị lúc đèn (giao thơng) đỏ Q vị nói để thể khó chịu người là: Bạn thân Quí vị.: Người quen Quí vị Đồng nghiệp Quí vị : Sếp Quí vị Người xa lại với Quí vị.: XIN CHÂN THÀNH CẢM ƠN Q VỊ ĐÃ GIÚP ĐỠ CHÚNG TƠI! ... ? ?Nghiên cứu Giao thoa văn hóa cách thức biểu khó chịu tiếng Anh tiếng Việt? ?? Mong Q vị vui lịng bớt chút thời gian trả lời câu hỏi điều tra giúp Xin khẳng định Q vị rằng, chúng tơi khơng nêu danh... utterances are as bellows: In Vietnamese:  Người đâu mà (vô dun/hâm/dở hơi) Bực q  ( Lần sau) (anh/ chị/cơ/chú) đừng (bấm cịi)  Chẳng lẽ/Khơng lẽ (anh/ chị/cơ/chú) khơng biết (cái máy tính này)... thêm thứ tiếng khác ngồi tiếng Việt: Có √ Khơng Nếu có, trình độ Quí vị thứ tiếng là: Giỏi/Xuất sắc Trung bình Khá Kém √ Q vị nói để thể khó chịu người sau tình sau: Tình 1: Giả sử người đến nhà