4.2.1. Categorization of the speech act of offering in English
4.2.1.1. Offering in relation to the Offerer’s Negative and Positive face
Rabinowitz J. F. states that the elicited and spontaneous offerings could enhance the offerer’s negative and positive face in that the offerer may want to do something that the offeree may want, which is favored by the offeree. Nonetheless, results from Rabinowitz’s study [69, p.130] with the majority of the offerees’
refusals (57%) compared to the minority of their acceptance (43%) to the offering reveal that the offeree may not always as frequently accept the offerer’s offering as they refuse them. In this way, the offerer’s offering could also embody a low degree of certainty to be accepted by the offeree. The offerer’s offering could be a FTA against the offerer’s negative face in that the offerer may not expect to receive the offeree’s refusal when offering help to the offeree. Also the offerer’s positive face may be threatened because the offerer’s offering may not be favored by the offeree in this individualism-oriented culture where non-interference is highly appreciated.
4.2.1.2. Offering in relation to the Offeree’s Negative and Positive face
Rabinowitz J. F. [69] also claims that the offerer’s offering may not harm the offeree’s negative face if it is accepted by the offeree since it is expected by the offeree. Also if approved of by the offeree, the offerer’s offering could enhance the offeree’s positive face in that it is in line with the offeree’s desire and wish.
However, the above results from Rabinowitz’s study [69] on offering reveals that if refused by the offeree, the offerer’s offering could threaten the offeree’s negative face: the offerer’s offering may run into the risk of intruding into the offeree’s personal freedom. In addition, when turned down by the offeree the offerer’s offering could harm the offeree’s positive face as the offerer’s offering could not meet the demand of the offeree.
Therefore the offering in English according to Rabinowitz J. F. could be either a FTA or a FEA but more often a FTA against the offerer and the offeree than a FEA. Consequently, the offerer normally uses the Query Preparatory Strategy to call for an answer from the offeree as a condition before (s)/he promises to do something in the future for the offeree. Wierzbicka A. [91] shares this viewpoint with Rabinowitz J. F. explaining that offering in English is similar to questioning and in fact they often take the Interrogative form to avoid imposition on the offeree:
(4.26) A offers a drink to the guest who looks thirsty at her house:
“Would you like a cup of tea?‛ [91, p.192]
The above viewpoint of Wunderlich D. [93] and Rabinowitz J. F. [69] which is in line with that of Wierzbicka A. [91] that “offering is often combined with attempts to influence the addressee’s behavior; yet it doesn’t have to be” just hints at, but never quite says that offering could be either a FTA or a FEA under the influence of certain circumstances. The above linguists seem to have disregarded the inevitable effect of situational contexts on the identification of offering and the strategy found in offering. However Direct Strategy Category (DC) or Indirect Strategy Category could be used to express offering, not only Indirect Strategy Category. In fact there are quite a lot of situational contexts where the interlocutors have intimate relationship as shown in (4.17) or the offerer’s offering can meet the demand of the offeree as shown in (4.18) or the urgency or efficiency can overwhelm the face demand as shown in (4.14), Direct Strategy Category is preferred to Indirect Strategy Category because in these circumstances offering may not be a FTA.
From the analysis of the above examples, I could point out that a single speech act could be conveyed by various linguistic forms. What may at first appear to be other speech acts (inviting, proposing, advising, promising, questioning, etc.), upon further examination, actually turn out to be offering. Information beyond the verb and syntactic structure is needed in order to make distinctions about the intent of an utterance. The context of the situation, which plays the most important role, can be completely missed through reliance upon only one analytical way. As a result, offering
in English could be distinguished from other related speech acts and could be classified either as a FTA or as a FEA depending largely on the context of situation in which offering is expressed, which in its turn greatly determines the strategy of offering in English which is not necessarily always Indirect to be polite as Rabinowitz J. F. has confirmed in her definition.
We have so far seen that offering could be classified as a FTA or a FEA in Australian English. Could offering be a FTA or a FEA in Vietnamese?
4.2.2. Categorization of the speech act of offering in Vietnamese
Unlike Rabinowitz J. F. [69], Brown P. and Levinson S. [12] argue that in Anglo-Saxon culture offering is potentially damaging the offeree’s negative face in that they indicate the offerer’s wish to make the offeree commit himself/herself to whether or not s/he wants the offerer to do something for him/her, thereby incurring a possible debt on the offeree that will have to be paid off in the future (Brown P.
and Levinson S. [12, p.66]). Hua Z. et al. [40] however assume that offering is not normally seen as a FTA in China and other East and Southeast Asian societies where Chinese cultural influence is prominent (e.g. Korea, Japan, Vietnam etc. ).
They believe that in these societies where mutual solicitude is seen as the norm in social interaction, offering is highly appreciated.
Is it really true that offering is not a FTA in Vietnamese language? In order to have a close examination of this matter, I suppose that we could consider the speech act of offering in relation to the offerer’s and the offeree’s face.
4.2.2.1. Offering in relation to the offerer’s face
a. Offering in Relation to the Offerer’s Negative Face
In Vietnamese culture, when offering a service or an item to the offeree, the offerer’s negative face is not normally be harmed. The offerer is normally willing to help the offeree in case s/he voluntarily offers his/her service or item (spontaneous offering) or even when s/he is asked to do so (initiated or elicited offering). Native Vietnamese speakers experience offering as a FEA rather than a FTA because through offering they express their cognition of and adherence to social sanctioned
rules. Phan Ngoc has assumed that “… Vietnamse culture is collectivism-oriented and the Western’s culture is individualism-oriented” [118, pp. 228-231]. In his viewpoint, one individual is related to others in role and status and only highly appreciated by his/her community when s/he has accomplished duty towards his/her family, neighborhood, friend and fatherland as has been expected. It is this cultural feature, which governs the social norm and behavior which in its turn regulates the way in which speech acts in general and offering in particular could be politely made. As a FEA, offering is normally expressed by native Vietnamese speakers via a Direct Strategy expressed with the syntactic patterns as illustrated below.
(4.27) A railman offers to help a strange 10-year-elder passenger carry her heavy bags off the train when she can’t manage to do it.
‚Cô để cháu xách hộ cho đỡ nặng ạ!‛ [VF 4]
“Let me lend you a hand!”
(4.28) A willingly offers to post her roommate B’s letter for her when is asked for help:
A: ‚Đi Hà Nội bỏ giùm tớ cái thư nhé?‛
“Please post this letter for me when you go to Hanoi?”
B: ‚ừ, bỏ vào túi đây.‛ [129, p. 30]
“Yes, just put it here into my pocket.”
Nonetheless there are situations where offering could threaten the offerer’s negative face. Let’s consider the case when the offerer has to although does not want to extend his/her service or item to the offeree just to worm into his/her favor for some benefits or promotion in return:
A offers a gift to his close boss:
(4.29)‚… Của ít lòng nhiều, mong sếp nhận cho.‛ [32, p. 19]
Head offering
“I’ve got a small gift for you. Please accept it.”
In this case, offering gift costs the offerer money, time, effort and this is normally not expected by the offerer.
b. Offering in Relation to the Offerer’s Positive Face
The offerer’s offering could be accepted by the offeree or not. If accepted, the offerer’s positive face could be enhanced in that s/he could win the offeree’s heart and emotion.
(4.30) A offers her grandmother B a gift on her longevity anniversary:
A:‚Bà ơi! Hôm nay là lễ mừng thọ bà. Cháu có món quà biếu bà.
Head Offering
Cháu chúc bà mạnh khỏe, sống lâu.‛
“Dear grandmother, today is your longevity anniversary. I’ve got a gift for you. I wish you are fine and live long.”
B:‚Cháu của bà ngoan quá!‛ [97, p. 52]
“How nice you are!”
If denied [expressed with a Negative Strengthening Pragmatic Particle (NSP) không (nên)], by contrast, the offerer’s positive face could be threatened customarily in case the relationship between the offerer and the offeree is not intimate enough.
(4.31) A offers a gift to his new employer but is denied:
‚Cậu không nên làm nh- vậy, vi phạm qui chế đấy!‛ [32, p. 52]
“You shouldn’t do that because it violates the office’s regulation!”
4.2.2.2. Offering in relation to the offeree’s face
a. Offering in Relation to the Offeree’s Negative Face
In non-intimate relationship, when denied by the offeree, offering may threaten the offeree’s negative face because the offerer’s offering is not expected by the offeree.
(4.32) A offers some gift to his intermediary boss but is rejected:
A: “Em vừa đi công tác ở úc về, có ít quà mang biếu anh dùng.‛
Head Offering
“I’ve just come back from Australia. I’ve got something for you as a gift.”
B:‚Thôi! Cậu đừng làm thế!‛ [32, p. 52]
“I can’t receive your gift! Thanks anyway.”
b. Offering in Relation to the Offeree’s Positive Face
Offering could be a FEA towards the offeree’s positive face in that the offeree could benefit from the offerer’s offering in terms of materialistic and mental aspect and (s)he may self-flatter that (s)he is in other people’s favor in case the offeree expects the offerer’s offering.
(4.33) A offers a gift to his teacher in class on the Teacher’s Day:
A: ‚Chúng em có món quà nhỏ kính tặng cô nhân ngày 20-11.‛
“On the occasion of November 20th we would like to offer you this small gift.”
B:‚Cô cảm ơn các em.‛ [97, p. 54]
“Thank you.”
However, if the offerer’s offering is not accepted, it could damage the offeree’s positive face in that the offering does not satisfy the offeree’s desire just because the offeree thinks it is not carried out in a suitable context.
(4.34) A offers a bunch of roses and a gift of great value to his female friend (on her birthday), who does not love him. His offering has been turned down.
A:‚Hôm nay sinh nhật em. Anh có chút quà cho em. Mong em hãy nhận Head Offering lÊy.‛
“Today is your birthday. I’ve got something for you as a gift. I hope you like it.”
B:‚… Em cảm ơn. Nh-ng có lẽ em không nhận đâu ạ!‛ [VF 8]
“Sorry, but I can’t accept it. Thanks anyway!”
In summation; the labeling of most speech acts, offering included, is then believed to be more highly justifiable if more than one way is included. Syntactic, lexical and contextual elements all contribute to the justification of how offering should be identified in the speech act theory. None of these elements can stand entirely alone and still provide a complete identification.
In this way, the offering could be identified either as a FTA or as a FEA in Vietnamese and Australian cultures depending on particular circumstances. Is the offering however more FTA-oriented or FEA-oriented in these two cultures? Table 4.1 (Appendix 4, p. 239) shows that the mean score of the Imposition Rank assessed by the native Australian (mRA) and the native Vietnamese (mRV) in nearly all situational contexts of offering under study is rather small (mR> 1, mR ≤ 3). The noticeable thing is that in most situational contexts mRA > mRV, which means that offering is more often a FTA for native Australians than for native Vietnamese.
Does this different underlying orientation towards face perception produce superficial differences or/and similarities in the Politeness Markers (P. Ms.) used in the offering in English and Vietnamese?
In order to establish the basis for the comparative analysis of the Politeness Markers used in the offering in English and Vietnamese in this thesis, I have proposed the following definition of the speech act of offering adapted from Rabinowitz J. F. as follows:
Offering is a speech act, which the speaker either voluntarily proposes, normally without any obligation (spontaneous offering) or is asked to do so (elicited or initiated offering), to extend an item or a service to the offeree which the offerer assumes to be beneficial for the offeree, and proposes to furnish. It arises from the interlocutors’ shared knowledge of the situational context, and is usually based upon a preference or a need on the part of the offeree which the offerer could perceive and would indicate a willingness and ability to address. [69, p. 203]