DISAGREEING IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESEtainguyenso.vnu.edu.vn/jspui/bitstream/123456789/5067/1... ·...

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY – HANOI

COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

DISAGREEING

IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE:A PRAGMATICS AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS

PERSPECTIVE

By

KIEU, THI THU HUONG

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Supervisors: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hoang Van Van

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Phan Van Que

HANOI - 2006

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

I certify my authority of the study project report submitted entitled

DISAGREEING IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE:

A PRAGMATICS AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE

In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used

without due acknowledgment in the text of the thesis.

Hanoi - 2006

Kieu Thi Thu Huong

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to many people without whose help the present thesis could not have been

completed. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hoang Van Van and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Phan Van Que for their invaluable

guidance, insightful comments and endless support.

I wish to express my deep indebtedness to Prof. Dr. Luong Van Hy, the chair of the

Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Canada for his brilliant scholarship,

demanding teaching and supervision. His unending help greatly encouraged me before

and during my one-year study at this university. I am most grateful to Assoc. Prof. Dr.

Sidnell, who worked at UCLA for some time with Schegloff, one of the founders of

conversation analysis, for his productive course of conversation analysis, his kindness

and generosity in providing naturally occurring data and responding literature.

I am deeply thankful to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Quang for his invaluable suggestions,

and helpful advice. I have greatly benefited from his scholarship, encouragement and

generosity. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Hoa

for his discerning comments, knowledgeable suggestions and kind-heartedness. My

sincere thanks go to all my teachers at CFL – VNU for their profound knowledge and

outstanding teaching during my long study at the Department of Graduate Studies (DGS)

from 1998 to 2005.

My special thanks are due to Ms Sandra Harrison, the country director of ELI Vietnam

for her kind support and valuable correction of all this work in manuscript. But for her, I

would not have had any access to ELI teachers working in Vietnam.

i

My thanks are also extended to all my informants in Hanoi and North America, my

friends and students, my colleagues at Hanoi-Amsterdam High school, the school

principal Mr. Do Lenh Dien, and all the people who have assisted my research work,

especially Dr. Ngo Huu Hoang and the DGS staff. To Assoc. Prof. Dr. Le Hung Tien, the

chair of the DGS, I extend my enormous gratitude for his scholarship and sincerity.

I sincerely thank Dr. Vu Thi Thanh Huong at the Institute of Linguistics for her efficient

assistance, intellectual support and continual encouragement.

I especially express my heartfelt gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tran Huu Manh, who

supervised my MA thesis, which is considered the very first step to the present Ph.D.

dissertation, for his distinctive guidance, constant encouragement and benevolence.

Finally, I owe the completion of this dissertation to my parents and my siblings, my

husband and my two children, who have always given me their love, understanding and

encouragement throughout my study.

To all mentioned, and to many more, my heart extends the warmest thanks.

ii

ABSTRACT

This thesis takes as its main objective the description of the native perception and

realization of the speech act of disagreeing in English and Vietnamese within the

theoretical frameworks of pragmatics and conversation analysis and the help of SPSS,

version 11.5, a software program for social sciences. It aims at yielding insights into such

issues as politeness, its notions and relations with indirectness, strategies and linguistic

devices used to express disagreement tokens in the English and Vietnamese languages

and cultures. Linguistic politeness is carefully examined in its unity of discernment and

volition on the basis of the data obtained from elicited written questionnaires, folk

expressions, interviews and naturally occurring interactions. The meticulous and

miraculous methods offered by conversation analysis are of great help in describing and

exploring the structural organization of disagreement responses in preferred and

dispreferred format, the relationships between disagreements and the constraint systems,

and negotiation of disagreements by native speakers.

The findings exhibit that the differences in choosing politeness strategies to perform

disagreements by speakers of English in North America and speakers of Vietnamese in

Hanoi result from the differences in their assessment of socio-cultural parameters and

social situations. Although indirectness might be used in some contexts as a means to

express politeness, there is no absolute correlation between politeness and indirectness in

the two languages and cultures under investigation. Despite the English general

preference for direct strategies and the Vietnamese tendency to indirect strategies, the

former may be indirect in some contexts and the latter are prone to be direct or even very

iii

direct from time to time. Consequently, the study of politeness should be conducted in

close relation to the study of the speakers’ wider socio-cultural milieus with systems of

local norms, beliefs and values. In proffering disagreements to the prior evaluations or

ideas, native speakers not only deploy individually volitional strategies but also observe

socially determined norms of behavior, especially in the choice of formulaic expressions,

speech levels, address terms, deference markers etc. Therefore, the deployment of the

normative-volitional approach to politeness study is appropriate and reasonable.

Conversation analysis sheds light on disagreements as dispreferred seconds to first

assessments and opinions, and as preferred seconds to self-deprecations. English and

Vietnamese speakers adopt the same strategies in regards to preference organization,

compliment responses and negotiation of disagreements. On the whole, disagreements are

inclined to be hedged or delayed by a variety of softeners and/or other devices. However,

they tend to be overtly stated in responses to self-denigrations. It is of interest to explore

the conflicting effects caused by the correlation between preference organization and

self-compliment avoidance in responses to compliments. The English informants show a

trend towards compliment acceptance and appreciation, while the Vietnamese prefer to

refuse and negate prior complimentary tokens in spite of their similar strategies in

adopting mid-positions. The accounts for this phenomenon can be found in the

Vietnamese community-based solidarity and the Anglophone individualistic satisfaction.

Conversation analytic tools help highlight the use of address terms (in Vietnamese),

intensifiers (in English and Vietnamese) and other supportive means. By and large, the

combined pragmatics and conversation analysis perspective is strongly recommended to

iv

speech act study as this integration maximizes the strengths and minimizes the

weaknesses of each approach.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................................................................I

ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................III

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................V

LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS.................................................................................X

ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS..............................................................XIII

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1

1. RATIONALE.................................................................................................................1

1.1. NECESSITY OF THE STUDY.......................................................................................11.1.1. Problem statement.............................................................................................11.1.2. Society, culture and language............................................................................2

1.2. MERITS OF THE STUDY............................................................................................31.2.1. Academic merits.................................................................................................31.2.2. Practical merits.................................................................................................4

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND.................................................................................4

3. RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY.........................6

3.1. RESEARCH QUESTION..............................................................................................63.2. GROUNDS FOR RESEARCH HYPOTHESES................................................................63.2. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES.........................................................................................6

4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY.............................................................................................7

5. METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................9

5.1. METHODS.................................................................................................................95.2. PRAGMATICS AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS......................................................10

5.2.1. Choice of conversation analysis......................................................................105.2.2. Combination of pragmatics and conversation analysis...................................105.2.3. Combination of pragmatics and CA in other studies.......................................11

6. CREATIVITY..............................................................................................................12

6.1. SYNTHETIC APPROACH – PRAGMATICS AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS............126.2. DATA FROM QUESTIONNAIRES AND NATURALLY OCCURRING CONVERSATION.126.3. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN DISAGREEING.............................................12

7. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY.........................................................................13

CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................................................14

DISAGREEING – A COMMUNICATIVE ILLOCUTIONARY AND SOCIAL ACT...........................................................................................................................................14

1.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES...............................................................................14

vi

1.1.1. Speech Act Theory...........................................................................................141.1.1.1. Speech acts and speech events..................................................................141.1.1.2. Three-dimension speech acts....................................................................151.1.1.3. Classification of speech acts.....................................................................161.1.1.4. Disagreeing – a communicative illocutionary act....................................18

1.1.2. Conversation Analysis.....................................................................................201.1.2.1. Historical background...............................................................................201.1.2.2. Co-text and context...................................................................................221.1.2.3. Turn – turn taking and adjacency pairs.....................................................241.1.2.4. Disagreeing – a social act.........................................................................27

1.1.3. Summary..........................................................................................................291.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY..................................................................................................29

1.2.1. Aims and methodology.....................................................................................291.2.1.1. Aims..........................................................................................................291.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents.................................................30

1.2.2. Assessment of socio-cultural parameters by respondents...............................371.2.2.1. Data results...............................................................................................371.2.2.2. Comments.................................................................................................43

1.2.3. Assessment of situations by respondents.........................................................441.2.3.1. Data results...............................................................................................441.2.3.2. Comments.................................................................................................48

1.2.4. Summary..........................................................................................................501.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS..........................................................................................51

CHAPTER TWO.............................................................................................................52

POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING...............................................................................52

2.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES................................................................................522.1.1. Notion of Politeness.........................................................................................532.1.2. Volitional Approach.........................................................................................55

2.1.2.1. Grice’s principle.......................................................................................552.1.2.2. Lakoff’s rules and Leech’s maxims..........................................................562.1.2.3. Brown & Levinson’s model......................................................................58

2.1.3. Normative Approach........................................................................................602.1.3.1. Chinese research.......................................................................................602.1.3.2. Japanese research......................................................................................622.1.3.3. Other non-Anglophone research...............................................................63

2.1.4. Normative-Volitional Approach......................................................................642.1.4.1. Literature by Vietnamese researchers.......................................................642.1.4.2. Literature by other researchers.................................................................68

2.1.5 Summary...........................................................................................................692.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY..................................................................................................70

2.2.1. Aims and Methodology....................................................................................702.2.1.1. Aims..........................................................................................................702.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents.................................................70

2.2.2. Politeness Level Rated by Respondents...........................................................712.2.2.1. Data results...............................................................................................71

vii

2.2.2.2. Comments.................................................................................................802.2.3. Summary..........................................................................................................81

2.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS..........................................................................................81

CHAPTER THREE.........................................................................................................83

STRATEGIES OF POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING..............................................83

3.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES................................................................................833.1.1. Brown & Levinson’s Model of Strategies........................................................833.1.2. Manipulation of Strategies..............................................................................84

3.1.2.1. Bald-on-record strategies..........................................................................843.1.2.2. On-record strategies..................................................................................863.1.2.3. Off-record strategies.................................................................................893.1.2.4. No FTA.....................................................................................................94

3.1.3. Indirectness in Disagreeing.............................................................................953.1.3.1. Notion of indirectness...............................................................................953.1.3.2. Factors governing indirectness.................................................................973.1.3.3. Indirectness and politeness.......................................................................98

3.1.4. Summary........................................................................................................1023.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY................................................................................................103

3.2.1. Aims and Methodology..................................................................................1033.2.1.1. Aims........................................................................................................1033.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents...............................................103

3.2.2. Choice of Strategies by Respondents.............................................................1043.2.2.1. Data results.............................................................................................1043.2.2.2. Comments...............................................................................................115

3.2.3. Summary........................................................................................................1153.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS........................................................................................116

CHAPTER FOUR.........................................................................................................118

STRATEGIES CONCERNING PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION......................118

4.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES..............................................................................1184.1.1. Preferred Second Turns.................................................................................118

4.1.1.1. Markedness.............................................................................................1184.1.1.2. Structural organization............................................................................1194.1.1.3. Dispreferred second turns in disagreeing...............................................121

4.1.2. Preferred Sequences......................................................................................1254.1.2.1. Repair apparatus.....................................................................................1254.1.2.2. Repair apparatus in disagreeing..............................................................130



4.2.2. Strategies for Disagreements as Dispreferred Seconds................................1374.2.2.1. English corpus........................................................................................1374.2.2.2. Vietnamese corpus..................................................................................141

viii

4.2.2.3. Comments...............................................................................................1484.2.3. Strategies for Disagreements as Preferred Seconds.....................................149

4.2.3.1. English corpus........................................................................................1494.2.3.2. Vietnamese corpus..................................................................................1514.2.3.3. Comments...............................................................................................157


CHAPTER FIVE...........................................................................................................160

STRATEGIES FOR CONSTRAINT SYSTEMS AND NEGOTIATION OF DISAGREEMENTS......................................................................................................160

5.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES..............................................................................1605.1.1. Constraint Systems.........................................................................................1605.1.2. Negotiation of Disagreements.......................................................................161

5.1.2.1. Insertion sequences.................................................................................1625.1.2.2. Summons-answer sequences..................................................................1625.1.2.3. Pre-sequences.........................................................................................1635.1.2.4. Sequences in disagreeing........................................................................166

5.1.3. Some Frequently Used Devices in Disagreements........................................1685.1.3.1. Intensifiers..............................................................................................1685.1.3.2. Person referring terms.............................................................................170



5.2.2. Strategies for Constraint Systems..................................................................1765.2.2.1. English corpus........................................................................................1765.2.2.2. Vietnamese corpus..................................................................................178

5.2.3. Strategies for Negotiation of Disagreements.................................................1815.2.3.1. English corpus........................................................................................1815.2.3.2. Vietnamese corpus..................................................................................184


CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................193

1. MAJOR FINDINGS..................................................................................................193

1.1. POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN DISAGREEING........................................................1931.2. NORMATIVE-VOLITIONAL POLITENESS AND INDIRECTNESS.............................1941.3. STRATEGIES CONCERNING PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION.................................1951.4. STRATEGIES FOR NEGOTIATION OF DISAGREEMENTS AND CONSTRAINT SYSTEMS......................................................................................................................196

2. IMPLICATIONS.......................................................................................................197

2.1. EFL & VFL IMPLICATIONS................................................................................1972.2. PRAGMATICS AND CA PERSPECTIVE IN SPEECH ACT STUDY............................198

ix

3. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH...................................................200

APPENDIXES....................................................................................................................I

APPENDIX 1...................................................................................................................ITRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS........................................................................................IAPPENDIX 2.................................................................................................................IIISURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES..............................................................................................III

BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................XIII

ENGLISH.....................................................................................................................XIIIVIETNAMESE........................................................................................................xxviii

x

LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS

Table 1-1: The five general functions of speech acts (Yule 1996: 55)..............................16Table 1-2: Gender correlation between English and Vietnamese respondents.................33Table 1-3: Age group correlation between English and Vietnamese respondents............33Table 1-4: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Age of co-conversants..........................37Table 1-5: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Manner of communication...................38Table 1-6: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Setting..................................................39Table 1-7: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Gender of co-conversants....................40Table 1-8: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Social status.........................................41Table 1-9: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Length of time you know your co-

conversants................................................................................................................42Table 1-10: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A1. Praise on Nice-looking Spouse. .44Table 1-11: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A2. Self-praise on New Hairstyle.....45Table 1-12: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A3. Disparagement of New Italian

Shoes..........................................................................................................................45Table 1-13: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A4. Miss X Is Getting Too Fat..........45Table 1-14: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. B2. Bigger Pensions..........................46Table 1-15: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. C1. Mr. Y's Promotion......................46Table 1-16: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. C4. Voting for Mr. X.........................47Table 1-17: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. D1. Car Expert..................................47Table 1-18: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. D2. Favorite Team's Failure..............48Table 1-19: General Assessment of All Situations by Respondents.................................49Table 2-1: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.1. 'She's all right, I suppose.'.....................71Table 2-2: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.3. 'Fashions change, you know.'...............72Table 2-3: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.4. ‘We’re very much in agreement, but ….'

...................................................................................................................................73Table 2-4: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.5. 'Not me, I totally disagree. '.................74Table 2-5: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.6. 'That's pretty good.'...............................74Table 2-6: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.7. 'That may be so, but....'.........................76Table 2-7: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.8. ‘Really?’...............................................77Table 2-8: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.9. 'No, grandpa, no, no, you're wrong.'.....77Table 2-9: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.10. 'Boring people get bored.'...................78Table 2-10: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4. 11. 'Do you really think so?'..................78Table 2-11: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.12. 'Sorry, but I think it was interesting.' 79Table 3-1: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Miss X is fat)

.................................................................................................................................104Table 3-2: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Tax increase)

.................................................................................................................................105Table 3-3: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Boring party)

.................................................................................................................................106Table 3-4: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Miss

X is fat)....................................................................................................................107Table 3-5: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Tax

increase)...................................................................................................................107

xi

Table 3-6: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring party)..........................................................................................................108

Table 3-7: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Miss X).......................................................................................................109

Table 3-8: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Tax).............................................................................................................109

Table 3-9: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Party)..........................................................................................................109

Table 3-10: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X is fat)........................................................................................................................111

Table 3-11: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax increase)...................................................................................................................111

Table 3-12: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring party)........................................................................................................................112

Table 3-13: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat).................................................................................................................................112

Table 3-14: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase).................................................................................................................................113

Table 3-15: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Boring Party).................................................................................................................................114

Table 4-1: Correlations of content and format in adjacency pair second........................121Table 4-2: The preference ranking of the repair apparatus (Based on Levinson 1983: 341)

.................................................................................................................................127Table 5-1: Interrelatedness between acceptances/agreements and rejections/disagreements

.................................................................................................................................160

Chart 2-1: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.1. 'She's all right, I suppose.'.....................71Chart 2-2: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.3. 'Fashions change, you know.'................72Chart 2-3: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.4. 'We're very much in agreement, but ....'73Chart 2-4: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.5. 'Not me, I totally disagree.'...................74Chart 2-5: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.6. 'That's pretty good.'...............................75Chart 2-6: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.7. 'That may be so, but....'.........................75Chart 2-7: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.8. 'Really?'.................................................76Chart 2-8: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.9. 'No, grandpa, no, no, you're wrong.'.....77Chart 2-9: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.10. 'Boring people get bored.’...................78Chart 2-10: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.11. 'Do you really think so?'...................79Chart 2-11: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.12. 'Sorry, but I think it was interesting.' 80Chart 3-1: Possible strategies for doing FTAs...................................................................83Chart 3-2: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Miss X is fat)

.................................................................................................................................104Chart 3-3: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Tax increase)

.................................................................................................................................105Chart 3-4: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Boring party)

.................................................................................................................................106

xii

Chart 3-5: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Miss X is fat)....................................................................................................................106

Chart 3-6: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Tax increase)...................................................................................................................107

Chart 3-7: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring party)..........................................................................................................108

Chart 3-8: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Miss X).......................................................................................................108

Chart 3-9: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Tax).............................................................................................................109

Chart 3-10: Choice of Politeness to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Party).................................................................................................................................110

Chart 3-11: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X is fat)........................................................................................................................110

Chart 3-12: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax increase)...................................................................................................................111

Chart 3-13: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring party)........................................................................................................................112

Chart 3-14: Choice of Disagreeing Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat).................................................................................................................................113

Chart 3-15: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase).................................................................................................................................114

Chart 3-16: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Boring Party).................................................................................................................................114

xiii

ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS

# Number

& and

CA Conversation analysis

CCSARP Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project

CP Cooperative Principle

D Relative distance

DCT Discourse Completion Task

EFL English as a foreign language

FSA Face saving act

FTA Face threatening act

H Hearer

P Relative power

R Rating/Raking of imposition

S Speaker

SA Speech act

S/F Second or foreign

SA Speech act

SDCT Semi- Discourse Completion Task

Sig. Significance (a term used in SPSS)

SPSS Statistic Package for Social Sciences

VFL Vietnamese as foreign language

xiv

INTRODUCTION

1. Rationale

1.1. Necessity of the study

1.1.1. Problem statement

Humans are endowed with language, a very special gift, with the help of which they

communicate their ideas, feelings and transmit information. However, successful

communication requires not only pure linguistic competence but also knowledge of

social norms, social values and relations between individuals known as communicative

competence. Communicative competence presupposes ability to use the language

correctly and appropriately. This pragmatic competence seems as crucial as linguistic

competence. The lack of it may lead to impoliteness, misinterpretation, culture shocks

or even communication breakdown.

In the past few decades, the rapid development of technology and communication

systems has greatly shortened the distance between countries and offered more chance

for inter-cultural interactions besides intra-cultural interactions. It is English that has

become the most international and the most widely used language. Colleges and

schools in Vietnam have witnessed a sharp increase in the number of people teaching

and learning English. The evolving situation of Vietnamese economics and politics

demands a change in how to teach and learn foreign languages in general, and English

in particular. There is an urgent need to improve students’ communicative competence

besides grammatical knowledge. Recently, verbal communicative competence has been

taken into consideration in any English teaching program.

The emphasis on speaking, one of the early forms of man’s communication, has

resulted in an awareness of developing a sense of socio-cultural factors in learners to

help them become successful in interaction. Thus, this study is conducted with the hope

1

of contributing to the socio-cultural aspects of spoken English-Vietnamese

communication for the avoidance, or at least, the reduction of pragmatic failures.

The speech act of disagreeing has been chosen for investigation in this study as it is of

great interest to the researcher and of great help to language teachers and learners. In

everyday life, native speakers talk to each other, exchanging ideas, evaluations or

assessments of things, events and other people. Their interlocutors may agree or

disagree with them. The way second speakers express their disagreement with prior

speakers is both language-specific and culture-specific. The differences in the ways in

which native speakers of English and Vietnamese realize disagreements seem to make

it problematic for cultural outsiders to say the right thing at the right time. Therefore, a

comparison of the ways used to realize disagreeing by native speakers of English and

Vietnamese is considered essential and valuable in the teaching and learning of English

by Vietnamese learners and Vietnamese by native speakers of English.

1.1.2. Society, culture and language

Social acts or ‘speech acts’ (Austin, 1962) are thought to be performed via strategies

which are mainly the same in all cultures (Fraser, 1985). However, this universalistic

view is doubted and rejected by some researchers who contend that different cultures

conceptualize speech acts differently according to differences in cultural norms and

values as well as social constraints (Wierzbicka, 1990).

It has been said that language of a community is part or a manifestation of its culture,

which is viewed as the system of ideas and beliefs shared by members of a community

(Bentahila & Davies, 1989). Society, culture and language are closely related and

interact between themselves. Their relationship and interaction have been researched

into and focused on in prior papers. Sapir (1963: 166) states that language is ‘a cultural

or social product’. Consequently, the interpretation of the social meaning of a certain

2

linguistic expression should be done with reference to the bigger socio-cultural

background of the speaker. Due consideration of the socio-cultural values and

perceptions of the society and culture involved should be made to adequately

understand the way to realize speech acts in general, and disagreeing in particular, for

disagreeing is normal assumed an act that may cause negative reactions or feelings in

interpersonal communication.

To eliminate and/or to limit pragmatic transferences and inferences, language learners

should be provided with necessary knowledge of socio-cultural constraints and factors

governing the choice of strategies used to perform disagreements. These problems call

for a careful investigation of disagreeing and its related issues like politeness,

constraint systems, preference organization and negotiation of disagreements on the

basis of the analytic frameworks of pragmatics and conversation analysis.

1.2. Merits of the study

1.2.1. Academic merits

- To thoroughly study different dimensions of a specific speech act in light of

pragmatics and conversation analysis (henceforth CA). The meticulous methods of

CA carried out in excerpts of natural speech provide deep insight into the structural

organization of disagreement tokens in English and Vietnamese.

- To suggest a new way to investigate the similarities and differences of a speech act

across languages and cultures, using the combination of pragmatics and CA.

- To use SPSS (Statistic Package for Social Sciences) in data processing.

- To emphasize the importance of utilizing naturally occurring conversation in

research papers involving oral speech.

- To highlight the role of the socio-cultural factors and socio-cultural milieu with its

norms, values and beliefs in performing and interpreting verbal behaviors.

3

1.2.2. Practical merits

- To point out the similarities and differences in American/Canadian and Vietnamese

communication in the perception and realization of the speech act of disagreeing.

- To contribute to the study of communication between native speakers of Vietnamese

and American/Canadian English in light of cross-cultural pragmatics and CA.

2. Historical background

Conversing with each other, people frequently proffer evaluative assessments of things,

events or people they know. These assessments may include opinions, praises,

compliments, complaints, boasts or self-deprecations. Given that their interlocutors are

co-operative, they may support or reject prior assessments by either agreeing or

disagreeing.

Since the 1970s of the twentieth century, Pomerantz has paid attention to the way

second assessments are made. Her 1975 Ph.D. dissertation can be considered her first

step. In this paper, she carefully examines the major features of disagreeing and

agreeing. Later on, she takes into consideration the construction of

disagreement/agreement (Pomerantz, 1984a). The main features in preference

organization like preferred and dispreferred turns used by second speakers to perform

disagreeing/agreeing are looked at with great care.

Pomerantz is also interested in the relationship between responses to prior

complimentary tokens and the system of constraints, in which disagreements are

structurally dispreferred but agreements may implicitly mean self-praise. In her work

on “Compliment Responses” (1978), Pomerantz finds out that native English speakers

tend to make compliment responses located somewhere between agreeing and

disagreeing. The ‘in between-ness’ of compliment responses, according to Pomerantz

(Ibid.), can be the result of conflicting effects brought by the correlation between

4

preference organization and self-compliment avoidance. Other searches by Pomerantz

(1984), Levinson (1983) and Heritage (2002) come to the same conclusion.

Nguyen Q. 1998 Ph. D. dissertation is probably the most significant research into

compliments that has ever been done in Vietnam. Compliments and such related issues

as politeness and its strategies, lexico-modal markers and the addressing system are

thoroughly discussed and empirically examined to bring out their cross-cultural

similarities and differences. He has also brought out the safe/unsafe topics for giving

compliments and underlined the most frequently used strategies in responses to prior

complimentary attributes. It appears that while native speakers of English tend to utilize

direct strategies, their Vietnamese counterparts seem to exploit indirect strategies.

Disagreeing has long been an appealing pursuit of the present writer. It has been

described, and investigated in the framework of the theories of speech acts and

politeness in her M. A. thesis (Kieu T. T. H. 2001). The data obtained from written

questionnaires provide sufficient evidence for the hypotheses concerning perception

and performance of evaluative disagreements by speakers of American English and

Vietnamese. However, after a twelve-month study in the Department of Anthropology,

University of Toronto, Canada as a full-time graduate student, where she took a course

of CA, she herself has realized that it would be better to use the analytic framework of

CA together with that of pragmatics to thoroughly investigate the perception and

realization of disagreeing tokens, their structural organization, and bring out typical

linguistic devices commonly utilized by native speakers of English and Vietnamese in

their disagreements. The writer has been strongly impressed by the capacity of CA with

its rigorous principle of using mundane casual speech in natural settings. It is hoped

that the synthetic approach, in which CA and pragmatics are combined, will provide a

multi-dimensional study of the issues under investigation.

5

3. Research question and hypotheses of the study

3.1. Research question

The present study focuses on the description of the perception and realization of the

speech act of disagreeing in English and Vietnamese within the theoretical frameworks

of the theories of speech acts (henceforward SA) and politeness and CA.

3.2. Grounds for research hypotheses

To find out the answer to this research question, a number of hypotheses are proposed

on the basis of the assumptions and suggestions made by some prestigious

pragmaticians and conversation analysts. Brown & Levinson (1987[1978]) and Leech

(1986) propose that despite having the same strategies, cultures may differ in terms of

priorities and values given to each strategy. Blum-Kulka & House (1989: 137) believe:

…members of different cultures might differ in their perceptions of social situations as

well as in the relative importance attributed to any of the social parameters….

Differences on both dimensions, in turn, might be linked to differences in behavior.

Both Levinson (1983) and Pomerantz (1978, 1984) agree that disagreements as

dispreferred seconds tend to be delayed while disagreements as preferred seconds to

self-denigrations are immediate and outright. Pomerantz (1978) investigates how

Americans reply to compliments and notices that many English compliment responses

are placed somewhere between agreements and disagreements because of the constraint

systems concerning preference organization and self-compliment avoidance. Agreeing

with the prior compliments may implicitly mean praising self, but disagreeing may lead

to the use of dispreferred format. Having compared the way native speakers of Japanese

and English negotiate their disagreements, Mori (1999: 138) comes to a conclusion:

‘An opinion-negotiation sequence develops … until the participants find a middle

ground, acknowledge co-existing multiple perspectives, or change the topic to terminate

the discussion.

3.2. Research hypotheses

6

This study aims at testing the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Native speakers of Vietnamese and English tend to differ in their use

of strategies to perform disagreements as a result of the differences in

their assessment of socio-cultural factors and social situations.

Hypothesis 2: Politeness with its two constitutive elements volition and discernment

in relation to disagreeing is differently perceived and interpreted

across the English and Vietnamese languages and cultures, and there

seems to be no absolute correlation between politeness and

indirectness.

Hypothesis 3: In regards to preference organization English and Vietnamese native

speakers are inclined to deploy the same set of strategies in order to

hedge or delay disagreements as dispreferred seconds and provide

immediate and outright disagreements as preferred seconds to self-

deprecations.

Hypothesis 4: English and Vietnamese speakers seem to exploit similar strategies for

the negotiations of disagreements and mid-positions in responses to

compliments although the former may show a greater tendency to

accept prior compliments while the latter appear to often negate them.

Hypothesis 5: Native speakers of English and Vietnamese seem to employ

intensifiers to highlight or lower the effect of disagreeing tokens, but

native Vietnamese speakers demonstrate a frequent usage of person

referring terms and particles.

4. Scope of the study

There are a range of reasons for second speakers to disagree with first speakers’

assessment of people, things or events. The performance of disagreeing varies from

7

individual to individual within a culture or a subculture and from culture to culture. It

depends much on the speaker’s communicative intention, leading to his/her choice of

strategies to verbally express disagreement tokens.

However, the realization of disagreeing in particular and of other acts in general is

strongly affected and governed by indigenous socio-cultural norms, values and beliefs.

Naturally, the present study comes to treat disagreeing in relation to the wider socio-

cultural context of native speakers to provide an adequate description and perception of

the act. Such issues as politeness, its perception and interpretation are of great concern.

Most disagreements are structurally complicated and delivered with delay elements,

thus they are often dispreferred. On the contrary, disagreements with self-denigrations

are preferred due to their simple structure, and consequently prone to overtly be voiced.

Also, the doing of disagreeing is found to be influenced by the constraint systems in

which preference organization interacts with self-compliment avoidance, resulting in

the spreading of compliment responses all over the continuum ranging from

acceptances/agreements to rejections/disagreements (Pomerantz 1975, 1978, 1984a;

Levinson 1983; Heritage 2002). Therefore, the present study pays attention to the

realization of disagreements as regards preference organization and constraint systems.

Although disagreeing is present in English and Vietnamese, each language deploys

certain linguistic devices to realize it in conformity to locally accepted norms of

behavior. While intensifiers are empirically used by native speakers of English and

Vietnamese, person referring terms and particles seem to be pervasive in Vietnamese

disagreements. English speakers are inclined to exploit prefaces, delay tokens,

backchannels etc. to soften disagreements. The present study takes into consideration

the above mentioned items to highlight the most frequently used devices.

8

The database of this study consists of elicited written questionnaires and audio-tapings

of natural conversations. However, the investigation is mainly done on the basis of

vocalized disagreement tokens, and prosodic features and paralinguistic factors are

rarely referred to in spite of their importance.

This thesis is motivated and conducted within the frameworks of the theories of SA and

politeness (Austin 1962; Grice 1975; Hymes 1964; Searle 1969, 1975, 1979; Lakoff

1973, 1977, 1989; Levinson 1983; Brown & Levinson 1987 [1978]; Leech 1983; Mey

1993, 2001; Thomas 1995; Yule [1996] 1997 etc.) and conversation analysis (Sacks

1963, 1972a-b, 1984; Schegloff 1972, 1979a-b; Jefferson 1974, 1978, 1979; Pomerantz

1978, 1984a-b; Levinson 1983; Psathas 1995; Cameron 2002 etc.). In addition, the

empirical study in some chapters is carried out with the help of SPSS 11.5.

5. Methodology

5.1. Methods

Quantitative and qualitative methods are both used in this paper with priorities given to

the quantitative. In other words, all the conclusions and considerations are based on the

analysis of the empirical studies and statistics processed on SPSS 11.5, a software

program commonly used in social sciences. In addition, such methods as descriptive,

analytic, comparative and contrastive are also utilized to describe and analyze, to

compare and contrast the database so as to bring out similarities and differences in

expressing disagreements by English and Vietnamese speakers.

To collect data for the empirical study, the following methods are deployed:

- Written survey questionnaires

- Tape recording of naturally occurring talks

- Interviews with native speakers of English and Vietnamese

- Reference to publication

9

- Field notes and personal observations

5.2. Pragmatics and conversation analysis

5.2.1. Choice of conversation analysis

Conversation analytic approach has become most influential for its contributions to

provide deep insights that can unravel many linguistic problems (Levinson 1983: 364).

Its strictly data-centered principle may be the object of arguments among the

researchers, but no one can deny the magnitude of what it offers language study. The

helpful ‘microscope’ (Cameron 2002: 89) of conversation analytic research reveals the

intricate patterns in the structural organization of mundane verbal exchanges. What

ordinary people use every day to express themselves and exchange information turns

out to be structurally complex and remarkable. The contingent nature and the

continuously shaped and reshaped development of talk by participants draw much

analytic attention.

The analytic studies of conversation seem to be quite relevant to the study of speech

acts and other issues in pragmatics. The orderly properties of speech acts are normally

unfolded in the process of meticulous analysis and conscientious observation offered by

conversation analysis. Also, the intensive studies of the sequential structure of

utterances can make significant contribution to the interpretation of utterance meaning.

Thus, Levinson (1983: 284) proposes the use of CA to the study of pragmatics:

It is not hard to see why one should look to conversation for insight into pragmatic

phenomena, for conversation is clearly the prototypical kind of language usage, the form

in which we are all first exposed to language - the matrix for language acquisition.

5.2.2. Combination of pragmatics and conversation analysis

Conversation analysis, in its strict sense, takes very little notice of such socio-cultural

parameters as age, gender, social status of co-conversants, or the relationship between

them, which have influence on interactions (Brown & Levinson [1978]1987), Blum-

10

Kulka et al. 1989, Yule 1996, Cameron 2002 among others). Its primary concern is the

discovery, description, and analysis of how conversation is produced and understood.

One of the weaknesses of a strictly CA-oriented approach is that those societal aspects of

conversation have no place to go in a framework that primarily studies co-text, and which

allows for the context to appear only as a function of the conversational interaction.

Cited from Mey (2001: 135)

Meanwhile, the theories of SA and politeness take into consideration the socio-cultural

parameters mentioned above, although they do not seem to pay enough attention to

mundane interactions in natural settings. Thus, the synthetic approach which combines

CA and theories of SA and politeness applied to the study of disagreeing helps to make

use of the advantages and limit the disadvantages of each perspective. In addition, the

use of more than one approach increases objectivity and reduces the risk of being

simple in examining cultures as in Maynard’s 1997 warning:

Defining cultures in simple terms is a trap one must avoid. Careless descriptions of

societies can and often do result in negative stereotyping. Overemphasizing differences

may breed ethnocentrism; ignoring them may lead to cultural colonialism.

Cited in Mori (1999: 15)

5.2.3. Combination of pragmatics and CA in other studies

CA with its strength of using data from naturally occurring talk has long been deployed

in combination with other theoretical perspectives. To investigate the realization of

thanking by Americans and learners of English, Eisenstein and Bodman (1993) use a

range of data types including written questionnaires and naturalistical exchanges, under

the impact of which differences between native and nonnative expressions of thanking

are set off. With the help of CA and pragmatics, Aston (1993) persuasively displays

how native and nonnative speakers negotiate comity, set up and maintain friendly

relationships in everyday mundane conversations. Impressed by the strength of

interactional sociolinguistics, Kasper & Blum-Kulka (1993: 13) advise combining

methods from this perspective with those from contrastive and interlanguage

11

pragmatics to identify cross-cultural and cross-linguistic pragmatics differences and

similarities as well as pragmatic failures.

Mundane everyday talk has been the database for research into the system of person

reference in Vietnamese by Luong V. H. (1990), politeness in modern Vietnamese by

Vu T. T. H. (1997) and language socialization by Nguyen T. T. B. (2001). In her study

of politeness and face in Chinese culture, Lee-Wong (2000) uses both written and

spoken data to identify the native strategies and conceptualization of politeness. Brown

(2002) and Snow & Blum-Kulka (2002) are successful in deploying naturalistic corpora

while examining the effect of context and culture on a child’s pragmatic development.

All in all, there are a number of linguistic investigations in which methods of CA are

used in combination with those of pragmatics. The present paper is just different from

the aforementioned works in the degree and size to which each approach is applied so

as to sufficiently meet the requirements of the research question.

6. Creativity

6.1. Synthetic approach – pragmatics and conversation analysis

This is the first study of a speech act conducted on the basis of pragmatics and CA in

English and Vietnamese. The combination of pragmatics and CA takes advantage of

the strengths and reduces the limitations of each approach.

6.2. Data from questionnaires and naturally occurring conversation

For the first time, a comparative study of disagreeing has been conducted on the data

collected from both written questionnaires and natural speech in English and

Vietnamese. Elicited data and recorded excerpts of mundane everyday talks have been

investigated and analyzed within the frameworks of pragmatic theories and CA.

6.3. Similarities and differences in disagreeing

Disagreeing has been examined, described, analyzed, compared and contrasted in

English and Vietnamese. And, for the first time, the similarities and differences

12

concerning its perception, performance, preference structure, and constraint systems

have been shown.

7. Organization of the study

This dissertation consists of three main parts:

Part one is the introduction to the study.

Part two contains five chapters, each of which begins with the theoretical

preliminaries, continues with the empirical study and ends with the concluding

remarks. Chapter 1 concerns the descriptive account of disagreeing from the viewpoint

of SA theories & CA and examines the evaluation of some social parameters and

situations. Chapter 2 reckons with notions of politeness across cultures and languages

and the synthetic approach to study politeness in its unity of volition and discernment.

Chapter 3 deals with strategies utilized to express polite disagreements and the

correlation between politeness and indirectness. Chapter 4 thoroughly analyzes

strategies deployed by native speakers of English and Vietnamese in terms of

preference organization pertaining to disagreements as dispreferred seconds and

preferred seconds. Chapter 5 investigates strategies in relation to the constraint systems

and negotiation of disagreements. It also studies such devices as intensifiers and person

referring terms. Part three, the conclusion, views major findings, puts forward

pedagogy implications, the deployment of pragmatics and CA perspective in SA study,

and suggestions for further study.

13

CHAPTER ONE

DISAGREEING – A COMMUNICATIVE

ILLOCUTIONARY AND SOCIAL ACT

1.1. Theoretical Preliminaries

1.1.1. Speech Act Theory

1.1.1.1. Speech acts and speech events

Since its initiation by Austin a few decades ago, the notion of speech acts has become

one of the most compelling notions in the study of language use. Speech acts have been

central to the works by many other philosophers and linguists like Grice (1957, 1975),

Hymes (1964), Searle (1969, 1975, 1979), Levinson (1983), Brown & Yule (1983),

Mey (1993, 2001), Thomas (1995) and Yule ([1996] 1997). Their common assumption

is that when conversing people use grammatical and lexical units not only to produce

utterances, but also to perform actions. In saying something the speaker (S) does

something (Austin 1962). The utterance given below is more than a statement; it is a

pleasant and ear-pleasing compliment:

(1) You look so nice. (Pomerantz 1978: 84)

Generally, the actions that are produced via utterances to communicate are called

speech acts (Yule 1996: 47). These SAs, considered ‘the basic or minimal units of

linguistic communication.' (Searle 1969: 16), are performed in authentic situations of

language use. In English, SAs are specifically labeled as compliment, apology, request,

disagreeing or promise. These terms for SAs are used to name the S's communicative

intentions and the hearer (H) is expected to correctly interpret the S's intentions via the

process of inferences. The circumstances surrounding the utterances are of great help to

both the S and the H in successful communication. These circumstances are known as

14

the speech events. A speech event can be considered as an activity in which

conversational participants interact via language in a conventional way to achieve some

outcome (Yule, 1996: 57). SAs and speech events are said to be hierarchical

components of speech situations (Hymes 1972), and for an utterance to have been made

and to be successful as an act of communication, it is necessary that the process of

intention-and-inference be done on the basis of due consideration of the speech event.

1.1.1.2. Three-dimension speech acts

The classic distinction between the different aspects (or 'forces') of a SA is due to

Austin (in his How to Do Things with Words 1962). There are three related acts in the

action of performing an utterance. Let us consider the following example:

(2) G: That’s fantastic.

B: Isn’t that good?

(Pomerantz 1978: 94)

In uttering (2) the S performs a number of SAs (Austin 1962, Searle 1969): a phonetic

act, a linguistic act, a referring act etc. all of which together constitute a locutionary

act, an act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression. On the other hand, the act

of performing an utterance like (2) with a purpose is considered an illocutionary act. It

is clear that each utterance in (2) contains a 'force'. This force of the SA is known as its

illocutionary force. The force of the SA is what it 'counts as' (Yule 1996: 49). In the

above fragment, G’s token can count as an evaluative assessment or a compliment,

while B’s response is a scaled-down/weak disagreement with the prior evaluation.

In addition, the S normally intends to have an effect when producing an utterance with

a function. This third dimension of the SA is called perlocutionary act. Further effects

obtained by the S are termed perlocutionary effects of an utterance. These ultimate

effects, according to Mey (1993: 112), are dependent on the context of the utterance

15

and unpredictable. The H may correctly understand the S's intention and does what

his/her interlocutor wants, or he/she may deliberately ignore the S's want or desire. Of

the three acts the illocutionary act appears to be the most crucial and discussed. The

term 'speech act' is used to mean the same illocutionary act (Thomas 1995: 51), and

illocutionary act is 'the basic unit of human linguistic communication' (Searle 1976: 1).

In conclusion, an action created via an utterance is made of three acts or dimensions:

locution, illocution, and perlocution. The speech act theory, in fact, has focused on

illocutionary acts to such an extent that the term speech act has predominantly come to

mean illocutionary act, or communicative illocutionary act (Bach & Harnish 1979).

1.1.1.3. Classification of speech acts

Not being completely happy with Austin's original classification of illocutionary acts

into five basic categories of verdictive, expositive, exercitive, behavitive and

commissive, Searle (1976: 10-16) develops an alternative taxonomy of the fundamental

classes of illocutionary acts. The taxonomy consists of five categories or five types of

general functions performed by speech acts: (1) Declarations: e. g. declaring,

christening, (2) Representatives: e. g. asserting, disagreeing (my emphasis), (3)

Expressives: e.g. thanking, apologizing, (4) Directives: e.g. ordering, requesting, and

(5) Commissives: e. g. promising, offering. Following Searle, Yule (1996: 55)

summarizes the five general functions of speech acts with their key features in a table:

Speech act type Direction of fit S = speaker X = situation

DeclarationsRepresentativesExpressivesDirectivesCommissives

words change the worldmake words fit the worldmake words fit the worldmake the world fit wordsmake the world fit words

S causes XS believes XS feels XS wants XS intends X

Table 1-1: The five general functions of speech acts (Yule 1996: 55)

16

Searle (1976), Hatch (1992), Mey (1993) and Yule (1996) point out that representative

SAs carry the true or false values, i.e. they can be judged for truth or falsity. In using

them the S makes words fit the world of belief, as Hatch (1992: 127) suggests:

Representatives may vary in terms of how hedged or aggravated the assertion might be.

'Darwin was partly correct' is, obviously, not as strong as 'Darwin was right' or 'Darwin

was wrong.'

It is the lexical hedges like a little, a little bit, maybe, kind of/kinda, just,

approximately, very, almost, extremely, seem, appear, etc. that help strengthen or

weaken, qualify or soften the assertions, claims or statements. Hatch (1992: 127)

believes:

Hedges ... also serve as a ritual function. They may act like disfluencies in smoothing

over a disagreement with a conversational partner. (My emphasis)

We can see this very clearly in his example (Ibid.) given below:

(3) Maybe she just feels kinda blue.

An act of disagreeing seems to be an almost exact opposite of an act of agreeing. The

person who disagrees responds to somebody else's expressed opinion or assessment.

Most of the time, an overtly expressed opinion or assessment can be considered as an

implicit expectation/invitation to get the same opinion or assessment from the

conversational partners. The person who performs an act of disagreeing does not take

care of the earlier S's expectation, saying that his/her opinion is different or opposite.

He/she may also say that he/she thinks the first S is wrong or that his/her opinion or

assessment is neither good nor right.

In everyday interactions, the same utterance, the same linguistic act can express

different illocutionary forces. Let us consider the following example by Pomerantz

(1978: 97):

(4) F: That’s beautiful.

17

K: Is’n it pretty?

Judging from the structure, K’s reply is an interrogative, but is interpreted as a

disagreement token that is usually expressed in declarative form. In English there is a

recognizable relationship between the three structural forms (declarative, interrogative

and imperative) and the three communication functions (statement, question and

command/request). Actually, in K’s performing an act of disagreeing the relationship

between the structure and the function is indirect. A declarative is normally utilized to

make a disagreeing statement, but here, an interrogative is deployed to produce a weak

disagreement. In this case we have an indirect speech act. Whenever there is a direct

relationship between a structure and a function, we have a direct speech act. In B’s

disagreement in the example given below (Pomerantz 1978: 99), the structure and

function converge as a typical expression of a disagreement:

(5) A: Good shot.

B: Not very solid though.

In indirect SAs the S means more than or other than what is said. Indirect SAs are said

to be more polite in SAs like requesting, commanding, refusing, disagreeing etc.

(Brown & Levinson [1978]1987, Leech 1983 and Yule 1996 among others). The

relationship between structures and functions serves as another approach to dealing

with typology of SAs.

1.1.1.4. Disagreeing – a communicative illocutionary act

According to Wierzbicka (1987: 128) disagreeing can be defined as a dual act, an act

of saying 'what one thinks' and indicating 'that one doesn't think the same as the earlier

speaker'. In the case of disagreeing, the act of showing that the second S does not think

the same or he/she has a different view or opinion seems to be much more important

than the prior. This can be seen in the utterance by Pomerantz (1978: 87) given below:

18

(6) H: Gee, Hon, you look nice in that dress.

→ W: Do you really think so? It’s just a rag my sister gave me.

It is observable that the act of disagreeing, like any other SA, possesses both

illocutionary force and propositional content. These two properties of SAs are realized

syntactically, and the correct understanding of the intended illocutionary force is

inevitably dependent upon the context. In terms of syntax, there is no necessary

correlation between structural forms and illocutionary forces. Practically,

disagreements can be performed in declarative, interrogative and imperative forms

respectively as in:

(7) Not very solid though. (Pomerantz 1978: 99)

(8) Do you really think so? It’s just a rag my sister gave me. (Ibid. 87)

(9) No way! (Blundell et al. 1996: 192)

It is normally easier to agree with the prior S than to disagree with him/her. Wierzbicka

(1987: 128) assumes, 'Disagreeing is a fairly forceful and self-confident act, more than

agreeing'. Let us consider the utterances below:

(10) J: T’s- tsuh beautiful day out isn’t it?

→ L: Yeh it’s just gorgeous … (Pomerantz 1978: 93)

(11) C: Well we’ll haftuh frame that.

→ R: Yee- Uhghh it’s not worth fra(hh)mi(h)ng, (Ibid. 98)

The recipient in (10) exhibits a strong display of agreeing with the proffered evaluation,

whereas the recipient in (11) seems to delay his/her disagreeing response by starting it

out with ‘Yee’. The use of agreement marker in (11) helps to frame the disagreement

token as a ‘weak disagreement’ or partial disagreement (Pomerantz 1978, 1984a; Mori

1999), and mitigate its disaffiliative force. As a matter of fact, Ss need more stamina

and more self-confidence to express their disagreement than to express their agreement.

19

Especially in the case of Anglo-American culture, Ss are expected to express their

disagreement implicitly or tacitly, rather than to perform it explicitly or frankly, as they

would in the case of agreement. It is advisable that one should hedge one's

disagreement or avoid outright disagreement to maintain relationships with others.

Fraser (1990: 229) proposes that disagreeing is among those SAs (such as complaining,

criticizing, etc.) named FTAs (face threatening acts), as they are inherently threatening

to the H’s desire to be appreciated and approved of (Brown & Levinson 1987). When

faced with FTAs, Ss may choose between various strategies to reduce or eliminate the

seriousness of the threat by either softening their communicative tokens or implicitly

expressing them. The choice of politeness strategies is said to be affected by three

variables relative power (P), social distance (D) and ranking of imposition (R) (Ibid.).

By and large, from the view of SA theories, disagreeing which belongs to

representatives that make the words fit the world of fallacy or truth, and which is an

FTA that needs to be hedged to weaken the potential threat, is a communicative

illocutionary act.

1.1.2. Conversation Analysis

1.1.2.1. Historical background

The study of social interaction, known as conversation analysis (CA) or study of talk-

in-interaction has long been a phenomenon of great interest for researchers of a wide

range of fields. It takes as one of its subjects the study of mundane social interaction in

naturally occurring settings on the basis of rigorous and systematic methods. The

assumption that social actions are meaningful, and are produced and interpreted as

such, leads to the desire to discover, describe and analyze their natural organization or

order, which constitutes and constructs this orderliness.

20

Drawing upon and growing out of developments in such domains as phenomenology,

ethnomethodology (the study of ‘ethnic’, i.e. participants’ own methods), and language

philosophy, CA keeps on extending its fields of study, and has become interdisciplinary

interests of social psychology, communication, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics,

pragmatics and so on.

The early theoretical and methodological developments of this approach date back to

1950s and 1960s of the 20th century with Bale’s Interaction Process Analysis (1950),

Barker and Wright’s Midwest and its Children (1955), Pittenger, Hockett, and

Danehy’s The First Five Minutes (1960), Soskin and John’s The Study of Spontaneous

Talk (1963), and Goffman’s Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior

(1967). Audiotape technologies utilized to record naturally occurring actions in real-

world settings were combined with direct observation and notes by researchers in the

field to provide extensive analysis of the rules and orders of talk. At the same time,

such features of spontaneous speech like pronunciation, intonation, pace, volumes, the

location and duration of pauses, and tone could be captured and contribute to the

analytic process.

New approaches to the study of language and communication with respect to culture

focusing on meanings-in-context, natural classification systems by members of a

culture, their perceptions and conventions also brought about changes in CA. With the

names of researchers like Gumperz and Hymes (1964), Goodenough (1957), Sturtevant

(1964), Garfinkel (1967), Sudnow (1972), especially Sacks (1963, 1972a-b), Schegloff

(1972, 1979a-b), and Jefferson (1974, 1978, 1979), CA has been shaped as a science of

examining order as a social product constituted and achieved in and through various

empirical occurrences of interaction between ordinary members of society.

21

The descriptive nature of the field reflects its interests in studying of interaction itself,

discovering and depicting its structures and allowing occasional conceptualizations and

general theories. CA, at the onset, with the works by Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson,

Pomerantz and others, tends to avoid preformulated theory construction. It examines

the details of the temporal organization and various contingencies of the unfolding

development of interaction. Recurring patterns found by essentially inductive methods

are the results of many records of naturally occurring interactional exchanges. Also,

intuitive judgments, which are assumed unreliable guides, are unlikely to resort to,

although it may be utilized in other fields of linguistics. The main strength of CA, as

Levinson (1983: 287) states, is in its ability to provide ‘by far the most substantial

insight that has yet been gained into the organization of conversation’.

As aforementioned in the introductory part, CA pays very little attention to the

contextual particulars commonly believed to have influence on interpersonal

interactions. Such personal characteristics of the participants as age, gender, social

status, their relationship, or the formality/ informality of the settings etc. are likely to be

neglected (Levinson 1983: 295; Psathas 1995: 36, 49-50). Their primary concern, as

mentioned, is the discovery, description, and analysis of how social conduct, including

interactional practice, is accomplished and perceived.

1.1.2.2. Co-text and context

The mundane human conduct, in the view of conversation analysts, is meaningful, as

well as intelligibly produced and understood on shared rules and methods. The

interpretation of meaning depends on the contemporary context of its production. This

immediate context, or co-text as it is often called in CA, is continually shaped by

individual contributions of the parties (Pomerantz 1997). In other words, the current

context is resulted from what the prior S does, and the current S’s action creates a new

22

context for the next action. Thus, co-text is constantly shaped and renewed by parties

within interactional activities (Heritage 1989). Co-text is significant in that it provides

Ss with a local resource upon which they draw to design their utterances, and

correspondently, it gives Hs sufficient clues necessary to interpret what is said.

However, the immediate local co-text in CA seems to be a restricted framework for

such a wealth of data obtained from naturally occurring interactions. To understand

people’s linguistic behaviors, it is necessary to look further, and go beyond the co-text

of the talk by extending the limited border of the conversational co-text, and taking into

account the whole societal environment, relevant and surrounded the language

production. It is believed that the very desire to look at the SA of disagreeing from the

pragmatics and CA perspective is found here. CA ‘purist’ stance (Cameron 2002: 88),

based on the data and nothing but the data seems to be insufficient in providing

adequate grounds for the proper and all-sided interpretation of interactions. The

meaning of a social action could not adequately be understood without consulting the

on-going context within which the action takes place: who talks with whom, in what

setting, when, in what language(s), on what topic, as well as the wider socio-cultural

context of which interactional talk is considered and analyzed as part and parcel. As

Cameron (2002: 53) puts it:

Any given instance of language use is analysed as part of a whole social situation; more

generally, ways of using and understanding language are analysed in relation to the wider

culture in which they occur.

The wider cultural context in which mundane interactions occur involves a range of

cultural beliefs, practices, and values. What is assumed to be good in one culture may

not count as such in other cultures. As aforementioned, social parameters like social

status, gender, age etc. of co-participants are generally of little interest in conversation

analytic studies. Seldom do conversation analysts pay a close attention to them,

23

providing they are made explicit issues by participants in the data (Ibid. 88). Some

analysts, however, argue that cultural factors affect natural interaction. Zimmerman &

West (1975) and Fishman (1983), for instance, suggest that men seem to dominate talk

involving both genders.

All in all, it is high time CA adopted an interdisciplinary approach, and went beyond its

traditionally strict border by considering social actions in relation to the wider socio-

cultural environment in which they take place. This is suggested as a way of refining

conversation analytic processes to compensate their having no place for societal factors

to go in the framework that primarily study co-text (Mey 2001: 135).

1.1.2.3. Turn – turn taking and adjacency pairs

In everyday life, people use language to converse with their interlocutors, and this is a

typically social way of ‘doing things with words’. They talk, exchange information, or

express their ideas. The kind of talk is various in terms of contents and contexts where

it is produced. The structural organization, however, is always the same: ‘I speak – you

speak – I speak – you speak’. As Crystal (2003: 477) puts it:

… [C]onversation is seen as a sequence of conversational turns, in which the

contribution of each participant is seen as part of a co-ordinated and RULE-governed

behavioural interaction. (My emphasis)

The finding of turn, considered the basic unit of conversation (Sacks 1995), is one of

the important discoveries in the development of this analytic approach. Interactive talk

is assumed ‘prototypically a joint enterprise’ that involves more than one S (Cameron

2002: 87). Studying recorded interchanges, Sacks (1995: II, 223) recognizes that in

normal, civilized interactions, conversationalists follow a certain kind of rules: they

take turns to speak rather than speak in overlap. ‘A central … feature [of conversation]

is that exactly one person – at lease one and no more than one – talks at a time’ (Sacks

1995: II, 223).

24

Simultaneous speaking (two or more speakers speak at the same time) is calculated as

little as five per cent, and there is very little gap between one co-conversant talking and

another starting (Ervin-Tripp 1979, Levinson 1983). Speaker changes occur normally at

certain points called ‘transition relevant places’ (TRPs). The initiation and completion

of a TPR can syntactically, semantically and intonationally be projected or predicted.

Consequently, the conversant that currently has the right to speak, or the ‘floor’, may

choose the next S, as well as self-select or any other party may self-select (Sacks,

Schefloff, and Jefferson 1974, 1978; Levinson 1983).

In some cases, a S may ignore an upcoming TRP and hurry past it, leaving no space for

other parties to jump in. Herein, overlap and interruption may take place as in excerpts

by Sacks et al. (1978: 16) given below:

(12) A: Uh you been down here before // havenche.

B: Yeah.

(13) C: We:ll I wrote what I thought was a a-a

rea:s’n//ble explanatio:n

F: I: think it was a very rude le :tter

Detailed study reveals it is a prevalent fact that turn taking is structurally organized

(Sacks et al. 1974, 1978). And in most cases, one party speaks at a time, although the

turn order and turn size vary, and speakership transfer as well as overlap occur. Also,

the turn-taking organization is assumed to be both context-free and context-sensitive

(Sacks et al. 1978: 10). It may remain unaffected by variations parties bring into talk on

the one hand, and partly and locally changed under the influence of social facets on the

other. The ‘one party talking’ rule, for example, may be invariant in almost all contexts,

and the ‘speaker change’ rule could relatively be sensitive with some social aspects of

contexts.

25

The existence of turn-taking phenomenon is obvious, although there are still

controversial arguments about the mechanism organizing it. Levinson (1983: 301), for

instance, mentions the hierarchical pre-allocation of turn taking of the Burundi, the

African people, in which high-status persons have preference over the others. He

indicates that in such settings as classrooms and courtrooms in Anglo-American culture

turns follow the pre-allocated principle too. In addition to this, some psychologists and

conversation analysts (Duncan 1974; Duncan & Fiske 1977; Goodwin 1981, 1984)

show that the turn taking works on the basis of signals like gazes. This view appears to

be implausible when applied to telephone talks, which go quite smoothly with very

little gap and overlap in spite of the absence of visual contact. The projectability and

repair work, as proposed by Sacks et al. (1974, 1978) seem ‘to be wrong’ in Levinson’s

critical analysis. Consequently, the present problem leads to more searches to discover

an adequate mechanism for the organization of turn taking within and across languages

and cultures.

Interactional exchanges, often composed of two subsequent utterances, are called pairs

or adjacency pairs. The production of the first-turn action provides the relevance for

the appearance of the second-turn action. And the second cannot exist without the first.

They recur in pairs. Everyday casual conversations are full of such pairs as invitation-

acceptance, greeting-greeting, assessment-agreement and assessment-disagreement.

Below is one example of assessment-disagreement by (Pomerantz 1984a: 74):

(14)R: … well never mind. It’s not important.

D: Well, it is important.

Paired utterances, viz., adjacency pairs are pervasive in natural language use. On the

basis of the adjacency pair assumption, a second pair part is relevant and necessary,

once the first pair part is produced. The delay or absence (in case of silences) of a

26

second part may lead to the repetition of the first part by the prior S (Schegloff 1972a).

‘The painful silence’, as it is in Mey’s wording (2001: 158), on the part of the

sequential S may sometimes make the prior feel totally embarrassed. A question raised

here is that the so-called ‘painful silence’ would differently be interpreted in intra-

cultural and across-cultural interactions by different identities. As a result, first Ss

would have a variety of subtle nuances of feelings when facing second Ss’ silences, not

just embarrassment.

1.1.2.4. Disagreeing – a social act

Conversation that is considered ‘the prototypical kind of language usage’ (Levinson

1983: 284) is normally assumed the first language form that every human being

engages in. Conversationalists actually ‘do things’ (Austin 1962) with their words by

informing each other of news, telling stories, making requests, invitations, offers to do

things, expressing evaluations or assessments, and their co-participants respond to

them, either accept/agree or reject/disagree. These acts are not only linguistic acts, but

they are social acts as well. Naturally, CA, which explicates how social conduct is

produced, recognized as intelligible and sensible, pays close attention to all acts of this

kind.

All initial assessments or evaluative tokens of people, things or events are produced in

first turns of adjacency pairs. The proffering of assessments by the first Ss makes

relevant the recipients’ assessments in response. As a rule, second assessments by the

responders should be subsequent to the prior and made in the second turns. The first

assessments act as invitations for the second to come, especially if they are given in

interrogatives or interrogative tags, as in the excerpt by Pomerantz (1984a: 68):

(15)E: e-that Pa:t isn’she a do://:ll?

M: iYeh isn’t she pretty,

27

The first Ss’ evaluative comments, which are considered their claims of certain

knowledge about the referents, can trigger and engender second assessments by the

recipients who may want to demonstrate their access to the same referents, as below:

(16)A: God izn it dreary.

(0.6)

A: //Y’know I don’t think-

B: .hh- It’s warm though, (Pomerantz 1978: 100)

(17) B: I think everyone enjoyed just sitting around talking.

A: I do too. (Pomerantz 1984a: 67)

CA practitioners like Pomerantz (1978, 1984a) and Sacks (1987) point out that second

assessments subsequent to the first in form of agreements tend to immediately be

delivered, as in (17), and sometimes, in some overlap with the prior. On the contrary,

disagreements seem to be withheld, delayed or mitigated by pauses, hedges, prefaces

and other non-linguistic devices to downplay the seriousness of the opposing stance, as

in (16). In this extract, B’s withholding an answer leads to A’s self-selecting to

continue the turn. B’s in-breathing before speaking and her using ‘though’ downgrade

the contrast between the two assessments, making hers sound like a weak disagreement.

In most cases, the producers of the initial assessments probably want their evaluations

or opinions to be approved of. Disagreements on the part of the recipients would upset

them. In addition, it might not be easy for the second Ss to forthrightly disclose their

opposition. Hence, the softening or hedging of disagreements becomes a matter of

common experience. A quick and outright answer might make the disagreement token

too explicit and unpleasant, causing undesired tensions. Thereby, the first Ss wish to be

indirect by prefacing their disagreements with agreement tokens or/and downgrading

them as in excerpt (15) given above, or they may choose to tacitly imply their different

28

ideas, or be silent altogether. However, when it comes to responding to self-

deprecations, disagreements are likely to be direct and explicit. Conversely, agreements

seem to be variously softened or muted, as they may sound critical. Pomerantz clearly

illustrates this point in her 1984a work. Below is one of her examples (Ibid. 74):

(18) L: … I’m so dumb I don’t even know it hhh! – heh!

W: Y-no, y-you’re not du:mb, …

In short, most disagreement turns tend to be structured so as to minimize occurrences of

overtly stated disagreements, but the organization of turns seems to work in the

opposite direction in self-denigrations so as to maximize immediate and explicit

disagreements.

1.1.3. Summary

Disagreeing as a communicative illocutionary and social act is theoretically examined

within the speech act theories and CA in this part. The key notions of each approach are

re-examined, applied to and highlighted by disagreeing tokens. In socio-communicative

interactions, disagreements are often seen to be softened by means of hedges to qualify

the negative force of the act on the one hand, and tend to be strengthened to intensify

overt disagreements with prior self-deprecation tokens on the other.

The assessment of socio-cultural parameters and some social situations by the English

and Vietnamese informants is investigated in the following part.

1.2. Empirical Study

1.2.1. Aims and methodology

1.2.1.1. Aims

This empirical study aims at getting the sufficient proof for the following hypotheses:

29

1. Native speakers of English and Vietnamese may differ in assessing such socio-

cultural parameters as age, length of time (familiarity), manner, occupation,

setting, gender, and social status, which affect interactive talk.

2. Speakers of English and Vietnamese may have different assessments of social

situations.

1.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents

Sampling

To guarantee the validity and reliability of the research results, it is of great importance

to strictly follow the sampling procedures and select an appropriate sample. According

to Dörnyei (2003), each sample is actually a subset of the population and the sampling

should be carried out in such a way so as to ensure this representativity. After giving a

detailed description of sampling procedures that consist of (1) defining the sampling

universe, (2) constructing sample stratification, and (3) fixing the sample size, Sankoff

(1974: 22) clarifies Hymes’ notion of ‘speech community’ as regards the sample size:

A speech community sample need not include the large number of individuals usually

required for other kinds of behavioral surveys. If people within a speech community

indeed understand each other with a high degree of efficiency, this tends to place a limit

on the extent of possible variation, and imposes a regularity (necessary for effective

communication) not found to the same extent in other kinds of social behavior…. even

for quite complex speech communities, samples of more than about 150 individuals tend

to be redundant, bringing increasing data handling problems with diminishing analytical

returns.

In the same vein, Dörnyei (2003: 74) suggests:

From a purely statistical point of view, a basic requirement is that the sample should have

a normal distribution … the sample should include 30 or more people…. From the

perspective of statistical significance… certain multivariate statistical procedures require

more than 50 participants; for factor analysis, for example, we need a minimum of 100

but preferably more subjects.

Selection of regions

30

The empirical data were selected in two places: North America and Vietnam. These

two places were deliberately chosen due to the present researcher’s ability to access the

respondents, which saved her a considerable amount of time, energy and expenses.

North America is internationally known as a region with rapid development in the

domains of economy, science and technology. It includes Canada and Northern States

of the USA. Although English and French are legitimated official languages of Canada,

the Canadian respondents are native speakers of English, either living in Toronto or

coming there for their research or study. Toronto is the biggest city in Canada and

belongs to Anglophone cultures. Some respondents of English are from other cities of

Canada and US Northern states. North America is assumed a complex speech

community that belongs to ‘less hierarchical societies’ where ‘status is allegedly far

less marked in verbal and non-verbal interaction’ (Bargiela-Chiappini 2003: 1463) and

‘where individualism is assumed to be the basis of all interaction’ (Ide 1989: 241).

Hanoi, the political, economic and cultural center of Vietnam, situated in the North of

Vietnam, has been famous for its historical and cultural traditions. From the socio-

cultural point of view, Hanoi with its one thousand years of history, feudalist dynasties

followed by communist regime, and the present ‘open-door’ policy offers abundant

corpora for any researcher who attempts to go further afield the pure linguistic

boundary to examine linguistic issues in relation to the wider socio-cultural context.

Having undergone great socio-cultural and economic changes, the social structure of

the Vietnamese has still been vertically hierarchical with emphasis on moral conduct

and community-oriented solidarity (Nguyen D. H. 1995, Vu T. T. H. 1997, among

others). As the home for many people coming from different parts of the country,

Hanoi can be considered a conjunction of or meeting place for cultures and sub-

31

cultures, and an ideal place to obtain data in terms of socio-linguistic

representativeness.

Selection of respondents

The respondents, native speakers of English and Vietnamese, either indigenous

inhabitants or permanent/life-time residents, are assumed to share the same sets of local

socio-cultural norms, values and beliefs. They all have tertiary education and are

ranked as middle-class citizens in regards to socio-economic conditions. This study

takes as its chief objectives the perception and realization of disagreeing by native

speakers of English and Vietnamese in their speech communities, therefore, the sample

should be balanced and comparable in terms of age, gender and level of education, as

Bauman & Sherzer (1974: 17) insist,

Linguistic descriptions must achieve both psychological and sociological validity. They

must reflect the perspective not only of single individuals but also of social groups,

networks or communities.

Individualism and privacy seem fundamental in Anglophone cultures, and native

speakers are in favor of freedom from imposition and of actions. Thus, gaining assess

to them appears to be problematic, let alone asking them to complete written

questionnaires or recording their mundane casual conversation. To collect sufficient

data for this study, the researcher spent ample time wandering around Toronto,

especially the spacious campus of University of Toronto, its libraries and athletic

centers meeting people. Among the respondents were ELI (English Language Institute)

teachers coming from some US Northern States to Vietnam for their teaching. There

was less complexity and trouble in administering the questionnaires among the

Vietnamese respondents, interviewing them and recording their real-life interaction

thanks to friendly or/and kinship networks.

Sample size

32

The elicited data were obtained from 100 English respondents (40 male and 60 female)

and 100 Vietnamese respondents (50 male and 50 female). The respondents are

supposed to belong to two homogeneous speech communities and possess the same sets

of shared social norms, beliefs and values (Hymes 1974a-b, 1995), and be comparable

and balanced in terms of education, economic condition, age, and gender. All of them

have tertiary education or higher, MA or PhD, and they are ranked as middle-class

citizens, aged from 18 to 72.

GENDER TotalFirst Language Male FemaleEnglish Count 40 60 100

English % 40.0% 60.0% 100.0%Vietnamese Count 50 50 100

Vietnamese % 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

Table 1-2: Gender correlation between English and Vietnamese respondents

The age groups were divided into two: Less than 30 and 30 or above, with the former

consisted of 62 English and 50 Vietnamese, and the latter contained 38 English and 50

Vietnamese. The audio-taping data were gained from 8 tapes by 30 speakers of

Vietnamese, and 6 tapes by 16 speakers of English. In addition, a number of English

excerpts of mundane everyday speech used in this study are taken from the second

source available in the literature owing to their availability and convenience.

AGE GROUP TotalFirst Language Less than 30 30 or aboveEnglish Count 62 38 100

English % 62.0% 38.0% 100.0%Vietnamese Count 50 50 100

Vietnamese % 50.0% 50.0% 100.0%

Table 1-3: Age group correlation between English and Vietnamese respondents

Even though the researcher is aware of the ideal balance as for gender and age group

among the two groups of respondents, she should be satisfied with the present sample

as after all it has offered a set of valid and reliable corpora for the empirical studies.

Written questionnaires

33

Written questionnaires have effectively been used in linguistic research by researchers

like Ervin-Tripp (1969), Blum-Kulka (1982, 1989), Bayraktaroglu & Sifianou (2001),

Bharuthram (2003) etc. as they help to collect a significant amount of data of controlled

manner in rather a short time. The questionnaire in the form of Discourse Completion

Task (DCT) used in the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) has

been chosen and modified (called Semi-Discourse Completion Task - SDCT) to adjust

the purpose and limitation of the paper. The present author also makes use of the

written questionnaire developed by Nguyen Q. in his 1998 Ph.D. dissertation (in

Vietnamese). The English elicited data were obtained in Toronto, Canada in 2003, and

the Vietnamese data were collected in Hanoi, Vietnam in 2003-4.

Like any other kind of written questionnaires, DCTs have the disadvantage of being

unable to capture variables like hesitation, pauses, fillers, etc., which are typical

features of spoken discourse responses. In addition, the respondents have more time to

consider and reconsider their replies in writing than in spontaneous speaking, and they

may provide more elaborate responses than those made in natural speech. Last but not

least, it does not always seem to be an easy task to check the accuracy of elicited data,

for people may wish to be seen and judged in a good light (Ackroyd & Hughes 1981:

83). Audio-taping data are used to make up for the drawbacks of written questionnaires.

Audio-taping

Some researchers tend to overestimate the advantages and underestimate the

disadvantages of approaches or methods to explain their preference for the one, which

they believe the most appropriate. However, the present researcher proposes to deploy

more than one approach, i.e., to combine several approaches and methods so as to make

good use of the advantages and minimize the disadvantages (Nguyen D. H. 1995,

Cohen 1996, Gass 1996, Vu T. T. H. 1997, Lee-Wong 2000). By so doing the database

34

used in this research can be considered quite sufficient for the empirical studies. It

consists of the data collected from SDCTs, audio-taping of natural interactions by

native speakers of English and Vietnamese, and excerpts from the recorded data

deployed in the works by Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974, 1978); Schegloff,

Jefferson, and Sacks (1977); Sacks & Schegloff (1979), Heritage & Drew (1979),

Pomerantz (1975, 1978, 1984a-b), Levinson (1983), Goodwin & Goodwin (1987),

Heritage (1997, 2002, forth.), Maynard (2003) and others. When necessary, the field

notes taken by the researcher on the spot are referred to in order to make up for the

inability to use videotaping.

One of the advantages of CA is that conversation analysts can use data from any

available source to describe and analyze social actions provided that they are naturally

occurring data. Analysts can deploy other researchers’ recordings together with their

original for specific purposes of study. Psathas (1995: 53) asserts:

Because the researchers must make available, in transcripts and published extracts, the

data on which their studies are based, other researchers may then examine the same, as

well as additional, materials, and either replicate or extend the analyses first presented.

Confidentiality

The database used in CA is recordings, whether audio or video, and may be collected

from any available source, provided that they should be mundane everyday talks

occurring in natural settings. Protection of privacy and participants identities is

essential, and as a result, permissions for recording should be obtained, and

conversationalists anonymized (Psathas 1995, Dörnyei 2003). Aware of confidentiality

as an important criterion in audio-taping and questionnaire administration, the

researcher has used a different name or a letter to replace the S’s real name to

anonymize all the respondents and coded the excerpts chose from the recorded data.

Data analysis

35

Central to this research is the speech act of disagreeing, its perception and linguistic

realization. Hence, the data analysis methods are chosen to highlight issues involving

disagreeing and its construct of form, function and meaning. The data analysis focuses

on: (i) the structure of disagreeing and the use of honorifics, address terms, and other

particles (form); (ii) the use of strategies in correlation with politeness (function); and

(iii) (combination of (i) & (ii) in essence) contextual interpretation of disagreeing in

relation to social variables and local cultures (meaning). As aforementioned, two

theoretical frameworks have been adopted: pragmatics and CA. The extent to which

each framework is utilized varies according to the purpose and size of the immediate

issue under investigation. Generally speaking, the recorded data is examined on the

basis of CA to clarify (i); (ii) is investigated on the basis of Brown & Levinson’s model

concerning politeness strategies, theories of politeness as regards indirectness and

elicited data processed on SPSS; and (iii) is studied within volition-discernment

integration and SPSS outputs. CA has long been proved to be of great help in

discovering, describing and analyzing organizational structure of conversation. It

focuses on the expression of disagreements in preference organization. To provide

intelligible information of what and how co-interactants speak in everyday occasions,

the excerpts from transcripts in this study are given on the basis of the transcription-

notation system originally suggested and evolved by Jefferson, and later elaborated by

Maynard (2003). Emphasis, for instance, is displayed by underscoring, and sound

stretching/latching is marked by colon (::::). A question mark (?) expresses rising

intonation while a comma (,) indicates continuing intonation. The system in full detail

is given in Appendix 1.

The database for the assessment of socio-cultural parameters by English and

Vietnamese informants in this chapter is from mini-questionnaire #1, and the data for

36

the assessment of social situations are obtained from mini-questionnaire #2. All the

questionnaires are given in Appendix 2.

The English corpus is examined and processed on SPSS 11.5 in comparison to and

contrast with the Vietnamese. The outputs of data-processing are carefully investigated

and only those, whose significance of chi-square results (sig. henceforth) is below 0.05,

i.e. they are statistically worth noting, are selected and taken into further consideration.

1.2.2. Assessment of socio-cultural parameters by respondents

1.2.2.1. Data results

The informants were asked to rank 7 socio-cultural parameters age, length of time,

manner, occupation, setting, gender and status in order according to their importance

on a scale of 7, which represents the continuum of importance, where 01 is the most

important and 07 is the least important. Below are the most significant cases.

Chart 1-1: Assessment of Socio-cultural factors: Age of Co-conversants

Importance Greatest Least Total First language 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 English - Count 11 16 24 12 12 7 1 83English - % 13.3% 19.3% 28.9% 14.5% 14.5% 8.4% 1.2% 100.0%Vietnamese - Count 49 12 10 4 1 2 0 78Vietnamese - % 62.8% 15.4% 12.8% 5.1% 1.3% 2.6% .0% 100.0%

Table 1-4: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Age of co-conversants

Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Age

Greatest Importance Least

7.006.005.004.003.002.001.00

Cou

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

37

Age: A close look at chart 1-1 and table 1-4 reveals the striking difference between the

respondents of the two languages and cultures under study. Among 78 Vietnamese

respondents who consider Age as a factor having influence on conversation, 49

(constituting 62.8%) rate it the most important. The rest also attach much weight to this

factor: 12 rank it second, 10 rank it third and 4 rank it fourth. On the contrary, only 11

native Ss of English, accounting for 13.3%, give Age the greatest importance, 16

informants rank it second, 24 rank it third and 12 rank it fourth.

The very high percentage among the Vietnamese informants reflects their socio-cultural

perception of Age as a substantial value in social communication: old-aged people are

respected and properly addressed to. In addition, Age is essential in choosing the right

form of address terms in conformity to social norms of interactions, where the wrong

use of person reference might be the potential source of misunderstanding or conflicts.

Chart 1-2: Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Manner of Communication

Importance Greatest Least Other Total First Language 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 English - Count 31 21 9 14 4 4 1 1 85English - % 36.5% 24.7% 10.6% 16.5% 4.7% 4.7% 1.2% 1.2% 100.0%Vietnamese - Count 9 19 13 17 12 4 1 0 75Vietnamese - % 12.0% 25.3% 17.3% 22.7% 16.0% 5.3% 1.3% .0% 100.0%

Table 1-5: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Manner of communication

Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors:

Manner of Communication

Greatest Importance Least Other

8.007.006.005.004.003.002.001.00

Cou

nt

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

38

Manner & Setting: Native Ss of English in North America are inclined to prefer

factors Manner (chart 1-2, table 1-5) and Setting (chart 1-3, table 1-6) more than native

Ss of Vietnamese in Hanoi: 31 mark Manner #1, 21 mark it #2, and 9 mark it #3, which

accounts for more than 70%; and in regards to factor Setting, 19 rate it the most

important, 18 rate it the second, and 15 rank it third, which constitute a high percentage

of nearly 60.

Chart 1-3: Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Setting

Importance Greatest Least Total First Language 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 English - Count 19 18 15 11 11 4 2 80English - % 23.8% 22.5% 18.8% 13.8% 13.8% 5.0% 2.5% 100.0%Vietnamese - Count 3 6 10 14 11 15 3 62Vietnamese - % 4.8% 9.7% 16.1% 22.6% 17.7% 24.2% 4.8% 100.0%

Table 1-6: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Setting

In contrast, about 50% of the Vietnamese informants rank Manner first, second and

third in the continuum of importance (vs. 70% of the English rating), and about 30%

attach importance to Setting (vs. 60% of the English rating). It is also worth explaining

that 08 in charts 1-2, 1-4 and tables 1-5, 1-7 (and in chart 1-5, table 1-8) represents

other factors suggested by the respondents themselves such as education, topic, religion

belief, relationship, intimacy, attractiveness and intellectual ability.

Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Setting


7.006.005.004.003.002.001.00

Cou

nt

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

39

Importance Greatest Least Other Total First Language 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 English - Count 1 1 7 8 7 14 19 1 58English - % 1.7% 1.7% 12.1% 13.8% 12.1% 24.1% 32.8% 1.7% 100.0%Vietnamese - Count 5 10 14 7 13 4 7 0 60Vietnamese - % 8.3% 16.7% 23.3% 11.7% 21.7% 6.7% 11.7% .0% 100.0%

Table 1-7: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Gender of co-conversants

Chart 1-4: Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Gender of Co-conversants

Gender: The informants in chart 1-4 and table 1-7 seem to differ greatly in their

evaluation of the role of Gender in social interactions. Whereas almost 50% of the

Vietnamese respondents abide by columns 1, 2, and 3, only 15% of the English

respondents opt for these columns. Presumably, it is not necessary for them to pay

attention to Gender of their interlocutors when they disagree with the prior evaluative

opinions. They would probably proffer the same disagreeing tokens to their interactants

regardless of their gender. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese seem to take notice of this

factor. “I would be less aggressive in my expressing of disagreement if I talked with

representatives of the opposite gender,” said one of the Vietnamese respondents.

Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Gender


8.007.006.005.004.003.002.001.00

Cou

nt

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

40

Importance Greatest Least Other Total First Language 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 English - Count 6 9 7 9 9 9 14 0 63English - % 9.5% 14.3% 11.1% 14.3% 14.3% 14.3% 22.2% .0% 100.0%Vietnamese - Count 17 16 6 11 8 4 5 1 68Vietnamese - % 25.0% 23.5% 8.8% 16.2% 11.8% 5.9% 7.4% 1.5% 100.0%

Table 1-8: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Social status

Social Status: Chart 1-5 and table 1-8 show a really considerable difference in the

respondents’ estimating Social Status. The majority of the Vietnamese informants (50

out of 68) adhere to the first four columns, constituting almost 70%. Contrary to this

high proportion, only 31 English informants (almost equal 40%) mark these columns. It

is worth taking notice of the Vietnamese consistent tendency to rate Status first and

second in the continuum of importance. On the other hand, the high percentage among

the English informants choosing columns 6 and 7 (14.3% and 22.2%, respectively) may

reflect the low incidence of Status in social communication in Anglo-American culture.

Chart 1-5: Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Social Status

Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Status


8.007.006.005.004.003.002.001.00

Cou

nt

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

41

Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Length

of time you know your co-conversants


7.006.005.004.003.002.001.00

Cou

nt40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 1-6: Assessment of Socio-cultural factors: Length of time you know your co-conversants

Length of Time: Chart 1-6 and table 1-9, which demonstrate the output of the

respondents’ assessment of factor Length of time (you know your co-conversants, i.e.

familiarity), are intentionally selected although the sig. is 0.208, which is not worth

paying attention to as regards statistics. Except for the difference in column 1, where

41.3% of the rating belongs to the group of English informants and the Vietnamese

informants constitute only 22.5%, the total percentage of the first four columns shows a

slight difference with 93.5% of the English respondents versus 87.4% of the

Vietnamese respondents marking them. It is suggested that Ss of two languages and

cultures are almost similar in their considering the influence of this factor, concerning

the familiarity with their co-conversants when expressing negative responses to the first

evaluations.

Importance Greatest Least Total First Language 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 English - Count 38 23 18 7 3 1 2 92English - % 41.3% 25.0% 19.6% 7.6% 3.3% 1.1% 2.2% 100.0%Vietnamese - Count 16 21 15 10 4 3 2 71Vietnamese - % 22.5% 29.6% 21.1% 14.1% 5.6% 4.2% 2.8% 100.0%

Table 1-9: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Length of time you know your co-conversants

42

1.2.2.2. Comments

The respondents of English and Vietnamese give almost the same weight to factor

Length of time (you know your co-conversants), and this might be a manifestation of

the same psychological feature in human beings. People seem to be more relaxed when

talking with someone they know for long, and they often have a feeling of inhibition

conducting talk with strangers, let alone having to state their disagreements.

The empirical results also exhibit remarkable differences pertaining to factors Age,

Status, Manner and Setting. The Vietnamese respondents attach great importance to

Age (with 62% of the informants rating it #1) and Status (with 25%), while their

English counterparts highly value Manner and Setting (with 36.5% and 23.8%,

respectively). The Vietnamese significant preference for the socio-cultural determinants

Age and Status can be a reflection of the strictly hierarchical order of the Vietnamese

socio-cultural life, where old-aged people are socially given respect to, and social

subordinates are subjected to superior personae. On the contrary, factors Manner and

Setting are estimated of primary concern by the English informants. This result has

testified the assumption that native Ss of English in North America live in a less

hierarchical society, where Age and Status are recognized but slighted in interpersonal

communicative interactions.

All in all, the native Ss of English and Vietnamese are empirically proved to differ in

terms of the relative weight given to socio-cultural parameters governing their

linguistic choice in expressing disagreeing responses. In the following section, the data

results concerning the informants’ assessment of social situations are examined to bring

out the shared or unshared features between the two languages and cultures under

investigation.

43

1.2.3. Assessment of situations by respondents


Four groups of social situations, each contained four sub-situations, are introduced to

the respondents to see if they are differently conceived by the native Ss under study.

The informants consider the situations and decide how to construct their disagreements

on the continuum ranging from Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Not Sure, Implicitly

Disagree, and Silent. The most significant cases are taken for further discussion.

A substantial difference in how to display disagreeing tokens by native Ss of English

and Vietnamese is found in table 1-10. While 85% of the English informants choose to

insinuate their disagreement by either implicitly disagreeing (15%) or being silent

(70%), only 56% of the Vietnamese informants are inclined to do so (32% and 24%,

respectively). Only 5 English Ss prefer to directly assert their negative evaluations,

whereas 30 Vietnamese Ss overtly claim their disagreements.

Sit. A1. Nice-looking Spouse Ways of Disagreeing Total

First LanguageStrongly disagree Disagree Not sure

Implicitly disagree Be silent

English - Count 3 2 10 15 70 100English - % 3.0% 2.0% 10.0% 15.0% 70.0% 100.0%Vietnamese - Count 11 19 14 32 24 100Vietnamese - % 11.0% 19.0% 14.0% 32.0% 24.0% 100.0%

Table 1-10: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A1. Praise on Nice-looking Spouse

In contrast with the Vietnamese tendency to be direct in objecting to the prior Ss (5%

strong disagree and 28% disagree), 33 % of the English respondents in Sit. A2 (table

1.11) avoid sounding too critical in their proffering disagreements (vs. 31% of the

Vietnamese respondents) by adhering to ‘Implicitly disagree’ and 35% of them opt for

silence (vs. Vietnamese 24%), and only 10% of them provide apparent disagreements.

It is clear that the Vietnamese informants in situations A1 and A2 appear to be more

direct than their English counterparts in performing the act of disagreeing.

44

Sit. A2. Self-praise on New Hairstyle Ways of Disagreeing Total




Table 1-11: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A2. Self-praise on New Hairstyle

Sit. A3. New Italian Shoes Ways of Disagreeing Total




Table 1-12: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A3. Disparagement of New Italian Shoes

The output of situation A3 is given in table 1-12 reveals a reverse trend of expressing

disagreements compared to that of the two previous ones. While over 60% of the

English informants overtly exhibit their claim of disagreement with 19% strong

disagree and 44% disagree, only 17% of the Vietnamese strongly disagree with their

interlocutors and 27% disagree. The Vietnamese informants seem to minimize

occurrences of explicitly articulated disagreements by frequently abiding by the last

two columns: Implicitly Disagree and Be Silent: 30% and 21%, respectively.

Sit. A4. Miss X Is Getting Too Fat Ways of Disagreeing Total




Table 1-13: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A4. Miss X Is Getting Too Fat

Despite having similarity in column 3 of table 1-13, the two groups of informants

display a great difference in their ways of proffering disagreements. 76 out of 100

English informants make explicit their disagreeing tokens, while only 55 Vietnamese

informants choose to do so. However, it is worth noting that 36 of the English

45

informants boldly assert their opposite stance, whereas only 13 Vietnamese Ss strongly

exhibit their disagreements. The number of those who soften their disagreeing or cancel

doing the act verbally is greater in the Vietnamese group (20 and 16 informants,

respectively) than in the English group (11 and 5 informants, respectively).

Sit. B2. Bigger Pensions Ways of Disagreeing Total




Table 1-14: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. B2. Bigger Pensions

A high distribution of directness in expressing disagreements is found in both two

groups in situation B2. Bigger Pensions, fluctuating from 20% to 46%. The number of

Ss delivering negative and outright answer in English and Vietnamese is almost the

same: 22% and 20 % respectively. The percentage slightly rises in the second column

with 46% in English and 32% in Vietnamese. The low level of difference between the

two groups of informants in Not Sure and Implicitly Disagree is statistically negligible.

However, the striking difference is in Be Silent: the number of Vietnamese Ss who

refuse to perform the act of disagreeing is almost 6 times greater than that of English

Ss. Silence on the part of second Ss may provide a hint of implicit disagreement (Yule

1996; Mey 1993, 2001).

Sit. C1. Mr. Y's Promotion Ways of Disagreeing Total




Table 1-15: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. C1. Mr. Y's Promotion

Table 1-15 exhibits similarities between the informants in columns 1, 2 and 5. The

distinction in percentage is clearly seen in columns 4, where 9% of the English

46

informants choose to indirectly provide their disagreements in contrast with 24% of

their Vietnamese counterparts. Possibly, this is the consequence of the high percentage

of the English informants who are not sure of how to deliver the disaffiliative force of

their disagreeing responses. The situation, involving the promotion of the S’s inferior to

a higher position than his/hers, is considered quite sensitive and subtle. By and large,

the informants can be reported to act in nearly the same way in this situation in spite of

the difference found in column 4.

Sit. C4. Voting for Mr. X Ways of Disagreeing Total




Table 1-16: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. C4. Voting for Mr. X

The informants in C4 (table 1-16) show the same trend as in C1. They seem to act in

almost the same ways in columns 1, 2, and 5. Although more English Ss choose to

strongly disagree with their interlocutors (28 English Ss vs. 21 Vietnamese Ss), the

total number of those who tend to overtly deliver their disagreements (concerning

columns 1 & 2) in the two languages is the same: 50 and 50. The high percentage of

Vietnamese implicit disagreements may be the result of the low percentage in column

3.

Sit. D1. Car Expert Ways of Disagreeing Total




Table 1-17: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. D1. Car Expert

Table 1-17, presenting the output of Sit. D1. Car Expert, displays a striking difference

between the two groups: 42% of the Vietnamese informants are in favor of the direct

47

expression of disagreements (with 16% strongly disagree and 27% disagree), whereas

only 14% of the English informants prefer overt disagreeing responses (with 2%

strongly disagree and 12% disagree). Even though more English informants choose to

implicitly disagree rather than be silent (27% vs. 19%) and more Vietnamese

informants prefer silence over implicit disagreement (23% vs. 17%), the distinction in

the informants’ choice of Implicitly Disagree and Be Silent appears to be

inconsiderable.

Sit. D2. Favorite Team's Failure Ways of Disagreeing Total




Table 1-18: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. D2. Favorite Team's Failure

To defend their favorite teams, the respondents in Sit. D2. Favorite Team’s Failure act

in the same way. Half of each group chooses to forthrightly disclose their opposition to

the prior critical opinion: 24 English and 31 Vietnamese strongly disagree, 37 English

and 35 Vietnamese disagree with the prior Ss. In addition, they are similar in their ways

of expressing disagreements in columns 4 and 5 in spite of the Vietnamese higher

percentage, which can be explained by the greater number of Not Sure English Ss.

1.2.3.2. Comments

As aforementioned, the 12 sub-situations concerning several fields of socio-cultural life

are assessed and evaluated by the informants and 8 of them are selected for further

investigation to highlight the common and specific features in the ways to perform

disagreeing tokens.

The English and Vietnamese Ss under study exhibit similarities in the direct expression

of their opposite stances by either strongly disagreeing or disagreeing in 3 situations:

48

B2- Mr. Y’s Promotion, C4 - Voting for Mr. X and D2- Favorite Team’s Failure. On the

other hand, the English Ss show a high consistency in the avoidance of sounding too

direct by implicitly disagreeing or being silent in such situations as A1- Praise on Nice-

looking Spouse, A2- Self-praise on New Hairstyle, and D1- Car Expert. On the

contrary, the Vietnamese Ss tend to overly manipulate their disagreements as regards

these situations. The converse tendency occurs in situations A3- Disparagement of New

Italian Shoe and A4- Miss X Is Getting Too Fat. While the Vietnamese abide by

implicitly disagreeing or being silent, the English demonstrate their forthright

disclosure of disagreements.

All in all, the informants provide quite a rich set of ways to voice their disagreeing

responses. They seem to act in a similar way in some social situations, but they are

observed to be greatly different in their demonstration of disagreements in other

situations. In some cases, the English respondents overtly state their negative

evaluations. In others, however, they avoid being too aggressive by either alluding to

their opposite stances or canceling performing the act with words altogether. To obtain

an overall view of how the respondents express their disagreements in all situations

chosen for the database, the empirical findings are represented in chart 1-7 and table 1-

19 below.

Ways of Expressing Disagreeing Total



English Count 3 2 10 15 70 100English % 3.0% 2.0% 10.0% 15.0% 70.0% 100.0%Vietnamese Count 11 19 14 32 24 100Vietnamese % 11.0% 19.0% 14.0% 32.0% 24.0% 100.0%

Table 1-19: General Assessment of All Situations by Respondents

Chi-Square Tests

SUMSI Value dfAsymp. Sig.

(2-sided)Pearson Chi-Square 47.660(a) 4 .000N of Valid Cases

200

49

General Assessment of All Social Situations

SUMSI

Be silent

Implicitly disagree

Not sure

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Cou

nt80

60

40

20

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 1-7: General Assessment of All Situations

The sig. in the chi-square ‘.000’ indicates that the difference between the two groups of

informants is of paramount importance. Almost all of the English informants do not

deliver outright disagreements: 3 of them choose column #1 and 2 – column #2.

Instead, 70% of them opt for silence and 15% abide by implicitly disagreeing. Quite

conversely, 24% of the Vietnamese Ss are silent and 32% of them would rather imply

their disagreements. The percentage of Vietnamese choosing ‘Strongly disagree’ and

‘Disagree’ is 11% and 19% respectively, much higher than that of English.

1.2.4. Summary

The findings in this section have empirically proved the hypotheses of differences

between native Ss of English and Vietnamese in assessing socio-cultural parameters

and social situations and confirmed Brown & Levinson’s hypothesis (1987[1978]) that

cultures may differ in the relative weight given to social factors in determining

behavioural variation.

While the English attach significant importance to Manner, Setting and Length of time

the Vietnamese highly value Age, Status and Length of time. The Vietnamese focus on

Age and Status might be a manifestation of the social ideology in the target culture

50

which appreciates ethics and hierarchy. Anglo-American culture which places greater

emphasis on freedom from intrusion may provide good grounds for its stress on

Manner and Setting. Length of time is of almost the same importance to the English and

Vietnamese respondents, which suggests the existence of some shared features in

human psychology.

The English are inclined to implicitly disagree when the Vietnamese may resort to

overt/less overt disagreements and vice versa. The differences in the Ss’ assessment of

social factors and situations may lead to the differences in their choice of strategies.

1.3. Concluding Remarks

In this chapter, disagreeing is examined on the basis of SA theories and CA. In most

cases, disagreement attributes are inclined to be hedged to minimize the seriousness of

the act, but in self-deprecations they tend to overtly be stated to intensify the positive

impact. The empirical findings have proved the hypotheses of the differences in the

native Ss’ assessing socio-cultural parameters and social situations. The reasons for all

these differences are supposed to lie in the differences in the two cultures and societies

with their own socio-cultural systems of norms, values and beliefs. Besides the main

concern of disagreeing in regards to politeness, its notions, research approaches and

linguistic realization, Chapter 2 takes as one of its objectives the evaluation of

politeness level of disagreement tokens performed by native Ss of English and

Vietnamese.

51

CHAPTER TWO

POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING


Linguistic politeness, or politeness for short, has become central to a great many of

searches for examining the right way to get successful in interaction. Pioneering works

on politeness by Lakoff (1973), Grice (1975), Searle (1975), Brown & Levinson

(1987[1978]), Back and Harnish (1979), Leech (1983) have given impetus for a number

of publications on the same issue such as Hill et al. (1986), Blum-Kulka (1987, 1989,

1990, 1992), House (1981, 1989), Wierzbicka (1985), Ide (1982, 1987, 1989, 2001),

Lee-Wong (2000) among others. Researchers are interested in the interpretation of

politeness, its linguistic realization in different cultural frameworks, and the

universality of the politeness theory.

Personal strategies or volition is observed to be preferable in the West (Leech 1983,

Brown & Levinson 1987[1978], Yule 1996 among others), where individualism is the

main concern, whereas discernment seems to be emphasized in those cultures where

group or community solidarity is central (Doi 1973, Wierzbicka 1985, Matsumoto

1988, Gu 1990, Ide ibid., Blum-Kulka 1987, 1992). However, it is not necessary for

one and the same kind of politeness to be utilized in every language or culture. The

emphasis on discernment or/and volition differs across languages and cultures, and

across speech acts in a given culture. When studying verbal politeness some researchers

tend to focus just on one of its compositional elements (cf. Brown & Levinson

1987[1978], Leech 1983, Yule 1996, Doi 1973, Masumoto 1988, Gu 1990, Blum-

Kulka 1992 among others), and very often, they are criticized by their abiding by the

one-sided picture of politeness (Held 1992, Nguyen D. H. 1995, Vu T. T. H. 1997, Lee-

52

Wong 2000). The co-existence of two different approaches to linguistic politeness

seems to be quite problematic as there might be difficulty choosing the right approach.

Socio-cultural norms, which may affect individuals on the one hand, might be

considered the outcomes of frequent usage by individuals on the other. In other words,

collective norms of a community are both resources and consequences of individual

choice and usage, and politeness comprises both common rules of social behaviors and

strategies of individual manners. It is on the basis of this assumption that a synthetic

approach to politeness is proposed, taking as its components discernment and volition

(Hill et al. 1986, Kasper 1990, Held 1992). The eclectic approach, according to Hill et

al. (Ibid.), is essential in dealing with politeness as the phenomenon of politeness

predominantly manifests itself in discernment and/or volition. Kasper (Ibid.)

emphasizes the study of politeness in its unity of discernment and volition, and points

out the non-correlative relationship between them. However, this synthetic perspective,

which seems to offer a panorama of politeness, still needs to be empirically investigated

and examined across languages and cultures.

2.1.1. Notion of Politeness

Being polite is defined as 'having, showing the possession of good manners and

consideration for other people' (Hornby 1988: 646). Ide (1988) assumes that linguistic

politeness encompasses the use of appropriate language and successful communication:

We speak language not only to transmit information, but also to establish the appropriate

interactional relationship…. In speaking, we think of the content of what is to be

conveyed, and at the same time of the linguistic expressions that will make the utterance

appropriate to the given situational context. Appropriate speech establishes smooth

communication. The language use associated with smooth communication is what is

referred to as linguistic politeness.

Cited from Ide (1988: 371)

The appropriateness of smooth communication should be interpreted on the basis of

socio-cultural beliefs and values that differ across cultures. Sometimes, what is

53

considered polite in one language and culture is not comprehended as such in other

languages and cultures. Let us have a look at the two requests (Mum to son):

(1) Could you turn the radio down?

(2) Turn the radio down.

The former is often believed polite in the Anglo-American context as it provides an

option, and the latter is impolite as it creates imposition. However, the latter is

considered polite in Vietnamese culture as the former in its literal interpretation “Con

cã vÆn c¸i ®µi nhá l¹i kh«ng?” implies criticism or even threat (Vu T. T. H.

2000: 202).

Lakoff (1990: 34) understands politeness as a set of interpersonal relations employed to

facilitate human interaction via the process of reducing and smoothing the potential

conflict and confrontation. Also, politeness can be considered one of the constraints on

behavior helping humans in their gaining “effective social living” (Watts et al. 1992:

2). By effective social living is meant anticipation of others’ actions, consideration of

costs and gains, and predication of final results of one’s own behavior (Goody 1978: 1).

On the basis of the cultural viewpoint which suggests that politeness is culturally and

linguistically specific, Yule (1996: 60) states,

‘It is possible to treat politeness as a fixed concept, as in the idea of 'polite social

behavior', or etiquette, within a culture.’

Vu T. T. H. (1997, 2000) assumes that the notion 'lÞch sù' in Vietnamese culture

contains four aspects 'lÔ phÐp', '®óng mùc', 'khÐo lÐo' and 'tÕ nhÞ',

which are interwoven. While 'lÔ phÐp' (respectfulness) and '®óng mùc'

(propriety) are understood as social norms that should be followed to show respect to

interlocutors’ hierarchy, status, age etc., 'khÐo lÐo' (tact) and 'tÕ nhÞ' (delicacy)

can be interpreted as individual strategies chosen to please co-participants in order to

gain the highest effects in communication.

54

In the Vietnamese language 'lÞch sù' appears to be the closest equivalence to English

word 'politeness'. It is defined in A Vietnamese Dictionary as: '...having elegant

manners and observing properness in conformity with social rules and expectations in

interactions' (Hoang P. et al. 1988. Translated by Nguyen D. H. 1995).

The issues of politeness are so crucial and thrilling that much effort has been made by

philosophers, linguists, socio-linguists, and anthropologists to establish universal

research framework for investigating the key problems in politeness. The main

approaches are now briefly discussed.

2.1.2. Volitional Approach

Understood as the ‘aspect of politeness which allows the speaker a considerably more

active choice, according to the speaker’s intention’ (Hill et al. 1986: 348), well-known

as the strategic or instrumental view (Kasper 1990), indirectness perspective (Held

1992), second-order approach (Watts et al. 1992) and the modern view (Werkhofer

1992), this approach encompasses two different sub-perspectives, namely,

conversational-maxim view with the works by Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983), and the

face-saving view postulated by Brown & Levinson (1987[1978]). Apart from some

methodological differences, the two sub-perspectives are similar in their

comprehension of politeness phenomena as individual strategies to avoid or minimize

frictions or conflicts between interlocutors. Fundamental to both perspectives are

Gricean co-operative principle and implicature (1975) and Goffman’s notion of face.

2.1.2.1. Grice’s principle

Gricean Cooperative Principle (CP) is considered the basis of this approach to

politeness. The CP (Grice 1975: 45) runs as follows:

Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it

occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of talk exchange in which you are engaged.

55

Grice's 1975 article 'Logic and Conversation' is deserved to be credited the starting

point in almost all of the works concerning the questions of politeness. The fact that

Gricean paper had been circulating among many linguists and philosophers in its

manuscript form long before it was finally published suggests that his ideas had certain

effects on the works by Lakoff (1973, 1977, 1989), Leech (1983), Brown & Levinson

(1987[1978]) and others. Grice associates with the CP a set of maxims and sub-maxims

that are named as Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner. The CP is claimed to govern

most human conversational interactions and rational participants abide by the maxims

in so far as they are able in the process of the efficient conveying of messages.

When Ss observe all the maxims, saying precisely what they want, obviously, there is

no difficulty in getting the intended meaning of the utterance. But there are many

occasions when people fail to observe the maxims. Conversation normally works on the

assumption that Ss, being co-operative, adheres to the maxims as far as they can and do

not break the maxims by lying, sarcasm, etc. Therefore, any violation of the maxims

can be a signal for the H to seek a suitable interpretation of the utterance by a sequence

of inferences.

(3) A. Is Jane good at French?

B. She sings beautifully.

In B's reply, the Maxim of Relation is intentionally flouted. B expresses his/her

assessment indirectly and politely by providing irrelevant information, so the second S

can convey more than what is said. The mechanism used to convey more than it is

literally said is known as conversational implicature or just implicature. It is worth

noting that in general, the implicated information cannot effectively be transmitted if

the S and the H do not share the same background knowledge.

56

2.1.2.2. Lakoff’s rules and Leech’s maxims

Based on Grice's construct of Conversational Principles, Lakoff (1973) suggests three

rules of Pragmatic Competence and Sub-maxims or sub-rules, each of which is oriented

to make the H 'feel good'. The maxims are adapted as follows: (1) Don't Impose (Used

when Formal/Impersonal Politeness is required), (2) Give Options (Used when

Informal Politeness is required) (3) Make A Feel Good (Used when Intimate Politeness

is required). Not imposing (1) means avoiding reference to personal problems, habits,

taboo topics and the like. Offering options (2) means expressing oneself in such a way

that one's opinion or request can be ignored without being rejected. It is suggested that

these three rules can be combined to one with the overall function of 'Making A Feel

Good'.

In addition, the rules seem to be central to Western notions of politeness, which

emphasizes non-imposition and freedom of actions. Thus, they are difficult to be

considered universal rules of politeness. In non-Western cultures, including the

Vietnamese culture, where community and group solidarity is highly appreciated,

impersonalization is not always perceived as a polite strategy.

Adopting the framework initially set out by Grice, Leech (1980 [1977] and 1983) opts

to treat politeness within the domain of a rhetorical pragmatics and his account of goal-

directed linguistic behaviors. He considers politeness a crucial factor in explaining 'why

people are so often indirect in conveying what they mean' and (1983: 80) 'a rescue for

the CP'. He raises two concepts: ambivalence and pragmatic principles. By making an

utterance ambivalent one can remain polite when performing some inherently impolite

speech acts. Leech's Politeness Principle (PP) (1983) runs as follows:

Minimize (all things being equal) the expression of impolite beliefs; Maximize (all

things being equal) the expression of polite beliefs.

Cited in Fraser (1990: 225)

57

PP, according to Leech, 'rescues' Grice's CP by explaining why Ss do not always

observe the Gricean maxims (however, as mentioned above, Grice himself also

discusses the violation of his maxims). In addition, Leech introduces a number of

maxims that explain the relationship between sense and force in conversations. Leech

claims that his model could be applied universally across cultures, and in the English

speaking context, the Tact Maxim seems to be the most important.

Although Leech's maxims allow us to make specific cross-cultural comparisons and to

explain cross-cultural differences in understanding politeness and the use of politeness

strategies, they fail to account for contextual factors like roles of participants, their

gender and the setting of talk. In addition, the model seems to best be applied to Anglo-

American cultures where social distance is valued.

2.1.2.3. Brown & Levinson’s model

The face-management view on politeness, put forth by Brown & Levinson (1978 and

revised in 1987), is recognized as the most articulated and the most influential and

successful theory of politeness. They propose a Model Person capable of speaking a

language fluently and endowed with both rationality and face understood as a feeling

of self-worth or self-image that can be damaged, maintained, enhanced or even lost in

conversation. ‘Face’ is compounded of ‘positive’ aspect concerning the desire to be

appreciated and approved of, and ‘negative’ aspect concerning the freedom from

imposition and of action. These two facets of face are regarded as two ‘wants’. By

rationality is meant the ability to select linguistic strategies to satisfy communicative

and face-oriented ends.

Generally, in English-speaking contexts, people expect their public self-image, or their

face wants to be respected in interactions. If Ss say something that potentially threats

another's self-image, they are said to perform a face threatening act (FTA). An act of

58

uttering something to lessen the potential threat is called a face saving act (FSA).

Brown & Levinson work on how to reduce FTAs, and suggest a set of strategies said to

be exploited in conversation by Ss in regards to the degree they want to preserve their

interlocutors’ face, and in some cases, their own face.

It is the notion of ‘face’, commonly thought to be originated in the Chinese and

American Indian concepts of face, developed by Brown & Levinson on the basis of

Goffman’s 1967 elaboration and reference to Durkheim’s 1915 work that generates a

great number of debates among politeness researchers as to its Western individualistic

and ethnocentric assumptions. It is argued that the dualistic notion of face with negative

and positive politeness does not find correspondence in Goffman’s or Durkheim’s

work. According to Bargiela-Chiappini (2003), their concept of face and the rational

person radically departs from Goffman’s understanding of interaction in which ‘not the

individual and his psychology, but rather the syntactical relations among the acts of

different persons mutually present to one another’ (Ibid. 1967: 2). In addition, in spite

of Brown & Levinson’s statement of their borrowing ‘the distinction between negative

and positive politeness from Durkheim’s distinction between negative and positive

rites’ (Brown & Levinson 1987: 43), there seems to be no such similarity between

them. Durkheim’s ‘negative cult’ is ‘one means in view of an end: it is a condition of

access to the positive cult’ (Ibid, 1915: 309), and further on, he submits that ‘normally,

the negative cult serves only as an introduction and preparation for the positive one’

(Ibid. 311). However, Brown & Levinson’s negative politeness and positive politeness

are mutually exclusive, and their ideal rational Model Person is mostly concerned with

the protectiveness of his personal territory from face-threatening interpersonal contact.

The individualistic comprehension of ‘face’ and the model of a predominantly rational

actor with face-threatening intentions engender further resistance in research in many

59

non-Anglosaxon cultures (Matsumoto 1988, Ide 1989, Mao 1994, de Kadt 1998,

Rathmayr 1999, Hernández-Flores 1999, to name just a few), leading to the need to

seek for a version of politeness that accommodates both strategic and socially

prescribed norms of behavior.

2.1.3. Normative Approach

Considering politeness a manifestation of etiquette and the socially defined norms, this

approach is called the social norm view (Fraser 1990), the first order approach (Watts

et al. 1992) and the traditional view (Werkhofer 1992). The basis of this approach is the

assumption that every culture, every community possesses a system of social

conventions and norms of appropriate behavior that require its members to strictly

follow. Despite being capable of describing socially ritualized behavior like greetings,

thankings etc., this approach with its sets of prescriptive rules fail to deal with the

dynamic, highly contextualized nature of polite behavior. Its limitation of explanatory

power as regards interpersonal verbal behavior is due to its being culture/group

specific. In contrast to the indifference on the part of Western researchers, there has

been an increasing interest in the social-norm/normative approach among politeness

researchers in non-Anglophone languages. Their attitudes and arguments are viewed in

the following section.

2.1.3.1. Chinese research

The closest Chinese equivalent of English ‘politeness’, in Lee-Wong’s 2000 view is

limao, which comprises li (ceremony, courtesy or etiquette) and mao (appearance) and

constitutes part of normative politeness expected of individual in social interactions.

Brown & Levinson’s politeness reduced to pure redressive strategies does not seem to

fit into Chinese concern about ethics and morals. Hsien (1944) suggests lien and mien

be equivalents to ‘face’ and points out,

60

[T]he latter by far the older, being found in ancient literature. Mien had acquired a

figurative meaning referring to the relation between ego and society as early as the

fourth century B. C. Lien is a more modern term, the earliest reference cited in the

K’ang-shi Dictionary dating from the Yuan Dynasty (1277-1367).

Cited from Hsien (1944: 45)

Li, the notion of which was formulated by Confucius (511 B. C. - 479 B. C.), is used in

at least nineteen compound nouns involving the concept of politeness as part of

extensive and elaborate rituals in ancient China (Lee-Wong ibid.). The rich lexicon of li

in Chinese displays the crucial role of rituals in Chinese culture and society of the old

days. Limao (manners, courtesy and politeness) should be construed in a cultural milieu

where rituals were both socially and ethically motivated and encoded in fossilized

linguistic expressions of gestures to be used in visits, funerals or weddings.

Focusing on the extended-family structure of the old China, Shih (1975: 31) points out,

‘China was traditionally a family-based society … the principle holding the family

peacefully together was also the principle behind the social order.’ In his view, Chinese

society today is still distinctly hierarchical and vertically structured, and this basic

principle is deeply embedded in the mind and social life of the Chinese despite the

changes in their social structure. According to Lee-Wong (2000: 24), the Chinese

modern day dictionary provides mianzi (face, reputation, and prestige) as the closest in

meaning to Hsien’s mien. The rich vocabulary of the notional construct of mianzi such

as ai mianzi (love face), you mianzi (to have face), gei mianzi (give face) etc. in

Chinese reflects an overt concern with face maintenance. As social members, Ss should

avoid face loss and try to maintain face if they love their face, and it is necessary that

they look after others’ face while looking after their own. All in all, Chinese limao is

apprehended as socially determined etiquette of behavior expected of social members

who share the same conventions of politeness in the speech community.

61

Gu (1990: 242) considers Chinese politeness a phenomenon which belongs ‘to the level

of society, which endorses its normative constraints on each individual’ and is mainly

deployed ‘to enhance social harmony, and to defuse interpersonal tensions and

conflicts’.

Searches by other Chinese scholars (Ho 1994, Chang 1999, Ji 2000) come to the same

conclusion of a more public and more positive concept of face firmly embodied in

interpersonal relations and applicable to such cultures belonging to the so-called

Confucian Civilization as Japanese and Vietnamese.

2.1.3.2. Japanese research

Brown & Levinson’s politeness model has met with a quite a few objections raised by

such Japanese researchers as Nakane (1972), Doi (1973), Matsumoto (1988), Ide

(1989), Nwoye (1992), Agha (1994), Bargiela-Chiappini (2003) in the last few decades.

Although the notion of Model Person who desires to protect his own territory from the

outside invasion has long been appreciated in Anglo-American culture, it has been

regarded with suspicion in relation to Japanese culture and society. It is the individual’s

position in relation to the others in the group and his/her acceptance by other social

members that is of paramount concern in Japan. Matsumoto (1988: 405) assumes:

A Japanese … must acknowledge his/her dependence on the others. Acknowledgement

and maintenance of the relative position of others, rather than preservation of an

individual’s proper territory, governs all social interaction.

Nakane (1970) believes that Japanese people are hierarchically related and mainly

concerned about how to become and remain accepted in the group or community. Thus,

Japanese wishes to maintain face as a dynamic governing politeness do not appear to be

consistent with Brown & Levinson’s claim of the universality of ‘face’. Ide (1989: 241)

says,

In a Western culture where individualism is assumed to be the basis of all interactions,

it is easy to regard face as the key to interaction. On the other hand, in a society where

62

group membership is regarded as the basis for interactions, the role or status defined in

a particular situation rather than face is the basis of interaction.

Discernment, the English translation from Japanese Wakimae (meaning practice of

polite behavior in accord with social norms), requires strict observance of the socio-

cultural norms prescribed for each speech event. Ss are said to passively adhere to

discernment when making a choice of certain address forms, formulaic expressions,

etiquettes, honorifics or speech levels to produce a polite behavior. And nowhere else is

it more important to know how to use honorifics than it is in Japanese, where honorifics

act as ‘relation-acknowledging devices’ (Matsumoto 1988: 414) to recognize one’s

relative position in the context and maintain the social ranking order. By and large, the

overemphasis on rational use of strategies fails to account for the deployment of

linguistic devices like honorifics, address terms, conventionalized formulas etc. in

politeness realization in non-Anglophone languages and cultures (Ide 1989).

2.1.3.3. Other non-Anglophone research

Since the appearance of Matsumoto’s article in 1988 and Ide’s paper in 1989, there

have been a number of searches into non-Anglophone languages to re-examine the

cultural variability of Brown & Levinson’s definition of ‘polite behavior’. Apart from

those mentioned above some extant papers seem to exhibit a discrepancy between

Brown & Levinson’s assumption and their local socio-cultural conventions.

The Korean che-myon (face), the image of the sociological self given to individuals by

society, is quite different from that posited by Brown & Levinson (Lim & Choi 1996).

Korean speakers hold che-myon important and attach a high value to social

relationships and spend much time and energy on establishing and maintaining them.

Bharuthram (2003: 1523-44) finds out that while politeness is also fundamental to

human relationships within the Hindu sector of the South African Indian English

speaking community, it places more emphasis on the face pertaining to the collective

63

image of the group. Consequently, as a group member, the S has to follow the norms of

behavior defined by the group/community. The concept of politeness in the target

culture, which is claimed to be more appropriately portrayed from the normative

perspective, seems to deviate from Brown & Levinson’s model, which focuses upon the

individual self-image.

In formal interactions, native Ss of Russian take into account their interlocutors’ status

for it is considered a basic societal norm existing alongside the Russian politeness or

‘authentically Russian’ politeness coming from the heart (Rathmayr 1999: 76, Bargiela-

Chiappini’s translation from French original 2003: 1462).

Although ‘face’ is observed to operate in Spanish casual interactions, its contents are

not the same as those polarized by Brown & Levinson. Such notions as ‘self-

affirmation’ (similar to positive face) and confianza - ‘sense of deep familiarity’

(similar to negative face), which refer to ‘the acceptance of the individual inside the

group’, are actually independent elements in Spanish socio-communicative talks

(Hernández-Flores 1999: 41).

A close look at volitional and normative approaches reveals that each focuses on a

different aspect of one and the same notion commonly termed as politeness. Politeness

with its two structuring components volition and discernment calls for a synthetic

approach which integrates personal choices and conventional practices into an

adequately theoretical framework capable of highlighting the study of politeness

considered both a socially prescriptive and personally motivated phenomenon.

2.1.4. Normative-Volitional Approach

2.1.4.1. Literature by Vietnamese researchers

One cannot fully comprehend politeness in modern Vietnam without reaching back to

its past, when the whole societal structure was regarded to be strongly influenced by

64

Confucianism, the dissemination of which from China to Vietnam dated back more

than 2,000 years ago. Fundamental to Confucianism is LÔ (rituals), which required

people to behave in accordance with their places in the social hierarchy, as Quang Dam

(1994: 149) states:

LÔ requires people to follow exactly all the rituals and principles advocated by

Confucianism …. If one does not do so, one does not have lÔ. If one does not have lÔ,

one has no right to look, to hear, to talk or do things. Speaking, greeting, eating, etc. all

need to be done in accordance with rites….

Cited in Vu T. T. H. (1997: 47-48)

The combination of Confucianism with its LÔ, Buddhism, and Taoism are

believed to have constituted the basis of Vietnamese politeness (Nguyen D. H. 1995,

Nguyen V. D. 1996). Apart from Confucianism, Vu T. T. H. (1997) mentions

community-based solidarity as a typical characteristic of the target culture. The sharing

of community-oriented solidarity by Vietnamese Ss may be the basis of the speech

responsibility for taking notice of interlocutors’ face/welfare so as to please them, as

reflected in the saying, ‘Lùa lêi mµ nãi cho võa lßng nhau’ (Choose the right

way to talk so as to please each other).

The contemporary socio-cultural life of the Vietnamese has still been affected by

Confucian ideology despite the big changes resulted from the contact with French

culture (1858-1954), the active spread of communist egalitarian ideas in human

relationships, and the strong impact of modern technology and communication (Luong

1988, Nguyen D. H. 1995, among others).

Hanoi Ss of Vietnamese, who are the informants of the interviews and elicited

questionnaires used in the research into politeness by Vu T. T. H. (1997), are inclined

to attach notions of politeness with socially institutionalized rules of behavior

(according to its cultural and moral values) on the one hand, and underline the

manipulative strategies in regards to communicative goals on the other. These two

65

aspects of politeness in Vietnamese culture, namely, normative/social politeness and

strategic/personal politeness, are inextricably interwoven and linguistically realized by

means of address terms, particles and indirectness under the influence of the S-H’s

status and solidarity relationships and such social attributes as age, gender and

occupation.

The face in Vietnamese culture, according to Vu T. T. H. (Ibid.), thought as an

integration of the personal side consisting of the internal self and the social side

covering the relationships between self and alters, suggests a deviation of the

universality of Brown & Levinson’s notion of face (interpreted as a self-image of the

personal self), and proposes an investigation of cultural variations in the notion of face

and its underlying socio-cultural values on the basis of non-Western languages and

cultures. Nguyen D. H. (1995), who is in favor of using volition-discernment as the

analytic framework for his examining politeness markers in Vietnamese, also argues

the concept of negative face in Brown & Levinson’s model and emphasizes the social

aspect of face, and hence politeness, in Japanese and Chinese cultures, which he thinks

identical to that in Vietnamese culture.

The empirical results in section 1.2.2.1 of the present study show that social attributes

like age and status are of paramount concern in the Vietnamese socio-cultural

environment, and Vietnam belongs to the so-called hierarchy-based societies in which

interpersonal relationships are hierarchically stratified. However, the vertical

relationships in Asian cultures in general and Vietnamese culture in particular, seem to

be distinctive and specific in the sense that they are collectively oriented, reciprocal and

interdependent. Younger or lower-status people are supposed to show respect to older

or higher-status people in conformity to the maxim ‘kÝnh trªn’ (respect super-

66

ordinates), and meanwhile, the superiors should take good care of the inferiors, which

is relevant to the maxim ‘nhêng díi’ (yield to subordinates).

Vietnamese politeness theorists, deploying the synthetic approach, arrive at the same

assumption that the notion of face connoting negative and positive face-wants seems to

have no counterpart in the Vietnamese socio-cultural milieu, which orients itself to

hierarchy, solidarity and interdependence in upward-downward relationships, and that

both personally strategic politeness and socially conventional politeness do exist in this

culture. The co-existence and interplay between these two kinds of politeness are

distinctive and complex, and so is the degree to which each operates. Normative

politeness or discernment, which is reflected in Ss’ passive adherence to the social

norms and practices, is mainly manifested in the exploitation of address terms,

particles, formulaic expressions, etc. As discussed earlier, volition or volitional

politeness, which tends to conceptualize politeness as individual strategies to avoid

social conflicts or/and achieve communicative goals, is subjected to personal choices.

And although group/community norms are socially institutionalized, they are optional

and open to Ss’ strategic manipulations. It is Ss that decide to abide by certain

conventions to be polite or impolite.

In addition, social norms of behavior may be the ultimate consequences of long-term

repetition of strategic choices. For instance, quite a few honorific expressions whose

deployment is said to implicitly comply with conventions/discernment might be

originally strategic manipulations (Brown & Levinson 1987: 23). Therefore, it is

logically deduced that politeness is both normative and volitional. Stated otherwise,

discernment and volition are the two sides of one unity, i.e. politeness, and one cannot

be thoroughly analyzed or fully understood without taking the other into careful

consideration. Along this line and for this very reason, came into being the synthetic

67

approach to politeness which takes as its analytical framework volitional and normative

approaches.

2.1.4.2. Literature by other researchers

Having realized the strength as well as the limitation of each approach to politeness, a

number of researchers show a tendency to regard politeness as having two structuring

elements volition and discernment. Hill et al. (1986: 349) overtly states the desire to

have ‘a system for polite use of a particular language’ that ‘will exhibit two major

aspects: the necessity for speaker Discernment and the opportunity for speaker

Volition’. Kasper (1990) emphasizes the need of investigating politeness in its unity of

individual strategies and social norms, the interrelationships of which are culturally and

situationally specific.

Werkhofer (1992) compares politeness with money, and although politeness socially

and personally characterized, the social restrictions on it are much stronger than

personal intents. Focusing on the finding of a more efficient analytic model for the

study of linguistic politeness, Ide (1993) underlines the task of describing and

analyzing linguistic politeness in Western and non-Western languages and cultures on

the basis of integrating the strategic view and the social-norm view.

In an attempt to combine individual choices with social constraints on behavior,

Fraser’s 1990 ‘Perspective on Politeness’ treats politeness as appropriate language use

and links it to the terms and conditions of conversational contract, as posited below:

Being polite does not involve making the hearer ‘feel good,’ à la Lakoff or Leech, nor

with making the hearer not ‘feel bad,’ à la Brown & Levinson. It simply involves getting

on with the task at hand in light of the terms and conditions of the conversational

contract.

Cited from Fraser (1990: 233)

To shed light on the notion of politeness in Chinese culture and society, Lee-Wong

underlines the significant difference between the Western concept of the individual as a

68

social unit and the Chinese focus on society as a social unit, which has long been

proved in cross-cultural studies (Nakane 1970, Doi 1973, Matsumoto 1988 among

others). Her research, which is conducted within the framework of normative-volitional

approach and on the basis of data from questionnaires, interviews and naturally-

occurring interaction, confronts the Western concepts of politeness with great emphasis

on non-imposition with the Chinese concept with intense focus on ethics.

2.1.5 Summary

This section looks at different views on and research into politeness by Western and

non-Western scholars. Theoretical concepts or rules of politeness put forth by Grice,

Lakoff, Leech, as well as Brown & Levinson seem incomplete and universally

inapplicable because they do not sufficiently accounts for discourse behaviors in

cultures other than Anglo-American where group or community solidarity, not

individualism, is of prime importance. Politeness can only be properly interpreted and

explored on the basis of the larger socio-cultural structure, the matrix of

institutionalized norms of behavior within the framework of normative-volitional

approach. Politeness involves socio-cultural norms can be observed in linguistic forms

and analyzed on the basis of linguistic data, as these norms affect language and leave

behind traces visible in the lexicon and grammar systems.

To achieve their goals, Ss show deference and respect to others through behavioral

conventions and petrified formulae that reflect value judgments and beliefs of a given

culture and society. However, Ss do not passively adhere to native socio-cultural

contexts. As creative representatives of a language community they are prone to deploy

contextually defined strategies to ease the process of interpersonal communication.

Collective norms/discernment, and individual strategic manipulations/volition are

found to exist, to different extents, in almost all languages and cultures (Hill et al.

69

1986, Ide 1987, 1989, among others). The degree to which discernment or volition is

focused on varies greatly from culture to culture and from language to language.

In the following section, politeness is empirically examined by means of elicited data in

disagreeing by English and Vietnamese speakers processed on SPSS.


2.2.1. Aims and Methodology

2.2.1.1. Aims

This empirical study tends to yield findings to testify:

1. If there are any differences in the assessment of politeness level of disagreement

responses by native speakers of English in North America and Vietnamese

speakers in Hanoi.

2. If these differences are manifestations of the differences underlying the systems

of socio-cultural norms, values and beliefs which determine local perceptions of

politeness.


Written mini-questionnaires # 4 filled by 200 native speakers of English and

Vietnamese contain 12 evaluative expressions of disagreeing (given in detail in

Appendix 2, numbered from 4.1 to 4.12) carefully chosen from the corresponding

literature and 20 pre-questionnaires conducted before the official SDCTs. The

respondents are asked to mark politeness level of each utterance on the continuum

ranging from polite, neutral to impolite. A total number of 2,400 disagreeing tokens

(1,200 in English and 1,200 in Vietnamese) are rated and they construct the database

for this empirical study. The outputs are examined and those which are statistically

significant (i.e. the significance, or the sig. for short, offered in the chi-square is below

0.05) are selected for further investigation.

70

2.2.2. Politeness Level Rated by Respondents


The output of the disagreeing response to Grandma ‘She’s all right, I suppose’ (Ch¸u

thÊy c« Êy b×nh thêng) depicted in chart 2-1 and table 2-1 exhibits a striking

difference between the two groups of speakers. While 58 English respondents

(accounting for 58%) consider it polite and 38 of them (making up 38%) rate it neutral,

22 Vietnamese respondents mark it polite and 78 of them regard it neutral. This

contrary trend could result from the absence of deference particle ‘¹’ conventionally

used in Vietnamese upward interaction to show inferiors’ respect to superiors.

However, there seems to be no substantial difference in the respondents’ rating

impoliteness of the utterance.

4.1.Level of Politeness Total

First Language Polite Neutral Impolite English Count 58 38 4 100English % 58.0% 38.0% 4.0% 100.0%Vietnamese Count 22 76 2 100Vietnamese % 22.0% 76.0% 2.0% 100.0%

Table 2-20: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.1. 'She's all right, I suppose.'

Chart 2-1: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.1. 'She's all right, I suppose.'

Assessment of Politeness Level

4.1. To Grandma, "She's all right, I suppose."

ImpoliteNeutralPolite

Cou

nt

80

60

40

20

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

71

Chart 2-2: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.3. 'Fashions change, you know.'

4.3.Level of Politeness Total

First LanguagePolite Neutral Impolite

English Count 27 52 21 100English % 27.0% 52.0% 21.0% 100.0%Vietnamese Count 3 57 40 100Vietnamese % 3.0% 57.0% 40.0% 100.0%

Table 2-21: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.3. 'Fashions change, you know.'

The negative evaluation ‘Fashions change, you know’ (Mèt ®æi råi.) (to a

colleague, same age and gender) yields a big contrast in columns #1 (polite) and

column #3 (impolite) between the Ss of the two languages under investigation. 27% of

the English Ss assume it to be polite compared to 3% of their Vietnamese counterparts,

and 21% of the first group see it as impolite opposed to 40% of the second. The low

percentage in politeness and the high percentage in impoliteness rated by the

Vietnamese can be the result of zero-address form usage. Address terms are

normatively deployed to express solidarity and deference in the corresponding culture.

Without it, the Vietnamese version may insinuate some sarcasm or/and threat. The

proportion of neutralization reveals a marginal difference that is worth taking no notice

of.


4.3. "Fashions change, you know."

(To Colleague, same age & gender)


Cou

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

72

4.4 Level of Politeness Total


Table 2-22: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.4. ‘We’re very much in agreement, but ….'

The native speakers of English substantially differ from their Vietnamese counterparts

in evaluating 4.4. ‘We’re very much in agreement, but….’ (V©ng, nhng….), a

negative assessment to ‘older boss’. The majority of the English Ss (70%) take it polite

and some of them (18) get it neutral, whereas 45% and 50% of the Vietnamese find it

polite and neutral. This suggests that the former attach greater importance to

indirectness in expressing such FTAs as disagreeing, while the latter do not seem to

share the same assumption. In spite of the particle/deference marker ‘V©ng’ and the

sentence incompleteness, the version in Vietnamese is not judged as polite as the

English version. This is possibly due to the weightiness of two factors age and status,

assessed in section 1.2.2.1 as the most influential socio-cultural parameters governing

interpersonal communication in Vietnamese society.

Chart 2-3: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.4. 'We're very much in agreement, but ....'


4.4. "We're very much in agreement, but...."

(To Older Boss)


Cou

nt

80

60

40

20

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

73

Chart 2-4: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.5. 'Not me, I totally disagree.'

The impact of age and status on the Vietnamese addresser can also be seen in

disagreeing attribute 4.5. ‘Not me, I totally agree’ (Kh«ng, con hoµn toµn ph¶n

®èi), where the addressee is Father. In such less hierarchical societies ‘as the northern

European and the North American’ these factors might be considered as ‘far less

marked in verbal and non-verbal interaction’ (Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003: 1463). As a

result, the percentage observed in the English column Polite is much higher than that in

the Vietnamese: 34% vs. 11%.

4.5Level of Politeness Total


Table 2-23: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.5. 'Not me, I totally disagree. '



Table 2-24: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.6. 'That's pretty good.'


4.5. To Father, "Not me, I totally disagree."


Cou

nt70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

74

Chart 2-5: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.6. 'That's pretty good.'

Chart 2-5 and table 2-5 unravel a sensitive nuance of socio-communicative interaction

by Ss of English and Vietnamese. The disagreement to the person the S hates, ‘That’s

pretty good’ (C¸i ®ã kh¸ hay ®Êy), which may sound diplomatically pleasing, is

marked considerably different: 43 and 40 English informants find it polite and neutral

in comparison to 27 and 60 Vietnamese. The slight difference between the two groups

of informants in column # 3 is statistically negligible.

Chart 2-6: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.7. 'That may be so, but....'

The careful consideration of the negatively evaluative token to an older acquaintance,

‘That may be so, but….’ (Còng cã thÓ nh thÕ ®Êy ¹, nhng….) demonstrates a


4.6. "That's pretty good."

(To someone you dislike)


Cou

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese


4.7. "That may be so, but...."

(To Older acquaintance)


Cou

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

75

distinctive feature in Vietnamese assumption of linguistic politeness. Whilst the

difference in English and Vietnamese rating columns Polite & Neutral is noteworthy

with 66% and 33% in English vs. 40% and 48% in Vietnamese, the proportion

presented in Impolite draws the most attention. The striking imbalance of percentage

(English 1% vs. Vietnamese 12%) again implies the inconsistent correlation between

indirectness and politeness in non-Anglophone cultures where community-based

solidarity is the central locus of concern.

4.7 Level of Politeness Total First Language Polite Neutral Impolite English Count 66 33 1 100English % 66.0% 33.0% 1.0% 100.0%Vietnamese Count 40 48 12 100Vietnamese % 40.0% 48.0% 12.0% 100.0%

Table 2-25: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.7. 'That may be so, but....'

The non-correlation between politeness and indirectness is clear looking at the results

in chart 2-7 and table 2-7, where status affects the S’s saying ‘Really?’ (ThËt thÕ

sao?) to his/her younger boss. Obviously, indirectness in Vietnamese is not always

rated polite.

Chart 2-7: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.8. 'Really?'

While the informants appear to be similar in their marking column #3, estimating the

disagreeing evaluation ‘No, grandpa, no, no, you’re wrong’ (Kh«ng, «ng ¬i,


4.8. To Younger Boss, "Really?"


Cou

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

76

kh«ng, kh«ng, «ng nhÇm råi ¹.) (41% in English and 36% in Vietnamese), they

keep exhibiting their different attitudes toward what is assumed polite in their local

socio-cultural milieus. More English Ss consider the utterance polite (36 vs. 17),

whereas more Vietnamese Ss find it neutral (47 vs. 23). The use of deference maker ‘¹’

and the kin-term ‘«ng’ does not seem to completely save the S’s face when proffering

such a negative token to grandfather. Here, again, can be clearly observed the various

influences of age and status on understanding and realizing politeness across cultures

and societies.

4.8 Level of Politeness Total First Language Polite Neutral Impolite English Count 47 43 10 100 English %

47.0% 43.0% 10.0% 100.0%

Vietnamese Count 16 53 31 100Vietnamese % 16.0% 53.0% 31.0% 100.0%

Table 2-26: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.8. ‘Really?’

Chart 2-8: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.9. 'No, grandpa, no, no, you're wrong.'



Table 2-27: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.9. 'No, grandpa, no, no, you're wrong.'


4.9. "No, Grandpa, no, no, you're wrong."

(To Grandfather)


Cou

nt

50

40

30

20

10

First Language

English

Vietnamese

77


4.10. "Boring people get bored."

(To Close Friend)

Sit. 4.3. Boring Party


Cou

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 2-9: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.10. 'Boring people get bored.’

4.10. Level of Politeness Total


Table 2-28: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.10. 'Boring people get bored.'

The difference in the findings demonstrated in chart 2-9 and table 2-9 might be the

consequence of non-equivalence of the English and Vietnamese versions (cf. ‘Boring

people get bored’ and ‘Ngêi buån thÊy g× ch¼ng tÎ’). While most of the

Vietnamese rate it as neutral or polite, more than half of the English (55%) see it as

impolite. In English the response may allude to certain irony, mockery or even

disgrace. Thus, indirectness is not always equal to politeness, even in the Anglo-

American culture.



78

Table 2-29: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4. 11. 'Do you really think so?'


4.11. "Do you really think so?"

(To Colleague, same age, different gender)



Cou

nt

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 2-10: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.11. 'Do you really think so?'

Unlike utterance 4.10, the disagreeing token in 4.11 (to colleague, same age different

gender) is believed to be linguistically equivalent in the two languages (cf. ‘Do you

really think so?’ ‘CËu nghÜ thÕ thËt µ?’). The assessment of politeness level is,

however, apparently dissimilar. The English preference for indirectness as a polite

means of behavior is reflected in columns Polite with 43%, Neutral with 56% and

Impolite with 1%. The Vietnamese resort more to Neutral with 67%, Polite with 24%

and Impolite with 9%, which is in conformity to the local trend towards solidarity and

intimacy. The reason for the low degree of politeness in Vietnamese may lie in the

implication of the interrogative form which seems to question the reliability and

truthfulness of the prior assessment, and thus, might allude to first Ss’ inability.



Table 2-30: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.12. 'Sorry, but I think it was interesting.'

79

The negative assessment to the prior evaluation ‘Sorry, but I think it was interesting’

with its Vietnamese version ‘Xin lçi, nhng t«i/… thÊy nã hay’ is chosen on

purpose despite its statistic insignificance (its sig. is 0.283). First, it has high percentage

of politeness in both English and Vietnamese: 54% and 65% respectively. Second, the

rating of impolite level is almost the same, 7% in English and 5% in Vietnamese. In

addition, the English and the Vietnamese versions are quite similar in terms of wording

and meaning. This means that the use of an apology token as a mitigation device for

disagreement appears to work well in both languages and cultures.


4.12. "Sorry, I can't share the same idea."

(To Younger Acquaintaince)



Cou

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 2-11: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.12. 'Sorry, but I think it was interesting.'

2.2.2.2. Comments

The English informants seem to considerably differ from the Vietnamese informants in

their assessment of politeness level. The English rating of politeness is much higher in

10 tokens (4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11) in comparison with the

Vietnamese. In several English disagreements indirectness seems to correlate with

politeness, except for 4.10 ‘Boring people get bored’, where indirectness may imply

irony. The important role of markers ‘v©ng’ and ‘¹’, and appropriate address terms in

expressing politeness in Vietnamese is noteworthy. Also, it is of interest to see the

80

interactions and interrelationships of such socio-cultural parameters as age and status in

the linguistic realization of disagreements in Vietnamese.

The last token 4.12 exhibits the similarity of using apology as an effective means to

convey politeness in the two languages and cultures under study.

2.2.3. Summary

Of 2400 disagreeing tokens assessed by 200 English and Vietnamese Ss and processed

on SPSS, 2200 are selected for further study. Except for 200 tokens of utterance # 4.12,

which yield identical usage of apologies in English and Vietnamese as softeners, 2000

tokens display striking differences in the respondents’ evaluating and perceiving

politeness. The rating of politeness level by English and Vietnamese Ss seems to go in

reverse directions in almost all cases. Impoliteness marking by the Vietnamese Ss can

be traced to the absence of deference markers like ‘¹’, ‘v©ng’, or appropriate address

terms or other formal semantic items. The deployment of politeness devices in

Vietnamese should be made in compliance with and negotiation of such determinants

as age and status which have strong impact on interactive communication. The English

Ss are inclined to see strategic indirectness as a primary means to express politeness,

whereas the Vietnamese Ss tend to attach higher level of politeness to such disagreeing

expressions in which deference markers, addressing terms, etc. are deployed in

interrelation to socio-cultural factors (age, status, etc.). This is similar to the finding by

Nguyen D. H. (1995) concerning the Vietnamese frequent use of discourse indirectness

vs. the Australian extensive exploitation of form indirectness.


This chapter deals with disagreeing as regards politeness, its perception and realization.

Politeness is culturally colored in the sense that different societies have different

cultural beliefs and values that determine and restrict its linguistic realization.

81

Politeness is also personally manipulated as individuals are free to choose to behave in

accordance with indigenous social conventions and norms. Thus, quite naturally and

logically, politeness should be perceived and interpreted in its unity of volition and

discernment in relation to the wider socio-cultural milieu. The empirical findings

exhibit the differences in politeness level assessment by native speakers of English and

Vietnamese. These differences are considered manifestations of deeper-level

differences in socially institutionalized norms of the target cultures. Anglo-American

culture in North America lays great emphasis on individualism and non-imposition

while Vietnamese culture, like other Asian cultures, highly values collectivism and

community-oriented solidarity.

The following chapter investigates linguistic manipulation of disagreeing within the

framework of Brown & Levinson’s model of politeness strategies. Also, the choice of

strategies to realize disagreeing by the respondents is empirically testified.

82

CHAPTER THREE

STRATEGIES OF POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING


Brown & Levinson’s 1987 model of politeness strategies for speech act realization is

adopted for the examination of disagreeing in this chapter. The first part of the chapter

discusses the main theoretical points of the model concerning such issues as individual

strategies and the relationship between politeness and indirectness. The second part

empirically investigates these issues as regards disagreeing tokens by native Ss of

English and Vietnamese.

3.1.1. Brown & Levinson’s Model of Strategies

In communicative interaction Ss often deploy different kinds of strategies and devices

to minimize face risk to their interlocutors and maintain the harmony of their

interrelations. The possibility of threat to an act may be reduced via certain strategies.

Below is a series of possible strategies for performing FTAs, numbering from greater to

lesser risk of face losing (Ibid. 1987: 69).

Lesser 1. without redressive action, baldly

on record 2. positive politeness

Do the FTA with redressive action

4. off record 3. negative politeness

5. Don't do the FTA

83

Greater

Chart 3-12: Possible strategies for doing FTAs

In Brown & Levinson’s view, when facing an FTA, Ss can choose from five

possibilities which constitute three sets of on-record strategies: producing the FTA

without any redress (bald-on-record), producing the FTA using positive politeness,

producing the FTA using negative politeness) and one set of off-record strategies. It is

the Ss’ assessment of the size and weightiness of the FTA in relation to the three

parameters P, D & R (mentioned in 2.1.2.3.) that forms the basis of their appropriate

strategy choice. If the weightiness of the FTA is too great they may decide not to

perform the FTA at all. However, as mentioned in Chapter 2, the notion of negative

face raised in Brown & Levinson’s model is quite controversial and does not seem to fit

into non-Anglophone socio-cultural contexts. Consequently, the series of strategies

adopted and deployed in this study encompasses: (i) bald-on-record strategies, (ii) on-

record (with redress) strategies, (iii) off-record strategies, and (iv) no FTAs. Each type

of strategies is in turn explored on the basis of disagreeing tokens.

3.1.2. Manipulation of Strategies

3.1.2.1. Bald-on-record strategies

Bald-on-record strategies are reflected themselves in direct linguistic forms and

clarified as strategies without redress. Ss are in full conformity to the Gricean maxims

(mentioned in 2.1.2.1.) to explicitly express what they want to mean as in (Pomerantz

1978: 87):

(1) H: Gee, Hon, you look nice in that dress.

→ W: ….It’s just a rag my sister gave me.

This kind of strategy is preferred and used mostly in emergencies, military, in

interaction between close friends/ family members or other intimate contexts where Ss

84

seem to focus on the maximum efficiency of the message. In other cases, Ss are

socially expected to hedge their disagreeing. There are, however, many striking

examples of bald-on-record utterances falling into none of the categories mentioned by

Brown & Levinson. The S then intentionally chooses to be maximally offensive, as in:

(2) Mr. Tam Dalyell, M. P., in the British House of Common (referring to the then Prime Minister,

Margaret Thatcher)

'I say that she is a bounder, a liar, a deceiver, a crook.'

(Cited in Thomas 1995: 171)

Vietnamese society is a solidarity-oriented society with strict hierarchy where emphasis

is put on the social role of an individual, not his personality (Nguyen D. H. 1995 &

Nguyen Q. 1998 among others). Bald-on-record strategies on the part of superiors are

acceptable, but in upward speech from a social inferior to a superior they are

conventionally accompanied with honorifics of some kind. The following excerpt is

between a teacher and her former 12-grade student, who has just taken the college

entrance exam:

V03.4.13

(3)C: …ViÖc thi rÊt khã … sÏ chän ®îc nh©n tµi thùc sù ®Ó vµo

®¹i häc

(…Difficult exams … will help select really gifted students for colleges)

A: Kh«ng cã ®©u ¹. Tiªu cùc vÉn cùc nhiÒu lu«n ¹.

(No, they aren’t. There are still a great many secret deals.)

Although the disagreeing token is forthrightly disclosed in upward speech by A, C’s

inferior, it gives no offence to her teacher C thanks to the repeated use of honorific ‘¹’.

The absence of deference markers in similar contexts would be treated as an

intentionally blatant break of socially determined norms which are supposed to be

followed by every member of the community. An old-aged and/or high-status person

85

has to be obeyed and respected, and social subordinates are expected to show deference

and respect to superiors in accordance with the social constraints of polite language use.

Particles like nµo, g×, ®©u, b¶o, cã, c¬, lµm, sao, chø... and so on,

used to differentiate the speech acts (Nguyen D. D. 1998: 16), may combine with one

another to express an opposite assessment or view to the prior.

Interestingly, disagreeing is not always seen as an act that threatens the H’s face

(Levinson 1983, Pomerantz 1984, Sacks 1987, Nofsinger 1991). Conversely, it is

considered a face saving act that takes care of the H. This happens when the first

assessment contains a self-deprecation, and the speaker abases himself/herself, or

underestimates his/her belonging. The bald-on-record disagreement on the part of the

second S in (4), found in my tape-recorded data, is surely a FSA, whereas the

agreement token given in (5), taken from Nofsinger (1991: 75), is assumed an FTA:

(4)L: ¤ng T h còng mét phÇn do m×nh.

(That Mr. T has been spoilt is partly my mistake.) (T is L’s husband)

→ B: Kh«ng ph¶i lµ t¹i bµ mµ vÊn ®Ò lµ t¹i ý thøc cña tõng ngêi.

(It is not your mistake, and the problem is in each individual’s consciousness.)

(5) A: ... Do you know what I was all that time?

B: (No)

A: Pavlov's dog. (2.0)

→ B: (I suppose),

Pomerantz (1974, 1984a), Sacks (1987) and Nofsinger (1991), among other

researchers, discover and discuss this interesting point of disagreeing. The case when

the S humbles himself/herself on purpose to wait for the H's disagreement is known as

a strategic self-deprecation. If he abases himself/herself without any intention we have

a genuine self-deprecation (Nofsinger ibid.).

86

3.1.2.2. On-record strategies

Generally speaking, in face-to-face communication, disagreeing is often hedged and

minimized via on-record and off-record strategies, especially in the Anglo-American

context, where the primary concern is the individual. Some of the strategies suggested

by Brown & Levinson can work well in disagreeing, namely:

1. Intensifying interest to H:

S exaggerates his interest, approval, sympathy … toward H. This can be seen clearly in

the case of self-deprecation as in the example by Pomerantz (1984a: 85) exhibited

below, the disagreement token is combined with a complimentary evaluative attribute:

(6) A: … I feel like uh her and I play alike hehh

→ B: No. You play beautifully.

2. Giving (or asking for) reasons:

S wants to include H in the activity, to test H and see if he is cooperative; in case S is,

the context may be enough to perform another speech act, the speech act of arguing:

(7) A: A new educational system will work well.

→ B: Why do you think this way?

Aiming at maintaining the harmony Vietnamese Ss can make their disagreement less

offensive by asking for reasons or source of information:

V03.9.56.

(8)B: C¸i kiÕm tiÒn cña th»ng N Êy (0.5) tí thÊy kh«ng ph¶i lµ tèt.

(I don’t think the way N makes his money is good.)

H: õ. Sao l¹i kh«ng tèt.

(Yeah. Why isn’t it good.)

V03.8.45

(9)T: C¨n b¶n lµ khèi A n¨m nay khã h¬n.

87

(Essentially, group A is more difficult this year.)

L: Ai b¶o thÕ?

(Who said that)

3. Hedges:

In terms of illocutionary force, hedges can be understood as 'the most important

linguistic means of satisfying the speaker's want' (Brown & Levinson 1987: 146). Here

are some common hedges: I suppose/ believe/ assume/ guess/ think/ wonder/, I'm afraid/ sorry, I

myself, a little bit, merely, kind of, only, well, actually, maybe, perhaps, sort of, rather, pretty, quite,

technically, roughly, really, certainly, totally, completely, just, etc.

In general, hedges are divided into strengtheners (act as emphatic hedges) and

weakeners (those that soften or mitigate what they modify). In English, disagreement is

often hedged to minimize the threat to the H as in the excerpt by Pomerantz (1978: 93):

(10) J: T’s- tsuh beautiful day out isn’t it?

→ L: Yeh it’s just gorgeous.

4. Apologizing:

S may describe his reluctance to impose on H's face by apologizing for performing an

FTA as in Wierzbicka (1987: 127):

(11) 'Before I disagree with our speaker', he said 'I should like to apologize to

him...'

5. Impersonalizing S and H:

S may avoid using 'I' and 'you' to indicate the distance between him and H:

(12) A: The shirt you're wearing is short.

→ B: Everyone wears shirts like this.

6. Indicating deference:

Deferential markers (sir, madam...) are used to convey social hierarchy and rank. In

utterances of this kind S often, in Brown & Levinson’s words, 'humbles and abases'

88

himself, at the same time, the ' hearer's wants to be treated as superior' is raised and

satisfied (Brown & Levinson 1987: 178). In a formal setting one may express one's

disagreement, saying:

(13) There's a lot of truth in what you say, Sir, but ...

The use of deference markers, address terms and other particles also helps to lessen the

threat to the H's face want. In Vietnamese this strategy seems to be employed very

often to show that Ss try to take care of Hs. Ss may also abase or deprecate themselves

and, therefore, raise or exalt their interlocutors before expressing their disagreements. A

number of lexico-modal markers are used to soften Ss’ disagreeing. The most common

hedges are: cã lÏ lµ, cã thÓ, ®¹i lo¹i lµ, kiÓu nh lµ, chót Ýt, chót xÝu, tÝ tÑo, h¬i

(h¬i), gÇn nh lµ, t¬ng ®èi, kha kh¸, kh¸ lµ, h×nh nh, cã vÎ, hoµn toµn, tuyÖt ®èi,

qu¶ thËt lµ, rÊt, v« cïng, v« vµn, l¾m, t«i cho lµ/nghÜ lµ/ c¶m gi¸c lµ etc.

Investigating some cultural and cross-cultural issues in English and Vietnamese

Nguyen Q. (2003: 39) points out the most frequent expressions used in Vietnamese

to avoid direct disagreements: õ, nhng mµ; V©ng, nhng mµ; Còng cã thÓ, nhng mµ;

Còng ®îc, nhng mµ etc.

3.1.2.3. Off-record strategies

At times the S may choose to perform an FTA but tries to avoid being responsible for it

and leaves it up to the H to decide how to interpret it. The H can infer the force of the

utterance by considering the context and other social constrains affecting the S's choice

of particular linguistic forms. The term for the strategy allowing the S to implicitly and

indirectly transform his/her intentions is off-record strategy. Technically, in

conversations off-record strategies are considered on-record ones (Brown & Levinson

1987: 212):

...[M]any of the classic off-record strategies – metaphor, irony, understatement,

rhetorical questions, etc. – are very often actually on-record when used.

89

Brown & Levinson suggest a set of off-record strategies that will be highlighted in

relation with the speech act of disagreeing. S may invite conversational implicatures by

violating the Gricean Maxims. He decides to do an FTA indirectly through hints.

1. Violating Relevance Maxim:

Violating the Maxim Relevance S invites H to look for a suitable interpretation of the

utterance by making explicitly irrelevant utterances and giving hints:

(14) A. Miss X is getting too fat.

→ B. Fashions change, you know.

2. Violating Quantity Maxim:

a. Understating:

The violation of the Quantity Maxim makes Ss inevitably say something less than or

different from what they intend to convey. The disagreeing token thus seems to be soft

and weak, as in an example by Pomerantz (1978: 97):

(15) E: That Pat. Isn’t she a doll::

→ M: Yeh isn’t she pretty, (Meaning: not very beautiful)

b. Overstating:

Ss can violate the Quantity Maxim by saying more than is necessary. An act of

disagreeing can be performed through an overstatement as in (Ibid. 1978: 93):

(16) B. She seems like a nice little lady. [

→ A. Awfully nice little person.c. Using tautologies:

By using tautology S encourages H to seek for an informative interpretation of the non-

informative utterance. Tautology may be understood as an act of disagreeing as in:

(17) A. Boys are getting too naughty these days.

→ B. Boys are boys.

3. Violating Quality Maxim:

90

Violation of the Quality Maxim is made through giving contradictions, ironies,

metaphors and rhetorical questions.

a. Being ironic or using contradictions:

Ss express their intended meaning indirectly by saying the opposite of what they want

to convey. By giving two contradictory statements Ss show that they cannot be telling

the truth. It is Hs that have to look for a suitable interpretation which implies

disagreement:

(18) A. The government is to blame.

→ B. Yes and no. /It is and it is not.

b. Using metaphors:

Metaphors may be marked with hedges like real, regular, sort of/sorta, as it was, etc.

(19) A. So he- so then, at this- y’see, --I don’t like to brag but see he sorta like

backed outta the argument then.

c. Using rhetorical questions:

Ss may demonstrate their opposite stances to the indicated information by asking

questions with no intention of getting answers as in:

(20) A. Miss X is getting too fat.

→ B. How fat is too fat?

4. Violating Manner Maxim:

a. Being vague or ambiguous:

Ss’ decision to be vague or ambiguous leads them to the violation of the Manner

Maxim. Ss may achieve purposeful ambiguity through metaphors as in:

(21) A. John is a good boy.

→ B. He's pretty smooth/ He is a pretty sharp cookie.

91

The use of proverbs can be considered one way of over-generalization. Ss’

overgeneralization makes Hs decide if the general rule applies to them:

(22) A. That party both you and I went to was very boring.

→ B. Boring people get bored.

b. Being incomplete:

S may leave the implicature hanging in the air by leaving an FTA half done. S can use

one of the following structures to express his disagreement (Blundell et al. 1996):

a) I see what you mean, but ..., b) To a certain extent, yes, but ..., c) Yes, maybe/perhaps,

but ..., d) I couldn't agree more, but ..., e) I see your point, but …, f) Agreed, but ..., g)

Yes, up to that point, but ..., h) That's one way of looking at it, but ..., i) There's a lot in

what you say, but ..., j) OK, but ..., k) Yes, but ..., l) Mm, but ..., m) Granted, but ..., etc.

No longer can these structures retain the force of vagueness or ambiguity if they are

followed by argumentative utterances.

c. Using backchannels :

In real life interactions, disagreeing is often softened or hedged so as to lessen the threat

to H's positive face. It is observed that backchannels are used frequently to help with

creating vagueness or ambiguity as in the following extract by Pomerantz (1978: 92):

(23) A: So, they’ll be nice to have in the house there,

→ B. Mm hm,

B's ‘Mm hm’ makes his interlocutor seek for a suitable interpretation which is either

agreement or disagreement, and helps to maintain the harmony of their relation. Thus,

the researcher would like to suggest this strategy an additional one.

In Vietnamese off-record strategy may be deployed when the S wants to tacitly

disagree with his/her conversational partner as in:

(24) A: Nã ch¼ng th«ng minh g×. (He is not very intelligent.)

→ B: Chã chª mÌo l¾m l«ng. (The dog disparages the cat for being too

hairy.)

92

B uses a proverb to express his/her disagreement, and frankly speaking, the utterance

sounds more offensive than a direct expression of disagreement as it contains certain

insinuation of irony or criticism. In some cases Ss are inclined to say the opposite to

show that they are not in full agreement with their conversational participants (Nguyen

D. D. 1996: 297):

(25) A: Líp bªn c¹nh häc rÊt giái. (The next door class is very good at

studies.)

→ B: Cßn chóng em th× kÐm. (And we are very bad at studies.)

Obviously, in B’s reply above intentional self-deprecation is used to imply their good

results in studies. At other time speakers may 'praise' their partners so as to show their

disagreement with the first assessment via the implication of irony or reproach:

(26) (In a Vietnamese folk tale: a rat saying to a fox)

R: Chóng mµy h«i l¾m.

(You smell bad.)

→ F: Cßn c¶ hä nhµ mµy th× th¬m.

(And your whole clan smells good.)

Unlike English backchannels such as 'uh-uh', 'mmm', 'mm-hmm' etc. are rarely used in

Vietnamese. In stead, particles like d¹, v©ng(¹), thÕ ¹//sao, thÕ c¬ ¹/µ, thËt (vËy)

sao//µ/ h¶, (å) (thËt) thÕ (kia) µ/ /sao/h¶, ®óng thÕ ¹//ch¨ng etc. are widely used to

show that the speech is being followed. At the same time they increase the haziness of

the utterance and hide the S's disagreement.

(27) (Young boss talking to older employee)

B: B÷a tiÖc tèi qua ch¸n qu¸. (The party last night was very

boring.)

→ E: ThËt thÕ sao? (Really?)

93

Theoretically, by making the utterance ambiguous the speaker avoids being responsible

for what is said and still shows respect to social hierarchy and solidarity. The empirical

study in Chapter 2, however, does not prove this to be true. Chart 2-7 and table 2-7

unveil a very low level of politeness rated by the Vietnamese Ss in comparison to their

English counterparts: 16%, 53% and 31% of the Vietnamese respondents assess E’s

reply polite, neutral and impolite, respectively vs. 47%, 43% and 10% of the English.

Thus, it is proposed that off-record strategies do not always work well in the

Vietnamese context where politeness is primarily performed by means of deference

markers, appropriate deployment of address terms and clearness.

3.1.2.4. No FTA

In Brown & Levinson’s model of politeness strategies, the fifth strategic choice ‘Don’t

do the FTA’ appears to be neglected, as it has ‘no interesting linguistic reflexes’

(1978:77). It might be as such in other speech acts like requesting, ordering, offering or

complaining when the S is the initiator or trigger of the act. He/she may choose not to

perform the act at all because of the seriousness of the act. Nevertheless, there are acts

when the prior S’s utterance makes it relevant and necessary for the present S to voice a

reply, i.e. to perform the act. It is the case of disagreeing. By proffering assessments or

evaluations first Ss invite their interlocutors to respond. Second Ss have to verbally

utilize socially determined norms and/or certain individual strategies to give their own

assessments which may be the same or different from the priors’. In such non-

Anglophone cultures as Vietnamese, second Ss would be alleged to be inexplicably

impolite if they chose to abide by Brown & Levinson’s fifth strategy by being quiet

(one way not to do the FTA). Silence in conversation (mentioned earlier in 1.1.2.3.)

might imply unsaid disagreements, inability to hear or even scorn, and sometimes it

may result in costly consequences of misunderstanding or relationship breakup.

94

Realizing the possible implication of silence in communicative interaction, a number of

researchers take it into consideration: Schegloff et al. (1977), Pomerantz (1978, 1984a-

b), Schegloff (1979b, 1984, 1992), Levinson (1983), Nofsinger (1991), Yule (1996),

Mey (2001), to name just a few. Mey (Ibid. 158) even calls it ‘the painful silence’ to

underline its significance in talk-in-interaction.

Cultures and languages, however, perceive and interpret interactive silence in their own

ways. The findings in part 2 of Chapter 1 can attest to this hypothesis. While 70% of

the English informants would rather be silent than proffer evaluations opposite to the

prior, only 24% of the Vietnamese decide to cancel performing the act altogether. It can

be inferred that in comparison to the English, the Vietnamese on the whole, find it more

important to voice something in return to first evaluative tokens. Possibly, saying

something in reply in interactive communication is considered one way of keeping

solidarity and rapport, and thus, expressing politeness in Vietnamese culture and

society.

On the other hand, refusing not to do the FTA in disagreeing runs the risk of damaging

alter and ego’s face. In the act of expressing anger, for instance, the fifth strategy

appears an FTA that potentially damages S’s positive and negative face. When you are

angry, it is natural that you want to somehow release your anger. If you cannot do it,

you will fail to meet your self-image’s desire to be appreciated or to get ‘retribution’

(Lakoff 1987), and to be independent or free of action. It seems that if second Ss found

themselves in disagreement with first Ss’ evaluative tokens, they would, at the same

time, put themselves into a dilemma: verbalizing their opposite views would threaten

prior Ss’ face, but not performing the act would damage their own face. Other acts like

insulting or criticizing, in nature, threaten H’s face, and to some extent, S’s face,

95

regardless of whatever strategies are at work. Thus, “interesting linguistic reflexes” do

exist in certain speech acts with respect to Brown & Levinson’s fifth strategy.

3.1.3. Indirectness in Disagreeing

3.1.3.1. Notion of indirectness

Indirectness, or indirect speech acts, refers to cases when '... one illocutionary act is

performed indirectly by way of performing another' (Searle 1979: 31), and the speaker

means more than, other than or even different from what he/she actually says. Blum-

Kulka (1987) assumes that indirectness is related to the length of the inferential path to

arrive at an utterance's illocutionary point. In other words, the more indirect the way of

realization, the higher will be the interpretive demands on the H.

The S does not always intentionally use indirect speech acts. He/she may have to resort

to indirectness because of linguistic inadequacy or inability. Pragmatically, we focus

only on intentional indirectness that generates some sort of implicature. We know that

one word, one speech act can be used to accomplish different functions and vice visa,

and different structures can perform one function. Disagreeing tokens can, for example,

be expressed very directly in (28), but indirectly in the last two utterances.

(28) That's wrong surely.

(29) Do you really think so?

(30) To a certain extent, yes, but ...

Dascal (1983) assumes that indirectness is costly and risky. It is 'costly' as the S has to

spend more time to produce an indirectness speech act, and it takes the H longer to

process. It is 'risky' in the sense that the S's intended meaning may not be precisely

interpreted. In the following situation, the first S's indirect strategy, obviously, does not

work. His utterance is understood as an information-seeking question and he fails to

convey what he really wants.

96

(31) A wants to turn off the TV program, asking B, who is watching it excitedly:

A: Would you like to watch something else?

B: No.

The communicative advantage of indirectness is made use of in many other cases. It is

always embarrassing to have to ask someone for money, and in situations like this an

indirect approach seems more successful than a direct request, as in:

(32) A. Oh, I've forgotten my wallet.

B. Don't worry. I'll lend you some.

It would be a mistake if one assumed that a language just employs direct strategies or

only indirect strategies. The realization of language depends on the kind of cultural

thought patterns that are different from culture to culture.

Kaplan (1972) posits four discourse structures to show the differences in cultural

thought patterns. Native Ss of English, according to Kaplan, tend to use direct

expression and thought patterns; conversely, Asian people, including the Vietnamese,

are likely to adhere to indirect patterns.

The pattern of talk, according to Nguyen Q. (1998), seems to be different in English

and Vietnamese. Vietnamese Ss might be considered rude, impolite or too practical if

they mention the purpose of their talk at the very beginning of the conversation.

Conversely, Americans are likely to put the purpose of their conversations at the initial

stage.

Ss are presumably more direct when dealing with safe issues such as weather, and good

news, and more indirect when tackling sensitive topics like gender, religion, money and

bad news. Individuals and cultures widely vary in how, when, why, to whom and what

they apply indirect strategies. Factors affecting the degree of indirectness exploitation

will be discussed in the following section.

97

3.1.3.2. Factors governing indirectness

Socio-cultural factors governing the choice of indirectness have drawn attention of

pragmaticians from different cultures. Thomas (1995: 124) mentions four main factors,

namely: (i) The relative power of the S over the H, (ii) The social distance between the

S and the H, (iii) The degree to which X is rated an imposition in culture Y, and (iv)

The relative rights and obligations between the S and the H.

Indirectness, according to Brown & Levinson, is calculated on the basis of the three

parameters: power differential between S and interlocutor (P), social distance between

S and interlocutor (D), and the rating/ranking of imposition represented by the face-

threatening act (R).

Nguyen D. H. (1995) realizes that the various structures of Vietnamese requests do not

only reflect Ss’ strategic choice but also their observance of socially defined practices

of the speech events and consideration of such factors as age and status of their

interlocutors. Nguyen Q. (1998: 5) proposes 12 factors that may affect the choice of

indirectness in conversations: age, gender, residence, mood, occupation, personality,

topic, place, setting, time pressure, social distance and position.

There are some other factors that are believed to affect Ss’ choice of indirectness, viz.:

(i) Religion: people may be more or less indirect because of their religious beliefs.

(ii) S/F language acquisition: those who acquire more than one language seem

effected by values and norms of the culture/language other than those of their

first culture/language in their choice of indirectness.

(iii) Personal relation: Ss may be more or less direct in talk depending on their

interpersonal relations.

(iv) Education: those who are well-educated normally act differently in terms of

indirectness.

98

(v) Intellectual abilities: people may be more or less direct in speaking as regards

their intellectual abilities.

All these suggestive factors, however, need to be empirically tested across speech acts

and cultures.

3.1.3.3. Indirectness and politeness

Some theoreticians of politeness assume that the notion of politeness and the notion of

indirectness represent parallel dimensions. Indirectness is, according to Searle (1979:

36), '...the chief motivation for politeness'. Lakoff, Leech, and Brown & Levinson tend

to follow Searle (1975) and Grice (1975), linking indirectness with politeness although

they base themselves on different theoretical and methodological approaches. Brown &

Levinson (1987:142) also claim that there is a strong link between politeness and

indirectness and they believe that 'indirect speech acts have as their prime raison d'être

the politeness functions they perform.'

Leech (1983: 108) suggests that with the same propositional content, we may:

...[I]ncrease the degree of politeness by using a more and more indirect kind of

illocution. Indirect illocutions tend to be more polite (a) because they increase the

degree of optionality, and (b) because the more indirect an illocution is, the more

diminished and tentative its force tends to be.

In many circumstances, indirect speech acts are often used instead of their more direct

counterparts as being indirect, according to Brown & Levinson, is one important way

of being polite or tactful in conversation. Yule (1996: 56) shares the same, ‘Indirect

speech acts are generally associated with greater politeness in English than direct

speech acts.’ Brown & Levinson (1987: 142) even go so far as to state the universality

of indirectness, ‘[I]ndirect speech acts are universal and for the most part are probably

constructed in essentially similar ways in all languages.’

It might be the case of English, where indirectness is commonly accepted to correlate

with politeness. In languages other than English indirectness does not necessarily imply

99

politeness. Contrary to the idea that indirectness and politeness are correspondent,

research into languages other than English shows that these two notions are not

necessarily parallel. Tannen (1981) believes that Americans are more indirect in their

speech behaviour than Greeks. But this does not mean that Americans are more polite

than Greeks. When examining requests in Hebrew and English in terms of politeness

and indirectness, Blum-Kulka (1987, 1992) states that the most indirect request

strategies (hints) are not judged as the most polite. It is the conventional indirectness

that receives the highest ratings for politeness. Wierzbicka (1985) argues that the

association of politeness with indirectness is the reflection of an ethnocentric

Anglophone cultural point of view, for the results of her research show that in Polish

direct requests and offers are not considered impolite.

In an attempt to shed light on the notion of linguistic politeness, Upadhyay (2003:

1651-1677) revisits the link between indirectness and politeness by using naturally

occurring conversational data in Nepali. The findings show that there is no definite

evidence for the link between indirectness and politeness, and such socio-cultural

determinants as status and age which set up a strong motivation for politeness,

honorifics and person-referring terms are important linguistic devices to indicate

politeness in Nepali. Gu (1990) and Lee-Wong (2000) assume that directness with a

high degree of imposition can be used as a means to increase the level of politeness in

intrinsically threatening acts of inviting and requesting made by speakers of Mandarin

who prefer in-group solidarity and closeness in interpersonal relations and explicitness

and clarity in language expressions.

The interrelationships between indirectness and politeness have also drawn attention of

Vietnamese researchers. Nguyen D. H. (1995) finds out the contrast in politeness

realization reflected in the low degree of form directness in requests by Vietnamese Ss

100

and high degree of form indirectness in Australian requests. Although indirectness is

seen to operate as one of the indicators of polite requests in communication in

Vietnamese language and culture (Vu T. T. H. 1997, 2000) it does not always correlate

with politeness. Nguyen Q. (1998) argues the universal value of Brown & Levinson’s

model concerning politeness strategies due to their assignment of greater level of

politeness to negative politeness commonly expressed via indirect strategies prevalent

in Anglophone cultures. He also objects to the implication of lower degree of politeness

attached to positive politeness quite popular in Asian cultures. Basing on the

assumption that Vietnamese culture emphasizes community-oriented solidarity and

hierarchy the researchers provide no clear evidence for positive correlation between

indirectness and politeness put forth by Brown & Levinson and other Western

politeness theorists.

In the empirical findings presented in Chapter 2 of this study, the Vietnamese Ss give

more precedence to clearly articulated disagreements accompanied conventionalized

politeness markers like deference items and address terms. On the contrary, the less

direct utterances which contain some implication of irony, threat or reproach are not

rated polite. The English informants in this study either abide by indirect disagreement

tokens or opt out of verbal expressions of disagreeing by remaining silent. Therefore,

the positive correlation between indirectness and politeness seems to be true in the case

of Anglo-American culture, which stresses non-imposition and individualism.

Blundell et al. (1996: 190) collect many structures used in English to express one's

disagreement. The structures are classified according to their formality. Some structures

can be used at any time, i.e., it does not matter to whom you are talking, or when, or

where. These structures are neutral. There are other expressions: they are either

informal or formal. The S may, in a formal setting, express his/her disagreement as in:

101

(33) Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

A literal translation of the utterance into Vietnamese (by Mai X. H. 1996: 197) would

embarrass H as it sounds too formal, superfluous and strange to his/her ears:

(34) C¸ nh©n t«i ë chõng mùc nµo ®ã, t«i sÏ kh«ng d¸m nãi

nh vËy.

It is suggested that English and Vietnamese may be different in the way they realize

formality/ informality of language use. In his research into politeness, Nguyen V. D.

(1996) points out that although modifications are exploited to make polite requests by

both Vietnamese and English Ss, the degree to which they are deployed greatly varies.

While modifiers make significant contribution to the elaboration and formality of

requests in English, they are used with care by Vietnamese Ss, who hold dear intimacy

and warm relations, for fear of creating too much distance in communicative contact.

All in all, indirectness and politeness are universal in the sense that they occur to some

degree in all languages and cultures. However, the correlation between them needs to

be empirically tested. Different cultures and languages may vary in the perception and

realization of indirectness and politeness, and indirectness is not necessarily associated

with politeness, i.e., the generally assumed link between indirectness and politeness

should be reconsidered.

3.1.4. Summary

The study in this chapter, which adopts the model of politeness strategies suggested by

Brown & Levinson, provides a thorough descriptive account of the speech act of

disagreeing in light of politeness and indirectness. Some minor modification is done to

better adjust the model to the size and scope of the study. Out of 5 sets of strategies 4

are chosen, namely, bald-on-record and on-record (direct strategies), off-record and no

102

FTA (indirect strategies). Also, the distinction between negative politeness and positive

politeness is not made due to their controversial issues.

Brown & Levinson’s model of politeness strategies, where indirect strategies are put at

a greater level of politeness, insinuates that the more direct a strategy is the less polite it

becomes, triggers off numerous arguments. Despite the existence of politeness and

indirectness in cultures and languages the interrelationships between them are not

simple by any means. To gain insight into the relationship between politeness and

indirectness in disagreeing in English and Vietnamese, a survey has been distributed

among speakers of English and Vietnamese. The issues concerning data analysis are

presented in the following part.



3.2.1.1. Aims

The present empirical study is planned to attest to the following hypotheses:

1. Native speakers of English and Vietnamese may differ in their choice of

politeness strategies used to perform the act of disagreeing.

2. The differences in English and Vietnamese choice of politeness strategies are

likely to be the consequences of the differences in assessment of socio-cultural

parameters and social situations which can be traced back to the differences in

the socio-cultural structures.


The database used in the present empirical study is obtained from elicited written

questionnaires #3, administered among 100 English native speakers in North America

and 100 Vietnamese speakers in Hanoi. Questionnaires #3 contain 3 concrete situations

in which the informants are supposed to converse with 10 partners different or/and

103

identical in terms of age, gender, status, familiarity and closeness. In other words, the

informants and their co-participants are put in symmetrical and asymmetrical role

relationships. The informants are asked to provide their disagreeing responses to the

prior evaluative tokens ‘Miss X is getting too fat’ (Situation 1), ‘Tax increase – a really

cool idea’ (Situation 2) and ‘That party you and I went to was very boring’ (Situation

3). The informants can either create their own replies or choose from a set of utterances

selected from the pretests and literature. Each informant has a set of 30 disagreements,

classified as bald-on-record, on-record, off-record strategies and no FTA (based on

Brown & Levinson’s model of politeness strategies), to write down or mark. A total of

6000 disagreement tokens (3000 in English and 3000 in Vietnamese) are loaded into

and processed on SPSS. The English corpus is investigated in comparison to and

contrast with the Vietnamese. The most significant cases are chosen and brought to

further discussion.

3.2.2. Choice of Strategies by Respondents


Five cases out of ten in each situation are taken to further investigation provided that

they are proved to be statistically significant across situations. Below are the outputs of

15 cases marked c, d, e, h and j, where the informants are supposed to be in

disagreement with their close friends, people they dislike, colleagues (same age &

gender), older acquaintances and older bosses as regards the prior evaluative tokens.

104

Choice of Politeness Strategies

Sit.3.1. Miss X Is Getting Too Fat

3.1c. Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend

No FTAOff recordOn recordBald on record

Cou

nt50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 3-13: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Miss X is fat)

Sit. 3.1c. Miss X is getting too fat. Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend Total

First LanguageBald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA

English Count 41 14 42 3 100English % 41.0% 14.0% 42.0% 3.0% 100.0%Vietnamese Count 19 35 45 1 100Vietnamese % 19.0% 35.0% 45.0% 1.0% 100.0%

Table 3-31: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Miss X is fat)


Sit.3.2. Tax Increase - A Cool Idea



Cou

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 3-14: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Tax increase)

105

Sit. 3.2c. Tax increase – a cool idea. Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend Total


English Count 28 44 25 3 100English % 28.0% 44.0% 25.0% 3.0% 100.0%Vietnamese Count 18 27 55 0 100Vietnamese % 18.0% 27.0% 55.0% .0% 100.0%

Table 3-32: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Tax increase)

Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend: The English respondents are likely to be

straightforward in expressing their disagreements conversing with close friends by their

frequent abiding by bald-on-record and on-record strategies. The Vietnamese

respondents seem to be careful in overtly stating their opposing stances, which reflects

in their using more off-record strategies with the exception of 3.1c, where 35% of them

deploy direct strategies with redress compared to 14% of the English. The low

proportion of silence across three situations is worth noting. All respondents are likely

to be responsive and co-operative, especially the Vietnamese. In 3.1c and 3.3c only one

Vietnamese respondent out of 100 refuses to reply and in 3.2c the percentage is zero,

which suggests the existence of some socially-ethical sanction concerning being

responsive in interpersonal interaction to establish and keep solidarity and rapport in

the target culture.

106


Sit.3.3. Boring Party



Cou

nt70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 3-15: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Boring party)

Sit. 3.3c. Boring party. Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend Total



Table 3-33: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Boring party)



3.1d. Disagreeing Strategies to Someone you dislike


Cou

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 3-16: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Miss X is fat)

Sit. 3.1d. Miss X is getting too fat. Disagreeing Strategies to Someone You Dislike Total

107



Table 3-34: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Miss X is fat)

Sit. 3.2d. Tax increase Disagreeing Strategies to Someone you dislike Total



Table 3-35: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Tax increase)





Cou

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 3-17: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Tax increase)

Disagreeing Strategies to Someone You Dislike: Normally, it is embarrassing and

inconvenient to interact with people with whom you do not get on well, let alone to

disclose your negative views. The English Ss seem to be direct in their disagreements,

and they appear to be most eager to defend Miss X in 3.1d with 49% of them clinging

to bald-on-record strategies. Almost half of the Vietnamese informants are inclined to

be less direct and imply their disagreement tokens via off-record strategies. In addition,

108

the number of informants who opt out of performing the act, i.e. who do no FTA at all,

is quite high in both groups.





Cou

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 3-18: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring party)

Sit. 3.3d. Boring party Disagreeing Strategies to Someone you dislike Total



Table 3-36: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring party)



3.1e. Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague (Same age & gender)


Cou

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

109

Chart 3-19: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Miss X)

Sit. 3.1e. Miss X is getting too fat.

Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague (same age & gender) Total



Table 3-37: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Miss X)

Sit. 3.2e. Tax increase - a cool idea.




Table 3-38: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Tax)



3.2e. Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague (Same age & gender)


Cou

nt

80

60

40

20

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 3-20: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Tax)

Sit. 3.3e. Boring party.




110

Table 3-39: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Party)

Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague (same age & gender): The Vietnamese show

greater tendency to abide by off-record strategies in 3.2e and 3.3e, which can be traced

back to their emphasis on community-based solidarity, while the high proportion in

English on-record strategies in these two cases might be the manifestation of Anglo-

American focus on freedom from imposition and of action. However, the English in

3.1e are likely to be indirect in disagreeing with their colleagues by adhering to off-

record strategies, while the Vietnamese Ss seem to prefer direct strategies with 16% of

the respondents opting for bald-on-record strategies and 51% of them using on-record.



3.3e. Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague (same age & gender)


Cou

nt

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 3-21: Choice of Politeness to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Party)

111



3.1h. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Acquaintance


Cou

nt60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 3-22: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X is fat)

Sit. 3.1h. Miss X is getting too fat. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Acquaintance Total



Table 3-40: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X is fat)





Cou

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 3-23: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax increase)

Sit. 3.2h. Tax increase - a cool idea. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Acquaintance Total

112



Table 3-41: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax increase)

Disagreeing Strategies to Older Acquaintance: It is of great interest to see the

reciprocal influence of age and intimacy in the Vietnamese choice of strategies

compared to the English. The preference for intimacy is visible in on-record strategies

in 3.1h, whereas the emphasis on age is reflected in the adherence to off-record

strategies in 3.2h and 3.3h. The high percentage of bald-on-record by the English

informants implies that age is recognized but lightly treated in their culture. Also, their

deployment of off-record strategies in 3.1h consistent with their choice of indirect

strategies to colleagues in 3.1e may serve as evidence for English usage of indirectness

as a means to express politeness.





Cou

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 3-24: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring party)

Sit. 3.3h. Boring party. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Acquaintance Total

113



Table 3-42: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring party)

Sit. 3.1j. Miss X is getting too fat. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss Total

First Language

Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA


Table 3-43: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat)



3.1j. Disageeing Strategies to Older Boss


Cou

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 3-25: Choice of Disagreeing Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat)

Sit. 3.2j. Tax increase - a cool idea. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss Total


English Count 10 52 31 7 100English % 10.0% 52.0% 31.0% 7.0% 100.0%Vietnamese Count 0 26 66 8 100Vietnamese % .0% 26.0% 66.0% 8.0% 100.0%

Table 3-44: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase)

114

Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss: Although the present number of informants

who opt out of responding to their older bosses’ evaluative tokens is the highest across

situations, the disparity in their use of direct and indirect strategies is of paramount

significance. While the English exploit more off strategies in 3.1j, and on-record

strategies in 3.2j and 3.3j, the Vietnamese would rather allude to their negative

responses by using off-record strategies or stop voicing them. In Vietnamese culture,

where interpersonal relationships are vertically structured, age and status are

institutionalized respected and valued. Thus, one should act in caution in proffering

disagreements to one’s older boss. The asymmetrical role relationships provide

persuasive explanations for the low percentage of direct strategies by Vietnamese Ss,

especially bald-on-record, the use of which seems to potentially damage the norms of

social hierarchy. In 3.2j, for instance, none of 100 Vietnamese informants choose bald-

on-record strategies.



3.2j. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss


Cou

nt

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 3-26: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase)

115



3.3j. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss


Cou

nt60

50

40

30

20

10

0

First Language

English

Vietnamese

Chart 3-27: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Boring Party)

Sit. 3.3j. Boring party. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss Total


English Count 6 51 34 9 100English 6.0% 51.0% 34.0% 9.0% 100.0%Vietnamese Count 3 32 49 16 100Vietnamese % 3.0% 32.0% 49.0% 16.0% 100.0%

Table 3-45: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Boring Party)3.2.2.2. Comments

The two groups of informants demonstrate considerable differences in their deployment

of politeness strategies to express their disagreement tokens to the early stated

assessments. In general, the English informants do not pay much attention to such

factors as age, status or gender of their interlocutors, and they seem to be direct in

situations where these factors reciprocally influence (e.g. disagreeing with colleagues,

same age & gender; older acquaintances or bosses). They are inclined to forthrightly

speak out their different evaluations no matter the Hs are their close friends or those

they dislike. Also, they tend to directly disagree with others on non-personal topics like

economics, politics and social issues (taxes or social get-togethers, for instance).

In contrast, the Vietnamese informants attach significant importance to age and status

in accordance with their socially normative ethics. Thus, instead of acting quite freely

116

according to individual wills, they have to make their personal choices of strategy in

conformity to institutionalized norms of behavior, which stress community-based

solidarity and intimacy. They are likely to abide by direct strategies in ‘safe’ settings

where role relationships are symmetrical, for example, talking with close friends or

colleagues. In cases where there is little possibility of balancing personal choices and

social norms, they opt for indirect strategies so as to avoid sounding too critical or

aggressive. The reasonable account for the differences in Ss’ choice of politeness

strategies can be made via due consideration of the differences in their assessment of

social parameters and situations (cf. findings in Chapter 1). After all, they are just

surface manifestations of the deep-level differences in the socio-cultural structures.

3.2.3. Summary

The findings have provided strong evidence for the differences in strategic choice made

by native speakers of English and Vietnamese in proffering disagreement tokens. Being

less constrained by socially normative practices, the English informants are observed to

flexibly adjust themselves to different interactive contexts and frequently deploy direct

strategies according to their personal wants. Their local socio-cultural context which is

much less hierarchical takes as its main concern the individual and his/her freedom of

action and from intrusion. The Vietnamese might generally be judged as more indirect

than their English counterparts in performing disagreements. However, as native Ss of a

speech community, they cannot stay independent of the indigenous system of social

norms determining linguistic and behavioral manners, which stresses hierarchy. It

comes as no surprise that the Vietnamese tend to sound less direct when facing

asymmetrical relationships which need some compromise or reciprocity in linguistic

expressions. It is the wider socio-cultural contexts that serve as good grounds for all

117

these differences in the Ss’ assessment of socio-cultural parameters and situations and

choice of strategies.


Despite the paramount effectiveness it has offered the SA study, Brown & Levinson’s

model of strategies unveils certain controversial points which engender modification

across cultures and subcultures. Basing themselves on the speech act of requesting,

which is performed in first-turn utterances, Brown & Levinson pay very little attention

to ‘No FTA’ strategies in such second-turn responses as disagreement tokens. In

addition, the set of strategies as regards the notion of negative/positive face has also

triggered numerous arguments.

Native Ss of English and Vietnamese, according to the empirical findings, differ in

choosing politeness strategies to realize disagreement attributes, and this confirms

Blum-Kulka and House's hypothesis that differences in perceptions of social situations

and in the relative importance attached to any socio-cultural parameter may lead to

differences in linguistic behavior (Blum-Kulka and House 1989: 137). The English

preference for direct strategies with redress and the Vietnamese tendency to use indirect

strategies have proved Leech (1986) and Brown & Levinson’s assumption

(1987[1978]) that cultures may differ in terms of precedence and significance given to

each strategy in spite of having the same sets of strategies. This has also coincided

with Kieu T. T. H.’s finding (2001: 86) of Americans’ favorite use of on-record and

Vietnamese deployment of off-record strategies in disagreements.

The assumption of consistent correlation between politeness and indirectness is taken

into consideration and is proved to be less convincing. The empirical study shows that

indirectness does not always correlate with politeness. The deployment of indirectness

varies across cultures, across speech acts and across contexts of a speech act of a

118

culture. Thus, linguistic indirectness is both culturally and contextually dependent and

colored, and the Vietnamese exploitation of indirect strategies in different contexts

ranging from intimacy to asymmetrical role relationships should be interpreted in

consideration of social factors and norms of behavior. Politeness in the Vietnamese

socio-cultural framework, which is strongly anchored in Confucian ethics, is essentially

motivated by the maintenance social harmony and community solidarity via individual

observance of institutionalized practices. On the contrary, Anglo-American culture with

its primary focus on individualist non-imposition tends to leave more free space for Ss

to make their own choice of politeness strategies. The following chapter provides a

thorough investigation of the organizational structure of disagreeing to bring out the

shared and unshared strategies deployed in English disagreement tokens in comparison

to Vietnamese ones.

119

CHAPTER FOUR

STRATEGIES CONCERNING PREFERENCE

ORGANIZATION


4.1.1. Preferred Second Turns

4.1.1.1. Markedness

Typical adjacency pairs, as earlier mentioned, consist of two parts: a first pair part and

a second pair part. Once the first part is given, there is a set of potential seconds to it.

However, not all second parts are of equal structural complexity and status. Some are

very simple, made of one or two words (‘Yes’, ‘Fine, thanks’), others are constructed of

several long utterances (like long explanations, elaborate accounts etc.). In general, all

second alternatives can be distinguished as either preferred or dispreferred responses.

In spite of its original connotation, the concept of preference organization has nothing

to do with psychological preference of the speakers or hearers. It is merely a structural

notion similar to the concept of markedness in linguistics, which was first proposed and

developed by the Prague School, and later, by Jakobson and others (Levinson 1983:

333). The concept of markedness in linguistics can be understood as follows:

The intuition behind the notion of markedness in linguistics is that, where we have an

opposition between two or more members…, it is often the case that one member is felt

to be more usual, more normal, less specific than the other (in markedness terminology

it is unmarked, the others marked).

Cited from Comrie (1976: 111)

Preferred/unmarked seconds, as interpreted on the basis of linguistic markedness, have

less material, and are structurally simpler compared to dispreferred/marked (Levinson

1983, Mey 2001). Apart from a range of different and unrelated first parts, the latter

seem to have more in common, namely, delay components and various degrees of

120

structural build-up. Preferred alternatives tend to occur within simple sequential

structures. On the contrary, dispreferred are likely to be accompanied with different

kinds of structural complexity, as in the following examples by Pomerantz (1984a: 60-

71):

(1) J: It’s really a clear lake, isn’t it?

→ R: It’s wonderful.

(2) L: Maybe it’s just ez well you don’t know

(2.0)

→ W: Well uh-I say it’s suspicious it could be something good too.

The preferred second in (1) is immediately produced after the first evaluative token,

whereas the delivery of the dispreferred second is deliberately delayed in (2). After a

two-second silence, W starts speaking, prefacing his disagreeing with ‘well’ and other

delay components. Other kinds of dispreferred seconds like rejections of requests,

refusals of offers, denials of blames etc., are normally done in this marked manner, as

Levinson (1983: 308) puts it:

…[I]n contrast to the simple and immediate nature of preferreds, dispreferreds are

delayed and contain additional complex components; and certain kinds of seconds like

request rejections, refusals of offers, disagreements after evaluative assessments, etc.,

are systematically marked as dispreferreds.

By and large, the marked actions are likely to be avoided in interpersonal conversations

due to the complexity of their marked formats.

4.1.1.2. Structural organization

Conversation analysts working on the structural organization of preferred/dispreferred

seconds like Atkinson and Drew (1979), Pomerantz (1978, 1984a-b, 1997), Heritage

(1989, 1997, 2002), Sacks (1987), Goodwin (1983), and Goodwin & Goodwin (1987,

1992) realize the salient and essential differences in structural organization between

preferreds and dispreferreds.

121

The specific characteristics of such complex-structured responses are examined and

generalized in the works by Atkinson and Drew (1979), Pomerantz (1975, 1978, 1984a-

b), Levinson (1983), Yule (1996), Mey (1993, 2001) among others. The main features

include: (i) delay tokens: silences/ pauses, hesitations and hedges (false starts ‘Er’,

expletives ‘Yes’…), repairs, or insertion sequences, (ii) prefaces: dispreferred markers

like ‘Well’ and ‘Uh’, appreciations, apologies, qualifiers and mitigations ‘I don’t know

for sure, but…’, and (iii) accounts or explanations for uttering dispreferreds. Some

other prosodic features like speed of delivery, articulation, stress, irregular breathing,

as well as non-linguistic factors (head nods/shakes, smiles, facial expressions, body

movements etc.) may create certain impact on the quality of dispreferred seconds. On

the whole, the production of such wordy and elaborate responses takes time and

requires a great effort on the part of conversationalists. Moreover, they may bring

unpleasant feelings to whatever parties involved in interchanges. Consequently,

dispreferred seconds are likely to be avoided due to their complex-structural format and

communicative ineffectiveness.

Conversation analytic work also focuses on the correlation of the content and the

sequential structure of preference. Quite interestingly, there is an organic relationship

between the content and its format, to wit, some patterns seem recurrently occur in

fixed structures. For instance, agreements with evaluative assessments tend to appear in

unmarked/preferred format, whereas almost all of disagreements are delivered in

marked/dispreferred structures. The notion of preference may be applied to the actions

that are produced in either preferred or dispreferred constructions, i.e., preferred actions

are normally done in preferred format, and dispreferred actions in dispreferred format.

A consistency between the format and content is found in a substantial number of

adjacency pair second parts. This consistent match is illustrated in the following table:

122

FIRST PARTS

Request Offer/ Invite

Assessment Question Blame

SECOND PARTSPreferred Acceptance Acceptance Agreement Expected

answerDenial

Dispreferred Refusal Refusal Disagreement

Unexpected answer of non-answer

Admission

Table 4-46: Correlations of content and format in adjacency pair second

Levinson 1983: 336 (My emphasis)

A close look at the sequential structure reveals that the concept of correlation also

involves the first pair parts. Let us take an example from Levinson’s work (1983: 337):

(3) C: …I wondered if you could phone the vicar so that we could ((in breath))

do the final on Saturday (0.8) morning o:r (.) afternoon or (3.0)

R: Yeah you see I’ll I’ll phone him up and see if there’s any time free

(2.0)

C: Yeah.

R: Uh they’re normally booked Saturdays but I don’t- it might not be

Actually, C’s first turn is full of places potential for R to perform a preferred second

(breathing, pauses, silences, and latching), and this wordiness is resulted from C’s

delayed uptake. Had it not been for R’s delay of a compliance response right after C’s

request ‘I wondered if you could phone the vica’, C would not have had to prolong and

elaborate his first part. As clearly shown, preferred and dispreferred seconds, by nature,

may systematically influence the structural design of their corresponding first parts.

4.1.1.3. Dispreferred second turns in disagreeing

Conversation analytic studies demonstrate that preference structure is not just restricted

to adjacency pairs. The actions, accomplished in the second parts, can trigger the prior

123

Ss and invite them to respond to the second Ss. A whole rank of successive turns may

follow the initial turn, and this is what Pomerantz terms as action chains (1978).

(4) R: …You’ve really both basically honestly gone your own ways.

→ D: Essentially, except we’ve hadda good relationship at

//home

→ R: .hhh Ye :s, but I mean it’s a relationship where …

Pomerantz (1975: 68, 1984a: 72)

In the second turn of the sequence, D is in disagreement with R’s assessment, and D’s

mitigated disagreement token stimulates R to elaborate and clarify the prior assessment.

R’s second assessment is proffered in the third turn of the sequence. Thus, the first

parts in cases like this do allow for a set of responses to be relevant, and the structure of

adjacency pairs can be interpreted as relatively fixed.

It is of interest to note that the distinction between preferred and dispreferred format is

not always clear. In essence, there is a general preference for agreement over

disagreement when a first evaluation is uttered. But agreement components may go

with disagreement tokens, weakening the strength of the responses. The ‘agreement

plus disagreement’ format seems to be prefaced by such words as ‘Well’, ‘Yes, but’, or

accompanied with delays, silences or pauses as in the following two excerpts by

Pomerantz (1984a: 70-72):

(5) A: … cause those things take working at,

→ (2.0)

→ B: (hhhhh) well, they do, but

(6) C: … .hh a :n’ uh by god I can’ even send my kid tuh public school b’cuz

they’re so god damn lousy.

→ D: We::ll, that’s a generality.

124

The long silence after A’s turn signals an upcoming negative response in B’s next turn.

The prolonged breathing and dispreferred marker ‘well’ delay the main act of

disagreeing too. The same strategy is employed in (6) where D shows his hesitation by

prefacing his dispreferred answer with ‘Well’. Disagreements that are displayed after

assertions or qualifiers are called weak disagreements or weak agreements (Pomerantz

1984a).

Disagreements, however, are not always considered dispreferred seconds in

interactions. In case the first S self-denigrates or self-deprecates, the responder’s

agreement may be understood as implicit criticism. Conversely, a strong disagreement

on the part of the next S is actually a preferred second. Pomerantz (1975, 1978, 1984a),

Levinson (1983), Sacks (1987) and Nofsinger (1991) among others pay close attention

to this interesting point. In the example by Pomerantz (1984a: 85) exhibited below, the

disagreement token is combined with a complimentary evaluative attribute:

(7) A: I mean I feel good when I’m playing with her because

feel like uh her and I play alike hehh

→ B: No. You play beautifully.

In comparison with other dispreferreds, disagreements that occur in response to self-

deprecations tend to be stronger and more straightforward, perhaps, because they are

done for the sake of alter not ego. On the contrary, agreements are like to be delayed,

withheld, or hedged to mitigate the confirmation of the prior. In the following example

(Pomerantz 1984a: 90) a suppositional is exploited to weaken the conformation:

(8) W: …Do you know what I was all that time?

L: (No)

W: Pavlov’s dog.

(2.0)

125

→ L: (I suppose),

As clearly seen, the agreement produced in the sequence above has typical features of

dispreferred seconds: delayed by a long pause of two seconds, and mitigated by a

qualifier. The answers subsequent to self-denigrations may be accompanied with

disaffiliation with, or favorable reformulation of the prior self-critical assessments, as

in:

(9) R: .hh But I’m only getting a C on my report card in math.

→ C: Yeh but that’s passing Ronald.

Pomerantz (1984a: 87)

In the response to R’s complaining about getting a C in math, C points out that C is a

passing grade although it is below A and B. C’s reformulating the grade scale

undermines R’s self-deprecating attribute and comforts him. Conversationalists

sometimes undermine the validity of the prior self-deprecatory formulations by

suggesting that the actions or qualities are common and normal, as in another example

by Pomerantz (Ibid.)

(10) W: Yet I’ve got quite a distance tuh go yet.

→ L: Everybody has a distance.

As shown, the two different kinds of preference organization seem to work in opposing

directions in excerpts containing self-denigrations, and this phenomenon creates more

complexity in conversation analytic work.

Another question concerning the structural complexity is raised in relation to the

performance of second parts in response to compliments. The preference for

agreements/acceptances over disagreements/rejections appears to be contradictory to

the norm of self-praise avoidance. If the second party is complimented on, his/her

preferred second in form of agreement or acceptance may insinuate a self-praise token.

126

On the other hand, if he/she completely negates the prior compliment, he/she troubles

himself/herself by getting involved in dispreferred format. In English actual

interchanges, co-conversants are observed to make some kind of compromise solutions

including downgraded agreements, shifts of praise to third parties, or reciprocal

compliments (return of compliments to their producers) (Pomerantz 1978, 1984a and

Levinson 1983).

(11) B: By the way I love yer Christmas card, …

→ A: I hadda hard time, but I didn’t think they were too good, …

(12) C: Ya’ sound (justiz) real nice.

→ D: Yeah you soun’ real good too.

Pomerantz (1978: 98-105)

In (11) the receiver downgrades the agreement token in response to the compliment,

and in (12) he shifts the praise by returning it to the giver. By so doing, the receiver can

avoid praising himself, but still make good use of the preference format.

4.1.2. Preferred Sequences

4.1.2.1. Repair apparatus

Preference organization does not only confine itself to alternative second turns, but also

operates within a range of various matters like the handling of repair, a sequence of

turns and sequence types. As aforementioned, repairs are often utilized as effective

delay components of dispreferred seconds. There are two kinds of repair work: self-

repairs and other repairs. Repairs can be stimulated by ‘self’ (self-initiated repairs),

and by ‘other’ (other-initiated repairs). In the following example by Pomerantz (1975:

74 & 1984a: 71), the next S provides the prior S with a chance to elaborate his

assessment by repeat his evaluation. Given this other-initiation of repair, the prior S

confirms his assessment, resulting in a dispreferred answer.

127

(13) A: Why whhat’sa mattuh with y-Yih sou//nd HA:PPY, hh ((assessment))

B: Nothing.

B: I sound ha:p//py? ((repair initiator))

A: Ye:uh. ((re-assessment))

(0.3)

→ B: No:, ((dispreferred seconds))

Finally, the dispreferred second comes after a pause that is treated as a second chance

for A to reformulate his assessment in the first turn. As clearly demonstrated,

preference organization affects and spreads all over the sequence, from the first turn to

the last turn. On the whole, the repair mechanism works on the basis of preference for

self-initiated repairs over other-initiated repairs, and preference for self-repairs over

other-repairs (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). The remedial work can be done in

a three-turn (or more) sequence: (i) Turn 1 (includes the repairable), first opportunity

for self-initiated self-repair, and transition space (between two first turns), second

opportunity for self-initiated self-repair, (ii) Turn 2, third opportunity for other-repair or

other-initiation of self-repair, and (iii) Turn 3, fourth opportunity for other-initiated

self-repair. The following examples by Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks (1977: 364-366)

illustrate self-initiated self-repair (opportunity 1 & 2):

(14) N: She was givin’ me a:ll the people that were go:ne

→ this yea:r I mean this quarter y’//know

J: Yeah

(15) L: An’ ‘en but all of the doors ‘n things were taped up =

→ =I mean y’know they put up y’know that kinda paper ‘r

stuff, the brown paper.

128

Example (16) (Schegloff et al. 378) is typical of other-initiated other-repairs, example

(17) (Ibid. 367) illustrates other-initiation of self-repair (opportunity 3), and example

(18) (Ibid. 368) displays other-initiated self-repair (opportunity 4):

(16) A: Lissena pigeons.

(0.7)

→ B: Quail, I think.

(17) A: Have you ever tried a clinic?

→ B: What?

A: Have you ever tried a clinic?

(18) B: .hhh Well I’m working through the Amfah Corporation.

→ A: The who?

→ B: Amfah Corporation. T’s a holding company.

Another component of the repair mechanism involves a range of preferences operating

in relation to the four opportunities mentioned above, namely:

Most frequently used

Least frequently

used

Table 4-47: The preference ranking of the repair apparatus (Based on Levinson 1983: 341)

Table 4-2 reveals that the preference ranking spills over a continuum from the most

frequently used (# 1) to the least frequently used (# 4), and there is a clear trend for

self-initiated self-repair. Also, substantial delays are at work in the third opportunity if

Number of Preference

Type of Repair Work Number of Opportunity

1 Self-initiated Self-repair 1

2 Self-initiated Self-repair 2 (transition place)

3 Other-initiation of Self-repair 3

4 Other-initiated Other-repair 4

129

self-initiated self-repair is not accomplished in the first two opportunities. In the

following example by Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks (1977: 370), B waits for A’s self-

repair, and only after a pause of one minute does A signal the problematic issue,

leading to A’s successful self-remedy.

(19) A: Hey the first time they stopped me from sellin’ cigarettes

was this morning.

(1.0)

B: From selling cigarettes?

A: From buying cigarettes.

In naturally occurring sequences, there are many other ways of doing repair work, such

as (partial) repetitions of problematic items, echo-questions, lengthening sounds, etc. In

addition to this, in many occasions, when the other parties can do other-repair, they still

prefer the first Ss to self-repair by indicating the repairable in their turns subsequent to

the prior as follows:

(20) K: ‘E likes that waiter over there,

A: Wait-er?

K: Waitress, sorry,

A: ‘Ats better,

Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks (1977: 377)

Given the rare case when other-repair is done, it is often accompanied with such

phrases as ‘I think’ used in (16), or ‘y’mean’, or somehow marked, as in:

(21) L: But y’know single beds’r awfully thin to sleep on.

S: What?

L: Single beds. // They’re-

→ E: Y’mean narrow?

130

L: They’re awfully narrow yeah. (Ibid. 378)

Preference organization also has considerable influence on sequence types (Levinson

1983). In making a request, for instance, the preference for an acceptance over a refusal

may result in the S’s designing a special ‘pre-request’, which leads to a possible offer

on the part of his co-conversant, as in Levinson’s example (1983: 343) below:

(22) C: Hullo I was just ringing up to ask if you ((pre-request))

were going to Bertrand’s party.

R: Yes I thought you might be.

C: Heh heh

R: Yes would you like a lift? ((offer))

C: Oh I’d love one.

In his work on telephone conversation openings, Schegloff realizes that preference

organization finds its manifestation in the callers’ provision of minimal cues in their

turns subsequent to the receivers’ first turns, as shown below (Schegloff 1979a: 52):

(23) R: Hello:,

C: Hello Ilse?

R: Yes. Be:tty.

C’s ‘try’ on the name of the receiver should be produced with a low-rise intonation

contour, for a high-rise contour would show a far higher degree of uncertainty about the

recipient’s identity (Ibid. 50). The preference machinery makes dispreferred the callers’

self-identification and preferred the receivers’ recognition of the callers. Callers’ self-

identification is often withheld to leave room for other-recognition. In the example

above, C’s ‘Hello plus name’ act as an invitation for R to recognize who the caller is.

Callers’ self-identification, in general, runs the risk of having to deploy dispreferred

structures in telephone conversation openings between known parties. In consequence,

131

callers normally supply limited amount of identificatory information sufficient for them

being recognized. In the example by Levinson (1983: 345) given below, preference

organization operates in two sequence types, namely, greetings and greetings combined

with self-identification and recognition:

(24) (i) Hi,

(ii) Hello,

(iii) Hello. It’s me.

(iv) Hello. It’s Penny.

(v) Hello. It’s Penny Rankin.

As discussed, preference organization influences not only turns (of a pair and other

subsequent pairs), but also sequences and sequence types.

4.1.2.2. Repair apparatus in disagreeing

Remedial work in disagreeing, as discussed to some degree above, seems to operate on

the same basis of the general repair apparatus investigated by Schegloff, Jefferson, and

Sacks in their 1977 paper. Self-initiated self-repairs may occur in the first turn or in the

transition space between the first and the second turn within the first assessment, as in:

(25) →A: Well, oh uh I think Alice has uh:: i- may- and maybe as you say,

→ slightly different, but I think she has a good sense // of humor

B: Yeh, I think she

does too but she has a different type.


Self-initiated self-repairs can occur in the third turn of the sequence within the delivery

of disagreements as in the fragment by Pomerantz (Ibid. 74) exhibited below:

(26) W: …The-the way I feel about it i:s, that as long as she cooperates,

an’-an’she belie:ves that she’s running my li:fe, or, you know, or

132

directing it one way or anothuh, and she feels happy about it, I do

whatever I please (h)any (h)wa(h) .HHH!// ( )

L: Yeah,

→ W: We::ll –eh-that’s tur: - I mean eh-that’s alright, -- uhb-ut uh, ez long

ez you do::. But h-it’s-eh-to me::, --after anyone …

Recipients of the compliments are inclined to disagree with prior complements. They

may treat the first positive assessments as exaggerated or overdone, therefore leading to

their remedial work in form of undermining or qualifying, as in:

(27) A: … you’ve lost suh much weight

→ P: Uhh hmhh uhh hmhh well, not that much (Pomerantz 1978: 98)

P seems to be hesitative in whether or not to repair A’s assessment, and after a lot of

‘uh’s, ‘hm’s and the like, she uses ‘well’ to mitigate her disagreement-remedy

response. In the following excerpt (Ibid.), R downgrades the athletic award he has

received by negating its importance. C repairs his downgrading by emphasizing the

significance of the award, saying that she is happy with it.

(28) R: Tch! No, its’ not really impo:rtnt,

→ C: Well I think it’s very important=En I’m very pleased

Sometimes, second Ss may prefer to allude that the first assessment is problematic by

delaying their turn, or asking prior Ss to reconsider initial evaluations, as given below:

(29) A: … You sound very far away.

→ (0.7)

→ B: I do?

A: Meahm.

B: mNo? I’m no:t,

133

B’s pause subsequent to A’s opinion can be assumed the first signal of B’s upcoming

disagreement. B’s question ‘I do?’ is the second signal, as well as a second chance for

A’s self-repair. B’s apparently contrastive opinion is launched only after B’s

reaffirmation of his position and his missing (on purpose?) both two opportunities for

self-repair or self-elaboration.

Pomerantz (1984a: 71) takes notice of repair initiators like ‘What?’, ‘Hm?’ and the like

that may be used to request for more clarification on the part of first Ss as given below:

(30) L: Maybe it’s just ex well Wilbur,

→ W: Hm?

L: Maybe it’s just ez well you don’t know.

(2.0)

(D) W: Well. Uh-I say it’s suspicious it could be something good too.

In other cases, the recipients’ long pauses or silences yield the prior Ss’ modification or

elaboration work. Hoping to get approvals from the co-conversants, the first Ss may

carry on explaining, clarifying and elaborating things, resulting in spilling the remedial

work over the whole sequence, as in another example (Ibid. 70-71). Chances for repair

work or places of repair work are notated with (→), and disagreements with (D):

(31) 1. A: ( ) cause those things take working at,

→ 2. (2.0)

(D) 3. B: (hhhhh) well, they // do, but

4. A: They aren’t accidents,

5. B: No, they take working at, But on the other hand, some people are

6. born with hhm (1.0) well a sense of humor, I think is something yer

7. born with Bea.

→ 8.A: Yes, or it’s c- I have the-eh yes, I think a lotta people are, but then I

134

9. think it can be developed, too.

→ 10. (1.0)

(D) 11. B: Yeah, but // there’s-

12. A: Any-

13. A: Any of those attributes can be developed.

The two-second silence in line 2 is the first chance for A to deal with the remedy, but

he does not take it. A clarifies his position in line 8, but he still sticks to its kernel, thus

causing a one-second silence on the part of his co-conversant. This silence is also his

second chance to think over the issue at hand. However, his almost unchanged status

leads to B’s second disagreement in the ‘agreement plus disagreement’ format.

4.1.3. Summary

As it is clearly shown, preferred/unmarked pair parts are structurally less complicated

and linguistically simpler in comparison with dispreferred/marked. The latter are likely

to go with delay devices, prefaces, or explanations apart from the structural complexity,

and thus tend to be avoided in interpersonal interaction because of their complex-

structural format and communicative ineffectiveness. Disagreement tokens in English

and Vietnamese are seen to be performed in both marked/dispreferred structures as

dispreferred seconds and unmarked/preferred formats as preferred seconds. Also, three

kinds of repairs, namely, self-initiated self-repairs, other-initiated self-repairs, and

other-initiated other-repairs, functioning as delay devices are found to operate in

various ways in the structural organization of turns and sequences in disagreeing.

The next part compares and contrasts the English corpus and the Vietnamese corpus on

disagreeing obtained from conversations recorded in everyday casual settings within

the framework of conversation analytic studies earlier discussed and exhibited.

135



4.2.1.1. Aims

This empirical study aims at finding evidence for the following hypotheses:

1. Disagreement tokens made by native speakers of English and Vietnamese may

be similar in terms of preference format pertaining to the minimization of

disagreements as dispreferred seconds and maximization of disagreements as

preferred seconds.

2. The English informants are inclined to take advantage of devices like back

channels, partial repeats, repair initiators and turn prefaces to hedge their

disagreements while their Vietnamese are prone to deploy address terms and

particles in conformity to their social norms.


As required by conversation analytic research, all the data used in this paper should be

obtained from mundane talk occurring in natural settings. The data were collected in

2003 in Hanoi and Toronto. The Vietnamese corpus is from 30 native speakers of

Vietnamese living and working in Hanoi. They all have university/college education

(except one old-aged woman in the first conversation), and are rated as middle-class

citizens. The corpus contains eight conversations, each of which is 45 minutes long.

The first conversation is between an old-age woman and her three adult children: two

mid-aged women and one young man aged around 30. They talk about their family

issues and relatives. The second tape is a conversation among three women, who used

to be students in the same department at college. Two of them met by chance at the

house of the third woman twenty years after their graduation, and the conversation was

recorded on that day. The third conversation is between five people, two men and three

136

women. They used to be classmates at school and have been in close contact since then.

They exchange ideas about their families, children, and individual lifestyle. All the

conversationalists in the second and third conversations are in their early forties. The

fourth and the fifth conversations are between a group of first-year college students and

their schoolteacher. They talk about their school days, studies, exams, fashions, as well

as teacher-student and student-student relationships. They assess the school activities

they once took part in, and many other things. The sixth tape contains a conversation

between a four-member family and an old friend of the mother. Both the parents, aged

around 50, are officers and their children, aged between 20 and 26, are college students.

The family’s friend, who is in her forties, is close to the family and they have a good

relationship. They exchange information about daily activities, their children’s heath,

studies and the like. During the talk, the daughter and the son seem to be quiet

compared to their parents. Maybe, the presence of the guest inconveniences them in

some way, although they know her well. Or maybe, it is a reflection of the norms of

Vietnamese behavioral manners: children do not actively engage in conversations

among adults until they are asked to.

The seventh conversation is about preparations for college entrance exams between two

mothers and two students. The mothers, who are actually cousins, are in their forties.

One of the students is a first-year college boy, and the other is a twelfth-grade girl, who

is preparing for the up-coming competitive college-entrance exams. The last

conversation is between an old-aged man, who used to be a middle-ranked official of

the government, his son and a female school classmate of the son, who are about 40.

Being friends for more than 20 years, the son and his friend understand each other quite

well, and find it comfortable to talk about different issues. At that time, the son was still

single and this was one of the concerns of the father.

137

The English corpus consists of 6 tapes, two of which have been recorded in Hanoi and

four in Toronto. All the 16 informants are native speakers of English from North

America and have college/university degrees. The first tape contains a conversation

between two mid-aged women who come from New York. They used to be good

friends and just met again in Hanoi after a long time of no contact. The second tape is

made with the help of 4 American English teachers working in Hanoi, aged from 24 to

30, one male and three females. They didn’t know each other until they came to teach

in Vietnam. However, they had some time working together and were frequently

engaged in interaction. The first Toronto tape is between 2 mid-aged Ph.D. students, a

man and a woman and both are native speakers of English. The second is a

conversation between a Canadian old-aged couple and the husband is a graduate

student in the Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto. This kind man

recorded the conversation between him and his oldest son, a mid-aged man, making the

third tape for the researcher. The fourth Toronto tape records two young MA students

doing their research at University of Toronto. All the informants are asked to freely talk

about their daily activities, hobbies and friends and provide assessment of things they

do and of people they know.

However, for the particular purpose and size of the present paper, a major part of the

English corpus is taken from excerpts and extracts used by respected researchers in the

field of conversation analysis like Heritage and Drew (1979), Pomerantz (1975, 1978,

1984a-b), Levinson (1983), Heritage (2002, forth.), Goodwin and Goodwin (1987) and

others. These data are claimed to come from actual interactions between native

speakers of English in natural everyday settings. Generally, they are transcribed on the

basis of the conventions used in CA. This, according to Psathas (1995: 45) is

appropriate and allowable in CA, as ‘Data may be obtained from any available source,

138

the only requirement being that these should be naturally occurring, rather than

produced for the purpose of study.’

The present researcher has the respondents’ permission to use the tapes, although some

of the informants were recorded without being informed earlier. The majority of the

tapes were collected after the informants agreed to be recorded. The recordings were

done only when the informants got so involved in the talk that they forgot about the

recorder and the researcher herself. By and large, the data can be assumed to consist of

naturally occurring interactions, and are very much similar to those happen in everyday

exchanges between native speakers.

Being audio-taped, both kinds of data lack visual documentation. The prosodic features

may fully be incorporated in the English corpus, but not in the Vietnamese due to the

shortage of adequate technologies. And although the researcher is aware of the

significance and contribution of participants’ gestures, body movements, gazes, and

other facial expressions, she cannot address such body behaviors. The field-notes taken

by the researcher herself are employed for reference only when necessary and

appropriate. On the whole, the study focuses on the basic vocal features of the talk

while analyzing preference organization in English and Vietnamese on the grounds of

disagreeing data. One of the main concerns of the present paper is to examine the

preference structures in disagreeing turns and sequences. Thus, some translations from

Vietnamese into English may lack naturalness as the researcher would like to maintain

the main features of talk-in-progress in Vietnamese.

4.2.2. Strategies for Disagreements as Dispreferred Seconds

4.2.2.1. English corpus

1. Delay devices: In interactional exchanges, the initiating of assessments is often

treated as a way of inviting agreements from co-participants. However, not all the

139

responses are agreements. According to the data, English Ss tend to delay or withhold

stated disagreements and avoid early delivery of negative answers within turns and

sequences. Such markers as partial repeats (e.g. ‘I do’), repair initiators (e.g. ‘I mean’),

turn prefaces (e.g. ‘Well’, ‘Er’), requests for clarification (e.g. ‘What?’, ‘Hm’) and so

on so forth are frequently employed to signal the special turn shapes for disagreements

as dispreferreds. The following fragments can be good examples:

(32) A: Why whhat’sa mattuh with y-Yih sou//nd HA:PPY, hh

B: Nothing.

→ B: I sound ha:p//py?

A: Ye:uh.

(0.3)

B: No:, (Pomerantz 1984a: 71)

(33) Angel: I don’t think Nick would play such a dirty trick on you.

→ Brit: Well, you obviously don’t know Nick very well.

(Finegan 2004: 309)

2. Silences: Pomerantz (1984a) and Goodwin & Goodwin (1987) assume that pauses

and silences following the prior assessments are comprehended as second Ss’ signals of

yet-stated disagreements. In the example by Goodwin & Goodwin (1987: 43) given

below, Curt’s forthright disagreement finally comes after two pauses leading to Mike’s

prolonging his turn and the whole sequence:

(34) Mike: Well I can’t say they’re ol: clunkers- eez gotta Co:rd?

(0.1)

Mike: Two Co:rds.

(1.0)

Mike: //And

140

Curt: Not original,

Pomerantz (1984a: 71) also calls this strategy ‘no immediately forthcoming talk’

strategy. In her extract (Ibid. 70) given below, the initially silent part of the response

(marked with →) may imply an upcoming disagreement [marked with (D)] and

engender an elaborate assertion on the part of the first S:

(35) A: God izn it dreary.

→ (0.6)


(D) B: .hh- It’s warm though,

3. Downgrading prior assessments: Native speakers sometimes express their negative

answers by downgrading or qualifying the already stated evaluations, as in the

following extract by Pomerantz (1978: 96):

(36) E: That Pat. Isn’t she a do::ll?

→ M: Yeh isn’t she pretty,

Not completely agreeing with and not wishing to publicly be opposite to the co-

conversant, M chooses the strategy of downgrading levels of first assessments. Quite

similarly, the second S in another example by Pomerantz (1984a: 68) lessens the

strength of the prior evaluative token by providing a scaled-down or weakened

assessment:

(37) A: She’s a fox.

→ L: Yeh, she’s a pretty girl.

English Ss can also make use of such downtoners as kind of, sort of, a bit, nearly,

almost, slightly, somewhat etc., which will be examined in Chapter five, to qualify their

disagreements, as in an extract by Pomerantz (Ibid.):

(38) A: Oh it was just beautiful.

141

→ B: … uh I thought it was quite nice.

4. ‘Agreement + Disagreement’ format: English speakers may deploy the ‘agreement

plus disagreement’ format or weak disagreement, accompanied with ‘but’ as in another

example by Pomerantz (1984a: 72):

(39) D: We’ve got sm pretty // (good schools.)

→ C: Well, yeah but where in the hell em I gonna live.

Disagreements might also be delayed within the turn construction. Ss may preface

disagreement components with “uh’s”, “well’s” (as in the above extract) and so on,

expressing discomfort or inconvenience.

The interesting and mysterious combination of agreeing and disagreeing in this format

is worth noting. In essence, agreements and disagreements are contrastive elements,

and in theory, they should go in opposing directions. In this special format, however,

they go together and form a type of weak or partial disagreements, as in the two

fragments below by Pomerantz (1984a: 73):

(40) R: Butchu admit he is having fun and you think it’s funny.

→ K: I think it’s funny, yeah. But it’s a ridiculous funny.

(41) A: … cause those things take working at,

(2.0)

→ B: (hhhhh) well, they // do, but-

A: They aren’t accidents,

→ B: No, they take working at but on the other hand, some people …

Supposing that the agreement tokens in the excerpts above were left out, the

disagreements would then be judged as strong, as the evaluation components would be

directly contrastive with the prior.

142

4.2.2.2. Vietnamese corpus

1. Delay devices: When Vietnamese Ss find themselves in disagreement with prior

assessments, they may delay their outright answers by asking for more information or

clarification, as in the following extract:

V03.9.56.

(42) B. … Vµ nhiÒu çi nã lµm t«i thÊy lµ ®Çu t kh«ng hîp lý.

and many classifier he do I see be investment no reasonable

(And lots of what he’s done can be considered unsound investment.)

H. Nhng mµ nã vÉn kiÕm tiÒn tèt.

But he already get money good

(But he can still make plenty of money.)

B: Çi kiÕm tiÒn cña th»ng N Êy (0.5) tí thÊy kh«ng ph¶i

lµ tèt.

classifier get money of address-term N that I see no must be good

(I don’t think the way N makes his money is good.)

H: õ, sao l¹i kh«ng tèt?

Yeah why particle no good

(Yeah, why isn’t it good?)

B. Míi chØ lµ b»ng çi çi c¬ b¾p th«i.

New only be equal classifier classifier muscle already

(He’s just used his muscles.)

H. Ai b¶o b¹n lµ c¬ b¾p?

Who say you be muscle

(Who told you [he’s just used his] muscle?)

143

The use of first person pronoun in the prior turn is worth noting. The first S, a mid-aged

man named B, uses ‘tí’ in talking with H, his female classmate at school, and this

exhibits their friendship and closeness. This term for self-reference is exploited in

informal talk between peers and sometimes, in downward speech, from the superior to

the inferior. The talk, assumed to be intimate and open, takes place in B’s house, when

H comes to visit B. Perhaps, all these things affect the way in which the two

conversationalists word their ideas and evaluations.

H does not agree with B in his assessment of N, their mutual friend at school, and she

uses ‘Nhng mµ’ (But) to point out the fact that N can still make a lot of money. When

B insists on his view, H prefaces her request for reason with an agreement element ‘õ,

sao l¹i kh«ng tèt?’ (Yeah, why isn’t it good?). Her asking about the source of

information ‘Ai b¶o…?’ (Who told…?) is deployed as a way of expressing

disagreeing, and it deserves to be mentioned. It provides the second S with a chance to

better understand her partner’s stance, and at the same time, it helps her avoid

producing an outright disagreement, which might make her sound too critical or

aggressive. Vietnamese Ss in my data are inclined to make frequent use of this way to

perform their disagreement.

In the fragment below, L requests evidence of the information source as she talks with

her classmate about the college entrance exams they just sat.

V03.8.45

(43) T: C¨n b¶n lµ khèi A n¨m nay khã h¬n.

essential be block A year present difficult more

(Essentially, group A is more difficult this year.)

L: Ai b¶o thÕ?

Who tell that

144

(Who told (you) that?)

T. §iÓm cao h¬n nhiÒu.

Mark high more a lot

(The marks are a lot higher.)

L. §iÓm cao lµ do mäi ngêi thi giái nªn ®iÓm nã míi cao.

Mark high be as all beings exam excellent so mark it new high

(They’re high because the candidates did so well in the exams.)

L’s using of ‘Ai b¶o…’ (Who told…) seems a way of withholding or hiding her

different point of view. She might change her stance if her partner has good reasons for

his assessment. She may also go on stating her disagreeing if he does not.

In short, the second Ss in these extracts seem to wish their interlocutors to either prove

or elaborate their assertions before verbally stating their opposite positions. In other

words, they use different delay devices to initiate chances for the first Ss to somehow

reconstruct the prior evaluations.

2. Silences: Native Vietnamese Ss also deploy silences or pauses to signal potential

disagreements in face-to-face interactions. In the fragment given below, B and H are

talking about their mutual friend at school, who is now a director in a joint-venture. H’s

second assessment is followed by B’s long silence of four seconds, causing H to

reassert her evaluation. Only after H’s completion of her reassertion does B’s forthright

disagreement come.

V03.9.57

(44) H: §µn bµ… thÕ lµ qu¸ giái råi.

Woman … that be much excellent already

(Women… [like her] are really excellent.)

B. Tí… mµ cã vî nh thÕ tí kh«ng thÝch.

145

I…particle have wife like that I not like

(I don’t like to have a wife like that.)

H: ¤ng kh«ng thÝch nhng mµ ngêi ta thÝch.

Grandfather not like but particle people like

(You don’t like but people do.)

B: (4.0)

H: ¤ng kh«ng thÝch nhng ng êi kh¸c thÝch.

Grandfather not like but people other like

(You don’t like but other people do.)

B. Tí quan ®iÓm kh¸c.

I point of view different

(I have a different point of view.)

It is of interest to talk about the use of reference terms in this recording. H, a female

friend of B, addresses him as ‘¤ng’ (grandfather), which is a typical kinship term used

among friends and peers. ‘¤ng’ in this case indicates that the gender of the interlocutor

is male, and its equivalent for a female is ‘Bµ’ (grandmother). When used in this way,

these kinship terms do not demonstrate the normal relationship between relatives. B in

this extract, however, does not make use of ‘Bµ’. He uses ‘Tí’, a first person pronoun

used in informal talk between peers. The utility of person reference terms in this

fragment exhibits an informal and friendly atmosphere.

3. Downgrading prior assessments: The second Ss in the Vietnamese data may

disagree with the first Ss by softening and rewording prior assessments. In the excerpt

given below, T qualifies the frequency of the action mentioned by the first S, leading to

a weakened disagreement within his turn:

V03.8.46.

146

(45) D: T. nµy “ch¸t” ghª l¾m … suèt ngµy lªn m¹ng.

T (proper name) this chat extremely much …. all day go up net

(This boy T. chats a great deal…all day on line.)

T: ThØnh tho¶ng.

Sometimes (Sometimes.)

In other cases, second Ss make use of the preferred format by initially agreeing and

then downgrading prior assessments, thereby producing weak disagreements. The

following fragment may serve as an example:

V03.9.55

(46) B: Níc Êy nã cò::ng (0.5) Kü thuËt cña nã còng m¹nh phÕt

®Êy.

Country that it a:::lso technology of it also strong intensifer particle

(That country is also (0.5) its technology is also very powerful.)

H: õ, kü thuËt cña nã th×: (1.0) còng kh¸.

Yeah technology of it be also good

(Yeah, its technology is also good.)

B: Còng siªu phÕt ®Êy. NhÊt lµ n«ng nghiÖp cña nã (1.0)

rÊt giái….

Also super intensifier particle especially agriculture of it very good

(It’s excellent. Especially its agriculture (1.0) is really good.)

As clearly seen, after agreeing with B’s assessment, H qualifies it by proposing a lower

level of evaluation. Her so doing causes her co-conversant to reaffirm his position,

adding more turns to the sequence to strengthen his point. B seems to adhere to

emphasizers like “rÊt”, “phÕt” make clear his stance.

147

4. ‘Agreement + disagreement’ format: Subsequent Ss in Vietnamese may first agree

with prior assessments, and then begin their contrastive evaluation with ‘but’, i.e., they

deploy the ‘agreement plus disagreement’ format, as in:

V03.5.21

(47) H: Con g¸i nã thuÇn h¬n.

Classifier girl pronoun obedient more

(Girls are more obedient.)

V: õ, (1.0) nhng mµ con trai b©y giê th×…

Yeah but classifier boy now be…

(Yeah, but boys are now…)

Vietnamese Ss tend to make advantage of particles like ‘nµo’, ‘nhØ’, ‘’, ‘nhÐ’,

‘®Êy’, ‘®©u’, ‘®ã’, ‘v©ng’ etc. Among them ‘¹’ and ‘v©ng’ are often

utilized in upward speech from the inferior to the superior or from the junior to the

senior (Vu T. T. H. 1997, 2000) to express respect and deference; therefore, they are

called politeness/deference markers or honorifics (cf. Nguyen D. H. 1995). Let us have

a look at the following example:

V03.6.21

(48) H: Con giai lµ cha:: cha theo quü ®¹o (1.0) cho nªn lµ bè

ph¶i rÌn

Classifier boy be not yet follow orbit for need be father must train

nhiÒu ((cêi))…

much ((laughs))

(Boys aren’t very obedient, so fathers have to pay more attention.)

N: Kh«ng ph¶i thÕ ¹.

No must that particle-¹

148

(That’s not true.)

N’s father, a friend of Ms. H, says that he pays more attention to his son N than to his

daughter, N’s older sister. In the excerpt above, H tries to verbally interpret the father’s

purpose of so doing. N, a first-year student at Hanoi Conservatory, is not in agreement

with H, as her overgeneralization might allude that he is among those who are not very

obedient. Although his utterance is full of contrastive components, and the English

version may sound too forthright, his wording in Vietnamese would be judged as

respectful and acceptable thanks to the use of the sentence-final particle ‘¹’. The

politeness level of an utterance in Vietnamese is commonly carried out via the use of

such semantic items as appropriate address terms, particles and other supportive

devices to show solidarity, intimacy, respect and deference, leading to high degree of

discourse indirectness. From time to time, the appropriate level of formality may be of

great help.

In the next fragment, A states her disagreement right after her teacher assesses the

college entrance exams. Her using ‘¹’ twice within the turn increases the level of

politeness and respect necessary in her upward speech to her teacher. A’s ‘unpolished’

answer can be treated as an exaggeration in terms of meaning, but it is fine from the

viewpoint of socially accepted norms.

V03.4.13

(49) C: … viÖc thi rÊt khã … sÏ ®µo t¹o (1.0) sÏ chän ®îc nh©n

tµi

… work exam very difficult … will train will select gifted

thùc sù ®Ó vµo ®¹i häc

really for go college

‘…difficult exams … will train will help select really gifted students

149

for colleges.’

A: Kh«ng cã ®©u ¹. Tiªu cùc vÉn cùc nhiÒu lu«n ¹.

No have where marker-¹ negative also extremely many often marker-¹

(No, it’s not. There are still a great many secret deals.)

However, ‘¹’ is not always treated as a means of displaying respect to people

hierarchically higher than second-assessment profferers. In the example given below,

‘¹’ just plays its normal role of a particle, as there is no need to use it to demonstrate

deference and respect in talk between peers. Also, the use of “cùc” as an amplifier

in “cùc nhiÒu” helps to increase the impact of the disagreeing

attribute.

4.2.2.3. Comments

The proffering of disagreements as dispreferred seconds is produced in turns and

sequences typically characterized by delaying the overtly stated contrastive components

and performing weakened or qualified assertions. Such turns and sequences are

exploited to express disagreements as unfavorable, and at the same time, they are

oriented to in talk-in-progress to minimize explicitly stated disagreement tokens.

The data show that Vietnamese Ss construct their disagreements within turns and

sequences in nearly the same ways as the English Ss do. Vietnamese Ss may exploit (i)

delay devices such as asking for more elaboration or evidence to hedge or withhold

their opposite opinion, (ii) silences and pauses to inform interlocutors of upcoming

disagreements. They can sometimes indicate unwillingness or reluctance not to be in

accord with co-participants by (iii) downgrading or modifying/softening prior

assessments, or they may utilize (iv) ‘agreement plus disagreement’ format.

Intensifiers including emphasizers, amplifiers and downtoners (Quirk et al. 1972) are

observed to be exploited in both English and Vietnamese disagreements.

150

The striking differences that emerge are in the pervasive use of pronouns and particles

in Vietnamese. Unlike English, Vietnamese is full of personal pronouns and kinship

terms (both fictive and non-fictive use) deployed for self-reference or address. It is the

appropriate use of particles, as well as person-referring terms that contribute much to

the production of polite and socially acceptable disagreements. English Ss probably

make more use of repair work, turn prefaces and backchannels (“hm”, “mh” and the

like) compared with their Vietnamese counterparts.

4.2.3. Strategies for Disagreements as Preferred Seconds


1. Immediate disagreements: As aforementioned, the English data exhibit that

conversationalists tend to avoid dispreferred format when interacting with others. It is

the fact that they are inclined to delay, withhold or qualify their disagreements with

prefaces, hesitations, silences, repair initiators and the like. This, of course, does not

mean that English Ss never forthrightly disagree with their co-conversants. Strong and

immediate disagreements are prone to appear after prior self-deprecations.

Disagreements in such cases generally occupy entire turns subsequent to self-

deprecations. Second Ss may partially repeat (PR) prior self-deprecations and then

overtly stated disagreement (D) with profferers of self-deprecations, as in an example

by Pomerantz (1984a: 83):

(50) B: …I’m tryina get slim.

(PR) A: Ye:ah? // You get slim, my heavens.

B: heh heh heh heh hh hh

(D) A: You don’t need to get any slimmah,

151

Such negations as ‘no’, ‘hm-mh’, and ‘not’ may occur in initial spaces in turns

containing answers to self-deprecatory formulations. The following extracts by

Pomerantz (1984a: 84) might be good examples of this kind:

(51) R: Did she get my card?

C: Yeah she gotcher card.

R: Did she t’ink it was terrible?

C: No she thought it was very adohrable.

(52) B: I was wondering if I’d ruined yer- weekend // by uh

A: No. No. Hm-mh. No. I

just love to have-

2. Complimentary components: It is obvious that disagreements subsequent to prior

self-deprecations are likely to contain evaluative components. As oppositions to self-

deprecating assessments, they are constructed as positive, complimentary attributes.

Pomerantz (1984a: 85) exemplifies this view in the extracts below:

(53) C: …’ere Momma She talks better than I do.

B: Aw you talk fine.

(54) B: And I never was a grea(h)t Bri(h)dge play(h)er Clai(h) re,

A: Well I think you’ve always been real good,

Given that a self-deprecatory formulation is produced the next S’s response is made

due and relevant in the subsequent turn. The mechanism of preference organization in

this case is the reverse of the normal case. Agreements turn out to be dispreferred

seconds and disagreements preferred seconds. The reason is simple: agreements with

self-critical assessments are interpreted as criticisms, and disagreements are conceived

as favorable, positively evaluative tokens. As a result, disagreements with self-

denigrations are performed in preferred-action turns and sequences.

152

Disagreements as preferred seconds tend to be overtly stated in a range of various

forms. Second Ss may, for instance, proffer assessments quite contrastive to prior self-

deprecating assessments as in the example by Pomerants (1984a: 87):

(55) A: … I’m so dumb I don’t even know it. hhh! – heh!

B: Y-no, y-you’re not du:mb, …

3. Undermining self-denigrations: Recipients may criticize self-deprecatory

formulations, hence disaffiliating with their validity, as below:

(56) C: I have no dates. I don’t go: there // is no sense in hanging onto the

clothes

J: (Are you-) ((high pitch))

J: Wha do ya mean you don’t have any da:tes. ((low pitch))

C: Well: I just don’t go out anymore that’s all.

J: Oh: that’s ridiculous. (Pomerantz 1984a: 87)

By undermining, recategorizing or reformulating self-critical assessments, second Ss

can produce pleasing disagreements with first Ss. They may, from time to time, show

that prior self-deprecations are not proper actions, as in (Ibid. 88):

(57) W: And I’m being irritable right now by telling you so,

L: Ah! Ah! .HHHH No. hehhhheh! No but- but uh-yuh-Wilbur agai::n.

again. Stop trying to do this of your se:lf. (1.2)—leave it alone en

you’ll be shown the way to overcome it.

Second Ss may undermine prior self-deprecatory formulations by suggesting that they

are common and normal. It is of interest to pay attention to the deployment of

emphasizers, amplifiers or downtoners in English disagreements. These two points are

illustrated in the following extract:

(58) W: Yet I’ve got quite a distance tuh go yet.

153

L: Everybody has a distance.


Native English Ss in disagreements to prior self-deprecations are observed to act quite

directly. They may explicitly negate the first assessments, provide compliments or

downgrade their seriousness.


In response to self-deprecations, Vietnamese Ss deploy a set of strategies similar to

those used by English Ss to produce disagreements as preferred seconds within turns

and sequences to demonstrate their favorable, positively evaluative assessments.

1. Immediate disagreements: Prior self-deprecatory formulations may strongly and

immediately be disapproved of by such negation components as ‘kh«ng’ (no/not),

‘kh«ng ph¶i’ (no/not), ‘kh«ng h¼n’ (not really) and the like, possibly located

within turn/sequence shapes. Let us have a look at this excerpt:

V03.3.11.

(59) L: ¤ng T. h còng (1.0) mét phÇn do L.…

Grandfather T spoiled also one portion because L.

(That Mr. T has been spoiled is partly my fault.)

B: C¸i ®ã kh«ng ph¶i ®©u L ¹. C¸i vÊn ®Ò lµ=

Classifier that no must particle L particle-¹ classifier problem be….

(That’s not true, L. The problem is…)

N: Kh«ng ph¶i ®©u.

No must particle

(No, it’s not.)

L criticizes herself for spoiling her husband by taking over almost all of the family

duties. Her school classmates directly disagree with her, saying that it is not her fault.

154

In her self-deprecation, L calls her husband by a kinship term ‘¤ng’ (grandfather),

which is used in this situation as a title equivalent to English ‘Mr.’ and is not

comprehended in relation to its original connotation. Here, we can see that particle-¹ is

not used to show respect or deference at all. It just plays a role of a normal vocative.

From time to time, second Ss may negate prior self-criticisms by pointing out other

sources concerning present conditions, as below:

V03.9.62.

(60) BB: Anh cha ý thøc ®îc lµ anh lµ chñ çi tÕ bµo

Older brother not aware be older brother owner classifier cell

cña x· héi …Çi ý lµ khuyÕt ®iÓm do b¸c.

of society classifier that be fault because uncle

(He’s not aware that he’s the head of a society cell ... That’s my fault.)

H: Còng kh«ng h¼n lµ khuyÕt ®iÓm cña b¸c ®©u ¹. Cã lÏ

lµ B còng lµ

Also not be mistake of uncle particle particle. Perhaps be B also be

(1.0) còng kh«ng muèn nghÜ ®Õn çi chuyÖn Êy cho

nã ®ì ®au ®Çu.

also not want think about classifier story that for it less headache

(It’s not really your fault, uncle. Perhaps, B doesn’t want to think

about this to avoid a headache.)

The person mentioned by Mr. BB is B, who is H’s old school classmate, and the

‘society cell’ in Mr. BB’s wording is his family. The old man blames himself for the

fact that his son B, a mid-aged man, is still single. H defends both him and his son, and

perhaps, that is why her disagreement token does not sound really forthright. Had she

155

been more aggressive, she would have been interpreted as in favor of the father while in

opposition to the son.

The use of ‘anh’ (older brother) by Mr. BB in this fragment has nothing to do with

relative links. It just means ‘he’ in English, a third person singular pronoun. While

talking Mr. BB refers to himself as ‘b¸c’ (uncle), and H, addresses him ‘b¸c’ too.

Similar to other kinship terms, ‘b¸c’ is utilized to show respect and solidarity with co-

conversants and the fictive use of the kin-term ‘b¸c’ here imply that they are as close

as family members. Also, H’s deployment of polite marker ‘¹’ in her response to Mr.

BB’s self-deprecating assessment demonstrates her respect to him.

2. Complimentary components: Native Ss of Vietnamese may combine strong

disagreements with complimentary attributes. In the following fragment, the co-

participants talk about whether one should be thin or fat. H, the oldest, seems to bother

herself about her weight and keeps making self-critical assessments. The other Ss, D

and T, on the contrary, disagree with her by indicating that her body build is normal at

her age. In the previous sequence, D says that her mother wants to gain weight to be

plumper. Thus, H wishes that they could ‘exchange’ their body builds. The

disagreement tokens in this fragment are made with partial repeats of the prior

assessments. Apart from showing that H is normal compared to other women T

includes complimentary evaluative terms in his response to H’s self-denigration.

V03.8.51.

(61) H: Ch¶ bï cho c«::

No compensate for aunt

(May she and I make an exchange.)

D: Nhng c« lµm g× mµ bÐo.

But aunt do what particle fat

156

(But you are not fat.)

H. ((Cêi)) Kh«ng bÐo g× n÷a. §Êy:::

((Laughs)) no fat what else. That:::

((Laughs)) (I’m fat, you see.)

D. §Õn tuæi c« thÕ nµy th× bÐo g×.

come age aunt that this be fat what

(You’re not considered fat at this age.)

T. C« thÕ nµy lµ b×nh thêng råi… §Çy ®Æn, c©n ®èi…

aunt this be normal particle plump well-proportioned

(You look normal this way... Plump and well-proportioned.)

H uses ‘c«’ (aunt) to address herself, and the same kinship is exploited by other parties

taking part in the ongoing conversation. Of course, the address term ‘c«’ here does not

mean that they are relatives. As mentioned above, kinship terms are the most widely

used among person reference words (Luong 1987, 1990), and ‘c«’ in this fictive use

has the meaning of ‘Miss - female teacher’.

3. Undermining self-denigrations: Second Ss may sometimes undermine the prior self-

deprecations by demonstrating that they are irrational or unreasonable, as in the

following excerpts:

V03.8.41

(62) D: …Tr×nh ®é cña m×nh b©y giê chØ dËy ®îc cÊp mét

th«i…

Level of we now only teach particle elementary level particle

(At our present level, we can only teach elementary students.)

L: Ví:: vÈn. Ch¶ ai biÕt.

Irrational nobody know

157

(It’s irrational. Nobody knows.)

The two female freshmen want to work part-time as tutors. D seems to be worried that

her present level of knowledge is not enough to be a tutor. L, in contrast, is more self-

confident, and she points outs that D’s self-deprecation is improper and irrational. In

the same vein, T undermines D’s self-critical comment:

V03.8.42

(63) D. CÊp ba nã vÆn cho chÕt.

Level three they cross-examine for death

(High school students may cross-examine you to death.)

T: VÆn g×.

Cross-examine what

(What can they cross-examine.)

In another extract, T concludes that they cannot teach primary school students math, as

it seems to be hard. Being in disagreement with T, D criticizes him, therefore

disaffiliating with his self-denigrating attribute:

V03.8.44

(64) T. CÊp hai kh«ng dËy ®îc ®©u. Kh«ng dËy ®îc ®©u.

Level two not teach particle particle not teach particle particle

(We cannot teach primary school students. We cannot.)

D. (Cêi) Coi thêng nhau thÕ.

((Laugh)) Look down on other so

((Laughs)) (You look down on others.)

Vietnamese Ss can also disaffiliate with prior self-deprecations by criticizing their

grounds. In the extract below, T assumes that his inattentiveness in grade 12 is due to

158

purity changes. In contrast, H points out that his account is a bit weird, as his purity has

already gone. In her turn, she repeats T’s key word ‘purity’ and thus, invalidates it.

V03.8.54.

(65) T: N¨m 12 con häc ví vÈn… Ch¾c lµ ®ang tuæi dËy th×

((Cêi))…

year 12 son study foolish… maybe present age purity ((laughs))

(I was inattentive in studies in grade 12…Maybe because of purity)

H: ((Cêi)) Tuæ:i dËy th×! ó i giêi, gím, dËy th× c¸i

((laugh)) purity exclamation god exclamation purity classifier

g× n÷a (1.0) DËy th× tõ bao giê…

what else purity from when.

((Laughs)) (Purity! Oh god, what kind of purity (1.0). Purity’s gone…)

T uses ‘con’ (son) meaning ‘I’ to refer to himself. This kinship term is fictively used by

teachers instead of ‘em’ to address students, and this has become a prevalent trend in

schools in Vietnam in recent years.

The extracts above demonstrate strategies for disagreements with prior self-negations in

Vietnamese, which are similar to those used in English. However, Vietnamese Ss are

prone to supplementary elements such as addressing terms, deference markers to

express politeness while exploiting direct linguistic forms.

4.2.3.3. Comments

When disagreements are shaped as preferred seconds to self-deprecations, they seem to

be explicitly verbalized with such negations as ‘no’ and ‘not’, and may occupy the

entire turn/sequence shapes. They may be accompanied with partial repeats or

complimentary evaluative terms. Recipients can undermine prior self-critical

assessments by re-categorizing, reformulating or criticizing them.

159

The Vietnamese in the data seem to be direct and outright in their disagreements with

prior self-deprecations. Like the English Ss, they are inclined to produce (i) immediate

disagreements, combine disagreement tokens with (ii) complimentary components, or

they may abide by disaffiliating with or (iii) undermining self-denigrations. Unlike

English Ss, Vietnamese Ss can make effective and polite disagreements to achieve

communicative goals, basing on the rich vocabulary of person-referring terms,

particles, and other supportive markers of politeness.

4.2.4. Summary

The English and Vietnamese corpora have persuasively proved the hypotheses of

similarities between English and Vietnamese in terms of preference format concerning

the speech act of disagreeing. While disagreements as dispreferred seconds tend to be

delayed or hedged disagreements to self-denigrations as preferred seconds are

inclined to overtly and forthrightly articulated. Disagreements as dispreferred

seconds are characterized by softeners and hedges, questions or requests for more

information to invalidate earlier stated evaluative attributes. Second Ss may produce

weak disagreements by using ‘agreement plus disagreement’ format (Yes, but….),

qualify or downgrade prior assessments. In addition, pauses and silences are considered

signals imminent negative responses in both languages.

The English informants prefer to exploit such delay devices as partial repeats, repair

initiators, turn prefaces or back channels whereas the Vietnamese make use of the rich

repertoire of person referring terms, particles although all of them deploy emphasizers

or downtoners to upgrade or downgrade their disagreements.


The empirical part of this chapter views the notion of markedness in relation to the

notions of preference format and adjacency pair. In naturally occurring interactions,

160

disagreeing, which is structurally marked and thus dispreferred because of its structural

complexity and counter-productive effects, is often softened or hedged. However,

disagreements to self-denigrations, which are structurally unmarked and thus preferred,

are prone to be forthrightly proffered. The two kinds of disagreements seem to work in

absolutely opposing directions so that they can minimize the negative effects of

common disagreements and maximize the positive impacts of disagreement tokens to

prior self-deprecations.

The two groups of informants are inclined to express weak disagreements via

‘agreement plus disagreement’ or ‘downgrading’ constructions apart from requests for

further clarity or pauses and silences. The significant difference is found in the

Vietnamese preference for deployment of address terms and particles and English

tendency to utilize repair-work, turn prefaces or back channels. In the next section, we

have a look at the strategies utilized in English and Vietnamese conversational

exchanges to adjust to the constraints systems of preference format and self-praise

avoidance, and to negotiate disagreements. As aforementioned, native speakers of

English and Vietnamese can create more or less impact in their disagreement attributes

by using intensifiers including emphasizers, amplifiers, and downtoners. Possessing the

elaborate system of address terms and a wide range of particles, the Vietnamese seem

to express with ease both normatively and strategically polite disagreements. Therefore,

the following chapter also takes into consideration the English system of intensifiers

and Vietnamese system of person referring terms and particles.

161

CHAPTER FIVE

STRATEGIES FOR CONSTRAINT SYSTEMS AND

NEGOTIATION OF DISAGREEMENTS


5.1.1. Constraint Systems

According to the organization of preference, compliments should be accepted or agreed

with. In contrast, recent research into English shows that quite a large proportion of

compliment responses are not performed as preferred seconds, and most of them are

situated in the middle of a continuum ranging from acceptances/agreements to

rejections/disagreements (Pomerantz 1975, 1978, 1984a; Levinson 1983; Heritage 2002

among others). In the following table, Pomerantz (1978: 88) presents the

interrelatedness between acceptances/agreements and rejections/disagreements with

respect to compliment responses.

PRIOR COMPLIMENTSFor Acceptances For Rejections

(P) Appreciation tokens(S) Agreements (P) Disagreements

Note: (P) indicates preferential selection.

(S) indicates an affiliated though secondary selection.

Table 5-48: Interrelatedness between acceptances/agreements and

rejections/disagreements

In her 1978 work on “Compliment Responses”, Pomerantz explains that the ‘in

between-ness’ of compliment responses can be the result of conflicting effects brought

by the correlation between preference organization and self-compliment avoidance.

Agreeing with the prior compliments may tacitly mean praising self on the one hand,

and disagreeing may lead to the use of dispreferred format on the other. To compromise

162

with these constraint systems, Ss may disagree with initial complimentary assertions in

a various ways that are examined in detail in the empirical study. They may, for

instance, express appreciation first, and then qualify prior compliments as can be seen

in the excerpt by Pomerantz (1978: 85) given below:

(1) L: Those’r jus’ beautiful. (They’re great.) [

E: Well-

E: Thank- It’s juh- this is just the right (weight)

5.1.2. Negotiation of Disagreements

Conversation is a joint-venture co-constructed by multiple Ss. To continue or start a

new topic, the S has to carry out negotiations with other interactants. Once the initial

proffering of evaluations is delivered, any difficulty in responding (e.g., delayed

uptakes, hesitations, repair initiators etc.) is comprehended as signals of potential

disagreements. Facing an imminent opposition, co-participants are seen to constantly

negotiate their evaluations or assessments. Disagreements on the part of co-

conversants may trigger and occasion first Ss’ qualification or modification of prior

evaluative formulations. In some cases, they may adopt new positions different or even

contrastive to prior stances, or they may retain first views and carry on reassertions to

wait for agreements from interlocutors. The process of negotiation goes on and on until

conversationalists find a common or middle ground, accept or acknowledge the co-

existence of multiple views or start a new topic or end the talk (Mori 1999: 138).

Profound conversation analysts like Pomerantz (1975, 1984a), Sacks (1987), Goodwin

& Goodwin (1987, 1992) have taken notice of the ways in which native speakers of

English negotiate their disagreements. Basing on the close investigation of naturally

occurring fragments, their studies make clear the organization of sequences in pursuing

163

the co-conversant’s response. Below are some of theoretical backgrounds concerning

research into the organization of these sequences.

5.1.2.1. Insertion sequences

The turn-by-turn sequential organization of interaction has been central to attention in

the conversation analytic research, and adjacency pairs have been suggested a

fundamental unit of this organization (Goffman 1976, Levinson 1983, Psathas 1995).

However, in naturally occurring interactions, the operating of sequential organizations

is much more complicated. Let us first consider the notion of ‘adjacency’, which should

be understood as a relative concept. The question-answer sequences, for instance, may

find themselves embedded within other sequences, as in Merritt’s excerpt (1976: 333):

(2) A: May I have a bottle of Mich? ((q 1))

B: Are you twenty one? ((q 2))

A: No. ((a 2))

B: No. ((a 1))

In a similar vein, a second pair part may be held, which creates a spatial and temporal

distance within the pair, as in another example by Levinson (1983: 304):

(3) B: U :hm (.) what’s the price now eh with V.A.T. do you know eh ((q 1))

A: Er I’ll just work that out for you= ((hold))

B: =thanks. ((accept))

A: Three pounds nineteen a tube sir. ((a 1))

Strict adjacency pairs, according to Levinson (Ibid.), are normally assumed to have

strong effects or requirements in comparison to their embedded counterparts.

Nonetheless, insertion sequences, which are pervasively employed in natural language

usage to construct interesting interactions, are worth intensive studies.

164

5.1.2.2. Summons-answer sequences

Schegloff (1972a, 1979a) and Sacks (1975), considering telephone conversations,

discover the uniqueness of opening exchanges, and call them summons-answer

sequences. The ringing of the phone, in their view, should be treated as a summons,

and the receiver’s first saying Hello or Hi is assumed the second interactional

component. Obviously, the summons-answer sequences, which contain elements of

three-turn (at least) sequences, are different from such prototypical adjacency pairs as

greeting-greeting, assessment-agreement/ disagreement, or compliment-acceptance/

rejection in terms of turns, as exemplified below (Levinson 1983: 310-11).

(4) A: John? ((summons))

B: Yeah? ((answer))

A: Pass the water woulddja? ((reason for summons))

(5) C: ((causes telephone to ring at R’s location))

R: Hello,

C: Hi,

R: Oh hi::

As clearly seen from the above interactional excerpts, summons-answer sequences are

commonly deployed not only in telephone talks, but in other everyday face-to-face

conversations too. In (5), Schegloff (1979a) proposes to treat C’s ringing the phone as a

summons/the first move in the interaction, R’s Hello - an answer and display of

identity, C’s Hi – first greeting and recognition, and R’s Oh hi – second greeting and

recognition. Thus, the process of identification and recognition (Schegloff ibid.),

which seems potentially problematic in three-turn sequences, turns out to be

immediately relevant in the environment of telephone interactions.

165

5.1.2.3. Pre-sequences

Utterances like ‘Hey’, ‘You know something?’, ‘What?’, ‘Excuse me’ etc. are usually

deployed as prefaces or ‘precursors’ (Mey 2001: 144) to other utterances or sets of

utterances. In other words, pre-sequences are those, which function as precursors to

other utterances. There are different kinds of pre-sequences including summons,

attention getters (some are listed above), pre-invitations, pre-requests, pre-

announcements, pre-disagreements and many others. Before actual invitations, Ss may

produce pre-invitations, as in the excerpt by Atkinson and Drew (1979: 253) given

below:

(6) A: Whatcha doin’?

B: Nothin’

A: Wanna drink?

The requester can make use of a pre-request to check out if the co-conversant is

available or willing to accept his request, as in Merritt’s example (1976: 324):

(7) C: Do you have the blackberry jam?

S: Yes.

C: Okay. Can I have half a pint then?

S: Sure. ((turns to get))

The pre-requests can be used to see if the grounds for refusal are present, otherwise the

actual request sequences are immediately cancelled, as in (Ibid. 325):

(8) C: Do you have Marlboros?

S: Uh, no. We ran out.

C: Okay. Thanks anyway.

S: Sorry.

166

Normally, it is not easy to announce bad news, and perhaps, that is the reason for Betty,

who has to inform Fanny of Eva’s death, makes long stretches of pre-announcements,

as in the excerpt by Maynard (2003: 132) cited below:

(9) Betty: I: uh::: I did wanna tell you en I didn’wanna tell you

uh::::: uh:: las’ni:ght. Uh:: because you had entuht-uhcompany I,

I-I had

something (.) terrible t’tell you.=

Betty: =So[u h: ]

Fanny: [How t]errible[is it.]

Betty: [.hhhhh]

(.)

Betty: Uh: ez worse it could be:.

(0.7)

Fanny: W’y’mean Eva?

(.)

Betty: Uh yah .hh=

Fanny: =Wud she do die:?,=

Betty: =Mm:hm,

(.)

Fanny: When did she die,

(0.2)

Betty: Abou:t uh:::(v) (.) four weeks ago.

(.)

Fanny: Oh how horrible.

167

The above death announcement is full of pauses, delays, hesitations, sound stretching,

and breathing. Instead of making a straightforward announcement, Betty just produces

pre-announcements. By specifically designing her speech, Betty, step by step, invites

guesses from Fanny. After quite a few pre-announcements, she succeeds in obtaining

her interlocutor’s guess of Eva’s death, the very message she wants to transfer.

Obviously, the special structure of pre-sequences seems to be effective in helping Ss

obviate the need to perform undesirable actions at all.

5.1.2.4. Sequences in disagreeing

Exchanging evaluative opinions or assessments requires conversationalists to have

available access to the same things, events or people being assessed. Given the

assumption that recipients are responsive, they cannot incorporate with prior Ss without

sufficient knowledge of the same referents mentioned in the on-going talk. Delays,

hesitations, pauses or silences on the part of second Ss may signal their unstated

disagreements or lack of knowledge necessary to make comments. It is very likely that

profferers of first assessments attempt to figure out the reasons of getting no response,

thus leading to their clarification, review, or modification of their stances. In

Pomerantz’s view (1984b), they are prone to do so with the hope to get agreements

from their interlocutors. To pursue agreements they can abandon their initial views and

adopt new positions, as in her example given below (Ibid. 160):

(10) C: …what I’m having to do to people I know is cut them up and sell

them . hhhh uh a pound and a half for a dollar sixty five…

M: Well I don’t know what’s the matter with them because fruitcake is

not cheap and that’s not an awful lot of fruitcake.

(1.0)

M: Course it is a little piece goes a long way.

168

(.)

C: Well that’s right

C’s customers complaint makes her decide to cut and sell the fruitcakes by halves, but

M is not in agreement with C’s decision. M states that fruitcakes are not cheap, and

they are not so big. However, C’s one-second silence makes M reconsider her position,

and she rapidly reverses her prior view. By saying ‘a little piece goes a long way’, M

enlarges the size of the cakes and insinuates her new stance. Only after a pause does

C’s positive response come. And it is prefaced by ‘Well’. In another extract by

Pomerantz (1984a: 87), the second S makes clear the view of the first S before

criticizing it, adding more turns to the sequence:

(11) C: I have no dates. I don’t go: there // no sense in hanging onto the clothes,

J: (Are you-) ((high pitch))

J: Wha do ya mean you don’t have any da:tes. ((low pitch))

C: Well: I just don’t go out anymore that’s all.

J: Oh: that’s ridiculous.

As discussed earlier, disagreements seem to be overly stated in response to self-

deprecations. After such attributes, the prior S may continue self-deprecating, resulting

in a series of disagreements. In the following excerpt by Pomerantz (Ibid. 89), L

disagrees with W and treats W’s action of self-deprecation as improper or

unreasonable:

(12) W: A:nd I’m-I’m, I’m eating the right food ‘n the right balance of foods,

W: but, I’m still, drinking coffee,

L: That’s not (drinking).

W: You think so,

L: No::.

169

W: It creates a nasty disposition.

L: I don’t believe (that // at’all),

W: it, makes you irritable

L: (It does not)

W: It doe:s, // (It ca:n.)

L: You-er you-yuh-that’s a…//heh heh! hah! hah! hah!

And I’m being irritable right now

by telling you so, …

As demonstrated, the negotiation of disagreeing in natural interpersonal interactions is

interwoven, variously structured, and smooth flowing all over the turns in the

sequences.

5.1.3. Some Frequently Used Devices in Disagreements

5.1.3.1. Intensifiers

Disagreement tokens can be divided into strong or weak according to the force of the

act. Very often, the force is enhanced or mitigated by means of intensification and

modification. In most of the cases, disagreeing should be toned down by some form of

elaboration to minimize imposition, as demonstrated in the following example by

Finegan (2004: 311):

(1) Fran: I really enjoyed that movie last night. Did you?

Frank: Yeah, it was pretty good.

Intensifiers, in Brown & Levinson’s understanding (1987), act as overstaters and/or

understaters, and adverbs like rather, quite, or just can play this twin role. Some

authors view them as highlighters (van Dijk, 1979; Polanyi, 1985), or as maximizers

(Held, 1989), whereas Zellermayer (1991) emphasizes their role in encoding

information.

170

In some cases, the S may use a more direct way to frame his/her disagreement by using

intensifiers to strongly rebut the prior S’s assessment or opinion, as in the following

interaction taken from Heritage (2002: 222):

(2) Mike: Let me ask a guy at work. He’s got a bunch of old clunkers….

I can’t say they’re old clunkers. He’s got two Cords and…

Curt: Not original?

Mike: Oh, yes, very original.

Intensifiers are found to demonstrate quite frequently in the English corpus of the

present study, as in the conversation given below between S, B and R:

(3) S. Yeah, it’s pretty (.) But I like The Quiet American. It’s a very good movie.

B. Not an A.

S. Right, not an A.

R. It’s a B type.

S. I really like that movie but I didn’t recommend anyone to see it.

(13) R: The film that film was so exciting.

B: Uhm, well, it’s it’s kinda scary.

A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics by Crystal (2003: 237) defines intensifiers as

‘a class of adverbs which have a heightening or lowing effect on the meaning of

another element in the sentence.’ Quirk et al. (1972: 438-453) divide intensifiers into

three semantic classes, namely:

(I) emphasizers: actually, certainly, clearly, definitely, indeed, obviously, plainly, really,

surely, for certain, for sure, of course, frankly, honestly, literally, simply, fairly, just

(II) amplifiers: absolutely, altogether, completely, entirely, extremely, fully, perfectly,

quite, thoroughly, totally, utterly, in all respects, most (maximizers); badly, bitterly,

deeply, enormously, far, greatly, heartily, highly, intensely, much severely, so,

strongly, terribly, violently, well, a great deal, a good deal, a lot, by far (boosters)

(III) downtoners: kind of, sort of, quite, rather, enough, sufficiently, more or less

(compromisers); mildly, moderately, partially, partly, slightly, somewhat, in part, in

171

some respect, to some extent, a little, least (of all) (diminishers); a bit, barely, hardly,

little, scarcely, in the least, in the slightest, at all (minimizers); almost, nearly,

practically, virtually, as good as, all but (approximators)

Dinh V. D. (1986: 218) takes notice of the frequent appearance of a class of words in

Vietnamese which he calls ‘t×nh th¸i tõ’ and emphasizes their active usage in

different types of acts depending on communicative purposes. Below is the list of these

words:

µ, ư, nhØ, nhÐ, (nh¸, nhí) a, ¹, Êy, víi, thÕ, nµo, ®©u, vËy, h¼n, ch¾c, ch¨ng, mµ, c¬, (kia), chø (chí) ®©u, th«i, ®·, ®i, h¶, hö (hë), ¬i, «i, sao, vËy , mµ th«i, thÕ/c¬ µ, c¬ mµ, etc…

Investigating the different ways in which Vietnamese compliments are expressed

Nguyen Q. (1998: 183-185) suggests a range of lexico-modal markers commonly

deployed by Vietnamese Ss in giving compliments:

(i) võa, võa míi, ®¬n gi¶n lµ, cã lÏ, cã thÓ, cã kh¶ n¨ng, ph¶i ch¨ng, ë møc ®é nµo ®ã th×, nãi khÝ kh«ng ph¶i chø, …

(i) mét chót, mét tÑo, mét tÑo teo, tÝ chót, ®«i chót, tµm t¹m, ®¹i lo¹i, kiÓu, kiÓu như lµ,…

(ii) v« cïng, thùc sù, thËt lµ, thËt, rÊt, rÊt chi lµ, qu¶ lµ, rÊt lµ, l¾m, thÕ, ®Êy, h¼n ra, ra, lªn, …

It is worth noting that intensifiers are not restricted to intensification. The scale that is

shown by intensifiers fluctuates upwards and downwards. Emphasizers normally

indicate a heightening level. Amplifiers upgrade the evaluative tokens compared to the

commonly assumed norms, whereas downtoners carry a lowering effect.

5.1.3.2. Person referring terms

The abundance of lexical alternates and the multiplicity of pragmatic functions of the

Vietnamese system of person reference terms, including terms of address and self-

reference, make it central in a number of searches by Luong V. H. (1987, 1990),

Nguyen D. H. (1995), Nguyen Q. (1998), Vu T. T. H. (1997, 2000), Nguyen T. T. B.

(2000, 2001), to name just a few. The pervasive existence of person referring terms in

172

Vietnamese, used to designate the S, the H and the third party, projects their significant

importance in the Vietnamese system of socio-cultural beliefs and values, as Fowler

(1985: 65) puts it, ‘Whatever is important to a culture is richly lexicalized.’

The amply source of alternates as well as the multiplicity of pragmatic functions

(Luong V. H. 1990) has made the Vietnamese system of person reference the object of

many studies. Among the three classes of person referring terms common nouns

(including kinship, and status terms), proper nouns and personal pronouns, the most

widely used is kinship terms (fictive and non-fictive usage) (Ibid.). In Vietnamese

culture, the kinship hierarchy is rigidly observed in the family and patrilineage realm,

regardless of age and status, but in other domains age and status are taken into

consideration together with factors like the setting, speech style, intimacy, purpose of

the talk etc. in the choice of appropriate person-referring terms (Bui M. Y. 1996, Vu T.

T. H. 1997, Nguyen V. K. 2000 and Nguyen T. T. B. 2001).

It is possible to say that in Vietnamese deictic categories of the S, addressee and other

people are more complex and elaborated compared to those in English, as they involve

the notions of age, status, relations (by marriage and by law) etc. The term ‘honorifics’

is used to denote expressions indicating people of a higher status than ego such as ‘quý

«ng’, ‘quý bµ’, ‘ngµi’ and so on. According to Do H. C. (2003), personal pronouns

(first and second person) in Vietnamese are: t«i, tí, ta, tao, (I), m×nh (I/you),

mµy, bay (you), chóng t«i, chóng mµy, chóng ta, chóng m×nh, bän

m×nh, bän ta (we) etc. The use of these pronouns depends on personal relations,

emotional feelings and other factors, and probably, none of them can be as neutral as

English ‘I’ and ‘you’. Thus, the S should be very careful in choosing the right pronoun

for the right addressee and context. Vietnamese also makes use of proper nouns and

kinship terms in certain cases. Kinships in Vietnamese can be divided into three groups:

173

(i) m¸, u, bÇm, (mother), bè, ba, tÝa (father) ...(i) anh (older brother), chÞ (older sister), em (younger brother/sister),

chó (uncle), (aunt), b¸c (uncle /aunt), cha (father), mÑ (mother), ch¸u (nephew /niece/ grandson/ granddaughter), con (son/daughter) …

(ii) anh hä, chÞ hä (cousin), «ng néi (paternal grandfather), d©u (daughter-in-law), rÓ (son-in-law) ...

Do H. C. (2003) assumes that first-group terms can be deployed as personal pronouns,

third-group terms can be used for the description of relation, and second-group terms

can act as pronouns and description devices. Professional terms like b¸c sÜ (doctor),

thÇy (teacher), gi¸o sư (professor), chñ tÞch (chairman), gi¸m ®èc (director),

bé trưëng (minister) etc. often play the part of pronouns.

(4) Thưa b¸c sü, b¸c sü cã thÓ nãi râ h¬n vÒ bÖnh t×nh cña cha

t«i ®ưîc kh«ng? (Doctor, can you tell me more about my father’s

illness?)

Sometimes the old forms like ‘cô b¸, cô ch¸nh, «ng lý’ etc. involving the feudal

times can be seen. The archaic forms such as ‘ngµi, trÉm, qu¶ nh©n, tiªn sinh,

thÇn, khanh, ngu ®Ö, hiÒn ®Ö, ngu huynh, hiÒn huynh, t¹i h¹, tiªn

sinh, bØ nh©n’ etc. have a very limited range of use.

Wierzbicka (1996) asserts that all languages make a distinction between ‘I’ (the

speaker) and ‘you’ (the addressee) although some may have just one word for ‘he’ and

‘she’. Many languages, especially those spoken in South-east Asia, possess a wide

range of elaborate substitutes for ‘I’ and ‘you’ (Cook 1968, Wierzbicka 1996), and the

basic forms of ‘I’ and ‘you’ do not seem as appropriate as their substitutes. The

Vietnamese ‘mµy’ (I) and ‘tao’ (you), for example, may be interpreted as either very

intimate or very rude depending on the context.

174

Apart from personal pronouns (I, he/she/it, you, we, they), English also makes use of

proper names, professional terms (professor, master, etc.) and titles (Mr., Mrs., Miss.,

etc.), which is similar to Vietnamese.

(5) Dr. Dixon, could I ask you a question?

It is of interest to talk of multi-person pronouns in Vietnamese like ‘người ta’, and

‘m×nh’ used as first and second person pronouns. Proper names, most of kinship

terms can be functioned as first, second and third person ones. To avoid confusion,

particles ‘Êy’, ‘ta’ are often put in combination with second-group kinship terms when

they are used as third person pronouns, eg. c« Êy, c« ta (she).

(6) C« muèn con lµm l¹i bµi tËp nµy. (c« – first person)

(I want you to do this exercise again)

(7) C« ¬i, c« gióp con viÖc nµy nhÐ. (c« – second person)

(Aunt, help me with this work.)

(8) T«i kh«ng thÝch c« ta/Êy. (c« - third person)

(I don’t like her.)

Third person forms which is by nature distal can replace second person ones for irony,

humor, accusation or criticism as in:

(9) Each person should wash his/her dishes.

Third person forms help to make the potential accusation less direct and aggressive, and

the personal aspects seem impersonal. It is also the case in Vietnamese when third

person forms are used in indirect criticisms and accusations:

(10) Con ph¶i quan t©m ®Õn mọi người chø.

(Son/Daughter, you have to take care of everyone.)

175

'mọi người’ (alluding to the S and/or his spouse) is used to avoid using the first person

pronoun, which seems to be too direct in Vietnamese in this case. It is possible to use

the first person plural ‘we’ to speak out the rules generally applied to people as in:

(11) We don’t smoke in here.

Vietnamese possesses two forms ‘chóng t«i’ (exclusive we) and ‘chóng ta’

(inclusive we), while English has only one first person plural form ‘we’. Presumably,

non-native addressees may encounter the ambiguity of the practical usage of ‘we’, and

it is not very easy for them to decide if they are included or excluded in the group. The

distinction between the two forms can be seen in these expressions: ‘Let’s go’

(addressee included), and ‘Let us go’ (addressee excluded).

Working on politeness and requests in Vietnamese, Vu T. T. H. (2000) notices that

person deixis especially kinship terms, are exploited to make a request more polite

because they help to demonstrate hierarchical relations and intimacy (cf. Luong V. H.

1987, 1990).

The use of Vietnamese kinship terms does affect face-to-face interaction. Basing on

talks recorded in some families in Ho Chi Minh City, Phan T. Y. T. and Luong V. H.

(2000) pay attention to this phenomenon and hypothesize that the frequent use of

kinship terms in conversation between mothers-children and grandmothers-

grandchildren creates a more intimate and friendly atmosphere than that between

fathers-children and grandfathers-grandchildren .

5.1.4. Summary

Intensifiers used in disagreeing attributes help increase, emphasize or qualify the force

of second assessments. While intensifiers including emphasizers, amplifiers and

downtoners are seen to be deployed in both English and Vietnamese disagreements the

pervasive exploitation of person referring terms with their 3 subclasses (1) common

176

nouns (including kinship terms, professional terms, titles, etc.), (2) proper nouns, and

(3) personal pronouns is found mostly in Vietnamese. According to many researchers,

person reference words are of great help in expressing hierarchy and solidarity which

are held significant in Vietnamese culture.

The turn-by-turn sequential organization of talk-in-interaction is carefully examined.

Insertion sequences, which require relative understanding of adjacency, demonstrate

the mechanism to interpret natural talk. Prototypical adjacency pair format consisting of

two turns does not seem to fit into telephone interaction, which leads to the summon-

answer sequences containing the process of identification and recognition. Different

kinds of pre-sequences such as summons, attention getters, pre-invitations, pre-

disagreements etc. are effectively made use of to avoid performing undesirable acts.

In addition, the negotiation of disagreeing may result in a series of disagreements and

long string of turns and sequences. To pursue agreements on the part of second Ss prior

Ss qualify their stated views or adopt new stances.

Theoretically, compliments should be accepted or agreed with in regards to preference

organization. However, quite a few compliment responses in English are not performed

as preferred seconds. Most of them are placed somewhere between agreements and

disagreements. And this is considered the consequence of the constraint systems

pertaining to preference organization and self-compliment avoidance.



5.2.1.1. Aims

This empirical study aims at finding proofs for the followings:

177

1. While both speakers of English and Vietnamese tend to choose mid-positions in

proffering responses to compliments, the former exhibit more cases of

acceptance/appreciation than the latter as regards the constraint systems.

2. The two groups of speakers are similar in their strategies for negotiation of

disagreements with prior evaluative tokens in terms of the turn and sequence

organization.

3. To perform disagreements, English and Vietnamese speakers deploy

intensifiers, person referring terms and other supportive devices to different

extents.


The empirical study in this chapter uses the same corpora as the empirical study in

Chapter 4. Briefly speaking, the Vietnamese corpus is taken from 30 native speakers in

Hanoi, and the English corpus is obtained from 2 sources: 16 native speakers in North

America and excerpts recorded and used by famous CA analysts. Paralinguistic features

are seldom referred to in order to make up for the inability to use an elaborate system of

transcription notations in Vietnamese correlative to that in English.

5.2.2. Strategies for Constraint Systems


1. Scaled-down disagreements: As the first solution, recipients of compliments may

downgrade prior evaluative terms within agreement turns, thus producing scaled-down

disagreements that display features of both agreements and disagreements. In general,

these responses have the format of agreement turns with initially positioned agreement

components, or appreciation, but the level of evaluation is quite different, namely, is

weakened or softened, as illustrated below:

(14) B: I’ve been offered a full scholarship at Berkeley and at UCLA

178

G: That’s fantastic.

→ B: Isn’t that good?

(15) A: Oh it was just beautiful.

→ B: Well thank you uh I thought it was quite nice,

Pomerantz (1978: 94)

(16) C: W’l my God it sounds marvelou s Don, [

→ D: Yeah it is, it’s a-good deal,

(Ibid. 95)

Responses to prior compliments of this kind seem to be similar to downgraded

disagreements in ‘agreement plus disagreement’ format discussed above.

2. Downgrading prior compliments: Recipients may disagree with initial compliments

by considering them as over-rated or exaggerated, and regularly, they qualify these

complimentary assertions using such qualifiers as ‘though’, ‘just’, ‘yet’, ‘but’, and the

like, as exhibited in:

(17) L: You bou:ght. –like a ton of things. // ( )

→ E: Just a few little (thi::ngs,)

(18) A: Good shot.

→ B: Not very solid though. (Pomerantz 1978: 99)

By downgrading prior complimentary attributes, second Ss seem to have made an

optimal decision: they neither totally agree nor totally disagree with first Ss, hence

getting rid of the constraint systems discussed in the previous section.

3. Credit shift: Recipients of compliments may also shift credits from ego to alter. That

is to say, they transfer the ‘referentship’ to parties other than themselves. They can, for

instance, praise some third party, insinuating that prior compliments are sent to the

wrong direction. In the following fragment (Ibid. 102), J shifts the credit from self to

another referent, and in this case, a particular type of boats, when he is praised as a

179

‘good rower’. Although J does not verbally disagree with R, his praising the boat ‘very

easy to row’ and ‘very light’ implicitly demonstrates his partly disagreement:

(19) R: You’re a good rower, Honey.

→ J: These are very easy to row. Very light.

4. Reciprocal compliments: English Ss sometimes returns complimentary attributes to

their producers. It is worth noting that credit-shift responses are often delivered as

disagreements because subsequent Ss imply that they do not deserve to get such

assessments, whereas reciprocal compliments are structured as agreements, as in:

(20) C: Ya’ sound (justiz) real nice,

→ D: Yeah you soun’real good too.

(21) E: Yer lookin good,

→ G: Great. So’r you. (Ibid. 105)

5. Negating compliments: English Ss might negate prior compliments, but second Ss’

negating of compliments could hurt first Ss, as in the case of a man named Perflexed in

Pomerantz’s story (Ibid. 79). Unlike other native speakers of English, his wife always

downgrades or rejects his compliments, which hurts him. Abby, Perflexed’s friend,

explains that the wife negates compliments just because she lacks self-confidence.

Pomerantz, however, proposes that her behavior deviates from the common standards

of accepting compliments, which results in communication failures.


1. Scaled-down disagreements: Second Ss in Vietnamese exchanges may first agree,

and then disagree with prior Ss, as illustrated in the extract below:

V03.8.48

(22) L: …P. Êy. Xinh h¬n lµ håi nã bÐo.

P that. Pretty more be then she fat

180

(That P she’s prettier than when she was fat.)

→ H: µ, õ. Nhng mµ nh thÕ th× gÇy qu¸.

Ah yeah but particle like that be thin very

(Ah, yeah, but she’s too thin.)

L talks about P, a girl who used to be fat. That girl got rid of overweight by using

certain kind of medicine, and consequently, she’s lost about twenty kilos. H constructs

her disagreement turn by using the ‘agreement + disagreement’ format, prefaced with a

recognition signal ‘Ah’. The conjunction ‘but’ is deployed in this structure to initiate

the disagreement. The combination of agreements and disagreements in responses

subsequent to compliments weakens or qualifies disagreements despite the presence of

contrastive elements (Pomerantz 1978). In addition to this, this format is typical of

disagreement turns and sequences. It is not utilized in producing agreements.

2. Downgrading prior compliments: In the data, Ss of Vietnamese seem to often

qualify or downgrade first Ss’ complimentary tokens, especially when the referents are

their relatives or they themselves. In the following fragment, H and L talk about

education system in Vietnam. H praises L’s niece, a girl with a special gift in math:

V03.2.5

(23) H: …con ®Êy häc giái thËt…

daughter that study well truth (That girl studies very well.)

→ L: Nã häc nhµn…

She study easy (She doesn’t have to work

hard.)

In her positively evaluative assessment, H emphasizes the excellent study results of the

girl. Although L is not the object of the praise, she downgrades H’s compliment on her

niece’s intellectual ability. The discrepancy between the prior compliment and the

181

response to it reflects a common behavior of the Vietnamese responding to

compliments, which might be considered an unwritten norm of socially behavioral

manners.

3. Credit shift: To avoid self-praising or praising their own relatives and not to reject

co-participants’ compliments, subsequent Ss may transfer the credit to a third party. In

the excerpt given below, D comments on H’s husband, looking at a picture of his, taken

when he was young:

V03.8.43

(24) D: §Ñp trai nhÊt nhµ cßn g× n÷a.

handsome most house particle what particle

(He’s the most handsome in the family.)

→ H: ¤ng anh th× ®îc mäi ngêi khen lµ ®Ñp giai nhÊt nhµ…

grandfather older brother particle all people compliment be

handsome most house

(His older brother is complimented as the most handsome in the family.)

Here, H does not directly negate the compliment, since she is not the one who is being

praised but she avoids acknowledging it verbally. For her agreement to the prior

assessment might be interpreted as an implicit compliment token on her husband,

which is normally assumed as an unfavorable action in the local culture. By shifting

credit from her husband to his older brother, she has a good strategy: she can maintain

the harmonious atmosphere but does not violate the socially accepted norm of behavior.

4. Reciprocal compliments: No reciprocal compliment is found in the tape-recorded

data obtained for this study, possibly because of the limit and size of the data. However,

according to Nguyen Q. (1998), the Vietnamese respondents utilize this strategy more

often than their American counterparts. In his research, Nguyen Q. pays close attention

182

to second Ss’ returning compliments to first Ss, and calls this strategy ‘khen phản hồi’.

In response to the teacher’s compliment, for instance, the student may say:

(25) Dạ, đó cũng là nhờ được thầy dạy dỗ đấy ạ.

Particle that also be thanks to teacher teach that particle

(That is thanks to your teaching.) (Ibid. 45)

5. Negating compliments: The preference for negating the prior compliment tokens

seems to be common in the Vietnamese corpus. Second Ss regularly treat positive

evaluations as overdone or exaggerated, and they tend to qualify and soften them, as in:

V03.8.51

(26) T: C« thÕ nµy lµ b×nh thêng råi… §Çy ®Æn, c©n ®èi…

aunt this be normal particle plump well-proportioned

(You’re now normal. Plump and well-proportioned.)

→ H: Giêi ¬i, cßn c©n ®èi n÷a ((Cêi)) …

God particle particle well-proportioned particle ((Laughs)).

C©n ®èi c¸i nçi g× ((Cêi)).

Well-proportioned particle particle what ((Laughs)).

(My god, well-proportioned ((laughs))… I’m not.) ((Laughs))

H partially repeats the prior compliment elements with the use of two particles ‘cßn’

and ‘nçi’, prefacing her response with an exclamatory token ‘Giêi ¬i’ (gosh/god). She

explicitly disagrees with the compliment. Her laughter, however, tacitly shows that she

is happy with the prior positive assessment. Unlike English Ss, Vietnamese Ss

demonstrate a tendency to reject or obviate prior complimentary attributes, especially,

if ego is the object of credit, as in the excerpt given below:

V03.2.4.

(27) L: H ¹, tao c«ng nhËn mµygiái qu¸: c¬:: thËt.

183

H particle I acknowledge you excellent very particle truth

(Hey H, I acknowledge you’re really excellent.)

→ H: Giái c¸i nçi g×. Gím, ®Õn lóc ®Êy th× ®µnh ph¶i lµm.

Excellent particle particle what Particle come then so reluctant have do

(I’m no excellent at all. Gosh, you’d do the same in my position.)

In this excerpt, H tries to downplay the compliment given by her close friend. The use

of particles ‘c¸i’, ‘nçi’ and ‘Gím’ is effective in downgrading the evaluative

components in the first turn. H also points out that she just does the normal things that

others might do in the same situations. By showing that what she has achieved is

nothing special, she can avoid self-praising. The first person singular pronoun ‘tao’

and second person singular pronoun ‘mµy’ are employed in L’s wording exhibit their

close friendship and solidarity. The particle ‘¹’ is used in L’s addressing H does not

demonstrate any respect or deference. In this case, it has the same meaning as particles

or vocatives ‘nµy’ or ‘¬i’, which often go with person-referring words for address.

5.2.3. Strategies for Negotiation of Disagreements


1. Downgrading initial assessments: As discussed in the previous parts, the Ss in the

English data seem not to forthrightly oppose proffered evaluations or boldly assert

dispreferred disagreements. Instead, they are inclined to soften or hedge their different

perspectives, trying to minimize disagreeing responses. Second Ss’ withholding or

delaying responses could engender first Ss’ elaboration or qualification of initial

assessments to preempt upcoming disagreements, as in the following excerpt:

(28) A: God izn it dreary?

(0.6)

184


→ B: .hh- its’ warm though, (Pomerantz 1984a: 61)

A’s incomplete elaboration in this case is, however, unsuccessful as it is overlapped by

B’s producing a disagreement. In another fragment by Pomerantz (Ibid. 100), the first S

modifies her prior assessment (by replacing ‘happy’ with ‘cheerful’) after a set of

successive disagreements on the part of the second S:

(29) B: …Yih sound HA:PPY, hh.

A: I sound ha:p//py?

B: Ye:uh.

(0.3)

A: No:,

B: N:o:?

A: No.

(0.7)

→ B: .hh You sound sorta cheerful?

2. Adopting new stances: Sometimes, recipients of initially proffered opinions delay

the uptake of their turns, thus causing prior Ss’ adopting new positions, as below:

(30) B: … an’ that’s not an awful lotta fruitcake.

(1.0)

→ B: Course it is a little piece goes a long way.

A: Well that’s right. (Pomerantz 1984b: 160)

B’s initial opinion is received with a long silence that implies an unstated disagreement

on the part of the second S. B then decides to make a change, and overtly states her new

stance. Eventually, she gets the positive answer from her co-conversant.

185

3. Insisting on prior assessments: In other cases, producers of prior assessments may

tend to challenge second Ss by reasserting previously produced evaluative terms. In the

following example, the second S’s downgrading the evaluation of the referent leads to

the first S’s reasserting and upgrading her first position.

(31) E: That Pat. Isn’t she a doll::

M: Yeh isn’t she pretty,

→ E: Oh she’s a beautiful girl.

M: Yeh I think she’s a pretty girl. (Pomerantz 1978: 96)

In spite of E’s upgraded evaluative term, M appears to persist in her assessment, and

ends her turn with a ‘pseudo-agreement’ or ‘muted disagreement’ prefaced by ‘Yeh’

(Heritage 2002: 218). Two extracts given below (Pomerantz 1984a: 69) illuminate the

first Ss’ persistence in retaining their prior stances:

(32) A: She’s a fox.

L: Yeh, she’a pretty girl.

→ A: Oh, she’s gorgeous.

(33) G: That’s fantastic.

B: Isn’t that good?

→ G: That’s marvelous.

As demonstrated, first Ss tend to provide stronger terms in reasserting their previously

taken positions. The first Ss in the two extracts above use ‘gorgeous’ in contrast with

‘pretty’, and ‘marvelous’ in contrast with ‘good’. Also, the ‘oh-preface’ used in A’s

turn (and in E’s turn in the previous example by Pomerantz ‘Oh she’s a beautiful girl’)

is interpreted as ‘holding a position’ (Heritage 2002). This special use of ‘oh’ mainly

occurs in responses to downgraded agreements or weakened disagreements (Ibid.).

Profferers of initial assessments may make use of ‘oh-preface’s to construct and

reaffirm their stances in case recipients are in disagreement with them, as in the

fragment by Goodwin & Goodwin (1987: 43):

(34) Mike: Well I can’t say they’re ol: clunkers- eez gotta Co:rd?

186

(0.1)

Mike: Two Co:rds.

(1.0)

Mike: //And

Curt: Not original,

(0.7)

→ Mike: Oh yes. Very original.

Producers of initial evaluative attributes are observed to overwhelmingly utilize ‘oh-

prefaced disagreement’ format as effective ‘weapons’ to attack second Ss’ disagreeing

responses (Heritage 2002: 215). In the example above, Mike resorts to the oh-prefaced

turn shape to intensify and escalate his prior stance, and fight back Curt’s disagreement.


1. Downgrading initial assessments: Vietnamese Ss exhibit quite a range of different

ways to negotiate with their co-participants. Given upcoming or real disagreements in

response to their prior assessments they may modify their first perspectives to make

them less challenging and more acceptable, as below:

V03.7.28

(35) N: C¸i nµy bän nhµ b¸o th× ®îc.

Classifier this band correspondent be okay

(This [appliance] is good for correspondents.)

H: Kh«ng, nhµ b¸o nã còng kh«ng dùng.

No correspondent it also not use

(No, correspondents do not use it either.)

→ N: C¸i nµy nã còng (0.5) cång kÒnh.

Classifier this it also bulky (This is quite bulky.)

187

H: C¸i nµy thùc sù nã còng cång kÒnh …

Classifier this really it also bulky (This is really bulky…)

N first assesses the tape recorder which is placed in front of her and H, her interlocutor,

as a good thing for correspondents to use. She then modifies her evaluation by pointing

out that it is ‘bulky’, and thus inconvenient in her turn, which follows H’s forthright

disagreement. There might be a reason for her work of elaboration. Her interlocutor H

is the owner of the appliance, and consequently, H has ‘epistemic priority’ to assess her

own belonging (Heritage 2002 & forth.). As a result of this concessive action, she

finally gets the approval from her co-participant in the turn subsequent to hers.

Second Ss may appear to compromise with initial evaluative terms after first Ss’

reassertion of prior opinions. In the extract given below, H disagrees with N when the

latter says that K, a teenage boy is selfish. However, after N reaffirms her stance by

providing good grounds for it (The boy’s mother told her that information), H seems to

abandon her previous view and sounds quite dubious with ‘Really’.

V03.7.30

(36) N: …th»ng nµy tÝnh nã Ých kû…

boy this character he selfish

Nã bao giê nã còng nghÜ ®Õn b¶n th©n nã tríc.

he when he also think about self he before.

(This boy is selfish… He always thinks of himself first.)

H: Th× trÎ con mµ. Còng cßn bÐ // nã kh«ng,

Particle child particle also still small // he not

([He’s] still a small boy. Still small, he isn’t ….)

N: Nhng nã l¹i b¶o c¸i th»ng lín kh«ng thÕ.

But she particle tell particle boy big not that

188

(But she [the boy’s mother] said her older boy isn’t.)

→ H: ThÕ:: µ.

Particle (Really.)

Profferers of prior evaluative statements may soften their first views to some extent, but

are still consistent with their earlier stated point of views, as T does in the next extract

from the Vietnamese corpus:

V03.8.36

(37) T: GÇy qu¸ tr«ng sî l¾m…

Thin much look afraid very (A very thin person looks horrible…)

H: GÇy qu¸ nh b¹n L tr«ng vÉn xinh.

Thin very like friend L look still pretty (Very thin like L still looks pretty.)

→ T: Còng cßn tuú, tr«ng th× xinh nhng mµ…

Also depend look particle pretty but…(It still depends, looking pretty but…)

2. Adopting new stances: Vietnamese Ss may change their prior point of view, offer

new assessments of other aspects of the same things or people in addition to those

already stated, as exemplified:

(38) T: Thầy hay,

Teacher interesting (The teacher is interesting.)

L: Thầy (0.5) cũ:::ng vui.

Teacher also fun (He’s also fun.)

T: Nhưng mà như thế lớp mình lại hư.

But particle like that class we particle spoiled (But our class became spoiled)

L: Ừ.

Yeah (Yes.)

189

T and L talk about their former teacher at school. T first assumes that the teacher is

‘hay’, but he does not get L’s full agreement, then he poses another evaluation

concerning their teacher’s teaching results ‘Nhưng mà như thế lớp mình lại hư’. Only

by adopting a new stance can T be successful in negotiating with his co-conversant.

3. Insisting on prior assessments: When first Ss find themselves in disagreement with

second Ss’ stances, they may wish to reassert their prior opinions, and the reaffirmation

process may result in adding more turns and sequences to the talk, as exemplified in the

excerpt below:

V03.8.48

(39) L: Nhng con thÊy nã xinh h¬n ngµy tríc bao:: nhiªu…

But daughter see she pretty more day before how much

Xinh h¬n lµ håi nã bÐo.

Pretty more be then she fat

(But I see she is much prettier…Prettier than when she was fat.)

H: …µ, õ. Nhng mµ nh thÕ th× gÇy qu¸.

Ah yeh but particle like that be thin very

(Ah, yeh, but she’s too thin.)

→ L: Con ch¼ng thÊy nã gÇy qu¸.

Daughter not see she thin very

(I don’t think she’s too thin.)

H. … nhÞn ¨n nhÞn uèng // nh thÕ th×…

… No eat no drink // like that be…

(… her going without eating and drinking much // like that is…)

→ L: Nhng mét ngêi mµ b¾t ®Çu gÆp

But one person particle start meet

190

nã th× thÊy nã ch¼ng gÇy … thÕ còng ch¼ng ph¶i lµ

gÇy.

she particle see she not thin … that also not be thin

(But a person who first meets her now doesn’t think she’s

thin…that’s not thin at all)

In the same manner, in the following fragment, B escalates and intensifies his prior

evaluative terms in his next turn after the second S’s first turn. He uses ‘siªu’

(powerful) to replace ‘m¹nh’ (strong) to bring out his stance.

(40) B: Níc Êy nã cò::ng (.) Kü thuËt cña nã còng m¹nh phÕt

®Êy.

Country that it also technology of it also strong intensifier particle

That country is also (.) Its technology is also very powerful.

H: õ kü thuËt cña nã th× còng kh¸.

Yeah technology of it be also good

(Yeah its technology is also good.)

→ B: Còng siªu phÕt ®Êy nhÊt lµ n«ng nghiÖp cña nã (1.0)

rÊt giái …

Also powerful intensifier particle specifically agriculture of it so excellent

(Also very powerful, especially its agriculture (1.0) so excellent…)

Ss may finally arrive at some kind of compromise after a range of disagreements. They

settle down with their own views and respect their interlocutors’ stances, as below:

V03.9.57

(41) H: Mµ ®µn bµ thÕ còng lµ giái råi «ng ¬i.

particle woman that also be good grandfather vocative

(And women like that are good.)

191

→ B: Nhng mµ t«i nãi bµ // nghe

But I tell grandmother // listen.

(But just let me tell you.)

H: §µn bµ ... thÕ lµ qu¸ giái råi

Woman … that be extremely good particle

(And women like that are really good.)

→ B: Tí … mµ cã vî nh thÕ (.) tí kh«ng thÝch.

I particle have wife like that I not like.

(I don’t like to have such a wife.)

H: ¤ng kh«ng thÝch nhng mµ ngêi ta thÝch.

Grandfather not like but particle people like.


B: (4.0)

H: ¤ng kh«ng thÝch nhng ng êi kh¸c thÝch.

Grandfather not like but people other like.


B: Tí quan ®iÓm kh¸c.

I point of view different. (I have a different point of view.)

H: ¤ng quan ®iÓm lµ g×?

Grandfather point of view be what. (What’s your point of view?)

B: NghÜa lµ vî ph¶i lo c«ng viÖc nhµ chu ®¸o tÊt c¶ mäi

c¸i.

Mean wife must worry work house thoroughly every whole classifier

Cßn c¸i viÖc th¬ng trêng Êy chång lo.

And classifier business world that husband worry

192

(The wife must take very good care of housework, and business

is for the husband.)

H: õ, thÕ nhng mµ (1.0) lµm thÕ nµo ®îc. Chång nã l¹i lo

khoa häc.

Yeah particle but do how particle husband she still worry science

(Yeah, but (1.0) what to do. Her husband cares for science.)

→ B: hhhhh

Two mid-aged Ss named H and B talk about one of their mutual friends at school, who

is now a chief sale executive in a big foreign company. In her first turn, H assumes

women like the mentioned female friend are ‘good’, and she intensifies her evaluation

by adding ‘really’ in her next turn. On the contrary, B does not share her stance.

However, he stops verbally expressing his different view, and mutes himself after a set

of successive disagreements. As a result of disagreement-negotiation, both friends

implicitly acknowledge each other’s co-existing different perspectives.

When conversing with B, H addresses him as ‘«ng’ (grandfather) and she is addressed

as ‘bµ’ (grandmother). These two kin terms for address, as aforementioned, are

commonly used in interaction between friends and peers. Sometimes, B uses ‘tí’ for

self-reference. ‘Tí’ is a popular form of first person singular pronoun used in talk with

peers and close friends or in downward speech.

5.2.4. Summary

The hypotheses raised have empirically been proved. Conversationalists in the English

data show a tendency to choose ‘middle positions’ to avoid the dispreferred

organization of disagreeing and self-praise in response to compliments. They may use

the ‘agreement + disagreement’ format to produce (i) scaled-down disagreements,

elaborate complimentary components with qualifiers or (ii) downgrade prior

193

compliments, deploy the (iii) credit shift strategy, or provide (iv) reciprocal

compliments.

The Vietnamese data exhibit a similar organization of turns and sequences in

performing disagreements under the influence of the constraint systems. Vietnamese

compliment recipients are observed to make use of the ‘agreement + disagreement’

format, and they also downgrade the scale of prior complimentary assertions, shift the

credit referent to a certain third party, or return compliments to first Ss. However, the

Vietnamese Ss in the data do not demonstrate active utility of delay components such

as “‘mh’s”, “‘hm’s”, and the like. As well, they show careful and delicate usage of

kinship terms, and pronouns for self-reference and address. In addition, acceptance

and appreciation tokens seem to be common in English while they are rare in the

Vietnamese corpus; maybe, it is the manifestation of the common trend in Vietnamese

culture to disagree with/reject prior compliments to show modesty or humbleness rather

than to agree with/accept and express appreciations.

Native Ss of English and Vietnamese also have similar strategies in their negotiation of

disagreements. Given the case of potential or overtly articulated disagreements, they

may elaborate or (i) downgrade prior evaluations or positions, (ii) adopt new stances

that are less opposite to second Ss’ to pre-empt imminent disagreements, or they may

go on with defending or (iii) insisting on prior views, often by escalating and

intensifying them. The negotiation of disagreements in these cases is normally shaped

in sequences consisting of more than two turns.

At the same time, we can see the salient role of person-referring terms and particles in

the construction of disagreements in Vietnamese. The appropriate usage of terms for

self-reference and address, as well as particles makes important contribution to the

effectiveness and politeness of disagreements. Not having such rich systems of address

194

terms and particles, Ss of English make good use of devices like emphasizers,

amplifiers, downtoners, delay components etc. in expressing disagreements


Responses to prior evaluative assessments in English and Vietnamese appear to share

the same set of strategies judging from the viewpoint of the constraint systems. English

Ss who resort to mid-positions tend to either deploy ‘agreement + disagreement’

format, or weaken the stated compliments by using qualifiers, referent-shift, or

compliment-return strategies. Quite similarly, Vietnamese Ss are seen to make use of

‘agreement + disagreement’ format or downgrading the level of compliments.

However, while the ‘acceptance + appreciation’ model can be observed in the English

corpus it is uncommon in the Vietnamese corpus, and this is consistent with Nguyen

Q’s findings (1998: 217) of the English tendency to compliment acceptance and

Vietnamese preference for compliment obviation.

The negotiation of disagreements conducted by native Ss of English and Vietnamese is

similar in terms of strategies. Encountering potential or explicit disagreements from

second Ss, prior Ss may elaborate or modify their evaluative terms, adopt new stances

or keep the same viewpoints by upgrading their first assessments, which therefore,

prolongs the organization of turns and sequences.

Intensifiers are found to be exploited in both English and Vietnamese disagreement

tokens whereas person referring terms are inclined to be used most frequently by

Vietnamese interlocutors. Words of person reference and particles are utilized by the

Vietnamese to express hierarchy and community-based solidarity. The prevalence of

person referring terms and particles in the Vietnamese corpus does exhibit their

paramount significance in Vietnamese culture and society.

195

CONCLUSION

1. Major Findings

1.1. Politeness strategies in disagreeing

So far, we have had a close analysis of the elicited written questionnaires and recorded

disagreements by native Ss of English in North America and Vietnamese Ss in Hanoi

within the frameworks of pragmatics and CA. The findings have proved the hypotheses

of differences between Ss of English and Vietnamese in choosing strategies to realize

the act of disagreeing, which have resulted from the differences in the Ss’ assessment

of socio-cultural parameters and social situations. The English Ss are observed to

frequently deploy direct strategies while the Vietnamese tend to sound indirect,

especially in contexts of asymmetrical role relationships, and this has statistically

proved Leech (1986) and Brown & Levinson’s assumption (1987[1978]) that cultures

may differ in terms of priorities and values given to each strategy even though they

may share the same sets of strategies. The findings have also provided sufficient proof

for Blum-Kulka and House's hypothesis (1989: 137) that differences in the

understanding of social situations and in the relative significance attached to any socio-

cultural parameter may lead to differences in linguistic behavior.

In most situations, the assessment of social situations by English and Vietnamese Ss

appears to go to opposing directions. The Vietnamese focus on Age and Status reflects

their hierarchical social structure, while the English emphasis on Manner and Setting is

a manifestation of the less hierarchical society, where Age and Status are recognized

but deemphasized. While knowing the (relative) age of interlocutors is useful to the

Vietnamese in making the right choice of address terms, asking about age ‘may rapidly

bring conversation to a halt’ in Anglo-American culture (Wanning 2000: 155). Calling

it ‘the no-status society’, Wanning (Ibid.) goes on explaining about American society:

196

In a status society, people learn their places and gain some dignity and security from

having a place in the social order. Americans, however, are taught not to recognize

their places and to constantly assert themselves.

1.2. Normative-volitional politeness and indirectness

Politeness has been testified to be both normative and volitional in the sense that

discernment in form of socially institutionalized norms is open to volitional choices and

the frequent use of strategic manipulations may lead to community conventions.

Therefore, the two sides of politeness - discernment and volition – need to be combined

to make the analytical framework for politeness research across cultures and languages

(Hill et al. 1986, Kasper 1990, Ide 1993, Nguyen D. H. 1995; Vu T. T. H. 1997 &

2000, Lee-Wong 2000) especially for politeness research in ‘status-based societies’ like

China, Korea and Vietnam as Bargiela-Chiappini (2003: 1463) suggests:

‘Socially stratified societies where normative ‘politeness’ is dominant (e.g. … Mexico

and the Zulu in South Africa) can be contrasted to ‘face’ and status-based societies

such as China and Korea, where both normative and strategic ‘politeness’ are present.

Finally, in less hierarchical societies such as the northern European and the North

American ones, status is allegedly far less marked in verbal and non-verbal interaction,

and normative politeness is therefore much less in evidence.’

The outputs of the empirical study do not support the assumption of consistent

correlation between politeness and indirectness, i.e., indirectness does not always mean

politeness. Native Ss of English in North America seem to be direct in their

disagreements while their Vietnamese counterparts tend to be indirect. This finding by

no means implies that the latter are more polite than the former. As a result, the

relationship between politeness and indirectness should be examined in relation to the

local perception and interpretation of politeness and the wider context of socio-cultural

beliefs and values, for cultural beliefs and values have significant bearings on

communicative styles and interpretive strategies (Gumperz 1978). Vietnamese culture,

which is deeply rooted in Confucian ethics, is mainly aimed at social harmony and

197

community solidarity via individual observance of social norms. On the contrary,

Anglo-American culture, which primarily focuses on individualistic rationality,

provides greater possibility of strategic choices. The differences in socio-cultural

systems of norms, values and beliefs result in the differences in the rating of politeness

level by native Ss of English and Vietnamese. Vietnamese Ss are prone to attach high

level of politeness to those disagreements which are accompanied with deference

markers like ‘¹’, ‘v©ng’, other particles and appropriate address terms, the

deployment of which is made in accordance with such determinants as age and status.

1.3. Strategies concerning preference organization

Disagreement attributes in English and Vietnamese frequently tend to be hedged to

minimize the seriousness of the act on the one hand, and delayed to avoid the complex-

structural format as regards preference organization on the other. English and

Vietnamese Ss are alike in using such strategies as (i) delay devices or (ii) silences to

withhold their direct disagreements, qualifying or (iii) downgrading prior assessments

or deploying the (iv) ‘agreement + disagreement’ format to produce weakened

disagreements. Nevertheless, while responding to self-deprecations, Ss are prone to

provide (i) immediate disagreements and include (ii) complimentary elements to

intensify the positive impact of disagreements as preferred seconds. Ss may also

disaffiliate with or (iii) undermine prior self-critical formulations by indicating that

they are products of irrational or improper actions. The turn/sequence organization is

both designed for, and oriented towards by Ss in current talk-in-progress to minimize

disagreements as dispreferred seconds, and maximize disagreements as preferred

seconds.

The pervasive existence of person-referring terms and particles in Vietnamese

demonstrates their paramount significance to this culture and society. Terms for self-

198

reference and address, as well as particles ‘µ’, ‘’, ‘nhØ’, ‘nhÐ’, ‘d¹’, ‘v©ng’, ‘¹’

etc. are essential in the construction of mitigated, softened and polite disagreeing

attributes. There is a great probability to be rude or impolite in Vietnamese culture if Ss

use incorrect terms or no terms for self-reference or address (Luong V. H. 1987, 1990;

Vu T. T. H. 1997; Nguyen. T. T. B. 2001).

1.4. Strategies for negotiation of disagreements and constraint systems

Facing imminent and/or actually articulated disagreements, Ss of English and

Vietnamese show the same trend of strategies for remedial work to negotiate with co-

interactants. They may (i) modify, elaborate or reformulate previously produced

viewpoints, (ii) adopt new stances, or (iii) persist in protecting initially formulated

evaluations, thereby reasserting, extending, and upgrading them.

Both English and Vietnamese show a similar repertoire of ‘mid-position’ responses to

compliments by producing (i) scaled-down disagreements, (ii) elaborating/

downgrading prior complimentary tokens or using strategies like (iii) credit shift, and

(iv) reciprocal compliments as regards the constraint systems. These similarities

between English and Vietnamese serve as suggestions concerning the existence of

some universal aspects of conversational organization. Interestingly, many CA studies

done on languages other than English (Fox et al. 1996, Mori 1999 on Japanese, Wu

1997 on Chinese, Moerman 1988 on Thai, Park 1999 on Korean, Sorjonen 1997 on

Finnish, among others) have also proved the organizational invariance of turn-taking,

repair work and preferred/dispreferred turn delivery across languages and cultures.

The striking difference is found in the fact that the Vietnamese corpus exhibits very few

cases whereby compliments are responded with appreciations, while the English

database demonstrates a range of responses with appreciation tokens. The explanation

for this can be found in the Vietnamese socio-cultural assumptions of modesty and

199

preference for disagreement with or rejection of prior complimentary assessments (cf.

Nguyen Q. 1998). In Vietnamese culture, the ‘pressures for social harmony are very

strong’ (Ellis 1996: 150), and people tend to exhibit modesty towards their capabilities,

possibly because they are unwilling to be salient or set off from others, as Ellis states:

‘In conversation, people display great modesty towards their abilities and work. It is

not acceptable to boast about one’s past achievements or capabilities and compared

with foreigners, the Vietnamese often sound shy and reserved, and self-effacing about

their own skills.’ (Ibid. 151)

The English frequent use of direct strategies could be explained via the Ss’ need to be

non-intrusive and free of action (Brown & Levinson 1987[1978]). Wanning (2000:

154) notices that giving and accepting compliments seem to be popular in Anglo-

American culture and found to give rise to further communication:

Compliments are always in order…. We keep the compliments flowing even with close

friends and family. The recipient should accept the compliment graciously by looking

very pleased and saying, “Oh, thank you.” The tale of the item in question often

provides further talk.

It is obvious that any linguistic study should not be separated from the study of the

larger socio-cultural context with its norms, beliefs and values since language is

assumed to be rooted, and embedded in the reality of its responding culture.

2. Implications

2.1. EFL & VFL implications

The differences in perception and realization of disagreements in English and

Vietnamese are likely to result in inevitable misunderstanding, unintended impressions,

miscommunication, and cultural conflicts when, for example, Vietnamese Ss transfer

their native cultural values and beliefs into English linguistic forms of disagreeing.

They may sound either too indirect because of their abidance by the Vietnamese

cultural norms or too direct because of their overemphasis on or overgeneralization of

the rules of Anglo-American culture (cf. Thomas 1983, Takana 1988). Language

200

competence is more than grammar and lexicon, which includes formulaic expressions.

It compasses the ability to use linguistic forms correctly and appropriately, known as

pragmatic knowledge. Not all native Ss who gain in-born communicative capability in

the context of their mother tongue through the process of language socialization are

successful in communication in their native language and culture, let alone cultural

outsiders who lack knowledge of the local socio-cultural norms. Unfortunately, the

teaching of second/foreign languages is mostly left ‘unrelated to socio-cultural context’

(Stern, 1983: 253). This is quite true in the context of Vietnam, where the teaching of

English is essentially based on grammar patterns. Since the ‘Open-door Policy’ was

started and motivated, English teaching and learning has gained pride of place in the

Vietnamese Education System. Not only does it serve as a lingua franca in

international communication, it is a must in job finding and job promotion, too. It is

high time language learners were provided with pragmatic knowledge parallel with

linguistic bulk. Informed of the ‘dos’ and the ‘don’ts’ in the culture of the target

language, learners can eliminate, or at least, reduce culture and communication gaps.

Being ill-prepared for intercultural interactions in a world that is shrinking in distance

like ours is careless and risky. Thus, linguistic as well as pragmatic input should be

included in textbooks and syllabus (Richards, 1983). The findings of this study may be

a reminder for textbook writers and syllabus builders, and a guide for teaching English

as S/F language to the Vietnamese and Vietnamese to North American English Ss.

2.2. Pragmatics and CA perspective in speech act study

As clearly seen, conversation analytic studies have so much to contribute to the study

of language in general, and speech acts in particular. Relying on the frameworks of

pragmatics and CA this paper provides thorough an analysis of the speech act of

disagreeing and its related issues by comparing and contrasting the elicited written

201

questionnaires and audio-taped recordings of talk-in-interaction in English and

Vietnamese. A careful analysis of the recorded interactive fragments exhibits deep

insights into complexity of preference organization of turns and sequences in

disagreeing. Many basic organizational features of turn/sequence shapes used to be

taken for granted, or simply not recognized or/and aware of, are elucidated. The

marvelous and systematic methods used in CA are of great help in exploring the

strategies concerning organization and development of on-going talk, as well as the

usage of linguistic devices in certain structural organizations.

Pragmatics with speech act and politeness theories ‘is interested in the process of

producing language and in its producers’ (Mey 2000: 5). The theory of SA, which has

long been considered an ‘eye-opener’, clarifies ways humans doing things with words,

while the theory of politeness looks at how polite language use is perceived and

realized. Nevertheless, pragmatics does not seem to provide adequate and efficient

means to sufficiently investigate the working of human words, when and how SAs are

deployed. It is CA with its elaborate techniques for the analysis and explanation of

conversational mechanisms that can provide substantial insights into these matters,

simply because conversation is the very place where people ‘do things with words’

together, and ‘the prototypical kind of language use’ (Levinson 1983:284).

Language users, however, communicate and use language in conformity to society’s

sanctions which determine their choice of linguistic means. It is natural that pragmatics

takes as one of its main objects the study of societal practices and premises and the

extent to which they affect and determine human language use. The strictly CA-based

analytic framework does not allow the study of these society’s premises and

determinants. Therefore, the integration of pragmatics and CA approaches in speech act

study makes good use of the advantages and eliminates or reduces the disadvantages of

202

each approach. Seeing the sound reason for CA to be applied to the study of speech acts

within and across languages and cultures in combination with other linguistic

approaches and methods, Levinson (1983: 285) proposes:

Nearly all the pragmatic concepts … claimed to tie in closely with conversation as the

central or most basic kind of language usage…the proper way to study conversational

organization is through empirical techniques, this suggests that the largely

philosophical traditions that have given rise to pragmatics may have to yield in the

future to more empirical kinds of investigation of language usage.

Basing on its findings, the present research strongly recommends the synthetic

approach of pragmatics and CA to the investigation of speech acts within and across

languages and cultures.

3. Suggestions for Further Research

There are issues left untouched in this preliminary research into the SA of disagreeing

on the basis of pragmatics and CA because of its size and limit. The present study

almost cannot take into account prosodic features (intonation, pitch, pauses…) as well

as paralinguistic factors (facial expressions, gazes, laugher…), supposed to be crucial in

face-to-face interactions, to highlight other nuances of meanings and their relationships

with forms. In addition, the field notes do not fully reflect detailed body movements

and facial expressions of the participants, and audiotape recording fail to capture them

as well. The study would be better if videotape recording could have been done.

The process of ‘opinion-negotiation’ involves disagreeing and agreeing, considered two

sides of a coin, and one cannot exist without the other. Consequently, it will be more

appealing if disagreeing and agreeing are investigated together. Very often, it is hard to

distinguish the subtle border between agreements and disagreements in face-to-face

talk. A ‘yes’ may mean ‘no’, and on the contrary, a ‘no’ may have an opposite

meaning.

It is my hope that the aforementioned issues will fully be pursued in my future research.

203

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX 1

Transcription Conventions

Overlapping speech The convention used in this paper in examples from cited sources

(except for those from Merritt 1976) are mostly those developed by Jefferson, and

deployed in Schenkein (1978: xi-xvi), Levinson (1983: 369-70), Atkinson & Heritage

(1984: ix-xvi), and Maynard (2003: 255-56). It is adapted for the particular purpose of

the paper and applied to the Vietnamese data.

1. Left hand brackets indicate a point of overlap, and right hand brackets mark

the ending:

A: Oh you do? R[eally ]

B: [Um hmmm]

Other conventions may be used in some examples:

// point at which the current utterance is overlapped by that transcribed below

* indicate the alignment of the points where over lap ceases

2. Silence

Numbers in parentheses show elapsed time measured in tenths of seconds:

A: I’m not use ta that.

(1.4)

B: Yeah me neither.

3. Missing speech

Dotted lines indicate the place where certain utterances are left out:

A: Are they?

B: Yes because…

4. Lengthened syllables

Colon(s) indicate prolonged sounds. More colons, more stretching:

A: Ah::::

5. Emphasis

Underscoring marks emphasis. Capital letters indicate increased stress.

A: I sex y’know WHY, becawss look

6. Breathing (-in and -out)

‘hh’ indicates an audible out-breath, while ‘.hh’ marks an in-breath. The more

“h’s”, the longer the breath.

A: You didn’t have to worry about having the .hh hhh curtains closed

7. Explanatory material

Double parentheses indicate non-verbal actions:

A: Well ((cough)) I don’t know

8. Uncertain material

Single parentheses mark uncertain verbal phenomena:

A: (Is that right?)

9. Intonation

A period ‘.’ indicates a stopping fall in tone, a comma ‘,’ indicates a continuing

intonation, and a question mark ‘?’ indicates a rising intonation.

A: A do:g? enna cat is different.

10. Sound cutoff

Dashes indicate an abrupt cutoff of sound:

A: this- this is true.

11. Latching

Equal signs indicate ‘latched’ utterances, with no gap. They also link different

parts of a speaker’s utterance:

A: I am absolutely sure.=

B: =You are.

A: this is one thing [that I=

B: [Yes?

A: =really want to do

12. Attention

Arrows draw attention to location of phenomenon of direct interest to discussion:

C: How ya doin=

→ =say what’r you doing?

APPENDIX 2

Survey QuestionnairesThis questionnaire is specially designed for research purposes. It is intended to

investigate how native speakers of English express their disagreement to an

assessment or evaluation. Any information you provide will be highly appreciated and

confidentially treated in such a way that you will not be identified.

Thank you very much.Please tick (√) where appropriate.

* State/ Province: * Age: * Occupation:

* Gender: Male □ Female □* Education: Primary □ Secondary □

College/Uni. □ Other (Please explain) ...................* Place where you have spent most of your time:

Urban setting □ Rural setting □* Your first language: ……………………….

- Language(s) other than your first language: (i). ................... (ii)……………(iii)……………

- How often do you use it/them Daily □ Daily □ Daily □Weekly □ Weekly □ Weekly □Monthly □ Monthly □ Monthly □Rarely □ Rarely □ Rarely □

1. Which factor(s) from the parameters listed below do you generally consider when you disagree with someone in English? Please put them in order of importance: 01 is the most important. If the factor is of no importance please make a cross (x).

a. Age □b. Length of time you have known him/her □c. Manner of communication (formal, informal…) □d. Occupation □e. Setting (at home, at work…) □f. Gender □g. Social status □h. Other (Please specify)

Order of importance □i. None □

2. Please read the following situations. How do you express your disagreement with the person you talk with in each of the situations (given on the next page) if you have a different evaluation? Please tick (√) the appropriate answer.

Column 1: Strongly disagree Column 3: Unsure

Column 2: Disagree Column 4: Implicitly disagree Column 5: SilentSituations 1 2 3 4 5

A. Appearance

- He/she says his/her spouse is really nice-looking.

- He/she keeps complimenting on his/her new hairstyle.- He/she is looking carefully at your new Italian shoes,

saying that they appear to be second hand. - He/she says that Miss X, your acquaintance, is getting too

fat.B. Material life, economic conditions

- He/she shows you a newspaper headline: GOVERNMENT TO INCREASE INCOME TAX, saying it is a very cool idea.

- He/she is glad that pensioners are going to get bigger pensions soon. You are sure that it is only a rumor.

- He/she says that he/she spends too much money on clothes.- He/she complains that things are getting too expensive

these days.C. Mental life, intellectual ability, promotion, politics

- He/she suggests that Mr. Y, who works under you, should be promoted to chief sales executive, a higher position than yours.

- Knowing nothing about energy, he/she states that solar energy will solve all of the present energy problems.

- He/she thinks the president was such a fool to make a controversial announcement recently.

- He/she wants you to vote for Mr. X when you go to the General Election, as he is an excellent candidate.

D. Social contact

- He/she thinks he/she is rather an expert on cars.- He/she uses bad words to talk about your favorite team

after they have been beaten 3-0 in an international match.- He/she assumes that the party you both went to was very

boring. - He/she believes that a camping trip is good for your health.

3. Study concrete situations

3.1. Situation one:

How do you state your different evaluation when one of the following persons (next page)

mentions Miss X, an acquaintance of yours, saying, “She’s getting too fat”? You can choose

one of the utterances provided below or you can compose your own and write it in the

appropriate place.

1. No, you’re wrong.

2. I can’t agree with you.

3. She’s all right, I suppose.

4. We are very much in agreement, Madam, but…

5. How fat is too fat?

6. Fashions change, you know.

7. Dozens of men are following her.

8. I see your point, but….

9. Is she?

10. Really?

11. (Silence)

12. Other (please specify)

Your co-participant Your response

a. Your grandfather/grandmotherb. Your mother/father

c. Your close friend

d. Someone you dislike

e. Your colleague (same age, same gender)

f. Your colleague (same age, different gender)

g. Your acquaintance (younger than you)h. Your acquaintance (older than you)

i. Your boss (younger than you)

j. Your boss (older than you)

3.2. Situation two:What do you say to express your disagreement when one of the following persons (next page)

shows you a newspaper headline: GOVERNMENT TO INCREASE INCOME TAX, stating, “It’s

really a very cool idea”? You can choose one of the utterances provided below or you can

compose your own and write it in the appropriate place.

1. Not me. I totally disagree.

2. I’m afraid I disagree.

3. Why do you think this way?

4. There’s a lot in what you say, but…

5. It’s pretty good.

6. It is and it is not.

7. Granted, but….

8. That may be so, but….

9. Hmm.

10. Are you sure?

11. (Silence)











3.3. Situation three:What do you say if you disagree with one of the following persons when he/she comments,

“That party both you and I went to was very boring”? You can choose one of the utterances

provided below or you can compose your own and write it in the appropriate place.

1. That’s nonsense.

2. I strongly/totally disagree with you.

3. Do you really think so?

4. Well, I kind of like it.

5. Sorry, I can’t say I share the same idea.

6. No, my dear, no, no, you’re wrong.

7. To a certain extent, yes, but….

8. Boring people get bored.

9. Uh-uh.

10. Was it?

11. (Silence)











4. Could you please consider the utterances you would use when conversing with your co-

participants, define the level of politeness of your responses and tick (√) the appropriate

box?

Prior assess-

ment by your co-participant

Your co-participant

Your response

Politeness level of your response

Polite Non-polite (Neu-tral)

Impo-lite

1

Miss X is gettingtoo fat.

Grandmother 1. She’s all right, I suppose.

Mother 2. How fat is too fat?

Colleague, same age & gender

3. Fashions change, you know.

Boss, older 4. We’re very much in agreement, but….

2

Tax increase – a really cool idea.

Father 5. Not me, I totally disagree.

Someone you dislike 6. It’s pretty good.

Acquaintance, older 7. That may be so, but….

Boss, younger 8. Really?

3

That party was very boring.

Grandfather 9. No, grandpa, no, no, you’re wrong.

Close friend 10. Boring people get bored.

Colleague, same age, different gender

11. Do you really think so?

Acquaintance, younger

12. Sorry, but I think it was interesting.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR KINDNESS

C©u hái kh¶o s¸t

C©u hái kh¶o s¸t nµy phôc vô cho ®Ò tµi nghiªn cøu vÒ “Çch biÓu ®¹t sù bÊt ®ång ý kiÕn vÒ mét ®¸nh gi¸ trong tiÕng Anh vµ tiÕng ViÖt” cña chóng t«i. Xin quý vÞ bít chót thêi gian tr¶ lêi gióp chóng t«i nh÷ng c©u hái nµy. Chóng t«i cam ®oan sÏ kh«ng nªu danh quý vÞ trong bÊt cø trêng hîp nµo hoÆc díi bÊt kú h×nh thøc nµo. Xin ch©n thµnh c¶m ¬n quý vÞ.

Xin quý vÞ ®¸nh dÊu (√) vµo nh÷ng chç phï hîp: * TØnh/thµnh phè:* Tuæi t¸c: * NghÒ nghiÖp:* Giíi tÝnh: Nam □ N÷ □* Häc vÊn: TiÓu häc □ Trung häc □

§¹i häc/cao ®¼ng□ Tr×nh ®é kh¸c (Xin gi¶i thÝch)* N¬i sèng l©u nhÊt: Thµnh thÞ □ N«ng th«n

□* Ngo¹i ng÷ 1: ................................... Møc ®é sö dông: Hµng ngµy □

Hµng tuÇn □ Hµng th¸ng □ HiÕm khi □* Ngo¹i ng÷ 2: ................................... Møc ®é sö dông: Hµng ngµy □

Hµng tuÇn □ Hµng th¸ng □ HiÕm khi □* Ngo¹i ng÷ 3: ................................... Møc ®é sö dông: Hµng ngµy □

Hµng tuÇn □ Hµng th¸ng □ HiÕm khi □1. Quý vÞ thêng quan t©m ®Õn yÕu tè nµo trong çc chØ sè liÖt kª

díi ®©y khi quý vÞ thÓ hiÖn ý kiÕn bÊt ®ång víi ngêi kh¸c b»ng tiÕng ViÖt. H·y xÕp theo thø tù u tiªn: 01 lµ çi quan träng nhÊt. NÕu yÕu tè ®ã kh«ng quan träng xin quý vÞ ®¸nh dÊu (x).a. Tuæi cña ngêi ®èi tho¹i □b. Thêi gian quý vÞ quen biÕt ngêi ®èi tho¹i □c. Kh«ng khÝ giao tiÕp (th©n mËt, trang träng…) □d. NghÒ nghiÖp cña ngêi ®èi tho¹i □e. Khung c¶nh giao tiÕp (ë nhµ, n¬i lµm viÖc …) □f. Giíi tÝnh cña ngêi ®èi tho¹i □g. §Þa vÞ x· héi cña ngêi ®èi tho¹i □

h. Çc yÕu tè kh¸c (Xin h·y gi¶i thÝch) Thø tù □

i. Hoµn toµn kh«ng quan t©m ®Õn bÊt k× yÕu tè nµo □

2. Quý vÞ sÏ nªu ý kiÕn tr¸i ngîc víi ngêi ®èi tho¹i thÕ nµo trong çc trêng hîp sau? Xin quý vÞ ®¸nh dÊu (√) vµo mét trong n¨m cét sau:

Cét 1: Nãi th¼ng, kh«ng chän tõ Cét 2: Nãi th¼ng, chän tõ thÝch hîp Cét 3: Kh«ng biÕt Cét 4: KÝn ®¸o thÓ hiÖn ý bÊt ®ång Cét 5: Kh«ng nãi g×

Çc t×nh huèng 1 2 3 4 5

A. D¸ng vÎ bªn ngoµi:

- Ngêi ®ã lu«n nãi r»ng vî/chång cña m×nh a nh×n.

- Ngêi ®ã hÕt lêi khen kiÓu tãc míi cña m×nh.- Ngêi ®ã nh×n kü ®«i giÇy Italia míi mua cña

quý vÞ vµ nãi r»ng tr«ng chóng nh ®å cò. - Ngêi ®ã nãi r»ng c« X, mét ngêi quen cña quý

vÞ, tr«ng qu¸ bÐo.B. Cuéc sèng vËt chÊt, ®iÒu kiÖn kinh tÕ

- Ngêi ®ã chØ cho quý vÞ xem tiªu ®Ò bµi b¸o: nhµ níc sÏ t¨ng thuÕ thu nhËp vµ nãi r»ng ®ã lµ mét ý kiÕn rÊt tuyÖt.

- Ngêi ®ã vui v× ngêi vÒ hu s¾p ®îc t¨ng tiÒn trî cÊp. Quý vÞ biÕt ch¾c r»ng ®ã chØ lµ tin ®ån.

- Ngêi ®ã cho r»ng ®· chi qu¸ nhiÒu cho viÖc mua s¾m quÇn ¸o.

- Ngêi ®ã nhËn xÐt lµ gi¸ c¶ nh÷ng ngµy nµy trë nªn qu¸ ®¾t®á.

C.

§êi sèng tinh thÇn, kh¶ n¨ng trÝ tuÖ, th¨ng tiÕn, chÝnh trÞ

- Ngêi ®ã cho r»ng «ng Y, mét cÊp díi cña quý vÞ, cÇn ®îc ®Ò b¹t lªn Phô tr¸ch kinh doanh, mét chøc vô cao h¬n quý vÞ.

- Kh«ng hiÓu biÕt g× vÒ n¨ng lîng, nhng ngêi ®ã l¹i nãi lµ n¨ng lîng mÆt trêi gi¶i quyÕt ®îc vÊn ®Ò thiÕu n¨ng lîng hiÖn t¹i.

- Ngêi ®ã cho r»ng tæng thèng thiÕu thËn träng khi gÇn ®©y ®a ra 1 lêi tuyªn bè ®Çy m©u thuÉn.

- Ngêi ®ã b¶o quý vÞ h·y bá phiÕu cho «ng A khi ®i bÇu quèc héi, v× «ng Êy lµ 1 øng cö viªn s¸ng gi¸.

D.

Giao tiÕp x· héi

- Ngêi ®ã lu«n cho r»ng m×nh lµ chuyªn gia vÒ xe m¸y.

- Ngêi ®ã hÕt lêi chª b«i ®éi bãng yªu thÝch cña quý vÞ, sau khi ®éi nµy thua 3-0 trong mét trËn ®Êu quèc tÕ.

- Ngêi ®ã b¶o cuéc liªn hoan mµ c¶ 2 cïng tham gia rÊt tÎ nh¹t.

- Ngêi ®ã nãi ®i nghØ sÏ cã lîi cho søc khoÎ cña quý vÞ.

3. Nghiªn cøu çc trêng hîp cô thÓ3.1. Trêng hîp 1: Quý vÞ chän c©u nµo trong nh÷ng c©u gîi ý díi ®©y nÕu quý vÞ bÊt ®ång ý kiÕn víi ngêi ®èi tho¹i khi hä nhËn xÐt vÒ c« X, ngêi quen cña quý vÞ: “C« Êy tr«ng qu¸ bÐo”? Quý vÞ còng cã thÓ viÕt c©u cña riªng m×nh vµo chç trèng thÝch hîp nÕu çch nãi cña quý vÞ kh¸c víi çc c©u ®· gîi ý.

1. T«i/…thÊy c« Êy hoµn toµn b×nh thêng.

2. Anh/… nhÇm råi. C« Êy kh«ng hÒ bÐo chót nµo.

3. RÊt tiÕc lµ t«i/… kh«ng thÊy thÕ.

4. Cã lÏ lµ anh/… nãi h¬i qu¸.

5. ThÕ µ! VËy mµ t«i/… kh«ng biÕt ®Êy.

6. Con/… nghÜ lµ mÑ/… nhÇm c« Êy víi ai th× ph¶i.

7. Cã hµng t¸ ®µn «ng theo ®uæi c« Êy ®Êy.

8. ThËt vËy ¹?9. Theo mÑ/… thÕ nµo lµ qu¸

bÐo ¹?10. Cßn chÞ/b¹n… th×

gÇy.11. (Im lÆng)

Ngêi cïng héi tho¹i víi quý vÞ C©u ®¸p cña quý vÞ

a. ¤ng/bµ cña quý vÞb. Bè/ mÑ cña quý vÞc. B¹n th©n cña quý vÞd. Ngêi quý vÞ ghÐte. B¹n ®ång nghiÖp cña quý vÞ

(cïng tuæi, cïng giíi tÝnh)f. B¹n ®ång nghiÖp cña quý vÞ

(cïng tuæi, kh¸c giíi tÝnh)g. Ngêi quen cña quý vÞ (kÐm

tuæi quý vÞ)

h. Ngêi quen cña quý vÞ (h¬n tuæi quý vÞ)

i. CÊp trªn cña quý vÞ (kÐm tuæi quý vÞ)

j. CÊp trªn cña quý vÞ (h¬n tuæi quý vÞ)

3.2 Trêng hîp 2:NÕu cã ý kiÕn tr¸i ngîc, quý vÞ sÏ nãi thÕ nµo khi ngêi nãi chuyÖn cïng quý vÞ chØ cho quý vÞ thÊy tiªu ®Ò bµi b¸o nhµ níc sÏ t¨ng thuÕ thu nhËp vµ nãi, “§©y qu¶ lµ mét ý tëng tuyÖt vêi”? Quý vÞ cã thÓ chän mét trong nh÷ng c©u gîi ý díi ®©y hoÆc ®a ra c©u tr¶ lêi cña riªng m×nh vµ viÕt vµo phÇn ®Ó trèng thÝch hîp.

1. ThËt ví vÈn.2. Con/…ch¼ng thÊy g× hÊp

dÉn c¶.3. TuyÖt vêi thÕ nµo ¹?4. Theo thiÓn ý cña t«i/… viÖc

nµy cÇn ph¶i c©n nh¾c kü.5. ThÕ µ! VËy mµ t«i/… kh«ng

biÕt ®Êy.6. Còng cã thÓ.7. ThËt thÕ h¶/sao?8. §óng nh thÕ ¹?9. Cã lÏ nãi nh thÕ h¬i véi vµng

ch¨ng?

10. Hay ®Êy ¹ (, tha xÕp/…), nhng….

11. (Im lÆng).

Ngêi cïng héi tho¹i víi quý vÞ

C©u ®¸p cña quý vÞ

a. ¤ng/bµ cña quý vÞb. Bè/ mÑ cña quý vÞc. B¹n th©n cña quý vÞd. Ngêi quý vÞ ghÐte. B¹n ®ång nghiÖp cña quý

vÞ (cïng tuæi, cïng giíi tÝnh)

f. B¹n ®ång nghiÖp cña quý vÞ (cïng tuæi, kh¸c giíi tÝnh)

g. Ngêi quen cña quý vÞ (kÐm tuæi quý vÞ)

h. Ngêi quen cña quý vÞ (h¬n tuæi quý vÞ)

i. CÊp trªn cña quý vÞ (kÐm tuæi quý vÞ)

j. CÊp trªn cña quý vÞ (h¬n tuæi quý vÞ)

3.3 Trêng hîp 3:Quý vÞ chän c©u nµo trong nh÷ng c©u gîi ý phÝa díi ®Ó ®¸p l¹i mét trong sè nh÷ng ngêi sau ®©y khi hä nãi: “Buæi liªn hoan mµ chóng ta cïng tham gia thËt tÎ nh¹t.” Quý vÞ cã thÓ ®a ra c©u tr¶ lêi cña riªng m×nh vµ viÕt vµo chç trèng thÝch hîp.

1. Anh/… nhÇm råi ¹. Nã ®©u cã tÎ nh¹t.

2. §©u cã. T«i/… thÊy rÊt vui.3. Cã thÓ lµ bè/… ®ßi hái h¬i

cao.4. Víi t«i/… th× kh«ng ph¶i thÕ.5. Sao cËu/… l¹i nghÜ vËy?6. Xin lçi, nhng t«i/...thÊy nã rÊt

tuyÖt.

7. ThÕ ¹/sao/h¶…?8. Em/… thÊy nã còng kh«ng

thËt hÊp dÉn l¾m, xÕp/… ¹.9. Ngêi buån th× c¶nh còng

ch¼ng vui.10. TÎ thÕ nµo c¬?11. (Im lÆng)

Ngêi cïng héi tho¹i víi quý vÞ C©u ®¸p cña quý vÞ

a. ¤ng/bµ cña quý vÞ

b. Bè/ mÑ cña quý vÞc. B¹n th©n cña quý vÞd. Ngêi quý vÞ ghÐte. B¹n ®ång nghiÖp cña quý vÞ (cïng

tuæi, cïng giíi tÝnh)f. B¹n ®ång nghiÖp cña quý vÞ (cïng

tuæi, kh¸c giíi tÝnh)g. Ngêi quen cña quý vÞ (kÐm tuæi

quý vÞ)h. Ngêi quen cña quý vÞ (h¬n tuæi

quý vÞ)i. CÊp trªn cña quý vÞ (kÐm tuæi

quý vÞ)j. CÊp trªn cña quý vÞ (h¬n tuæi

quý vÞ)4. Xin quý vÞ c©n nh¾c nh÷ng ph¸t ng«n sau vµ ®¸nh gi¸ møc ®é

lÞch sù cña tõng ph¸t ng«n theo c©c cÊp ®é: LÞch sù – B×nh th-êng – BÊt lÞch sù. Xin ®¸nh dÊu (√) vµo « thÝch hîp.

NhËn xÐt cña ngêi ®èi tho¹i víi quý vÞ

Ngêi ®èi

tho¹i víi quý

vÞ

C©u ®¸p cña quý vÞ

Møc ®é lÞch sù cña c©u ®¸pLÞch sù

B×nh th-êng

BÊt lÞch sù

1.

C« X ®Êy

qu¸

bÐo.

Bµ 1. Ch¸u thÊy c« Êy b×nh thêng.

MÑ 2. MÑ cho thÕ nµo lµ qu¸ bÐo ¹?

§ång nghiÖp, cïng tuæi & giíi tÝnh

3. Mèt ®æi råi.

CÊp trªn, h¬n tuæi

4. V©ng, nhng….

2.T¨ng thuÕ thu nhËp - Mét ý t-ëng tuyÖt vêi.

Bè 5. Kh«ng, con hoµn toµn ph¶n ®èi.

Ngêi ghÐt 6. C¸i ®ã kh¸ hay ®Êy.Ngêi quen, h¬n tuæi

7. Còng cã thÓ nh thÕ ®Êy ¹, nhng….

CÊp trªn, kÐm tuæi

8. ThËt thÕ sao?

3.

Buæi liªn hoan ®ã thËt tÎ nh¹t.

¤ng 9. Kh«ng, «ng ¬i, kh«ng, kh«ng, «ng nhÇm råi ¹.

B¹n th©n 10. Ngêi buån thÊy g× ch¼ng tÎ.

§ång nghiÖp, cïng tuæi, kh¸c giíi tÝnh

11. CËu nghÜ thÕ thËt µ?

Ngêi quen, kÐm tuæi

12. Xin lçi, nhng t«i/… thÊy nã hay.

Xin ch©n thµnh c¶m ¬n sù gióp ®ì cña quý VÞBIBLIOGRAPHY

ENGLISHAckroyd, S. & Hughes, J. A. (1981). Data collection in context. London: Longman.

Agha, Asif. (1994). Honorification. Annual Review of Anthropology 23, 277-302.

Aston G. (1993). “Notes on the Interlanguage of Comity”. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 244-250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Atkinson, J. M. & Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court. London: Macmillan.

Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (eds.) (1984). Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. New York: Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London: MIT Press.

Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction Process Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Monograph Series Vol. 7). Urbana-Chanpaign, USA: University of Illinois, Intensive English Institute.

Barker, R. G., & Wright, H. F. (1955). Midwest and its Children. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.

Bauman, R., & Sherzer, J. (eds.) (1974). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bayraktaroglu, A., & Sifianou, M. (eds.) (2001). Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). “Pragmatics transfer in ESL refusals”. In R. C. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & Stephen, D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-74). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Bentahila, A., & Davies, E. E., (1989). Culture and language use: a problem for foreign language teaching. University Fez Morocco. IRAL, vol. XXVII/2, May 1989.

Berlin, B. & Kay, P. (1969). Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bernard, R. H. (2002). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (3rd ed.). Altamira Press.

Blount, B. G. (ed.) (1995). Language, Culture, and Society. A Book of Readings. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Blum-Kulka, S. & Snow C. E. (eds.) (2002). Taking to Adults: The Contribution of Multiparty Discourse to Language Acquisition. LEA, Publishers.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). “Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different?” Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 145-160.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). “Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness”. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 37-70). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1992). “The Metapragmatics of Politeness in Israeli Society”. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 255-80.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner Talk: Cultural Patterns of Sociability and Socialization in Family Discourse. LEA, Publishers.

Blum-Kulka, S., & Kasper, G., (eds.) (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B., & Gerson, R. (1985). “The language of requesting in Israeli society”. In J. Forgas (Ed.). Language and social situation (pp. 113-141). New York: Springer Verlag.

Blundell, J., Higgens, J. & Middlemiss N. (1996). Function in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bouton, L. F. (1994). “Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? – A polite study”. In L. F. Bouton, & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Monograph Series Vol. 5). Urbana-Chanpaign, USA: University of Illinois, Intensive English Institute.

Bouton, L. F. (1996). Pragmatics and Language Learning. (Monograph Series Vol. 7). Urbana-Champaign, USA: University of Illinois, Intensive English Institute.

Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, Cecil. (1985). “Polysemy, Overt Marking, and Function Words”. Language Sciences 7/2: 283-332.

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1989). Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P. (2002). “Everyone Has to Lie in Tzeltal. In S. Blum-Kulka & C. E. Snow (eds.), Taking to Adults – The Contributions of Multiparty Discourse to Language Acquisition (pp. 327-342). LEA.

Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. (1978). “Universals of Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena”. In E. N. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness Strategies in Social interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge University Press.

Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Button, G. & Lee, J. R. E. (eds.) (1987). Talk and Social Organization. Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). “Topic nomination and topic pursuit”. Human studies, 8, 3-55.

Cameron, D. (2002). Working with Spoken Discourse. Sage Publications.

Campbell-Kibler, K., Podesva, R., Roberts S. J., & Wong, A. (2002). (eds.). Language and Sexuality: Contesting Meaning in Theory and Practice. CSLI Publications.

Chang, Hui-Ching. (1999). “The ‘well-defined’ is ambiguous – indeterminacy in Chinese conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 535-56.

Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.

Coates, J. (1996). Women Talk: Conversation between Women Friends. Blackwell Publishers.

Coates, J., & Cameron, D. (eds.) (1989). Women in Their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex. Longman Group UK Limited.

Cohen, A. (1996). “Investigating the production of speech act sets”. In S. M. Gass, & J. New, (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Cole, P., & Morgan, J. L. (eds.) (1975). Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press.

Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: an Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Comrie, B. (1989) (2nd ed.). Language Universals and Language Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Coupland, J. (ed.) (2000). Small Talk. Longman.

Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (ed.) (2003). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (5th ed.). Blackwell.

Dascal, M. (1983). Pragmatics and the philosophy of mind 1. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

Davis, W. A. (1998). Implicature: Interaction, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

de Kadt, E. (1998). The concept of face and its applicability to the Zulu language. Journal of Pragmatics 292, 173-91.

Doi, Takeo. (1973). The anatomy of dependence. [Translated by J. Bester]. Tokyo: Dodansha.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: construction, administration, and processing. LEA Publishers.

Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (eds.) (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duncan, S. & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face to Face Interaction: Research, Methods and Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Duncan, S. (1974). “Some Signals and Rules for Taking Speaker Turns in Conversations”. In S. Weitz (ed.). Nonverbal communication. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 298-311.

Duranti, A. (1981). “The Samoan Fono: A Sociolinguistic Study”. Pacific Linguistics Monographs, Series B, Vol. 80. Canberra: Australian National University, Dep. of Linguistics.

Duranti, A. (1985). “Lauga and Talanoaga: Two Speech Genres in a Samoan Political Event”. In Brenneis & Myers (eds.), Dangerous Words Language and Politics in the Pacific, pp, 217:37. New York: New York University Press.

Duranti, A. (1988). “Intentions, Language and Social Action in a Samoan Context”. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 13:33.

Duranti, A. (1992). “Language in Context and Language as Context: The Samoan Respect Vocabulary”. In Another Context. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. (pp. 77-99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duranti, A. (1993). “Intentions, Self, and Responsibility: An Essay in Samoan Ethnopragmatics”. In J. H. Hill and J. T. Irvine (eds.), Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse (pp. 24-47). Cambridge University Press.

Duranti, A. (1996). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Duranti, A. (ed.) (2001a). Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Blackwell Publishers.

Duranti, A. (ed.) (2001b). Key Terms in Language and Culture. Blackwell Publishers.

Durkheim, E. (1915). The elementary forms of the religious life. George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London.

Eisenstein M. & Bodman J. (1993). “Expressing Gratitude in American English”. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 64-81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ellis, C. (1996). Culture Shock! Vietnam. Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company. Portland, Oregon.

Ellis, R. (1991). Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ervin-Tripp, S. (1979). “Children’s Verbal Turn-taking”. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (eds.) Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. pp. 391-414.

Finegan, E. (2004). Language: its structure and use. 4th ed. Thomson Corp. Warsworth.

Fishman, P. (1983). “Interaction: the Work Women do”. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (eds.), Language, Gender, and Society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Pp. 89-101.

Foley, W. A. (1984). “Nature versus Nurture: The Genesis of Language. A Review Article”. Comparative Studies in Society and History (1984): 335-44. Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History (U.S.)

Ford, E. C., Fox, A. B., & Thompson A. S. (eds.) (2002). The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fowler, R. (1985). “Power”. In van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press.

Fox, B. A., Hayashi, M. & Jasperson, R. (1996). “A cross-linguistic study of the syntax and repair”. In E.Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, and S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 185-237.

Fraser, B. (1985). “On the universality of speech act strategies”. In S. George (Ed.), From the linguistic to the social context (pp. 43-49). Bologna, Italy: CLUEB.

Fraser, B. (1990). “Perspective of politeness”. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236.

Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). “The association of deference with linguistic forms”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27: 93-109.

Furo, H. (2001). Turn-Taking in English and Japanese: Projectability in Grammar, Intonation, and Semantics. Routledge: New York and London.

Gardner, R. (2001). When Listeners Talk. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. (Paperback edition. 1984. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK; Polity Press.)

Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). “ On Formal Structures of Practical Actions”. In H. D. McKinney and E. A. Tiryakian (eds.), Theoretical Sociology, pp. 337-66. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Garrett, P. B., & Baquedano-López, P. (2002). “Language Socialization: Reproduction and continuity, Transformation and Change”. Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 339-61.

Gass, S. M. & Neu, J. (eds.) (1996). Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter.

Gass, S., M. (1996). “Introduction”. In Gass, S. M., & Neu, J. (eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter.

Geis, M. L. (1995). Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gillham, B. (2000). The research interview. Continuum: London and New York.

Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor Books.

Goffman, E. (1976). “Replies and Responses”. Language in Society 5: 257-313.

Goodenough, W. (1957). “Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics”. In P. L. Garvin (ed.), MonoGraph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 9: 167-173. Washington, DC: Institute of Languages and Linguistics.

Goodwin, C. (1979). “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation”. In G. Psathas (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 23-78). Irvington Publishers, Inc.

Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press.

Goodwin, C. (1984). “Notes on Story Structure and the Organization of Participation”. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 225-46.

Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent Vision. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schefgloff, & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 370-404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). “Rethinking Context: An Introduction”. In A. Duranti & D. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. (pp. 1-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, C., & Goodwin M. H. (1987). “Concurrent Operations on Talk: Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments”. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 1987: 1-54.

Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). “Assessments and the Construction of Context”. In A. Duranti & D. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. (pp. 147-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodwin, M. H. (1983). “Aggravated Correction and Disagreement in Children’s Conversations”. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 657-77.

Goody, E. N. (ed.) (1978). Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Green, B. S. & Salkind, J. N. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall.

Greenberg, J. (1963). “Language Universals”. In Sebeok, T. (ed.) Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 3 (Theoretical Foundations), pp. 61-112. The Hague Mouton. Revised and published in J. Greenberg (1966), Language Universals with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague Mouton.

Grice, H. P. (1975). “Logic and conversation” in P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.

Gu, Y. (1990). “Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese”. Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (2), 327-257.

Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. (eds.) (1964). “The Ethonography of Communication” [Special issue, part 2]. The American Anthropologist, 66.

Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (eds.) (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge University Press.

Gumperz, J. J. (1978). “The conversational analysis of interethnic communication”. In: E. Lama Ross (ed.), Interethnic Communication. Southern Anthropological Society proceedings 12, 13-31.

Gumperz, J. J. (1996). “The linguistic and Cultural Relativity of Conversational Inference”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 374-407). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ha, Cam Tam. (1998). Requests by Australian native speakers of English and Vietnamese learners of English. Unpublished M. A. Thesis, La Trobe University.

Hall, K., & Bucholtz, M. (1995). (eds.). Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self. Routledge: New York and London.

Hare, R. M. (1979). Social Being: A theory for social psychology. England: Basil Blackwell.

Harold, W. S. (1976). “The Meaning of Kinship”. In Basso, K. & Shelby, H. (eds.), Meaning in Anthropology, pp. 57-91. University of New Mexico Press.

Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hatim, B. (1997). Communication across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. University of Exeter Press.

Held, G. (1989). “On the Role of Maximization in Verbal Politeness”. Multilingua 8: 167-206.

Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heritage, J. (1984b). “A change-of-state Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement”. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 299-345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J. (1998). “Oh-prefaced Responses to Inquiry”. Language in Society 27(3): 291-334.

Heritage, J. (2002). “Oh-prefaced Responses to Assessments: a Method of Modifying Agreement/Disagreement”. In C. Ford, B. Fox and S. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 196-224.

Heritage, J. (forthcoming). The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-interaction.

Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M. (1994). “Constituting and Maintaining Activities across Sequences And-prefacing as a Feature of Question Design”. Language in Society 23: 1-29.

Hernández-Flores, N. (1999). “Politeness ideology in Spanish colloquial conversation: the case of advice”. Pragmatics 91, 37-49.

Hester, S. & Eglin, P. (eds.) (1997). Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America, Washington, D. C.

Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., & Ogino, T. (1986). “Universals of Linguistic Politeness: Quantitative Evidence from Japanese & American English”. Journal of Pragmatics 10: 347-71.

Hill, J. H., & Irvine, J. T. (eds.) (1993). Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hill, J. H., & Mannheim, B. (1992). “Language and World View”. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 381-406.

Ho, D. Y-F. (1994). Face dynamics: from conceptualization to measurement. In: Ting-Toomey, S. (Ed.). The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues. State university of New York Press, Albany. Pp. 3-13.

Hockett, C. F. (1960). “The Origin of Speech”. Scientific American 203.3: 88-96.

Hornby, A. S. (1988). Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

House, J. (1984). “Some methodological problems and perspectives in contrastive discourse analysis”. Applied linguistics, 5 (3), 245-254.

House, J. (1989). “Politeness in English and German: The functions of Please and Bite”. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 96-119). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.

Hsien, Chin Hu. (1944). “The Chinese concepts of face”. American Anthropologist 46: 45-55.

Hwang, Juck-Ryoon. (1990). “Deference” versus “Politeness” in Korean Speech. The International Journal of the Sociology of Language 82: 41-55.

Hymes, D. (1962). “The Ethnography of Speaking”. In T. Galdwin & W. C. Sturtevant (eds.), Anthropology and Human Behavior (pp. 13-53). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington.

Hymes, D. (1972a). “On Communicative Competence”. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). London: Penguin.

Hymes, D. (1972b). “Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life”. In J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston. Pp. 35-71.

Hymes, D. (1974a). Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethonographic Approach. Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hymes, D. (1974b). “Ways of Speaking”. In R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hymes, D. (1995). “The Ethnography of Speaking”. In B. G. Blount (ed.), Language, Culture, and Society. Waveland Press, Inc. pp. 248-82.

Hymes, D. (ed.) (1964). Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology. New York: Harper & Row.

Ide, S. (1982). “Japanese Sociolinguistics: Politeness and Women’s Language”. Lingua 57, 357-385.

Ide, S. (1986). “Sex Differences and Politeness in Japanese”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 58: 25-36.

Ide, S. (1987). “Strategies of ‘discernment’ and ‘volition’ for Linguistic Politeness”. Paper delivered at the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp.

Ide, S. (1988). “Introduction”. Multilingua 7-4: 371-374.

Ide, S. (1989). “Formal Forms and Discernment: Two Neglected Aspects of Universals of Linguistic Politeness”. In S. Ide et al. (eds.), Linguistic Politeness II: Multilingua 8-2/3: 223-248.

Ide, S. (1993). “Preface: The research of integrated universals of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 12-1: 7-11.

Ide, S. (2001). “Preface”. In Bayraktaroglu, A., & Sifianou, M. (eds.), Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Ide, S., Hill, B., Carnes, Y. M., Ogino, T., & Kawasaki, A. (1992). “The Concept of Politeness: An Empirical Study of American English and Japanese”. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide and K.

Ehlich (eds.) Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter.

Jackson, H., & Stockwell, P. (1996). Investigating English language – nature and function of language. Stanley Thornes Publishers Ltd.

Jefferson, G. (1974). “Error Correction as an Interactional Resource”. Language in Society, 2: 181-99.

Jefferson, G. (1978). “Sequential Aspects of Story Telling in Conversation”. In J. N. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 219-48.

Jefferson, G. (1979). “A Technique for Inviting Laughter and its Subsequent Acceptance/Declination”. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Erlbaum, pp. 79-96.

Ji, Shaojun. (2000). ‘Face’ and polite verbal behaviors in Chinese culture. Discussion note. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1059-62.

Johnson, S., & Meinhof, U. H. (1997). (eds.). Language and Masculinity. Blackwell Publishers.

Jones, L. (1981). Functions of English (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, J. (1972). “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education”. In Language Learning 16, 1-20.

Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). “Interlanguage Pragmatics: An Introduction”. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 3-17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kasper, G. (1990). “Linguistic Politeness: Current Research issues”. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 193-218.

Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (eds.) (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Mouton de Gruyter.

Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kiesling, S. F. (2001). “Now I Gotta Watch What I say”: Shifting Constructions of Masculinity in Discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(2): 250-73.

Kieu, Thi Thu Huong. (2001). Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese. Unpublished M. A. Thesis. C. F. L, Vietnam National University, Hanoi.

Kieu, Thi Thu Huong. (2003). Conversation Analysis and Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese. Unpublished paper submitted for a credit of “Conversation Analysis”. Department of Anthropology. University of Toronto, Canada.

Kieu, Thi Thu Huong. (2003). Politeness and Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese. Unpublished paper submitted for a credit of “Advanced Topics in Linguistics”. Department of Anthropology. University of Toronto, Canada.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Krashen, S. 1987. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.

Kroger, R. O. (1892). “Explorations in Ethogeny. With special reference to the rules of address’. In American Psychologist, vol. 37, #7: 810-820.

Kummer, M. (1992). “Politeness in Thai”. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (eds.) Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter.

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lakoff, R. (1973). “The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p's and q's”. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292-305). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper and Row.

Leech, G. N. (1980). Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (The chapter 'Language and tact' first published by the Linguistic Agency University of Trier, Series A, Paper 46, University of Trier, 1977).

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.

Lee-Wong, S. M. (2000). Politeness and Face in Chinese Culture. Peter Lang.

Levine, D. R., Baxter, J., & McNulty, P. (1987). The culture puzzle: Cross-cultural communication for English as second language. Prentice Hall Regents.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.

Levinson, S. C. (1996). “Relativity in Spatial Conception and Description”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 177-202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lightbown, P. M. & N. Spada. 1999. How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Littlewood, W. T. 1984. Foreign and second language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lucy, J. A. (1997). “Linguistic Relativity”. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 291-312.

Luong, Van Hy (1987). “Plural Markers in Vietnamese Person Reference: An Analysis of Pragmatic Ambiguities and Native Models”. Anthropological Linguistics 17: 49-70.

Luong, Van Hy (1990). Discursive Practices and Linguistic Meanings: The Vietnamese System of Person Reference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Lyon, J. [(1977), 1987] Semantics. Vol. 1 & 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Malinowski, B. (1923, 1946). “The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Language”. Supplement to C. Ogden & A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning, pp. 296-336.

Mao, Lu Ming Robert. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics 21, 451-86.

Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associaties, Publishers.

Matsumoto, Y. (1988). “Reexamination of the Universality of Face: Politeness Phenomena in Japanese”. Journal of Pragmatics 12 (1988), pp. 403-426.

Maynard, D. W. (2003). Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. University of Chicago Press.

Maynard, S. K. (1997). Japanese Communication: Language and Thought in Context. Hololulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Merritt, M. (1976). “On Questions Following Questions (in Service Encounters)”. Language in Society, 5.3: 315-57.

Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers.

Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishers.

Mey, J. L. (2003). Introduction: ‘About Face’. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003), p. 1451.

Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture: ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese: Connective Expressions and Turn Construction. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Nakane, Chie. (1970). Japanese society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Nash, T. (1983). American and Chinese politeness strategies; 'It sort of disturbs my sleep' or 'Health is important.' University of Hawaii Working Papers, 2, 2: 23-39.

Nguyen, Duc Hoat. (1995). Politeness markers in Vietnamese requests. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Monash University.

Nguyen, Phuong Suu (1990). A Cross-cultural Study of Greeting and Addressing Terms in English and Vietnamese. Unpublished M. A. Thesis, University of Canberra.

Nguyen, Thi Thanh Binh (2001). The Diversity in Language Socialization: Gender and Social Stratum in a North Vietnamese Village. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. University of Toronto, Canada.

Nguyen, Van Do (1996). Politeness phenomena in Vietnamese and English cultures and some implications in teaching language – Evidence from forms of requests. Unpublished M. A. Thesis. Hanoi Foreign Studies University.

Nofsinger, Robert E. (1991). Everyday Conversation. SAGE Publications.

Nwoye, Onuigbo G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics 18, 309-328.

Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing Gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 335-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, E. (1996). “Linguistic Resources for Socializing Humanity”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 407-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, E. (1997). “Narrive”. In T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (pp. 185-207). London: Sage

Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). “When I Come Down I’m in the Domain State”: Grammar and Graphic representation in the Interpretive Activity of Physicists. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 328-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (eds.) (1996). Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Park, Y. (1999). “The Korean connective nuntey in conversational discourse”. In N. Akatsuka, S. Iwasaki, and S. Strauss (Eds.), Japanese Korean Linguistics 5. Stanford: CSLI Publication, pp. 131-147.

Pittenger, R. E., Hockett, C. F., & Danehy, J. J. (1960). The First Five Minutes. Ethaca, NY: P. Martineau.

Polanyi, L. (1985). “Conversational Storytelling”. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol. E: Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press.

Pomerantz, A. (1975). Second Assessments: A Study of Some Features of Agreements/Disagreements. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine.

Pomerantz, A. (1978). “Compliment Responses: Notes on the Co-operation of Multiple Constraints”. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversation Interaction. Academic Press. pp. 79-112.

Pomerantz, A. (1984a). “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes”. In J. Heritage & J. M. Atkinson (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 57-101.

Pomerantz, A. (1984b). “Pursuing a Response”. In J. Heritage & J. M. Atkinson (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 152-64.

Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. J. (1997). “Conversation Analysis: An Approach to the Study of Social Action as Sense Making Practices”. In van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 2. pp. 64-91. Sage Publications.

Pridham, F. (2001). The Language of Conversation. Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group.

Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction. Sage Publications.

Psathas, G. (ed.) (1979). Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Irvington Publishers, Inc.

Psathas, G. (ed.) (1990). Interaction Competence. International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & Universtiy Press of America Washington, D. C.

Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G. & Svartvik J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. Longman Group Ltd.

Rathmayr, R. (1999). “Metadiscours et realité linguistique: I’example de la politesse russe”. Pragmatics 91, 75-96.

Richards, J. C. (1983). “Communicative Needs in Foreign Language Learning”. In Wolfson & Judd (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Newbury House Publishers.

Richards, J., Platt, J & Webber, H. (1990). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Longman.

Roger, D. & Bull, P. (1989). Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Multilingual Matters LTD.

Rosaldo, M. Z. (1982). “The Things We Do with Words: Ilongot Speech Acts and Speech Act Theory in Philosophy”. Language in Society 11: 203-37.

Sacks, H. (1963). “On Sociological description”. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 8:1-16.

Sacks, H. (1972a). “An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Data of Doing Sociology”. In D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 31-74.

Sacks, H. (1972b). “On the Analyzability of Stories by Children”. In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, pp. 325-45.

Sacks, H. (1974). “An Analysis of the Course of a Joke’s Telling in Conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 337-53.

Sacks, H. (1975). “Everyone Has to Lie”. In M. Sanches & B. Blout (eds.), Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use, pp. 57-80. New York: Academic Press.

Sacks, H. (1978). “Some Technical Considerations of a Dirty Joke. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversation Interaction. Academic Press. pp. 249-269.

Sacks, H. (1987). “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation” (from a tape recording of a public lecture originally delivered in 1973). In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.). Talk and social organisation (pp. 54-69). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Sacks, H. (1995) Lectures on Conversation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.) (1979), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Irvington Publishers, Inc. pp. 15-21.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696-735. Also in J. Schenkein (1978) (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. Academic Press. pp. 7-55.

Sankoff, G. (1974). “A quantitative paradigm for the study of communicative competence”. In: R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (eds.). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sapir, E. (1963). Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Thought. In D.G. Mandelbaun (Ed.), Berleley and Los Angeles. University of California Press.

Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1989). Course in General Linguistics, eds. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, in collaboration with Albert Riedlinger, translated from the French by Wade Baskin. New York: Philosophical Library.

Schegloff, E. A. (1972a). “Sequencing in Conversational Openings”. In J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The EthnoGraphy of Communication (pp. 346-80). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Schegloff, E. A. (1972b). “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place”. In D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1979a). “Identification and Recognition in Telephone Openings”. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. (pp.23-78). Irvington Publishers, Inc.

Schegloff, E. A. (1979b). “The Relevance of Repair to Syntax-for-conversation”. In T. Givon (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. XII: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 261-88.

Schegloff, E. A. (1984). “On some Gestures’ relation to talk”. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. (pp. 266-96). Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1992). “In Another Context”. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. (pp. 191-227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schegloff, E. A. (1995). “Introduction”. In Harvey Sacks: Lectures on Conversation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson and Harvey Sacks. (1977). “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation”. Language 53: 361-82.

Schenkein, J. (1978). (ed.). Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. Academic Press.

Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). “Language Socialization”. Annual Review of Anthropology 15: 163-91.

Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (eds.) (2001). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell Publishers.

Schultz, E. A. (1990). Dialogue at the Margins: Whorf, Bakhtin, and Linguistic Relativity. The University of Wisconsin Press.

Searle, J. R. (1965). “What is a Speech Act?” In M. Black (ed.), Philosophy in America Essays, pp. 221-239. Ithaca, N.Y. Cornell University Press.

Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. R. (1975). “Indirect speech acts”. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.

Searle, J. R. (1976). “A classification of illocutionary acts”. Language in Society 5, 1-23.

Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Sherzer, J. (1987). “A Discourse-Centered Approach to Language and Culture”. American Anthropologist 89: 295-309.

Sidnell, J. (2001). “Conversational Turn-taking in a Caribbean English Creole”. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1263-1290.

Silverstein, M. (1976). “Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description”. In K. H. Basso & H. A. Selby (eds.). Meaning in Anthropology (pp. 11-56). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Silverstein, M. (1977). “Language as a Part of Culture”. In Tax, S. & Freeman, L. (eds.). Horizons of Anthropology.

Snow, C. E. & Blum-Kulka, S. (2002). “From Home to School: School-Age Children Talking with Adults”. In S. Blum-Kulka & C. E. Snow (eds.), Taking to Adults – The Contributions of Multiparty Discourse to Language Acquisition (pp. 327-342). LEA.

Sorjonen, M. (1997). Recipient activities: particles nii(n) and joo as responses in Finnish conversations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.

Sperber, D., & Wilson. D. [1995(1986)]. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. London. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Storry, M., & Childs, P. (eds.) (1997). British Culture Identities. Routledge.

Stross, B. (1973). “Acquisition of Botanical Terminology by Tzeltal Children”. In Meaning in Mayan Languages. (ed.). M. Edmonson, pp. 107-42. The Hague: Mouton.

Sturtevant, W. C. (1964). “Studies in Ethnoscience”. In A. K. Romney & R. G. D’Andrade (eds.), Transcultural Studies in Cognition [Special issue, part 2]. The American Anthropologist 66(3): 99-131.

Sudnow, D. (ed.) (1972). Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press.

Svennevig, J. (1999). Getting Acquainted in Conversation: A Study of Initial Interactions. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Takahara, K. (1986). “Politeness in English, Japanese, and Spanish”. In cross-cultural communication: East and West. J. H. Koo & R. N. St. Claire (Eds.), 181-194.

Tannen, D. (1981). “Indirectness in discourse: Ethnicity as conversational style”. Discourse Processes, 3 (4), 221-38.

Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tannen, D. (1999). The Argument Culture: Stopping America’s War of Words. The Ballantine Publishing Group.

Tannen, K. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow and Co.

Tarone, E. E., Gass, S. M. & Cohen, A. D. (1994). Research Methodology in Second-Language Acquisition. LEA, Publishers.

Thomas, J. (1983). “Cross-cultural pragmatic failure”. Applied linguistics, 4, 91-112.

Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. USA, England: Longman.

Ton, Nu My Nhat. (2005). A discourse analysis of travel advertisements in English and Vietnamese. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. College of Foreign Languages, VNU.

Tracy, K. (2002). Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities. The Guilford Press. New York – London.

Trudgill, P. (1972). “Sex, Convert Prestige and Linguistic Change in the Urban British English of Norwich”. Language in Society I: pp. 179-195.

Upadhyay, Shiv R. (2003). Nepali requestive acts: Linguistic indirectness and politeness reconsidered. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003): 1651-77.

Valdes, J. M. (1987). Culture bound: Bridging the culture gap in language teaching, (2nd

printing). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

van Dijk, T. A. (1979). “Relevance Assignment in Discourse Comprehension”. Discourse Processes 2: 113-127.

van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) (1985). Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol. 3: Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press.

van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) (1997). Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 1 & 2. Sage Publications.

van Ek, J. A. (1976). The threshold level for modern language teaching in schools. London: Longman.

Verschueren, J. (1984). “Linguistics and cross-cultural communication” (review article). Language in Society 13, 489-509.

Vu, Thi Thanh Huong (1997). Politeness in Modern Vietnamese: A Sociolinguistic Study of a Hanoi Speech Community. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. University of Toronto, Canada.

Wallace, A. & Atkins, J. (1960) “The Meaning of Kinship Terms”. American Anthropologist 62: 427-51.

Wanning, E. (2000). Culture Shock! USA. Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company. Portland, Oregon.

Wardhaugh, R. (1991). How conversation works. Blackwell, Oxford U. K. and Cambridge U. S. A.

Watts, R. J., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (eds.) (1992). Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter.

Whorf, B. L. (1956). “Grammatical Categories”. In J. B. Carroll (ed.), Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (pp. 87-101). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Whorf, B. L. (1956). “The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language”. In J. B. Carroll (ed.), Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (pp. 134-59). Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.

Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wierzbicka, A. (1985). “Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts”. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145-178.

Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English speech act verbs: a semantic dictionary. Academic, New York.

Wisker, G. (2001). The postgraduate research handbook: succeed with your MA, MPhil, EdD and PhD. Palgrave.

Witkowski, S. & Brown, C. “Lexical Universals” (1978). Annual Review of Anthropology 7: 427-451.

Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (eds.) (1983). Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Newbery House Publishers.

Wright, A. (1987). How to communicate successfully. Cambridge University Press.

Wu, R. R. (1997). “Transforming participation frameworks in multip-party Mandarin Chinese conversation: the use of discourse particles and body behavior”. Issues in Applied

Linguistics 8 (2), pp. 97-118.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.

Zellermayer, M. (1991). “Intensifiers in Hebrew and in English”. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 43-58.

Zimmerman, D., & West, C. (1975). “Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation”. In B. Thorne, & N. Henley (eds.), Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Pp. 105-29.

VIETNAMESE

§ç H÷u Ch©u & Bïi Minh To¸n. (2002). §¹i c¬ng Ng«n Ng÷ Häc (TËp I). Nxb GD.

§ç H÷u Ch©u & Bïi Minh To¸n. (2003). §¹i c¬ng Ng«n Ng÷ Häc (TËp I). Nxb GD. (T¸i b¶n lÇn thø 2)

§ç H÷u Ch©u. (1995). Gi¸o tr×nh gi¶n yÕu vÒ ng÷ dông häc. Nxb GD. HuÕ.§ç H÷u Ch©u. (2003). §¹i c¬ng Ng«n Ng÷ Häc (TËp II). Ng÷ Dông Häc. Nxb.

GD. (T¸i b¶n lÇn thø 1)§inh Träng L¹c. (1998). TiÕng ViÖt. Nxb. Hµ Néi.§inh V¨n §øc (1986). Ng÷ ph¸p tiÕng ViÖt – Tõ lo¹i. Nxb. §H & THCN.Bïi Minh YÕn. (1996). “Xng h« trong gia ®×nh ngêi ViÖt”. Trong NguyÔn V¨n

Khang (Chñ biªn), øng xö giao tiÕp trong gia ®×nh ngêi ViÖt, tr. 83-157. Nxb. V¨n ho¸ th«ng tin.

Cao Xu©n H¹o. (1991). TiÕng ViÖt: S¬ th¶o ng÷ ph¸p chøc n¨ng (QuyÓn 1). Nxb KHXH.

Cao Xu©n H¹o. (1998). TiÕng ViÖt: MÊy vÊn ®Ò ng÷ ©m – ng÷ ph¸p – tõ vùng. Nxb. GD.

DiÖp Quang Ban & Hoµng V¨n Thung. (2003). Ng÷ ph¸p tiÕng ViÖt (TËp I). Nxb GD. (T¸i b¶n lÇn thø 7)

DiÖp Quang Ban. (2004). Ng÷ ph¸p TiÕng ViÖt (TËp II). Nxb GD. (T¸i b¶n lÇn thø 7)

Hoµng Phª (Chñ biªn). (1988). Tõ ®iÓn tiÕng ViÖt. Nxb. X· héi.Hoµng Träng PhiÕn. (1991). “Nghi thøc lêi nãi tiÕng ViÖt Nam”. Trong Nghiªn

cøu NghÖ thuËt vµ V¨n ho¸, 42.Hoµng V¨n V©n. (1999). “Dông häc víi viÖc d¹y ng«n ng÷ giao tiÕp: ThuËn lîi

vµ khã kh¨n”. Trong Nh÷ng vÊn ®Ò ng÷ dông häc - Kû yÕu Héi th¶o khoa häc 'Ng÷ dông häc' lÇn thø nhÊt Hµ Néi (tr. 210-219). 4-1999. §HNN-§HQG.

Hoµng V¨n V©n. (2005). Ng÷ ph¸p kinh nghiÖm cña có TiÕng ViÖt: M« t¶ theo quan ®iÓm chøc n¨ng hÖ thèng. Nxb KHXH, Hµ Néi.

KiÒu ThÞ Thu H¬ng (2001). “Çc yÕu tè phi ng«n ng÷ vµ viÖc d¹y-häc ngo¹i ng÷”. Trong Ng«n Ng÷ sè 9-2001. Tr. 24-30. ViÖn ng«n ng÷ häc.

KiÒu ThÞ Thu H¬ng (2005). “Çch biÓu ®¹t sù kh«ng t¸n ®ång vµ cÊu tróc ®îc a dïng: B×nh diÖn ph©n tÝch héi tho¹i”. Trong T¹p chÝ Khoa häc, sè 4/2005, tr. 26-40. §HQG HN.

KiÒu ThÞ Thu H¬ng (2005). “Mét vµi côm tõ ®Þnh danh trong tiÕng ViÖt - nh×n tõ gãc ®é v¨n ho¸. Trong Ng«n ng÷ vµ §êi sèng, sè 12 (122) - 2005, tr. 28-30.

KiÒu ThÞ Thu H¬ng (2005). “Ph©n tÝch héi tho¹i: th¬ng lîng khi bÊt ®ång ý kiÕn”. Trong T¹p chÝ Khoa häc Ngo¹i Ng÷, sè 4/2005, tr. 49-58. §HNN HN.

KiÒu ThÞ Thu H¬ng (2006). “Çch ®¸p l¹i lêi khen trong tiÕng Anh vµ tiÕng ViÖt: B×nh diÖn ph©n tÝch héi tho¹i. Trong Ng«n ng÷, sè 1/2006, tr. 32-43.

L¬ng V¨n Hy. (2000). “BiÕn thÓ có ph¸p vµ vÞ thÕ x· héi: Mét nghiªn cøu lÞch ®¹i vµ ®ång ®¹i t¹i hai céng ®ång miÒn B¾c ViÖt Nam”. Trong L¬ng V¨n Hy (Chñ biªn) Ng«n tõ, giíi vµ nhãm x· héi tõ thùc tiÔn tiÕng ViÖt (tr. 230-265). Nxb KHXH, Hµ Néi.

Lª Hïng TiÕn. (1999). “§éng tõ ng÷ vi – ph¬ng tiÖn ngo¹i ng÷ quan träng gãp phÇn biÕn v¨n b¶n thµnh qui ph¹m ph¸p luËt”. Trong Nh÷ng vÊn ®Ò ng÷ dông häc - Kû yÕu Héi th¶o khoa häc 'Ng÷ dông häc' lÇn thø nhÊt Hµ Néi (tr. 210-219). 4-1999. §HNN-§HQG.

Mai Xu©n Huy (DÞch) (1996). Functions in English. Blundell, J., Higgens, J., & Middlemiss N. Nxb. Hµ Néi.

Mai Xu©n Huy. (1996). “Çc cung bËc cña giao tiÕp vî chång ngêi ViÖt”. Trong NguyÔn V¨n Khang (Chñ biªn), øng xö giao tiÕp trong gia ®×nh ngêi ViÖt, tr. 34-54. Nxb. V¨n ho¸ th«ng tin.

Ngò ThiÖn Hïng (2003). Kh¶o s¸t çc ph¬ng tiÖn tõ vùng, ng÷ ph¸p biÓu ®¹t tÝnh t×nh th¸i nhËn thøc trong tiÕng Anh vµ tiÕng ViÖt. LuËn ¸n tiÕn sÜ ng÷ v¨n. §HKHXH & NV, §HQGHN

Nguyễn Phương Chi. (2005). Một số đặc điểm ngôn ngữ-văn hoá ứng xử của hành vi từ chối trong tiếng Việt (có sự đối chiếu với tiếng Anh). Luận án tiến sỹ ngữ văn. Viện ngôn ngữ học - Viện KHXH Việt Nam.

NguyÔn §øc D©n . (1997). LogÝc - Ng÷ nghÜa - Có ph¸p: Nxb §H & THCN.NguyÔn §øc D©n. (1996). LogÝc vµ TiÕng ViÖt: Nxb GD.NguyÔn §øc D©n. (1998). Ng÷ dông häc: Nxb GD. NguyÔn Hoµ. (1999). “Lùc trung ng«n vµ çc kiÓu c©u”. Trong Nh÷ng vÊn

®Ò ng÷ dông häc - Kû yÕu Héi th¶o khoa häc 'Ng÷ dông häc' lÇn thø nhÊt Hµ Néi (tr. 262-266). 4-1999. §HNN-§HQG.

NguyÔn Kh¾c ThuÇn. (2002). §¹i c¬ng lÞch sö v¨n ho¸ ViÖt Nam. Nxb GD. NguyÔn Kim Th¶n. (1982). Lêi ¨n tiÕng nãi cña ngêi Hµ Néi. Nxb. Hµ Néi.

NguyÔn Phó Phong. (2002). Nh÷ng vÊn ®Ò ng÷ ph¸p TiÕng ViÖt: Lo¹i tõ vµ chØ thÞ tõ. Nxb §HQGHN.

NguyÔn Quang. (1998a). “Trùc tiÕp vµ gi¸n tiÕp trong dông häc giao thoa v¨n hãa ViÖt-Mü”. TËp san ngo¹i ng÷ 4-1998.

NguyÔn Quang. (1998b). Mét sè kh¸c biÖt giao tiÕp lêi nãi ViÖt-Mü trong çch thøc khen vµ tiÕp nhËn lêi khen. LuËn ¸n tiÕn sÜ khoa häc ng÷ v¨n. §H KHXH & NV, §HQGHN.

NguyÔn Quang. (2004). Mét sè vÊn ®Ò giao tiÕp néi v¨n ho¸ vµ giao thoa v¨n ho¸. Nxb §HQGHN.

NguyÔn ThiÖn Gi¸p & §oµn ThiÖn ThuËt &, NguyÔn Minh ThuyÕt (2004). DÉn luËn ng«n ng÷ häc: Nxb GD. (T¸i b¶n lÇn thø 9).

NguyÔn ThiÖn Gi¸p. (2000). Dông Häc ViÖt Ng÷. Nxb. §¹i häc Quèc Gia. NguyÔn ThÞ Thanh B×nh. (2000). “Xng vµ gäi: B»ng chøng vÒ giíi trong ng«n

tõ cña trÎ em tríc tuæi ®Õn trêng ë Hµ Néi vµ Hoµi ThÞ.” Trong L-¬ng V¨n Hy (Chñ biªn) Ng«n tõ, giíi vµ nhãm x· héi tõ thùc tiÔn TiÕng ViÖt. (tr.115-134). Nxb. KHXH Hµ Néi.

NguyÔn V¨n ChiÕn. (1992). Ng«n ng÷ häc ®èi chiÕu vµ ®èi chiÕu çc ng«n ng÷ §«ng Nam ¸. §HSPNN Hµ Néi.

NguyÔn V¨n Khang. (2000). Ng«n ng÷ häc x· héi. Nxb. KHXH Hµ Néi.Phan ThÞ YÕn TuyÕt & L¬ng V¨n Hy. (2000). “Vµi nÐt vÒ ng«n ng÷ giao tiÕp

trong çc cuéc nãi chuyÖn gi÷a 3 thÕ hÖ “¤ng bµ - cha mÑ – con ch¸u” t¹i mét sè gia ®×nh ë Thµnh phè Hå ChÝ Minh”. Trong L¬ng V¨n Hy (Chñ biªn) Ng«n tõ, giíi vµ nhãm x· héi tõ thùc tiÔn TiÕng ViÖt (tr.98-114). Nxb. KHXH Hµ Néi.

Quang §µm. (1994). Nho Gi¸o xa vµ nay. ViÖn KHXHVN – ViÖn §«ng Nam ¸.T«n DiÔn Phong. (1999). “T×m hiÓu sù sai lÖch ng÷ nghÜa cña ngêi thô

ng«n trong ng«n giao xuyªn v¨n ho¸”. T¹p chÝ Ng«n ng÷ Sè 7-1999. Tr.26-29. ViÖn ng«n ng÷ häc.

TrÇn §×nh Hîu. (1994). §Õn hiÖn ®¹i tõ truyÒn thèng. Nxb. Hà Néi.TrÇn H÷u M¹nh. (1999). “Quy chiÕu & néi suy – Hai kh¸i niÖm trong dông häc

vµ viÖc d¹y vµ häc tiÕng Anh ë bËc ®¹i häc”. Trong Nh÷ng vÊn ®Ò ng÷ dông häc - Kû yÕu Héi th¶o khoa häc 'Ng÷ dông häc' lÇn thø nhÊt (tr. 238-247). Hµ Néi, 4-1999. §HNN-§HQG.

TrÇn Ngäc Thªm. (1997). C¬ së v¨n hãa ViÖt Nam. Nxb GD.TrÇn Quèc Vîng (Chñ biªn) (2004). C¬ së v¨n ho¸ ViÖt Nam. Nxb GD.Vò ThÞ Thanh H¬ng. (2000). “Gi¸n tiÕp vµ lÞch sù trong lêi cÇu khiÕn tiÕng

ViÖt”. Trong L¬ng V¨n Hy (Chñ biªn) Ng«n tõ, giíi vµ nhãm x· héi tõ thùc tiÔn tiÕng ViÖt (tr. 179-211). Nxb KHXH, Hµ Néi.

Vò ThÞ Thanh H¬ng. (2000). “LÞch sù vµ ph¬ng thøc biÓu hiÖn tÝnh lÞch sù trong lêi cÇu khiÕn tiÕng ViÖt”. Trong L¬ng V¨n Hy (Chñ biªn) Ng«n tõ, giíi vµ nhãm x· héi tõ thùc tiÔn tiÕng ViÖt (tr. 135-178). Nxb KHXH, Hµ Néi.

DISAGREEING IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESEtainguyenso.vnu.edu.vn/jspui/bitstream/123456789/5067/1... ·...

Documents

Transcript of DISAGREEING IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESEtainguyenso.vnu.edu.vn/jspui/bitstream/123456789/5067/1... ·...