As stated by Stivers et al. (2009), ―Informal verbal interaction is the core matrix for human social life. A mechanism for coordinating this basic mode of interaction is a system of turn-taking that regulates who is to speak and when. Yet relatively little is known about how this system varies across cultures.‖ Actually, certain researchers (Susanna Kohonen, Makoto Hayashi, Phillip Brown, Yvette Murdoch, Gina-Anne Levow, and others) have compared and contrasted the sets of rules governing the turn- taking mechanism in different languages (French, Japanese, Mandarin, Korean, German, etc.), yet whether or not such set of rule is universal or disparate is still controversial.
When studying the turn-taking strategies used in Vietnamese casual conversations, comparing them to the ones applied in English, I identified that a same basic set of strategies governing turn-taking was established in English and in Vietnamese;
nevertheless, how the strategies are applied varies significantly from one language to the other.
4.3.1 Similarities
As afore-mentioned, the same set of strategies governing turn-taking was found in English and in Vietnamese. Such strategies include both the verbal and the non-verbal ones.
70
With regards to the verbal aspect of both English and Vietnamese, certain similarities were accrued in not only lexical and syntactic features, but also in pragmatic patterns.
Firstly, with reference to lexicology, name nomination is commonly perceived as a method to select the next speaker. Besides, recompleters and appositionals are used in both languages as turn-end markers and turn-beginning devices. In English, the expressions like ―you know‖ and ―don’t you agree‖ are commonly used by the end of utterances; whilst, ―đúng không‖ ―được không‖ ―hay là thế nào‖ are present at the end of many Vietnamese utterances. The words like ―but‖ ―so‖ ―well‖ are found starting English utterances; meanwhile, in Vietnamese the words of such function are ―ừ‖ ―nhưng‖ ―thế‖
―thì‖ and so on. Secondly, from syntactic perspectives, in both languages, the completion points of sentences, clauses, or phrases are perceived as possible completion points of turns, and thus, the next turns can occur. Thirdly, under pragmatics‘ scope, similar features of adjacency pairs and overlap were found. In both languages, the first part of an adjacency pair is understood as a turn passing signal. Also, all types of adjacency pairs used in English were realized in Vietnamese. Besides, overlap is perceived as a turn- requesting technique in both languages.
With regards to the non-verbal aspect of both English and Vietnamese, similarities were found in the use of turn-taking strategies in terms of not only paralinguistic features but extralinguistic features as well. Firstly, inter-turn space is regarded as a turn-yielding signal in both languages. Secondly, the variation of pitch has its role in turn-taking in terms of rising and falling contours in both English and Vietnamese. Thirdly, gaze is seen to be of powerful function in face-to-face communication in general and in turn-taking in particular in both languages, in which it functions as turn-yielding and turn-avoiding techniques rather than as turn-requesting technique. Moreover, hand raise is applied as a turn-requesting strategy; whilst, changes of posture and head movements are found to be of certain association to turn-taking in both languages.
As Carroll (2000: 105) commented ―participants from other cultures engaged in casual conversations orient to the same basic rules of turn-taking as do, say, Americans, British English speakers or Australians‖, similarities in turn-taking strategies applied by speakers of both English and Vietnamese are basically apparent. Nevertheless, the detailed application of such same set of rules varies from language to language, of
71
which English and Vietnamese are typical examples. The following part will present the disparities in the use of turn-taking strategies in English and Vietnamese casual conversations.
4.3.2 Differences
Cook (1989:52-53) stated ―Turn-taking mechanisms, the way in which speakers hold or pass the floor, vary between cultures and between languages….These mechanisms cannot simply be lifted from one society (and thus from one language) to another‖. When studying the turn-taking strategies in English and Vietnamese casual conversations, though a same basic set of rules was identified, certain disparities in the use of such rules were accumulated in terms of both verbal and non-verbal aspects.
The first and rather obvious difference was identified in the use of lexical devices as turn- passing and turn-requesting strategies in English and Vietnamese. As compared to the ones applied in English, the ones applied in Vietnamese outnumber and are more profuse.
One reason is the types of sentences in Vietnamese are not formed grammatically but lexically. Thus, the density in the use of functional markers in Vietnamese is observable.
If in English about ten recompleters and appositionals (you know, don’t you know, don’t you agree, the “tags” in tag questions, but, so, well, and, yeah) are in use, about fifty words and phrases of the same functions are found in Vietnamese. They are plentiful not only in number but in meaning as well, such as ―đúng không‖, ―được không‖, ―à‖, ―á‖,
―hay là thế nào‖, ―nhớ‖, ―nhé‖, ―nha”‖, ―chứ gì‖, ―chứ‖, ―cơ mà‖, ―nhỉ‖, ―còn gì‖, ―còn gì nữa‖, ―chứ còn gì nữa‖, ―ý‖, ―đâu”, or ―không‖, ―đâu‖, ―nhưng‖, ―nhưng mà‖, ―thế‖,
―thì‖, ―thế thì‖, ―thế thì bây giờ‖, ―đúng rồi‖, ―ừ‖, ―à‖, ―chẳng qua‖, ―chẳng qua là‖,
―căn bản‖, ―căn bản là‖, ―cho nên‖, ―đấy‖, ―tức là‖. Incontestably, it seems easier for the Vietnamese participants to identify the TRPs of turns by using lexical devices when involving in any corpus of dialogues.
Secondly, the Vietnamese speakers tend to overlap/ interrupt the current speakers more often than the English speakers. As shown in Table 2 hereinabove, overlaps (which function as turn-taking signals other than back-channels) account for about 25.4 per cent
72
of the turns studied, whereas according to Sack et al. (1974), the English speakers tend to minimize gaps and overlaps between turns. Interruptions which refer to simultaneous talk that does not occur at or near a TRP are even perceived to have negative connotation in English, while interruptions are common in Vietnamese and are rarely regarded as negative interlocutory acts.
Thirdly, certain discrepancies were found in prosodic features in terms of pitch variation, intensity, tempo and duration.
Concerning pitch, pitch in English is of vital important role in general, and of turn-taking signals in particular. In English, Sacks et al. (1974:721-722) stressed the importance of
‗sound production‘ in turn-taking organization. Rising intonation may indicate a question, as opposed to confirmation or emphasis accompanied by falling intonation. A rising intonation during a turn will indicate that a turn is unfinished, as opposed to a falling intonation to signal its end. Goshgaria with ―Exploring Language‖ (2003) pointed out ―it is also possible to have a fall-rising pitch and a rise-falling pitch‖. On the contrary to English, in Vietnamese, the variation of pitch plays less important role in turn-taking.
Rising contour was found to be of turn-requesting technique; however, other techniques (lexicons or intensity of sound) are required to supplement the rising pitch in a same situation. Vietnamese is a tone language, thus, pitch varies with every word of an utterance, which makes listeners difficult to identify any abnormal pitch variation patterns. Thus, the Vietnamese speakers are less reliable on intonation than the English speakers are.
With sound intensity (or loudness), loudness is mentioned but not stressed in English turn-taking, whereas such prosodic patterns play important role in Vietnamese turn- taking. In turn-taking in English, an increase in loudness may be used to hold onto a turn or interrupt a turn, whereas fading out relinquishes the floor. In Vietnamese, high sound intensity is used not only to hold onto a turn, interrupt a turn, but to request a turn as well;
low sound intensity is a signal of turn-end position. Different from the English speakers, the Vietnamese speakers rely much on intensity to take a turn or to relinquish a turn. It is drawn from the facts that Vietnamese is a tone language and that Vietnamese types of sentences are formed lexically rather than grammatically or based on intonation.
73
As for tempo, in English, rushing over what would otherwise be a transition-relevant place (e.g. a natural break or end of a tone group), is recognized as another means to hold onto the floor (Sack et al., 1974; and Shortall, 1996: 130). In Vietnamese, high tempo was observed by TRP, which means the current speakers is relinquishing the floor, thus it is the signal for the other speakers to take the floor.
In regard to sound duration, longer duration of words is clearly observable in Vietnamese, whereas such pattern is paid little attention to by English linguists. The Vietnamese words of longer duration which relate to turn-taking are found mostly by the beginning and the end of a turn, and thereby constitute a turn or give up a turn. In a monosyllabic language like Vietnamese, words which are uttered in a longer duration are easily observed, which contradicts to English, a polysyllabic language, of which the variation in the duration of a spoken word is complicated to be measured. Nevertheless, words which are uttered for longer duration in Vietnamese do have association to turn-taking, whereas the same is not stressed in English.
Another difference between English and Vietnamese in terms of turn-taking strategies is found in the pattern of silence or gap, lapse, and pause between turns. Though inter-turn space is perceived as a turn-end signal in both languages; however, according to Scollon and Scollon (1981:25-26), the English speakers just tolerate a pause of less than one second, while about 71.6 per cent of inter-turn spaces observed in Vietnamese conversation is of longer than one second. As mentioned above, the 'no gap, no overlap' structure of discourse is ingrained in Anglo-American culture, persons with a slower pace at turn-taking will regularly fail to get the floor to speak. Correspondingly, the faster speaker "is doing all of the talking, constantly repeating himself or herself"
(Scollon/Scollon 1995:65). On the contrary, the Vietnamese speakers though tend to minimize gaps between turns, do accept long pause between turns.
All in all, the disparities hereof between turn-taking strategies applied in English and those applied in Vietnamese are mostly shown in the tendency or habits of the speakers in both languages. Almost all the strategies of which differences were depicted are identical in description and perception of both the English and Vietnamese people.
74
CHAPTER 5