The comparative analysis of the Politeness Markers used in the offering in English and Vietnamese could help find out the similarities or/and dissimilarities and the likely influencing factors. How are these Politeness Markers then used by native Australians and Vietnamese under various situational contexts studied?
5.2.1. the use of strategy
5.2.1.1. Direct Strategy Category (DC)
Direct Strategy Category (DC) is the second most popular for both native Australian speakers and Vietnamese speakers. Still, native Vietnamese offerers/speakers use this Strategy Category at higher frequency than native Australian speakers in most of the settings in spite of the various values of the Relative Power (P) and the Social Distance (D). Table 5.1, Chart 5.1 (Appendix 6, p.
241) shows that native Vietnamese offerers opt for the DC most frequently (n=35) in the situational context C5f (58.30 %) whereas native Australian offerers use it less frequently (n=7) and this dissimilarity is significant (11.70 % A vs. 58.30 % V) with the significant level at p ≤ 0.05.
a. The Use of Direct Strategy Category with Respect to (-D):
(=P, -D), (-P, -D), (+P, -D)
a.1. The Use of Direct Strategy with Respect to (-D) (Non-family- member individuals): (=P, -D), (-P, -D), (+P, -D)
a.1.1. Context C5f/Strategy and Modification a.1.1.1. DSU Strategy and Modification
It could be seen from Table 5.2 (Appendix 6, p. 242) that the common strategy of the Direct Strategy Category used by native Vietnamese subjects in context C5f is Direct Strategy of the Suggestory (DSU: n= 27 # 45 %), expressed with the syntactic pattern below:
(5.1) ‚Cô giáo để em xem cho!‛ [DCT 35]
“You let me have a look!”
Up to 56.67 % pair of asymmetrical Kin Terms (KTs) cô-em (teacher-younger sibling) are used as person referring terms by native Vietnamese speakers as a strategy to shorten the distance between the offerer and the offeree. In addition, Pragmatic Particles (Pr. Ps) are used popularly as strengtheners (SPs) to strengthen the illocutionary force of the offering (n=49 # 81.67%). Among these, single Pr. Ps.
account for the high frequency (n=48 # 80%), of which the sentence-final SP cho is used at the highest frequency (n=26 # 43.33%) as seen in (5.1), followed by nhÐ (n=5 # 8.33 %) and the other uncommon SPs such as nào, cứ, hãy, đấy.
(5.2) ‚Cô giáo để tôi giúp nhé!‛ [DCT 49]
“You let me help you!”
Strengthening Pragmatic Particles could be used in clusters (e.g. cho nào) (n=1
# 1. 67%) or in non-cluster (e.g. cứ … đấy… cho …) in this context to produce the cumulative effect to show positive politeness.
(5.3) ‚Cô để em xem cho nào!‛ [DCT 3]
“You let me have a look!”
(5.4) ‚Cô cứ để cái đài đấy cho em sửa giúp.” [DCT 32]
“There you just leave it to me.”
a.1.1.2. DWL, DIM Strategy and Modification
Within the DC, some native Australian offerers have nevertheless resorted to the Direct Strategy of Willingness (DWL) (5 %) with (out) an Understater (n=2 # 3.33 %) as a Lexical and Phrasal Downgrader (LPD) as illustrated in (5.5), (5.6) or to the Direct Strategy of the Imperative (DIM) (n= 4 # 6.70 %) as illustrated in (5.7) modified with a Downtoner (n=3 # 5 %) as a LPD and (5.8) without a Downtoner (n=0):
(5.5) ‚ I ’ll give you a hand.” [DCT 49]
(5.6) ‚ I ’ll fix it for you.‛ [DCT 10, 31]
(5.7) ‚Let me have a go!‛ [DCT32]
(5.8) ‚Let me try and help you with that!‛ [DCT 44]
Nonetheless, very few native Vietnamese speakers have used the Modifiers of these types in this context.
a.1.2. Contexts C5b, C5d/Strategy and Modification
Apart from C5f, Direct Strategy Category (DC) is used commonly in the situational context C5b (n=27 # 45 %) and C5d (n= 32 # 53.30 %) though there is some difference in the assessment of the native Vietnamese offerers on such social variables as (P), (D) across these situational contexts. For instance; in C5f and C5b native Vietnamese subjects think that the offerer has no Power over the offeree (-P) and has a close relationship with the offeree (-D) (Table 5.2, Appendix 6, p. 242) while in C5d they think that the offerer has equal Power to the offeree (=P) and has a close relationship with the offeree (-D) (Table 5.2, Appendix 6, p. 242). This finding reveals that native Vietnamese speakers prefer the DC in these situational contexts despite the shift in (P) value whereas the native Australian speakers do not.
For example; while up to 45.00 % (n=27) native Vietnamese offerers decide on the DC in C5b, only 5.00 % native Australian offerers (n=3) do this (p ≤ 0.05).
Moreover, up to 53.30 % native Vietnamese offerers (n=32) prefer the DC in C5d whereas merely 16.70 % native Australian offerers (n=10) do it (p ≤ 0.05). What Strategy of this DC is then used popularly by the native Vietnamese offerers in C5b and C5d?
a.1.2.1. Context C5d / DIM, DSU Strategy and Modification In this DC, the most common Direct Strategy used by native Australian speakers in C5d is the Direct Strategy of the Imperative (DIM) beginning with let me with(out) an Understater as a LPD (n=6 # 10.00 %):
(5.9) ‚Let me help you. ‛ [DCT 32]
(5.10) ‚Let me have a look.‛ [DCT 52]
Nevertheless this Direct Strategy is only the second most common for native Vietnamese speakers (n= 5 # 8.30 %) in this context with (out) an Understater as a LPD and with(out) Strengthening Pragmatic Particles as Modifiers:
(5.11) ‚Để tôi giúp cô (một tay).‛ [DCT 60, 17]
“Let me help/lend you (a hand).”
(5.12) ‚Để mình sửa cho!‛ [DCT 50]
“Let me help!”
The Addressing Term pair with this strategy in this equal intimate context is sometimes tôi/mình-cô giáo (servant/self-teacher) (n=5 #8.33%). It could be seen that native Vietnamese offerers’ elder age may have influenced their use of Strategy and Addressing Terms towards their teacher.
The favorite Direct Strategy for native Vietnamese speakers in this C5d context is Direct Strategy of the Suggestory (DSU) (n= 27 # 45.00 %) with (out) Pragmatic Particle(s) as Modifier(s). This Strategy could be expressed:
- Without any Modifiers (n=7 # 11.67%).
(5.13) ‚Cô để em giúp.‛ [DCT 30]
“You let me help.”
- With a Strengthening Pragmatic Particle (SP) [cho (n=8 # 13.33 %)].
(5.14) ‚Cô để tôi giúp cho!‛ [DCT 14]
“You let me help!”
- With many SPs in different positions in an offering (n=8 # 13.33 %).
(5.15) ‚ Cô đ-a đây tôi xem giúp cho.‛ [DCT 43]
“Here you let me help.”
(5.16) ‚Cô cứ để đấy em làm cho.‛ [DCT 13]
“There you just leave it to me.”
(5.17) ‚Cô cứ để em sửa cái đài này cho ạ!‛ [DCT 32]
“You just let me help fix this video!”
- With a SP plus a Downtoner as a Lexical and Phrasal Downgrader (n=1 # 1.67%):
(5.18) ‚Cô hãy để tôi xem thử xem nó bị trục trặc cái gì!‛ [DCT 22]
“Please you just let me have a try to see what’s wrong with it!”
In most of the above example about this Direct Strategy of the Suggestory, the preferred addressing term pair is the neutral one cô-tôi/mình (teacher-servant/self) (n=15 #25%) compared to the less preferred cô-em (teacher-younger sibling) (n=12 # 20%). This reveals that age has regulated the use of such Honorifics or Social Deixis, e.g. the Addressing Term in Vietnamese offering.
What may have led to this result? Both native Australian and Vietnamese speakers assume that the offerer as a student is equal in Power to the offeree as his/her teacher (=P) and is intimate to him/her (-D) in context C5d (Table 5.2, Chart 5.2, Appendix 6, p. 242). Therefore the neutral rather than the honorific addressing term pair is used to show positive politeness. Besides, the urgency for the student’s offering help for the class’s learning sake in this context results in the native Australian and Vietnamese preference for the DC with SPs. This is in line with Brown and Levinson’s remark that the DC could be used when the urgency or efficiency of the context is more important than the demand for face [12].
a.1.2.2. Context C5b / DSU Strategy and Modification
Table 5.2 (Appendix 6, p. 242) shows that the Direct Strategy of the Suggestory (DSU) is also popular for native Vietnamese speakers in contexts C5b (n= 25 # 41.70 %).
In terms of Modification, Honorifics or Social Deixis have been used by native Vietnamese speakers rather commonly in the form of Kin Terms {KT(s)} and Honorific Pragmatic Particle (HP) ạ. The asymmetrical KT pair such as cô (giáo)- em or the KT such as em is used most commonly (n=59 # 98 %) in C5b as a strategy to their teachers as non-family members to create the sense of solidarity for discernment politeness. Among 83.33 % (n=50) strengthening Pragmatic Particles (SPs) used as Internal Modifiers, cho is the most frequently opted for (n=26 # 43.33 %).
Honorifics or Social Deixis such as KTs, HP ạ could be used in combination with other SPs [as in (5.19)] to strengthen the offering in this C5b context and to show solidarity and mark the social relationship between the interlocutors in communication.
(5.19) ‚Cô để em giúp cho ạ!‛ [DCT 24]
“ Teacher let me help!”
Compared to C5b; in context C5d, the frequency of using SPs as Internal Modifiers has decreased (n= 42 # 70 %). Among these, single Pragmatic Particles as the Internal SPs constitute the highest proportion (n= 41 # 68.33%), of which cho is the most frequently used (n= 26 # 43.33%). Two or many Pragmatic Particles could be used in combination in an offering [as in (5. 20)]:
(5.20) ‚Cô giáo để tôi sửa giúp cho nào.‛ [DCT 24]
“You let me help repair it.”
In the meanwhile none of native Australian speakers (n = 0) has used this strategy (p ≤ 0.05 %).
a.1.2.3. Context C5b / DIM Strategy and Modification
Another common Direct Strategy in Contexts C5b and C5d is the Direct Strategy of the Imperative. The interesting thing from Table 5.2 (Appendix 6, p.
242) is that not only native Australian speakers but also native Vietnamese speakers have opted for this strategy at similar frequency in C5b (n=2 # 3.30 %) and C5d (n
=5 # 8.30 %). Native Australian speakers sometimes use the Imperative syntactic pattern: Head Imperative Verb (let) + First Personal Direct Object + Non-finite Clause containing an Understater while native Vietnamese speakers have used the Imperative syntactic pattern with one or many SPs.
(5.21) ‚Let me have a look.‛ [DCT 52]
(5.22) ‚Cứ để đấy cho em.‛ [DCT 50]
“There just leave it to me.”
a.1.2.4.Context C5b, C5d / DWL Strategy and Modification Aside from DIM and DSU, the Direct Strategy of Willingness (DWL) is sometimes used by the native Australian speakers in C5b (n=1 # 1.70) and C5d (n=3 # 5.00 %) whereas none of the native Vietnamese speakers uses this strategy (n = 0). The Internal Modification used in this Strategy by the native Australian speakers in C5b is the Understater as a LPD {as seen in (5.24)}:
(5.23) ‚I ’ll do it for you.‛ [DCT 14]
(5.24) ‚I ’ll give you a hand.” [DCT 49]
What factor has then resulted in the lower frequency of using Direct Strategy Category by native Australian offerers than by native Vietnamese offerers in the above contexts of C5f, C5b and C5d. Influenced by Confucianism from China, owing to geographical proximity and political, cultural and economic contacts with this country over centuries, Vietnam is a hierarchical society where one is related to others in such dyadic relationships between the King and his subjects, between teacher and his student, parent and child, husband and wife, between friends etc.
(Tran Dinh Huu [111, pp. 27-53], Phan Ngoc [118, pp. 228, 231]) among which master-student relationship is highly appreciated. Students have to show their respect for their teacher and are supposed to help their teacher when they assume necessary. Students could therefore normally offer directly to help their teachers without hedges in case of necessity to show normative politeness. Nonetheless, this is not expected in Australian culture where individualism is highly appreciated (Hofstede G. [37, p. 158], Clyne M. [17, p.180], Tran Ngoc Them [133, p.159]).
When offering, the native Australians customarily prefer the Indirect Strategy Category to show their respect for the offeree’s freedom to avoid imposition on the offeree as their teachers for negative politeness.
a.1.3. Context C3b /Strategy and Modification
Also, the Direct Strategy Category (DC) is used by native Vietnamese speakers more commonly (38.30 %) than by native Australian speakers (13.30 %) in C3b (p
≤ 0.05) where both these groups of native speakers assume that the offerer as a student is equal in power (=P) to the offeree as his/her close classmate (-D) (Table 5.3, Appendix 6, p. 243). This shows the native Vietnamese speakers’ preference for the DC not only for their superiors as their teachers but also for their close classmates. In Vietnamese society, offering to help a friend in need is even more highly appreciated. Yet, native Australian speakers in this context are influenced by their individualism culture (Hofstede G. [37, p.158]). As a result, they usually show their respect for the offeree’s freedom by their less frequent use of the DC to be polite.
a.1.3.1. DIM Strategy and Modification
The opted Direct Strategy the native Vietnamese speakers use in this C3b is Direct Strategy of the Imperative (DIM) (n=13 # 21.70 %) while only 6.70 % (n= 4) native Australian speakers use it (p ≤ 0.05).
(5.25) ‚Just copy mine.‛ [DCT 60]
In Vietnamese, such Second Personal Reference Terms as mày, bạn or Self- Reference Term as tí (n= 56 # 93%) are frequently used in this context to show the offerer’s intimate attitude towards the offeree. Among these Second Personal Reference Terms, 16.67 % (n= 10) could be used with some Pragmatic Particles as Indicators {Pr.P.Ind(s)} (n=3 # 5.00 %) of the offering in the DIM strategy.
(5.26) ‚ Cho mày m-ợn vở này!‛ [DCT 30]
“Here borrow my notes!”
Sentence-final Pragmatic Particle clusters, e.g. đây này (n= 5 # 8. 33 %) are sometimes used as the Indicators of the offering by native Vietnamese speakers:
(5.27) ‚Lấy vở của tớ đây này!‛ {DCT 60]
“Here take my notes!”
In respect of Modification; out of 66.67 % (n = 40) of the sentence-mid internal SP mà, 16% of it is used in the DIM strategy followed by the sentence-final SP này (n=7 # 11. 67%) and these two SPs could be used in combination:
(5.28)‚Lấy vở của tớ về mà chép.‛ [DCT 9]
“Take my notes home to copy.”
(5.29) ‚Cầm vở của mình mà xem này!‛ [DCT 3]
“Here take my notes to copy.”
Table 5.3 (Appendix 6, p. 243) shows that in spite of some dissimilarity in the use of Direct Strategy of the Suggestory (DSU) by native Australian speakers (6.70
%) and Vietnamese speakers (15.00 %), this difference is not statistically significant.
a.1.3.2. DSU Strategy and Modification
In Vietnamese, the addressing term pairs such as tao-mày, mình-bạn are used frequently to show the offerer’s intimate attitude towards the offeree in this equal
dyad context. The person-reference pair tí/m×nh(servant/self) - cËu (maternal junior uncle as a Kin Term) is used less frequently (n=4 # 6.67%). The sentence-final Pragmatic Particle cho could sometimes be used as an Indicator of the offering (n=1
# 1.67%) with the presence of these addressing term pairs in this Direct Strategy of the Suggestory.
(5.30) ‚Mày đ-a vở tao chép cho.” [DCT 28]
“I could copy the notes for you.”
Relating to Modification, the sentence-mid SP mà is used rather commonly in this DSU strategy (n=7# 11.67%) by native Vietnamese speakers in this context to intensify the illocutionary force of the offering to show normative politeness.
(5.31) ‚Cậu lấy vở của tớ về nhà mà chép.‛ [DCT 32]
“You could take my notes home to copy.”
The sentence-final SP này could also be used (n=7 # 11.67%):
(5.32) ‚Mày lấy của tao về chép này!‛ [DCT 6]
“Here take my notes home to copy!”
Some native Australian speakers have opted for the DSU Strategy using Second Personal Subject (you) + MAV (can) + Head Verb + … in this context:
(5.33) “You can borrow my notes.” [DCT 38]
a.13.3. DWL Strategy and Modification
Apart from DIM and DSU, the Direct Strategy of Willingness (DWL) is sometimes used (n =1 # 1.70 %) by native Vietnamese offerers (Table 5.3, Appendix 6, p. 243) in this context. This shows the variety in the use of Direct Strategy by native Vietnamese offerers, which partly makes the frequency of using Direct Strategy Category of native Vietnamese speakers higher than that by native Australian speakers.
With respect to Modification, the pre-verbal SP sẽ (Nguyen Anh Que [128, p.
112]) is used restrictedly by native Vietnamese speakers (n=1 # 1.67%) to show the offerer’s strong willingness to help the offeree for positive politeness.
(5.34) “Tớ sẽ cho cậu m-ợn vở.‛ [DCT 33]
“I’ll lend you my notes.”
The Direct Strategy Category (DC) is not only used by native Vietnamese speakers to their teachers, their friends but also to the other people in their community especially their neighbors. Offering to help neighbors when they are in difficulty is highly appreciated by native Vietnamese speakers as it is said: ‚Bán anh em xa, mua láng giềng gần‛ {“A near neighbor is better than a distant cousin”
(Geddes and Grosset Ltd. [27, p. 94])}. As a result, the DC is preferred when offering to help their neighbors. This could be ascribed to one of the Vietnamese cultural features: native Vietnamese speakers used to live on the wet-rice crops and they tried to live in harmony with nature and their village neighbors to protect their crops from being devastated by the outsiders (Tran Ngoc Them [133, pp. 91, 96]).
This nice behavior is now still maintained and appreciated by the Vietnamese.
a.1.4. Context C2a /Strategy and Modification a.1.4.1. DIM Strategy and Modification
In context C2a (Table 5.3, Appendix 6, p. 243), native Vietnamese speakers may have thought that offering to help their close next-door neighbor (-D) as a younger girl when she is in difficulty is a good behavior of a superior (+P) to an inferior in their community. They therefore do not have to “beat about the bush” but would rather offer directly to help their neighbor. Up to 36.70 % native Vietnamese speakers have opted for Direct Strategy Category (DC) (n=22) while only 6.70 % native Australian speakers (n= 4) use it (p ≤ 0.05) (Table 5.1, Appendix 6, p. 241).
In respect of Strategy; within this Direct Strategy Category, 25 % (n=15) native Vietnamese speakers use the Direct Strategy of the Imperative compared to merely 6.70 % (n = 4) native Australian speakers using it (p ≤ 0.05).
In terms of Modification, the symmetrical Kin Term (KT) pairs such as anh/chị-em (elder sibling-younger sibling), cô- cháu (aunt-niece/ nephew) or asymmetrical Kin term pairs such as bé-chị (little girl- elder sibling), Lan- chị (Lan- elder sibling) could be used popularly in this strategy in this context (n=59 # 98.33%) with (out) an Understater as a LPD as strategies to non-relatives in order to show the solidarity among the in-group members and the humbleness for normative politeness in Vietnamese culture.
(5.35) ‚Để chị xách hộ em một túi.‛ [DCT 10]
“Let me carry one bag for you.”
In addition, these Kin Terms have been used commonly by native Vietnamese speakers with single or many strengthening Pragmatic Particles at different positions with (out) Understater(s) as LPD(s) to aggravate or further aggravate the illocutionary force of the offering in order to persuade the offeree to accept the offering:
(5.36) ‚Đưa chị xách hộ cho!‛ [DCT 14]
“Give them to me!”
(5.37) ‚ Đ-a đây chị xách hộ cho nào!‛ [DCT 54]
“Here just give them to me!
(5.38) ‚Để chị xách đỡ cho một túi nào.‛ [DCT 60]
“Here just let me lend you a hand.”
Of 96.67 % strengthening Pragmatic Particles used in this context by native Vietnamese speakers, cho is used most frequently (n=31 # 51.67%) compared to nào (n=13 # 21.67%) and đây (n=5 # 8.33 %). The sentence-final cluster of Pragmatic Particles cho nào is also used commonly (n=7 # 11.67 %).
In the meanwhile, Kin Terms are not used in English offering but such person reference terms as I, me, you are used instead.
(5.39) ‚Let me help with those.‛ [DCT 50]
a.1.4.2. DSU Strategy and Modification
Furthermore; table 5.3 (Appendix 6, p. 243) reveals that while none of the native Australian speakers (n=0) uses the Direct Strategy of the Suggestory (DSU) in this C2a situational context, up to 11.70 % (n=7) native Vietnamese speakers prefer using it. This shows that native Vietnamese speakers not only use the DC at higher frequency than the native Australian speakers but also use it under various strategies to indicate their positive or normative politeness.
In this strategy, Kin Terms are also used popularly (n=6 # 10%) with (out) Understater (s) as LPD (s) or / and Strengthening Pragmatic Particle (s) (SPs) to
create a sense of solidarity and express the strong willingness to share difficulties among the in-group members in Vietnamese community for positive politeness.
(5.40) ‚Em để chị giúp một tay.‛ [DCT 50]
“You let me lend you a hand.”
(5.41)‚Em để chị xách giúp cho.‛ [DCT 47]
“You let me help.”
(5.42) ‚Em đ-a chị giúp một tay nào!‛ [DCT 6]
“Here you give me one!”
a.1.5. Context C2b/ DSU Strategy and Modification
Table 5.1 (Appendix 6, p. 241) reveals that native Australian and Vietnamese speakers’ use of Direct Strategy Category (DC) is at lower frequency in this context than in C5f. The most common Direct Strategy used by native Vietnamese speakers in C2b is the Direct Strategy of the Suggestory DSU (n=18 # 30.00 %) while none of native Australian speakers use this strategy (n=0).
This DSU strategy could be used by native Vietnamese speakers with such Honorifics or Social Deixis (n=19 # 31.67%) as the Kin Term pair chị-em (elder sibling-younger sibling), cô-cháu (aunt- niece/nephew), HP ạ and SPs of various kinds. In this context the DSU strategy could be expressed:
- Without any Formal Semantic Items or Pragmatic Particles but with a Kin Term addressing pair with(out) a Proper Name.
(5.43) ‚Chị Lan để em xách giúp!‛ [DCT 1]
“Ms Lan let me help you!”
- With a Kin Term addressing pair and an Understater as a Lexical and Phrasal Downgrader with(out) the HP ạ /and SP(s).
(5.44) ‚Chị để em cầm giúp cho một chiếc.‛ [DCT 4]
“You let me carry one bag for you.”
(5.45) ‚Chị để em phụ chị một tay nào.‛ [DCT 2]
“You just let me lend you a hand.”
(5.46) ‚Cô để cháu ôm bớt một túi cho ạ.‛ [DCT 31]
“You please just let me carry one bag for you.”