An english-vietnamese cross-cultural study of keeping face at the first encounter

An english-vietnamese cross-cultural study of keeping face at the first encounter

PART A: INTRODUCTION

With the trend of globalization and integration, cross-border contacts appear more andmore frequent However, differences among cultures are one of the biggest barriers forsuccessful cross-cultural communication.

It is widely accepted that English has been an international language in the world InVietnam, for the past few decades, we have witnessed a dramatic change in Englishteaching and learning Communicative approach plays a key role in that big change That isto say, language in use is paid more attention and becomes a core in language teaching andlearning for learners’ benefit Language is part of a culture and also its reflection.Therefore, teaching a language means teaching its culture It is obvious that learners cannotmaster a language without grasping its culture.

In England, when greeting someone, people tend to use two questions: health questions(How are you? How are you doing?) and work questions (How are things?) as greetingroutines while the Vietnamese ask food questions (what do you have today?), displayquestions (Are you reading books?) besides health and work questions Or at the firstmeeting, the Vietnamese often ask about others’ age, marital status or income which can beseen as DON’Ts to Western people If it is not observed with the understanding ofVietnamese culture – a positive politeness oriented culture, it is easily misinterpreted ascurious and nosy behavior, thus threatening others’ faces.

According to Lado (1957), to be successful in another language learning and tocommunicate effectively, linguistics knowledge is not enough Besides that, interactingskills and cultural knowledge are required As a result, to raise learners’ awareness ofcross-cultural differences is essential to avoid culture shock or communication breakdown.

As Brembeck rightly puts it, “To know another’s language and not his culture is a very

good way to make a fluent fool of one’s self”.

2.Aims of the study

The aims of study are:

- To find out safe and unsafe topics for the first encounter in Vietnamese and Anglophone cultures.

- To examine politeness strategies employed by Vietnamese and Anglophone informants under the influence of age, gender and power.

- To point out cross-cultural similarities and differences.

 Reference to home and foreign publication

 Consultation with supervisor, Vietnamese and foreign colleagues.

4.Scope of the study

Non-verbal factors are believed to be very important for keeping face at the first encounter.However they are beyond the scope of this study The study only focuses on the verbalaspects and the data analysis of politeness and safe and unsafe topics.

The study is limited within the first encounter conversation in five groups and 3 situationsThe survey questionnaires are given to 100 native speakers of Vietnamese (NSVs) peopleand 100 native speakers of English (NSEs) people However, 50 questionnaires of theNSVs and 50 questionnaires of NSEs are selected for

5.Design of the study

The study consists of 3 parts:- Part A: Introduction- Part B: development

Chapter 1: Theoretical PreliminariesChapter 2: Methodology

Chapter 3: Results and discussion- Part C: conclusion

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIESI.1 Culture and communication

I.1.1 What Culture?

Up to now, there have been many definitions of “culture” It can be defined as “what

makes you a stranger when you are away from home It includes all those beliefs andexpectations about how people should speak and act which have become a kind of secondnature to you as a result of social learning When you are with members of a group whoshare your culture, you do not have to think about it, for you are all viewing the world inpretty much the same way and you all know, in general terms, what to expect of oneanother” (Bock, 1970:1).

According to Claire Kramsch, “culture can be defined as membership in a discourse

community that shares a common social space and history, and common imaginings Evenwhen they have left that community, its members may retain, wherever they are, a commonsystem of standards for perceiving, believing, evaluating and acting.” (1998: 10).

Actually, people in one community acquire common ways of viewing the world, common

attitudes, beliefs and values… through their interactions They “share the same

background (for example, national, ethnic, religious) resulting from a common languageand communication style, customs, beliefs, attitudes and values” (Quang, N, 1998: 3).

However, we can hardly see the influence of culture on each individual as “it refers to the

informal and often hidden patterns of human interactions, expressions, and viewpoints thatpeople in one culture share” (Quang, N, 1998: 3)

Adapted from Levine 1987:42)

I.1.2 What Communication?

Communication is “the process of sharing meaning through verbal and nonverbal

behavior” (Quang, N, 1998: 3)

Communication is also defined as “any process in which people share information, ideas,

and feeling That process involves not only the spoken and written word, but also the bodylanguage, personal mannerism and style, the surroundings – anything that adds meaningsto a message” (Hybels and Weaver, 1992: 5).

In a communication, meaning can be shared directly to hit the issues or indirectly to avoidissues It is called direct communication and indirect communication respectively They allconcern the relation between the speakers’ communicative intention, the interlocutors’expectation of the message and the communicative effects of the message

Problems in communication, especially cross-cultural communication can fall into twotypes:

Non-communication – where no message is communicated; andMiscommunication - where an unintended message is communicated

(Clyne, 1994: 26)It is the fact that for successful communication, the communicative effects should bematched to the intention, therefore, there should be sensitiveness and understanding ofothers’ production and the way they play with various identities which are available tothem Hence, it is so important for a good communicator to realize the surrounding ofothers’ identities

I.1.3 Culture shock in communication.

As discussed above, culture is “a complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art,

morals, law, customs and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a memberof society” (Tylor, 1978: 59, cited in Holliday, Hyde and Kullman, 2004) Living in the

same society, we do not think about our culture for we all see it in the same way.Moreover, we can also expect other’s behavior without surprising

We cannot separate our life from cultures Cultures impact on our daily activities ingeneral and on our communication styles in particular This is all too obvious when wecommunicate with others who do not share the same culture Actually, communication

styles can and do create misunderstanding and shock in conversations among people fromdifferent cultural backgrounds This can be illustrated with one example below:

“The Italian made a strong political statement with which he knew his American friendwould disagree The Italian wanted to involve the American in a lively discussion TheAmerican, rather than openly disagreeing, said, “Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion.I accept that your opinion is different than mine.” The Italian responded, “That’s all youhave to say about it? In general, the American did not enjoy verbal conflicts over politicsor anything else The Italian actually became angry when the American refused to getinvolved in the discussion He later explains to the American, “a conversation isn’t fununless it becomes heated” (cited in Quang, N, 1998: 40)

With this example, it is obvious that communication is much influenced by cultures.Before we arrive in a new land, we can think much about the new things which will happendifferently there However, no matter how much we are prepared for the new culture, wefind it hard to understand and accept the unfamiliar behaviors and sometimes hard toovercome the new situations The result is we still feel shocked.

“Culture shock is neither good nor bad, necessary nor unnecessary It is a realitythat many people face when in strange and unexpected situations” (Harris and Moran,

1998: 226) Culture shock is related to the feelings in the hearers (Hs) or speakers (Ss) of

“estrangement, anger, hostility indecision, frustration, unhappiness, sadness, loneliness,homesickness and even physical illness” (Valdes, 1995: 35).

I.1.4 Communicative Competence (C.C)

CC is understood as the knowledge that interlocutors need in communication It is not onlythe grammatical forms but also the knowledge which is the ability for both Ss and Hs touse in the appropriate way in any contexts It is a whole of knowledge and many otherelements concerned in communication in general and in the intercultural communication inparticular Saville – Troike (1985: 215) assumes:

Communicative competence extends to both knowledge and expectation of whomay or may not speak in certain settings, when to speak and when to remain silent, whomone may speak to, how one may talk to persons of different statuses and roles, whatappropriate nonverbal behaviors are in various contexts, what the routines for turn –taking are in the conversation, how to ask for and give information, how to give

commands, how to enforce discipline, and the like – in short, everything involving the useof language and the other communicative dimensions in particular social settings.

Along the line, Richards et al (1992: 65) gives out his definition of CC which consists of:a, knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of the language.

b, knowledge of rules of speaking (e.g knowledge how to begin and end a conversation,knowing what topics may be talked about in different types of speech events, knowingwhich address forms should be used with different persons one speaks to and in differentsituation).

c, knowing how to use and respond to different types of speech acts such as requests,advice, apologies, thanks and invitations.

d, knowing how to use language appropriately.

Upon this view, it is vitally important to build up the socio-cultural rules for language useas an integral part for a successful communication.

I.1.5 Small talk in communication

Sue: It’s nice to meet you My friend told me about you Have you lived in Seattle long?Mark: No, only three months How about you?

Sue: I moved here three years ago from California.

Mark: Oh really? I am from California too! Where did you live in California? Sue: In Gilroy, not far from San Jose.

Mark: This is really coincidence I am from Gilroy too I like telling people I am from thegarlic capital of the world Did you usually go to the summer garlic festival?

Sue: I used to go every summer How about you?

Mark: I went to most of them I thought the one in 1980 was great Did you go to that one?

(Levine and Adelman, cited in Quang, N, 1998: 47).

In this conversation, the two participants are asking small talk questions before they foundthat they share some common backgrounds It can be seen that the conversation is workingeasily with small talk questions and this kind of conversation above is called “small talk”.A small talk is defined as an everyday conversation about everyday matters, usually at

social events Normally, small talk is not considered important but it is “an essential

aspect of conversation in that it provides a means of easing things along” (Clyne and

Michael, 1994: 84) It is used to initiate a conversation after the introduction and functions

for maintaining conversations such as keeping them going on, leading to interestingdebates However, small talk requires common expectations among participants about itsappropriateness and a common willingness and cultural understanding to take part in

I.2 PolitenessI.2.1 What Face?

The nature of politeness has been debating for a very long time by the linguists and still notagreed on exactly what it is Face is the central notion discussed in the area of politeness.Language users are social beings whose various social beliefs, motives and goals arebrought into their verbal interaction The nature of their conversation is affected by thesevariables; over time they play a role in development of language It is certain that socialmotives and goals impact the use of language When we are in a particular contact,especially at the first encounter where we do not know much or even anything about theothers, we need to make our partners see our pleasure to communicate to them Here face -a social psychological concept and face-work entailed are needed to maintain the

communication According to Goffman (1967), face, or one’s public identity, is a “scared

thing”; so people are strongly motivated to protect and manage their face Face is

something which is not located in our of our body but “rather something that is diffusely

located in the flow of events in the encounter” (Goffman, 1967: 7)

According to Brown and Levinson (1987, 61), face can be defined as “the public

self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” It is the emotional and social sense

of self that everybody has and expects others to recognize Face consists of two relatedaspects: negative and positive face

Negative face is the basic claim to territories personal preserves, right to distraction, i.e.: to freedom of action and freedom from imposition

non-And positive face is the positive consistent self-image or “personality” (cruciallyincluding the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed byinteractants.

In other words, negative face is a person’s want to be unimpeded by others and thedesire to be free to act as s/he chooses and not be imposed on: a desire for autonomy and

positive face represents a desire for approval, a person’s want to be highly appreciated andapproved by selected others in terms of personality, desires, behavior, values and so on.

Yule (1996: 60) supports the idea that face is “the public self – image of a person” The

emotional and social sense exists in ourselves and also is something which is expected to

be recognized by others According to him, “politeness is the means employed to show

awareness of another’s face” If someone says something which threatens others’

self-image, it is called a “face threatening act” (FTA) And alternatively, when something issaid in order to lessen the threat to others’ individual expectations, it is named a “facesaving act” (FSA) In any social communication, people are strongly motivated to protectand manage their positive image which reflects the values and beliefs of themselves.Moreover, because face can only be given by others, it is in everyone’s best interest tomaintain each other’s face When this fails, their feeling may be hurt and “loss of face” is aconsequence in the communication

In the social meetings of the human beings, the participants do their best to communicatewith their positive face which reflects their values and beliefs Face-work is involved in thesocial communication and is the efforts by the participants to avoid losing others’ face.Face-work entails both avoidance strategies (e.g., avoiding unsafe topics or violatinganother’s territory) and approach-based strategies (e.g., greeting, compliments, andsalutations to support one’s relationship)

I.2.2 What Politeness?

Politeness can be viewed as essentially the linguistic means by which face-work isaccomplished Although politeness is driven by face concerns, these concerns can over thetime, settings, individuals, cultures and so on It lies at the intersection of cultural, social,cognitive, and linguistic processes

Politeness carries a significant role in human interaction in the society Politeness theorycan be seen as a sub-discipline of pragmatics, it can be viewed as an aspect of speechwhich is governed by the rational rules They are nothing but the human’s need to maintainthe social relationship, peace and to avoid or lessen the conflicts.

Hence, politeness, as Brown and Levinson (1987: 13) defines, “is basic to the production

of social order and a pre-condition of human cooperation”.

According to Richards et al (1985:281), politeness is also considered as a matter related toface which is used to maintain the social interaction:

(a) How languages express the social distance between speakers and their differentrole relationships.

(b) How face-work, that is, the attempt to establish, maintain and save face during

conversation, is carried out in a speech community Languages differ in how theyexpress politeness.

According to Yule (1997: 60), Politeness is viewed as “the idea of “polite social

behavior”, or etiquette within a culture” In other words, politeness is “a number ofdifferent general principles for being polite in social interaction within a particularculture”.

I.2.3 Politeness Strategies

Politeness up to now has been addressed in different ways by linguists, e.g., Blum-Kulka etal (1985), Blum-Kulka (1987,1990), Janney and Arndt (1992), Mao (1994), Kasper (1990),Fraser (1990), Lakoff (1990), Leech (1983), Brown and Levinson (1987)… However,some general principles are agreed for politeness in the human socio-communicativeverbal interaction They are Politeness Rules by Lakoff (1990), Politeness Strategies byBrown and Levinson (1987) and Politeness Principles – Maxims by Leech (1983) Of all,Brown and Levinson’s theory is the most outstanding and most quoted.

In the Politeness theory by Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness is considered as acomplex system for softening face-threatening acts The concept of face is a fundamentalconstruct in this theory More importantly, it can be seen as a meditating variable, aconstruct which is used to meditate between language use and a host of socialpsychological variables

As a result, five strategies of politeness so as to minimize the loss of face are set up byBrown and Levinson (figure No 1) In social communication, the choice of strategy whichis made depends on the interlocutors’ background, education, culture etc According to

Brown and Levinson (1987), negative politeness seems to be more polite Hence, it is putat a higher degree of politeness than positive one However, this appears controversialcross-culturally In the Western cultures, negative politeness is preferable incommunication for its conventionalization but it seems opposite to the Asian cultures,particularly to the Vietnamese one Positive politeness tends to be their preferred choice forsaving face for narrowing the gap among the interactants as well as making theirrelationship closer in the talk Although Brown and Levinson’s chart is highly appreciated,Quang, N (1998) offers another figure (figure No2) with some comments on its universalvalues According to him, negative politeness is as powerful as positive politeness is onequal footing in communication.

I.2.3.1 Positive Politeness Strategies

According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 101), “positive politeness is redress directed to

the addressee’s face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the action, acquisitions, valuesresulting from them) should be thought of as desirable In positive politeness the sphere ofredress is widened to the appreciation of other’s wants in general or to the expression ofsimilarity between ego’s and other’s wants”.

Quang, N, (2003: 24) holds that “positive politeness is any communicative act which is

intentionally and appropriately meant to show the speaker’s concern to the addressee,thus, enhancing the sense of solidarity between them” Quang, N sees that while

communicating, Vietnamese people tend to show their attention to the others’ problemsand give their hands when necessary As a result, seventeen strategies of positivepoliteness are suggested, of which fifteen first ones are originally adopted by Brown andLevinson.

 Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (his interest, wants, needs, goods)

Eg: You must be so hungry How about dinner now?

Chà, hôm nay có phi vụ gì mà cậu diện bộ củ này thế?

 Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)

Eg: What a fantastic novel you have!

Nhờ tập thể thao thường xuyên, chị có phom người tuyệt vời quá!

 Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H

Eg: You know, pink you like, so good color.

Xinh như cậu thì có hàng tỉ anh chết.

 Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers

Eg: Let’s go for a walk, honey.

Chị em mình đi ăn kem đi.

 Strategy 5: Seek agreement

Eg: A: I am learning French now for my further study.

B: French! Great.

A: Anh chuẩn bị chuyển công ty rồi Anh sẽ chuyển về làm ở ngân hàng Vietcombank.

B: Ngân hàng Vietcombank hả? Xin chúc mừng anh

 Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement

Eg She is beautiful, however, a bit small.

Tôi hiểu những khó khăn mà anh gặp phải, nhưng mỗi cơ quan đều có một nguyên tắc riêng.

 Strategy 7 Presuppose/raise/assert common ground

Eg Oh, dear, I have lost something, have we, Vuong?

Chị biết đấy, chồng em chịu khó lắm nhưng bận nên cũng không giúp em được gì.

 Strategy 8 Joke

Eg Is it ok if I tackle this good apple?

Chị đâu dám cưa sừng làm nghé hả em?

 Strategy 9 Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants

Eg I know that roses are your favorite in your party but there are nothing left in the

market, hence lilies are instead today.

Theo như tôi được biết, anh đã xoay xở công việc trên Hà Nội một mình mà vẫn thành công.

 Strategy 10 Offer promise

Eg I will give you one hand for your birthday next week.

Lúc nào rảnh anh sang thăm nhà em nhé?

 Strategy 11 Be optimistic

Eg Maybe, I have to go now.

Cậu khéo tay hay làm thì làm món sa lát Nga cho mình nhé.

 Strategy 12 Include both S and H in the activity.

Eg Let’s go out for dinner now.

Ta nghỉ ăn trưa đã.

 Strategy 13 Give (or ask for ) reasons.

Eg Why don’t you spare some time for yourself?

Tại sao anh không đi câu cá cùng chúng tôi vào cuối tuần này nhỉ?

 Strategy 14 Assume or assert reciprocity

Eg You cook and I tidy up the house, ok?

Có gì đâu Chẳng lẽ anh chị đã quên là anh chị đã giúp em rất nhiều à?

 Strategy 15 Give gift to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)

Eg I have a present for you It’s a scarf from India.

Tớ vừa đi Ấn Độ về Tớ mua tặng cậu chiếc khăn tơ tằm này.

 Strategy 16 Encourage

Eg Never mind! Better luck next time.

Đừng sợ Anh sẽ luôn đứng sau ủng hộ em.

 Strategy 17 Ask personal question

Eg How old are you?

Lương của cháu trên trường Xây Dựng có cao không?

I.2.3.2 Negative Politeness Strategies

In Brown and Levinson (1987: 129), negative politeness is “redressive action addressed to

the addressee’s negative face: his want to have his freedom of action unhindred and hisattention unimpeded” Quang, N, (2003: 88) shares this opinion “negative politeness is anycommunicative act which is intentionally and appropriately meant to show that thespeaker does not want to impinge on the addressee’s privacy, thus maintaining the senseof distance between them” In order to avoid FTAs, eleven negative strategies are given

 Strategy 1 Be conventionally indirect

Eg Honey, it is time for tea.

Anh có thể cho tôi mượn xe máy của anh một lát được không?

 Strategy 2 Question, hedge

Eg I think she’s not learning more.

Dạ, phiền anh có thể cho tôi mượn xe một phút được không ạ?

 Strategy 3 Be pessimistic

Eg Could you jump over that five-foot fence?

Có lẽ anh mua giùm cho chiếc điện thoại đó nhé.

 Strategy 4 Minimize the imposition

Eg I just want to borrow you a little pen.

Con chỉ nếm một chút thôi ạ.

 Strategy 5 Give deference

Eg Ass Prof Nguyen, I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Dạ, kính thưa cụ, cụ có thể thưởng thức trà được chưa ạ?

 Strategy 6 Apologize

Eg I am so sorry to trouble you.

Xin lỗi, chị có thể chỉ cho tôi đường đến hồ Hoàn Kiếm được không ạ?

 Strategy 7 Impersonalize S and H

Eg Open the door!

Tôi đề nghị ngày mai chúng ta đi làm đúng giờ nhé.

 Strategy 8 State the FTA as a general rule

Eg Passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train.

Ta không nên bàn chuyện làm ăn ở chốn đông người.

 Strategy 9 Nominalize

Eg I am pleased to be able to inform you that you have passed the exam.

Ngày càng nhiều công ty nước ngoài vào Việt Nam đầu tư cho ngành viễn thông.

 Strategy 10 Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H

Eg I could easily do it for you any time.

Bác làm ơn làm phúc giúp cháu nốt lần này nhé.

 Strategy 11 Avoid asking personal questions.

Eg The weather today is so hot, isn’t it?

Giao thông Hà Nội gần đây tệ hại quá.

An empirical study of keeping face at the first encounter in English and Vietnamese withinthe boundary of safe and unsafe topics and small-talk starters in the light of politenesstheory is to be conducted.

CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY

II.1 Research questions

For the achievements of the aims of study in chapter one, three research questions areaddressed:

1 What topics do NSEs and NSVs often resort to for avoidance of facethreat at the first encounter?

2 Do NSEs differ from NSVs in terms of their evaluation of power, ageand gender realizing small-talk starters at the first meeting in the contextsstudied?

3 If yes, how do their evaluations affect their choice of politenessstrategies?

II.2 Data collection methods

II.2.1.The discourse completion task (DCT).

There have been so far some good methods for cross-cultural and inter-language studiessuch as ethnographic method, role – play method and discourse completion task (DCT) Interms of ethnographic method, the most advantageous point is that the authentic or naturaldata are collected through daily conversations However, we can hardly manage thecontextual variables that can happen in the same contexts Moreover, it takes much time totranscript the tapes recorded As for role-play method, it also has one advantageous point.That is to record the conversations which are arranged with subjects asked to make face-to-face conversations One thing different to the above method is that in this method, thecontextual variables are controlled But to do this method, it also takes much time on taperecords DCT appears to be the method which can solve the limitation of the two methodsabove DCT consists of two different types: Oral Completion Task and WrittenCompletion Task The first one is modeled as a closed role-play and in this closed role-play; the researcher will verbally describe the situations and ask the role-playing peoplewhat to say in the situations The second one consists of written interactions Brieflydescribed situations are given and the researchers will ask the informants to write downwhat they will say in those situations Although this method has the limited point which isnon-authentic collected data or the absence of prosodic and non-verbal features, theresearch author still chooses this one for the following reasons: Firstly, this method cancontrol the internal context variables such as social distance and power which, according toBrown and Levinson (1987), strongly affect the linguistic forms in interaction, and also theexternal context variables such as age, occupation, sex….Second, DCT works as an

effective tool of collecting a big amount of data quickly and easily These seem to besuitable for the author’s study with time constraint.

II.2.2 Data collection instrument

Two questionnaires are designed for the aim of data collection The first one is a choice questionnaire (MCQ) which is plotted separately for the author’s aim to get resultsto design the DCT, also the other part of the survey questionnaire The MCQ consists of 20suggested topics The informants are asked to put a tick (v) in the place where they think itis advisable to mention the topics at the first meeting so as to be safe There are fivedifferent degrees: highly advisable, advisable, all right, unadvisable and stronglyunadvisable Because there are two groups of informants: NESs and NVSs, hence, thesurvey questionnaire is designed into two versions The English version is for the Englishinformants And the Vietnamese one is for Vietnamese informants The topics with thehigh rates of “highly advisable”, “advisable” and “all right” for both English and

multiple-Vietnamese are work, studying, weather, sports, family, music, place of birth and place of

residence Nevertheless, due to limited time, three topics of work, family and sports are

selected to design the DCT A sample item of MCQ and DTC is given below:

I.Do you think it is advisable to mention the following topics at the firstmeeting so as to be safe?

Please tick (v) in one of the following columns:

Column 1 means: highly advisable (HAD)

Column 5 means: strongly unadvisable (SUAD)

………c He/She is of lower status:

………

III.When you first meet your new neighbor in the street, how would you talk tohim/her about your and/or his/her family? (He/She is your gender and your power-equal)

a He/She is 10 years older than you:

………b He/she is at your age

………c He/She is 10 years younger than you:

The instructions in both MCQ and DCT are clearly provided so that the informants caneasily understand and give their best answers The author hopes that the tokens collectedfrom the survey questionnaire are authentic, natural, typical and reliable for considerationand evaluation However, as limitations of the study, some aspects are not covered:

- Paralinguistic factors: pitch, intensity, rate, other vocal qualities, etc - Non-verbal factors: facial expressions, gestures, eye contact, etc.- Setting of communication: place, distance, lighting system, heat, etc.- Mood factors: happy, unhappy, bore, excited, etc

II.3 Subjects of the study:

The survey is conducted with two groups: one is NSEs and the other is NSVs TheVietnamese informants are working in Hanoi, Vietnam, and the English informants whowork for British Council, Language Link, Hilton Hotel or come to Vietnam as tourists Questionnaires were delivered to 100 NSEs and 100 NSVs However, 50 questionnaires ofNSEs and 50 questionnaires of NSVs are selected for

Among 50 questionnaires of NSEs, 23 are from NSEs who are working in British Council,18 are from Language-Link Center, 5 from Hilton Hotel, and the rest are from tourists inVietnam About 50 questionnaires of NSVs, 15 are from NSVs who are working inUniversity of Civil Engineering, 10 are from the author’s neighbors, 5 are from third-yearstudents and the rest are from the author’s friends who are working in different companies,factories

Besides, as it is believed that the informants’ profiles are important for the research, theyare requested to provide information about:

 Their nationality Their age

 Their sex

 Their marital status Their occupation Their residence

 Their acquisition of foreign language

The informants are assured not to be identified in any discussion of the data for theauthenticity of the survey questionnaire.

CHAPTER III: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

III.1 Safe and unsafe topics at the first encounter

Normally, when starting a conversation at the first meeting, after introducing and beingintroduced, people have to think of what to say to keep it going Topics at the firstencounter are so important for good impression and hence, leading to a furtherrelationship As we come from different cultures with different characteristics, and culturalhiddens vary from society to society, what are said can satisfy someone in one culture but

hurt others in another culture, especially at the first encounter That is why topics to talkabout in the small talk of the first meeting appear important.

III.1.1 Data analysis.

Collected data from question number 1 are used as the linguistic input 20 topics arementioned in this part Fifty Vietnamese and fifty English are requested to tick (v) in oneof five columns for each topic they think advisable or unadvisable at the first meeting Theaim of this part is to focus on whether they think they should mention the suggested topicsor not for a smooth - flowing conversation.

III.1.1.1 English findings

Column 1 means: highly advisable (HAD)

Column 5 means: strongly unadvisable (SUAD)

Table 1: Percentages of suggested topics in the first encounter of English informants

As we can see from the table 1, NSEs are so open to talk about such topics as weather(96% AD), work (93% AD), news (73% AD), studying (91% AD), music (88% AD),health (90% AD), pets (87% AD), family (92% AD), sports (91% AD) and place of currentresidence (65% AR) meanwhile some topics seem to be avoided to be discussed such asage (78% UAD), politics (85% UAD), weight (89% UAD), salary (94% UAD), materiallife (92% UAD), religion (88% UAD), sex (100%SUAD), the cost of particular items(90% UAD), other people’s affairs (94% UAD) and marital status (80% UAD) Thesetopics carry the personal and private information for an initial meeting.

III.1.1.2 Vietnamese findings

Column 1 means: highly advisable (HAD)

Column 5 means: strongly unadvisable (SUAD)

17 Other people’saffairs

20 Place of currentresidence

Table 2: Percentages of suggested topics in the first encounter of Vietnamese informants

It can be seen from the table that, in the first meeting, NSVs tend to talk about topics suchas age (72% AD), work (75% AR), weather (60% AR), news (60% AD), studying (68%AR), music (75% AD), health (70% AR), pets (84% AR), family (80% AD), cost ofparticular items (81% AR), sports (80% AD), marital status (60% AR), place of currentresidence (70% AR) However, some topics are avoided such as politics (84% UAD),weight (65% UAD), salary (70% UAD), material life (90% UAD), religion (80% UAD),sex life (100% SUAD) and other people’s affairs (82% SUAD) for their sensitiveness tothe first meeting.

III.1.2 Cross-cultural similarities and differences

From the results shown in table 1 and 2, it is observed that some of these twenty suggested

topics are preferred in the first meeting by NSVs while avoided by NSEs Those are age,

marital status, the cost of particular items It might be the case that the Vietnamese regard

such private and personal topics as good opportunities for them to show their concern,friendliness, consideration to their communicating partners even in their first meeting Thisseems to prove the positive-politeness orientation of the Vietnamese culture.

According to the survey, both English and Vietnamese informants are willing to talk about

weather, music, health, pets, work, studying, news, sports, family and place of residence in

the first meeting They also share one common thing: avoiding sensitive topics such as

salary, politics, sex life, material life and religion This can be shown in the following

The table shows that these topics are more preferred by NSEs than NSVs Weather is the

most different topic in percentage (NSEs 96% “AD” and NSVs 60% “AR”), followed by

Work (NSEs 93% “AD” and NSVs 75% “AR”), Studying (NSEs 91% “AD” and NSVs

68% “AR”) and Health (NSEs 90% “AD” and NSVs 70% “AR”) Then comes the topics

Sports and Family which have quite similar level of difference The topics which have

smallest difference are Pets and Place of residence, accounting for 87% “AD”, 65% “AR”and 84% “AR”, 70% “AR” for NSEs and NSVs respectively, and then comes News and

Table 4: Percentages of topics both English and Vietnamese informants do not like to mention in smalltalks in the first encounter.

The table does not show much difference in the percentage of avoided topics It is obviousthat “Sex life” topic is the most sensitive one and both NSEs and NSVs do not talk about

it, accounting for 100% “SUAD” for both Then comes the topics of Material life (92%“UAD” for NSEs and 90% “UAD” for NSVs), Politics (85% “UAD” for NSEs and 84%“UAD” for NSVs), followed by Religion, Other people’s affairs and the biggest differenceis Salary which accounts for 94% (UAD) for NSEs and 70% (UAD) for NSVs.

To summarize, at the first encounter, the topics which are considered safe for both the

English and Vietnamese informants are Weather, News, Music, Work, Pets, Studying,

Sports, Family, Health and Place of residence The topics regarded as unsafe are Salary,Material life, Politics, Sex life, Religion and Other people’s affairs.

III.2 Politeness Strategies used at the first encounter.

In this part, the results of the investigation of Politeness Strategy (PS) are presented NSEsand NSVs’ use of Positive Politeness Strategies (PPSs), Negative Politeness Strategies(NPSs), Mixed Positive Politeness Strategies (MPPSs), Mixed Negative PolitenessStrategies (MNPSs) and Mixed Positive - Negative Politeness Strategies (MPNPSs)through three situations is reported

In this study, both English informants and Vietnamese informants are asked to talk or asktheir business partner in the office about informants’/his/her work, their new neighborabout informants’/his/her family in the street, someone whom the participants have justmade acquaintance with about sports in a party The speech act of asking or talking likethis conveys Politeness Hence, to study the ways they use, the research author uses theTheory of Politeness by Brown and Levinson and Quang, N There are 3 categories:Positive Politeness Strategies (PPSs), Negative Politeness Strategies (NPSs) and MixedPoliteness Strategies (MPSs) are used as analytical framework In each category, thestrategies are exploited by the participants, and then calculated as percentages Thefrequency of using the strategies in each category is symbolized F.

III.2.1 English findings.