NGHIÊN cứu sự PHÊ BÌNH BẰNG NGÔN từ TRONG văn HOÁ ANH VIỆT

Moreover, it is the lack of the target language culture and culturaldifferences that lead Vietnamese learners of English experience culture shock in every aspect of cross-cultural commun

communication that must ultimately be accounted for in order to communicate appropriately.

However, the teaching and learning of English in Vietnam are more or less under theinfluence of the traditional ways of teaching and learning language, which mainly focused onthe development of linguistic competence – lexis, grammatical rules, vocabulary, andpronunciation Meanwhile, little attention has been paid to oral skills and even less to culturalaspects This leads to a fact that Vietnamese learners of English, though they have fairly goodknowledge of linguistic competence, usually find themselves unable to communicate in anatural way or face up with communication breakdown in the target language, especially withnative speakers of English Moreover, it is the lack of the target language culture and culturaldifferences that lead Vietnamese learners of English experience culture shock in every aspect

of cross-cultural communication Therefore, learners must have mutual understandings andawareness of cultural differences to be successful cross-cultural communicators

Of the universal human speech acts, criticism is a subtle one, a high face-threateningact in communication, especially in intercultural communication In addition, criticisms aresocially complex even for for native speakers Furthermore, many studies regarding the speechact of criticizing have been carried out in different languages and in interlanguage of Englishlearners of different language backgrounds such as House and Kasper (1981), Tracy, VanDusen, and Robison (1987), Tracy and Eisenberg (1990), Wajnryb (1993, 1995) and Toplak

and Katz (2000) and others, but not in Vietnamese The problems posed for Vietnameselearners of English concerning criticism have not yet been adequately investigated Therefore,

a study on the similarities and differences in giving criticism in English and Vietnamesecultures through verbal cues is believed to be of great importance and significance Thefindings from the research would partly help teachers and learners of English, especiallyVietnamese learners of English, avoid miscommunication, hence cultural shock andcommunication breakdown

II AIMS OF THE STUDY:

The research is intended to thoroughly contrast verbal criticism in English andVietnamese from cultural perspective, thus partly helping to increase the awareness of thesimilarities and differences between English and Vietnamese cultures in giving criticisms Toachieve this overall purpose, the study aims at:

 Describing and classifying the criticizing strategies in English and Vietnamese

 Comparing and contrasting different strategies employed by Vietnamese andEnglish people when they give criticism in their own language and culture

 Studying how culture exerts its influence on English and Vietnamese in givingcriticism

III SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

For the limited time and scope, paralinguistic (speech, tone, and pitch) andextralinguistic (facial expression, eye contact, postures, orientation, proximity, movement,clothing artifacts etc.) factors, important though they obviously are and the author is wellaware of, play a vital part of effective interpersonal communication in accompanying andamending the spoken word(s), the study is only confined to the verbal aspect of the speech act

of giving criticism

Secondly, to raise learner’s awareness of the wide application of criticizing strategies,the data used for illustration and exemplification are taken mainly from short stories andnovels in English and Vietnamese The collection of the data in this ways brings us someconvenience for the contrastive study: it yields a wide range of strategies, used by people fromdifferent cultures in different situations, which a questionnaire or an interview, highly or tosome extent controlled, would not have offered.

Finally, by English, the author means the English language as a mother tongue; nodistinction will be made between American English, British English, Australian English and

so on

IV METHODOLOGY:

Since the main purpose of the study is to compare and contrast verbal expressions ingiving criticism in English and Vietnamese, the result of which will be exploited for languagelearning and teaching; therefore, describing, comparing and contrastive analysis prove to bethe best candidates of all Thus, the thesis will be oriented in the following steps:

- identify strategies of criticism in both English and Vietnamese stories in the source

of books

- classify them into sub-strategies

- describe them in each language to find out the typical features of each strategies

sub analyse, compare, and contrast criticizing strategies based on the cultural features

in two languages to point out the basic similarities and differences in this aspect

- reach the comments and conclusions on the subject under research

- make some necessary pedagogical suggestions

In order to facilitate the process of doing the comparison and best exploit ourknowledge of English language, most the the description in this work is based towards Englishand Engilsh is considered as the basic language and Vietnamese as the comparative language

Source of samples of data: The corpus with 1,100 examples will be collected from

selected English, American, Newzealand and Australian short stories and novels and fromVietnamese short stories in early years of 19th century and modern ones before and after 1945.The information about the source of the data is given in parentheses.

V LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

This study certainly has some limitations

The research cannot include the paralinguistic and non-linguistic aspects due to thelimit of time, which will certainly limit the authenticity of the data and then the pragmaticeffect of the expected results Secondly, the data in this study are taken from a number of shortstories and novels in English and Vietnamese, thus this reveals the disadvantage of missingsuprasegmental features such as stress and intonation In addition, this research is carried out

by a non-native speaker of English, so there must be a lack of native linguistic sensitivity inanalyzing

In view of these limitations, the research can only be regarded as a preliminary studyand any conclusions are tentative

VI RESEARCH DESIGN:

As for the design of the study, it is composed of three main parts:

Part A - Introduction - introduces the rationale, scope, aims and methodology of the study as

well as the way to collect the data

Part B - Development - consists of three chapters They are:

- Chapter I encompasses the relationship between language and culture, the notions

of speech acts, theories of politeness, as well as the aspects of C.A in culture,which are relevant to the purpose of the study

- Chapter II investigates the similarities and differences in the criticism strategies in

English and Vietnamese In this chapter, what is meant by criticizing in this study

is taken into account Then the criticism strategies as well as the criticism modifiers

in the two languages will be described, compared, and contrasted

- Chapter III deals with, on the basis of the previous chapter, the implications to theteaching of the criticism strategies in English to the Vietnamese learners of Englishfrom a socio-cultural perspective

Part C – Conclusion – draws conclusions of the study and proposes some suggestions for

further research

PART B DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This chapter reviews the theories and literature relevant to the topic under investigation

in the present study The first two sections mention to contrastive analysis (I.1) and therelationship of language and culture (I.2) The final two sections offer two linguistic notions:speech acts (I.3) and politeness (I.4)

I.1 CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS (C.A.)

Contrastive Analysis dates back to the 1950s when it was first developed and practiced

as an application of structural linguistics to language teaching As regards its definition James,

Hence, in the preface of his book Contrastive Analysis, Carl James (1980) states,

“In the heyday of structural linguistics and the pattern practice language teaching methodology which derived insights and justification from such an approach to

linguistic description, nothing seemed of greater potential value to language teachers and learners than a comparative and contrastive description of the learner’s mother tongue and the target language.”

(In the Introduction of Contrastive Analysis by Carl James, 1980)

Contrastive analysis is defined, according to James (1980), as a form of interlanguagestudy and a central concern of applied linguistics As a matter of fact, C.A has had much tooffer not only to practical language teaching, but also to translation theory, the description ofparticular languages, language typology and the study of language universals In relation tobilingualism, C.A is concerned with how a monolingual becomes bilingual; in other words, it

is concerned with the effects exerted by the first language (L1) on the foreign language beinglearnt (L2) Thus, C.A has been a preferable method used by Vietnamese linguists in recentyears as it enables them to contrast Vietnamese with other languages not only of the sametypologies, but also of different ones It also helps bring out many interesting differences andsimilarities between languages, which make a great contribution to lightening the languageteaching and learning burden

It has been suggested that there are two kinds of C.A.: theoretical and applied ones

According to Fisiak et al (cited by James, C., 1980:142), theoretical C.As “do not investigate how a given category present in language A is presented in language B Instead they look for the realization of a universal category X in both A and B.” Meanwhile, applied C.As are

“preoccupied with the problem of how a universal category X, realized in language A as Y, is rendered in language B.” That means applied C.As are unindirectional whereas theoretical

C.As are static, because they do not need to reflect any directionality of learning, which isillustrated in the following diagram:

Theoretical C.As Applied C.As

Figure 1 Theoretical C.As and Applied C.As

As James (1980: 142-143) states, applied C.As are interpretations of theoretical C.As.rather than independent executions, since an applied C.A executed independently is liable tolose its objectivity; that is, its predictions will tend to be based on teachers’ experience oflearners’ difficulties rather than derived from linguistic analysis

Mentioning to learning theory, particularly the theory of “transfer”- a term used bypsychologists in their account of the way in which present learning is affected by pastlearning, Lado (1957: 2) states,

“ individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture – both productively when attempting to speak the language and to act in the culture, and receptively when attempting to grasp and to understand the language and culture

as practiced by natives.”

In fact, there are two types of transfer, namely “positive transfer” (or “facilitation”)and “negative transfer” (or “interference”), which may occur during the process of learninglanguage by learners who have already attained considerable degrees of competence in theirfirst language:

- “Positive transfer” (or “facilitation”): the transfer makes learning easier and may occur when both the first language and second language have similar features

- “Negative transfer” (or “interference”): the constraint of L1 or the borrowing of a first language pattern or rule leads to an error or appropriate form in the foreign language

Therefore, to gain the effective teaching and learning of the L2, it is necessary forteachers to recognize the potential transfer problem areas and integrate strategies that wouldhelp the learner to overcome difficulties and to avoid errors attributed to these transferproblem areas

Considering that learning difficulty and differences between L1 and L2 are directly and

proportionally related, Lado, R (1957: 1-2) suggests, “the student who comes in contact with

a foreign language will find some features of it quite easy and others extremely difficult Those elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him and those elements that are different will be difficult.”

However, Whitman and Jackson (cited by James, C., 1980: 188) argues that “relative similarity, rather than difference, is directly related to levels of difficulty.” What is more, Lee

(cited by James, C., 1980) concludes that “different” or “exotic” languages may not bedifficult to learn, for L1 and L2 are so far apart that there is a very little or no L1 interference.Supporting that point of view, Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis claimed that the principalbarrier to second language acquisition is the interference of the first language systems with thesecond language system and that a scientific, structural analysis of the two languages inquestion will yield a taxonomy of linguistic contrasts between them which in turn wouldenable linguists to predict the difficulties a learner would encounter

Apart from that, human learning theories highlighted interfering elements of learning,concluding that where no interference could be predicted, no difficulty would be experiencedsince one could transfer positively all other items in a language Lado, R (1957: vii) in the

preface to his book “Linguistics Across Culture”, says: “The Plan of the book rests on the assumption that we can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulties in learning, and those that will not cause difficulty by comparing systematically the language and the culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the students.” Then in Chapter One of the book, he continues: “ in the comparison between native and foreign languages lies in the key to ease or difficulty in foreign language learning.”

Hence, it is widely agreed that comparison of cultures is considered as an integral part

of contrastive linguistics and of the language learning and teaching

As Lado (1957, cited in Valdes, 1986) notes, when comparing two cultures we must bevery careful in the generalisations we make and be prepared to revise or change these

generalisations as our understanding of another culture develops However, generalisations are

flexible and change over time with our experiences (Clarke and Clarke 1990, 34) Therefore,

we should ignore other aspects of culture such as gender, class, or ethnicity, and Kramsch(1993, 49) urges to consider this range of diversity within culture when teaching cultures

However, our view of culture has broadened to include a more interpretive approach towardsculture (Kramsch 1993, 24) Instead of just being concerned with the facts of one culture theemphasis has moved towards interpreting culture based on cross-cultural understanding,involving comparisons and contrasts with a learners' native culture and the culture of thelanguage they are studying (see Valdes 1986) Dunnet et al suggest six aspects of culture thatlearners and teachers should be familiar with:

(1) Languages cannot be translated word-for-word … (2) The tone of a speaker's voice (theintonation pattern) carries meaning… (3) Each language-culture employs gestures and bodymovements which convey meaning… (4)…languages use different grammatical elements fordescribing all parts of the physical world (5) All cultures have taboo topics… (6) In personalrelationships, the terms for addressing people vary considerably among languages (1986, 148-149)

Therefore, teachers and learners should be aware of these features and be prepared toanalyse both their own culture and the target culture according to such criteria

I.2 LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

I.2.1 The relationship of language and culture:

Language, according to “Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary” (1992: 506), is

defined as “systems of sounds, words, patterns, etc used by humans to communicate thoughts and feeling” Crystal (1992: 212) also shares this definition of language when the researcher considers language as “the systematic, conventional use of sounds, signs, or written symbols in

a human society for communication and self-expression” Thus, language is one of the highest

and the most amazing product of human being that helps distinguish them from other creaturesand that serves the main purpose of communication

Language, according to Kramsch (1998:3), is “the principle means whereby we conduct our social lives” That means language is considered as the medium through which a

culture is reflected That point of view is also shared by Saville-Troike (1982; 35), which says,

“there is a correlation between the norm and content of a language and the beliefs, values and

needs present in the culture of its speaker” In addition, sharing with Brown’s and

Saville-Troike’s idea about the relationship between language and culture, Kramsch in his book

Language and Culture (1998) emphasizes this correlation by presenting three functions of

language related to culture:

- Language expresses cultural reality

- Language embodies cultural reality.

- Language symbolizes cultural reality

Therefore, it is widely believed that the correlation between language and culture isobviously undeniable

What can be derived from the above discussions is the relationship between languageand culture In order to make this interrelation more explicit, it is necessary to clarify what

“culture” is limited to products of culture which include visible expressions and invisiblepatterns –the hidden ones Therefore, culture in this point of view also refers to the oftenhidden patterns of human interactions, expressions and viewpoints that people in one cultureshare Because of its submergence, it is difficult for most people to realize cultures deeply andencounter in communication

When defining the notion of culture, Goodenough (1981; in Wardhaugh, 1991: 217)

affirms, “Culture is a sort of knowledge which everyone must possess to function within a society.” What is more, “culture is everything that people have, think and do as a member of

a society” (Gary Ferrando, 1996; in Quang, N., 2005: 38) It can be interpreted from these

points of view that culture is the knowledge of patterns (models/ schemes/ behaviors) learned

and shared by a set of people in a community and that the process related to the products ofculture and the dynamic factors of the creations of cultural products are paid more attention.

Culture is also defined as ‘human’s behaviors’ by another group of researchers, whoemphasize on the mechanisms of human’s behaviors One of the typical definitions of

‘culture’ related to human’s behaviors is Clinfford Geertz’s (1973: 383), in which culture is:

a The total way of life of a person

b The social legacy that individual acquires from his group

c The way of thinking, feeling and believing

d An abstraction from behavior

e A theory on the part of the anthropologist about the way in which a group of people

in fact behave

f A store house of pooled learning

g A set of standardised orientation, to recurrent problems

h Learned behavior

i A mechanism for the normative of behavior

j A set techniques for adjusting both of the external environment, to other men

k A precipitate of history

l A behavior map, sieve, matrix

In addition, sharing the idea about the influence of culture on people’s behaviors,Seelye (in Fantini, A.E., 1997: 23) has his own definition:

“Culture is the systematic, rather arbitrary, more or less coherent, group-invented, and group-shared creed from the past that defines the shape of “reality” and assigns the sense and worth of things; it is modified by each generation and in response to adaptive pressures; it provides the code that tells people how to behave predictably and acceptably, the cipher that allows them to derive meaning from language and other symbols, the map that supplies the behavial options for satisfying human needs”.

Parson, T (1949: 8) also argues, “Culture … consists in those patterns relative to behavior and the products of human action…” Thus, “culture” influences behaviors and it is

structured system of patterned behavior (Lado, R., 1957:110)

Laying the emphasis on the invisible and non-natural aspect of “culture”, a number ofresearchers consider “culture” as the products of “consciousness” and “behavior” Onerepresentative of this group, Levin and Adelman (1993: XVIII) states,

“Culture is a shared background resulting from a common language and communication style, customs, beliefs, attitudes and values” Richards et al (in Clyne, 1996: 94) shares the same idea with Levine and Adelman’s and Banks et al’s (1989 :72) when he defines “Culture is a total set of belief, attitudes, customs, behaviors, and social habits.”

Culture, according to Redder and Rehbein (1980; in Clyne, 1996), is “an ensemble of social experiences, thought structures, expectations, and practices of action, which has the quality of a “mental apparatus” Moreover, “culture is the collective programming of the mind which distinguished the members of one group or category of people from another”

(Hofstede, 1984: 22)

In short, learning about cultures is absolutely enriching The more one knows others,

the more she sees her own culture more clearly Therefore, Quang, N (2005:5) states, “by learning about contrast, we can better understand how cultures influence individuals and their communication with others”

I.2.2 The culture of Vietnam

The culture of Vietnam, according to Wikipedia encyclopedia, is considered as one ofthe oldest in the Southest Asia region Although Vietnam lies geographically in SoutheastAsia, long periods of Chinese domination and influence has resulted in the emergence of manyEast Asian characteristics in Vietnamese culture While Chinese culture has the largest foreign

influence on traditional Vietnamese culture, there is also a much smaller influence from theCham and later Western cultures (most notably that of France, Russia and the United States).

Vietnam’s population (in 2006) was 84.402.966, with a population density of 253persons per km² Most people live in or near the densely populated Red River or Mekongdeltas, which are Vietnam’s two major cultivated areas The Red River Delta, in the North, isthe cradle of the Vietnamese civilization and rice culture The Mekong Delta, a very fertileland in the South with a favorable climate, is the largest rice growing area in Vietnam It can

be said that Vietnamese culture has evolved on the basis of the rice culture Thus, the lifestyle

of the Vietnamese population is closely related to the village and native land It helps to shapethe community value and especially patriotism among the Vietnamese It is the fact that theVietnamese people are well known for fiercely protectors of their independence sovereigntyfor 2000 years Most of the Vietnamese are always willing to devote all through their lives ofstruggle for national liberation and independence when needed

Another noticeable feature is the familial relation of Vietnamese culture value If it can

be said that Western cultures value individualism, then it can also be said that Eastern culturesvalue the roles of family (from Wikipedia encyclopedia) Indeed, you cannot understand theVietnamese until you first understand the importance of the family As in many other Asiancountries, family is the foundation of Vietnamese society Many families have 3 generationsliving under one roof Today, however, more and more couples are choosing to move intotheir own homes In Vietnamese society, decision-making is a family affair Children cannotmake decisions for themselves if their parents are still alive

About 74% of Vietnamese currently live in rural areas, and although many are beinginfluenced by the process of Westernization, traditional rural customs and traditions still play avital role in shaping the culture of Vietnam In rural Vietnam, kinship plays an important role

As a result, there is a complex hierarchy of relationships This complex system of relationships

is conveyed particularly through the Vietnamese language, which has an extensive array ofhonorifics to signify the status of the speaker in regards to the person they are speaking to.This helps to form the personalism in Vietnamese culture value This is also in agreement with

Phan Ngoc (cited by Nguyễn Văn Độ, 2004:146), who says, “Western culture value isindividualism, whereas Vietnamese culture value the personalism.”

Furthermore, a Vietnamese proverb says, “While drinking water, we must be grateful for its source” This is why, in almost every rural village or urban district, a temple has been

built to worship the tutelary spirit who founded the locality Today people still worship thetutelary spirit along with the national heroes who sacrified their lives for the country

In addition, religion has exerted a deep influence on Vietnamese culture and theVietnamese concept of life Vietnamese religious beliefs have been influenced by combined

values of the three traditional religions forming the Tam Giáo (“triple religion”) Buddhism,

introduced in Vietnam in the 2nd century, is considered as the official ideology Theideological influence of Buddhism remained very strong in social and cultural life.Confucianism, originated from China and propagated to Vietnam in the early Chinesedomination period, is a moral doctrine advising people that they have a part of responsibility

in their fate, that they must love one another, must not think of abstract things of the nextworld, and pay much attention to education Due to the influence of Confucianism, theVietnamese became more hardworking, friendly and scholars with knowledge The centralidea of Taoism, founded by Lao Tseu, is to live purely and simply It replies on harmonybetween Man, Nature and a Universal Order

Besides the “triple religion”, Vietnamese life was also profoundly influenced by thepractice of ancestor worship as well as native animism Most Vietnamese people, regardless ofreligious denomination, practice ancestor worship and have an ancestor altar at their home orbusiness, a testament to the emphasis Vietnamese culture places on filial duty

In sum, Vietnam is at the crossroads between South East Asian and the offshoreislands Its culture bears common features of the South East Asian cultural region, while alsohaving absorbed the quintessence of cultures from other parts of the world However, theVietnamese highest culture values are patriotism, community value, familial value andpersonalism It is culture values that help to shape patriotism, peace loving, closeness,friendliness, sincerity, straightforwardness and interdependence in each of Vietnamese people

I.2.3 The culture of England

British customs and traditions are famous all over the world When people think ofBritain they often think of people drinking tea, eating fish and chips and wearing bowler hats,but there is more to Britain than just those things We have English and British traditions ofsport, music, food and many royal occasions There are also songs, sayings and superstitions

Britain, the largest island of the British Isles, includes the countries of England, Walesand Scotland Being an island has affected the British people’s characteristics British peoplestill have an island mentally: independent, separate and on the edge of things British familiesare often criticized for they way they do things separately, though many people believe that it

is good for children to learn to be independent From an early age, children are encouraged todecide what they want to do, eat or wear, and their parents try to respect their opinions Uponreaching their appropriate age, children are encouraged to “live the nest” and begin anindependent life Compared to that familial culture value of Vietnam, the members of a family

in Britain usually do not share the rame roof In Britain, it is common for members of theextended family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.) to live far away Some grandparents seevery little of their grandchildren Families try to stay in contact with each other by writing andtelephoning, by visiting occasionally, and sometimes by holding big family reunions Sincethey see less of each other, their concern for each other is not so strong It is the fact thatalthough family loyalty is still important, and many people feel they have a duty to care formembers of their family when they need it, it is not the part of British culture for old people tolive with younger members of their family Most elderly people live in their own homes and,when they cannot care for themselves, move into an old people’s home or a nursing home

When the community value is concerned, it is rare to find people who have lived alltheir lives in one community As a result, the British also have no the same community value

as the Vietnamese do

Furthermore, the British are known as perfectly polite and proper, always saying

“please”, “thank you” and “excuse me” British people are also famous for their reserve andtheir “stiff upper lip” (not giving their opinion or showing their feeling in public), which

makes them seem formal and distant The view of Britain as a country where everyonebehaves in a strange but nice way is not realistic For many American people the British aresnobbish and do not seem very friendly In addition, the British often cause confusion andupset by not saying what they mean; for example, they usually say, “That’s no problem” whenthey know that it will be a big problem

Modern Britain is a multi-faith community, in which many religions are practiced, butthe main religion is Christianity The Church of England functions as the established church inEngland Both the Church of England and the Catholic Church in England and Wales tracetheir formal history from the 597 Augustinian mission to the English Other churches whichhave started in England include the Methodist church, the Quakers and the Salvation Army

Many British people believe that luck plays an important part in their lives, they thususually wish somebody luck (good luck) in many situations British people learn superstitionswhile they are children, and though few adults will admit to being superstitious, many act onsuperstitions out of habit The British are also interested in fate and in knowing what willhappen to them in the future Most people know which sign of the zodiac they were bornunder, and read their horoscope or “stars” in magazines, though only a few take what is saidseriously British people may thank their lucky stars for a piece of good fortune When things

go wrong thay may say “Just my luck!”, blaming their own bad luck, or look back on anunlucky act that has, in some unexplained way, caused their current problem

In short, Britain according to many Western scholars contains a rich mixture of manydifferent cultures (England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland) However, it is word-wide agreedthat British people are independent, separate, and reserve In addition, individualism is also themain ego in British culture

I.3 THE THEORY OF SPEECH ACTS

According to Levinson (1983), speech act theory is one of the central issues in thestudy language use In this section, the works by Austin, Searle, and Yule - the pioneers in thefield, are briefly reviewed in order to provide theoretical frameworks

I.3.1 Notion and classification of speech acts:

The notion of speech acts dates back the British philosopher of language John Austin

(1962) In his very influential work, ‘How to do things with words’, Austin defines speech acts

as the actions performed in saying something or actions performed using language In fact,when speaking, we perform certain linguistic actions such as giving reports, makingstatements, asking questions, giving warnings, making promises and so on In other words,speech acts are all the acts we perform through speaking – all the things we do when wespeak Austin (1962) distinguished between the three kinds of acts, namely locutionary,

illocutionary, and perlocutionary then Of these, a locutionary act is the act of saying something in the full sense of “say” An illocutionary act is the one of using the sentence to perform a particular function; and a perlocutionary act is the one of producing some kinds of

effects that are produced by means of saying something Among above three kinds of acts, the

illocutionary act which Austin later termed “speech act” is the core interest of Austin as well

as of other pragmatists (Levinson, 1983)

Meanwhile, Searle (1974) argue that each type of illocutionary acts requires certainexpected or appropriate conditions called felicity conditions These conditions relate to thebeliefs and attitudes of the Speaker and the Hearer and to their mutual understanding of theuse of the linguistic devices for information What is more, Searle (1965), cited by Minh,(2005, p 11) emphasized that Austin’s felicity conditions are not only dimensions in whichutterances can go wrong but they are also constitutive of the various illocutionary forces, andtherefore, can differentiate illocutionary acts from one anther Searle classified those felicityconditions into four kinds, which are:

(1) Preparatory conditions: The person performing the speech act has to have quality to

do so

(2) Sincerity conditions: The speech act must be performed in a sincere manner

(3) Propositional context conditions: The utterance must have exact content

(4) Essential conditions: The speech act has to be executed in the correct manner.

(Searle, 1979, p.44)Both Austin and Searle has paved the way to research into linguistic functions instead

of linguistic forms as is often observed in earlier linguistic studies They also have tried toclassify speech acts and put them under categories

Austin (1962) categorizes five classes of speech acts as:

(1) Verdictives : “the giving of a verdict”, e.g assess, appraise …

(2) Exercitives : “exercising of powers, rights, or influence”, e.g command, direct (3) Commissives : “committing the speaker”, e.g promise, propose …

(4) Behabitives : “reaction to other people’s behavior and fortunes”, e.g apology,

thank …

(5) Expositives : “expounding of views, the conducting of arguments and the

classifying of usages and of references”, e.g accept, agree

However, this classification is criticized for basing mainly on the performative verbthrough which a speech act is expressed and having no clear or consistent principle or set ofprinciples based on which Austin constructed his taxonomy Thus, many speech actsaccording to his classification, may belong to two different categories

Searle (1979), finding fault with Austin’s, suggests his own classification of speechacts These speech acts are further described as follows:

(1) Representatives: representing states of affairs (e.g.: assertions, conclusions, or

(4) Expressives: expressing feelings about states of affairs (e.g.: apologies,

Another approach to distinguish types of speech acts can be made on the relationship

between structure and function (Yule, 1996: 54) He divided speech acts into direct speech act and indirect speech act and defines,

“Whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function, we have

a direct speech acts Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure and a function, we have an indirect speech act.”

The utterance “Turn on the fan, please”, for example, the speaker (S) has directly

requested the hearer (H) to turn on the fan The syntactic structure of this utterance indicates astraightforward request in English Nevertheless, the same request can be made in a more tacit,

indirect manner to achieve the same result; S may say something like “It’s hot in here”

I.3.2 Speech acts across cultures:

Speech acts like greeting, complimenting, requesting, thanking or giving advice and so

on are present in almost all cultures In principle, these speech acts can be fulfilled in any

language, but they are performed in different manners and by different means Sharing thesame point of view, Hymes (1964) and Saville-Troike (1982) state that there is a closeconnection between language, society and culture and that all speech acts and speechbehaviors are governed by social norms That explains why Wierzbicka (1985: 146) observes,

“Cultural norms reflected in speech acts differ not only from one language to another, but also from one regional and social variety to another.” What is more, “Every culture has its own repertoire of characteristic speech acts and speech genres.”

(Wierzbicka, 1991: 149)

Hence, governed and conditioned by our culture and though the contact with othermembers in our cultural environment, everyone sets own “cultural schemata” that helpshim/her interpret what is wrong and what is right These standards are appropriate in ourcommunity, but when coming into contact with a new culture, if we interpret other’s behavioraccording to these standards, there may be arise some cross-cultural problems in our owncommunication that potentially lead to cultural conflict

Therefore, the study on speech acts across cultures is believed to be essential or vitalfor not only a person who expects to survive in a new environment, but also for a learner of aforeign language who expects to succeed in communication

I.3.3 The speech act of criticizing:

In real-life communication, the speech act of criticizing – as in the case of complaining

- has proven to be composed of different speech acts and of great risk of causing facethreatening act (FTA) It is, therefore, suggested that studies on criticizing as a speech actacross cultures should be carried out with the hope of contributing to the successful cross-cultural communication

The speech act of criticizing has been studied by different researchers such as Houseand Kasper (1981), Tracy, van Dusen, and Robison (1987), Tracy and Eisenberg (1990),Wajnryb (1993, 1995) and Toplak and Katz (2000) and others

Tracy, et al (1987) investigated the characteristics of criticisms by people fromdifferent cultural backgrounds and distinguished “good” from “bad” criticisms According tohim, a good criticism is one that displays a positive language and manner; suggests specificchanges and possible critic; states justified and explicited reasons for criticizing and does notviolate the relationship between interlocutions and is accurate Supporting that point of view,Wajnrub (1993) holds “an effective criticism must be kept simple specific, well-grounded,linked to strategies for improvement and delivered as an attempt to share experience It alsoneeds to be softened by means of a number of strategies These include ‘measuring words’ (toavoid being too negative), ‘soft-pedaling’ (i.e using internal and external modifications tolessen the harshness of the criticism), ‘using affirmative language’ such as comfortingmessages, ‘distancing and neutralizing’ (to depersonalize the criticism) and ‘using negotiatinglanguage’ (to avoid imposing on the addressee.) (Wajnryb, 1993; cited by Minh, 2005: 15).That point of view seems to be supported by Wajnryb (1995) who preferred a direct and

‘economical’ criticism rather than indirect, wordy, and ‘time-wasting’ one

Along these perceptions, Toplak and Katz (2000) focused on the difference betweenthe speaker and the addressee when giving their judgments of the criticism given, “Theaddressee tented to view sarcasm as more severe than the speaker intended.” However, theyalso discovered that sarcasm was not perceived by the recipient as having as negative animpact on the relationship between the interlocutors as direct criticisms

Tracy and Eissenberg (1990) in their investigation into the preferences for messageclarity and politeness in giving criticism found that among people from different races andgender the superiors tended to give more weight to message clarity that did subordinates andthat this preference also varied according to gender and race

Overall, the speech act of criticizing has attracted many researchers thanks to its greatcontribution to thoroughly deep understanding of the field Yet, the definition of this speechact is still not mentioned, which makes it difficult to compare and contrast the findings of thevarious studies

One of the most widely-used definition in the study of the field is Tracy et al’s (1987),

in which they consider both criticizing and complaining as the act of ‘finding fault’ and define

these two speech acts as ‘negative evaluation of a person or an act for which he/she is deemedresponsible.’ However, Tracy et al’s (1987: 56) suggest two main points to distinguishbetween criticizing and complaining, which are “content and form and the salient roleidentity” of the giver and the receiver: criticisms are usually associated with higher socialstatus and complaints with lower social status, although there may also be exceptions

Another definition of criticism is found in House and Kasper (1981), who considercriticisms, accusations, and reproaches as different kinds of complaints Their reasons for thisare that all of these speech acts share the same two features, namely “post-event” and “anti-speaker” However, one might argue against this definition at least on the following grounds.Firstly, a criticism does not necessarily have to be always targeted at an event which happensearlier in the sense used by House and Kasper It can also be made about something static,permanent, and independent of chronological time such as a person’s personality orappearance Secondly, the feature “anti-speaker” seems more applicable to complaints than tocriticisms as pointed out by Tracy et al (1987) Both the illocutionary force and theillocutionary point that a critic and a complainer intend are inherently different In criticizing,

S may intend H to try to improve to his or her own benefits, or S just may wish to express his

or her opinion known In complaining, S implies that something bad has happened to himself

or herself, or that H has done something bad to him or her and therefore expects a repair fromthe latter Thus, criticisms are usually, though not necessarily, associated with constructiveattitudes or at least with non-self involvement, which is not the case with complaints

In light of this discussion, it is apparent that compared to other speech acts, ourunderstanding of the speech act of criticizing is rather limited due to the fact that this speechact is under-researched in literature It is therefore necessary that more studies be conducted toshed lights on the pragmatic properties of criticizing, thus supplementing the existing body ofspeech act research, which is presently confined to a rather small set of speech acts (Ellis,1994)

I.4 THEORIES OF POLITENESS

“Politeness is basic to the production of social order, and a precondition of human cooperation … any theory which provides an understanding of this phenomenon at the same time goes to the foundation of human social life.”

(Gumper, cited by Brown and Levinson, 1987)

It can be interpreted from Gumper’s words that politeness is so crucial a notion in life communication That partially explains why most research into politeness as a linguisticdimension has been centred on one of the following four perspectives : conversational-maxims(Lakoff, 1973; Leech, 1983), face-saving (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987), social norms(Jespersen, 1965), and conversational-contracts (Fraser, 1975; Fraser and Nolen, 1981; Fraser,1990) These perspectives are presented as below:

real-I.4.1 Conversational-maxims

Lakoff (1973), basing on Grice’s construct of Conversational Principles, has described the following three different politeness sub-rules a speaker might follow in choosing to be polite :

Rule 1 DON’T IMPOSE

This is the most formal rule and appropriate to situations in which there is an acknowledged difference in power and status between the participants Accordingly, S will avoid, mitigate, or ask permission or apologize for making the addressee do anything which A does not want to do More particularly, a speaker chooses his acts

so as to minimize the extent which he imposes on the hearers, which means not giving

or seeking personal opinions, avoiding personal reference, avoiding reference to family, personal problems, habit, and even avoiding earthy, slangthy, merely emotional language, and any topics which are considered taboo

Rule 2 OFFER OPTIONS

It is a more informal rule and appropriate to situations in which the participants have approximately equal status and power, but are not socially close In general, if S wishes to persuade A of some view or course of action, S will phrase his speech so that

A does not have to acknowledge S’s intent

Rule 3 ENCOURAGE FEELINGS OF CAMARADERIE

This rule is appropriate for close friends or intimates In intimate politeness, almost any topic of conversation is fair game, assuming that with a close friend, one should be able to discuss anything In contrast to informal politeness, the governing principle here is not only to show an active interest in the other, but asking personal questions and making personal remarks, but also to show regard and trust by being open about the details of one’s own life, experiences, feelings, and the like

In a later work, Lakoff (1990) states that those three sub-rules of politeness may notnecessarily have an equal weight in different cultures European cultures, for example, mayprefer Distance (sub-rule 1), while Asian cultures can be Deferential (sub-rule 2) and modernAmerican culture to Camaraderie (sub-rule 3)

Leech (1983) introduces a number of maxims based on Gricean Cooperative Principlethat explain the relationship between sense and force in conversations The main maxims arepresented as follows:

(1) Tact Maxim: Minimize hearer’s costs; maximize hearer’s benefit.

(2) Generosity Maxim: Minimize your own benefit; maximize your hearer’s benefit (3) Approbation Maxim: Minimize hearer’s dispraise; maximize hearer’s praise.

(4) Modesty Maxim: Minimize self-praise; maximize self-dispraise.

(5) Agreement Maxim: Minimize disagreement between yourself and others; maximize

agreement between yourself and others

(6) Sympathy Maxim: Minimize antipathy between yourself and others; maximize

sympathy between yourself and others

Like Lakoff, Leech also suggests these maxims have different weightings in differentcultures, which accounts for cross-cultural variations in politeness norms For example, the

Maxim of Tact, according to Leech, is considered as the most important kind of politeness in

English-speaking countries

I.4.2 Face-saving:

“The most influential theory of politeness was, however, put forward by Brown and Levinson (1978, 1987)” and “Central to Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness is the concept of face.”

as one’s desire to be free from imposition from others

Since these two types of face operate pan-culturally, they need to be continuallyattended in the process of communication so that politeness can be achieved Furthermore,Brown and Levinson also claim that certain speech acts are inherently face-threatening, i.e.they may threaten either the positive or negative face of the interlocutors involved

On these grounds, Brown and Levinson (1978: 60) propose a chart of five strategies tominimize risk of losing face, numbering from 1 to 5 or from greater to lesser risk of face

losing, respectively (see Figure 2) This chart receives high appreciation from many

researchers

As can be seen from Figure 2, S can choose either to “go on record”, i.e perform adirect speech act, or to “go off record”, i.e opt for more indirect strategies such as metaphor,irony, rhetorical questions, and all kinds of hints If S chooses a direct strategy, he/she caneither “go bald on record” without compensating for it or “soften” it by various politenessstrategies In case S decides to modify the illocutionary force of the speech act he/she intends

to perform, he/she will have to consider the pay-off that the use of each type of politenessstrategy brings and then decisions accordingly

In a word, cultures seem to differ in the way they realize their languages via speechacts Thus, this view of politeness and their claim to its universality have still been discussed

I.4.3 Social-norms:

The social- norm approach is principally based on a number of studies of orientalpoliteness and thus serves as an appropriate model for accounting politeness in these cultures.Nwoye (1992), for example, claims that in a society where public face ( related to socialnorms and expected behavior) is placed over private face (related to individual desire), it ismore important for individuals to discern what is appropriate and act accordingly than to actaccording to strategies designed to accomplish a particular inter-personal goal Whereas,Matsumoto (1989) and Ide (1989) basing on the studies on the honorific system in Japaneseargue that in a culture where the individual is more concerned with comforting to the socialnorms, it is discernment but not face that underlines the notion of politeness and governs theinteractant’s behavior

Supporting that point of view, Gu (1990: 245) defines the politeness principle as “a sanctioned belief that an individual’s social behavior ought to live up to the expectations belief that an individual’s social behavior ought to live up to the expectations of respectfulness, modesty, attitudinal warmth and refinement.” What is more, Gu on the basis

of Leech’s (1983) model proposed his own model which involved four maxims such as denigration, Address, Tact and Generosity The Self-denigration Maxim dictates S to

Self-‘denigrate Self and elevate Other’ The Address Maxim admonishes S to address H with an appropriate address term based on H’s social status, role and the S-H relationship The Tact and Generosity Maxims are close to Leech’s

1.4.4 Conversational-contracts:

Conversational-contract approach was adopted by Fraser (1990), who also adopts theGricean Cooperative Principle in its general sense and recognizes the importance ofGoffman’s notion of face The principle view in Fraser’s conversational-contract approach isthat interlocutors bring into their conversation an understanding of certain initial contractualrights and obligations, which are renegotiable as the conversation goes on and the contextchanges In Fraser’s (1990) point of view, politeness is considered as an on-going process andinvolves conformity to the expected social norms rather than “making the hearer feel good a laLakoff or Leech”, or “making the hearer not feel bad a la Brown and Levinson.” (Fraser, 1990: 233)

In sum, the notion of politeness in this approach has been discussed from variousperspectives Furthermore, politeness is also argued to be a complex notion, which does notnecessarily operate similarly in every society

CHAPTER II A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SPEECH ACT OF

CRITICIZING IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

This chapter investigates the similarities and differences in the criticism strategies in

English and in Vietnamese Firstly, it is essential to make clear what is meant by criticizing in

this study Then, the criticism strategies-semantic formulas and criticism modifiers in the twolanguages will be described, compared and contrasted Finally, the summary will highlight thedifferences and the similarities between the two languages with particular reference to thepoliteness strategies

II.1 THE SPEECH ACT OF CRITICIZING

According to Fraser, Rintell, Walters ( 1980: 78- 79), “every language makes available the same set of strategies – semantic formulas – for performing a given speech act … if one can request, for example, in one language by asking the hearer ( H) about his ability to do the act ( Can you do that?) by expressing one’s desire for the H to do the act ( I’d really appreciate if you’d do that), then these same semantic formulas – strategies – are available to the Ss of very other language.” In these authors’ opinions, they seem to be quite aware of

some cross linguistic differences in this respect, but they dismiss them as “minimal” As aresult, such point of view could probably be seriously dented by reference to almost anylanguage

In fact, when comparing selected speech acts from only two languages, the topic stillvast and could not be treated exhaustively in any work The cultural norms reflected in speechacts differ not only from one language to another, but also from one regional to social variety

to another

A criticism is defined as an illocutionary act whose illocutionary point is to givenegative evaluation on H’s behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products, etc for which he orshe may be held responsible This act is performed in hope of influencing H’s future actionsfor the better for his or her own benefit as viewed by S or to communicate S’s dissatisfaction/discontent with or dislike regarding what H has done but without the implicature that what Hhas done brings undesirable consequences to S (Adapted from Wierbicka, 1987)

Following Searle’s classification (1976), as a speech act, criticizing belongs to thegroup of expressives From S’s point of view, the preconditions of criticizing are:

1 The act performed or the choice made by H is considered inappropriate according

to a set of evaluative criteria that S holds or a number of values and norms that Sassumes to be shared between himself or herself and H

2 S holds that this inappropriate action or choice might bring unfavorableconsequences to H or to the general public rather than to S himself or herself

3 S feels dissatisfied with H’s inappropriate action or choice and feels an urge tomake his or her opinion known verbally

4 S thinks that his or her criticism will potentially lead to a change in H’s futureaction or behavior and believes that H would not otherwise change or offer aremedy for the situation without his or her criticism

(Adapted from Wierzbicka’s discussion of criticisms, 1897 and

Olshtain & Weibach’s discussion of complaints, 1993)Among the above preconditions, precondition 2 will make criticisms distinctive fromtheir two neighbors: complaints and blames In complaints, the inappropriate action carried out

by the complainee is seen as being at a cost to the complainer; whereas, blames are givenmainly to assign responsibility for a unsatisfactory situation which can lead to further negativeeffects for the blamer

In the reality of social interactions, criticizing has proven to be a speech act which has

a great potentiality of causing FTA Therefore, the appropriate strategies for criticizing need to

be investigated thoroughly and introduced to help communicators succeed in their interactions

Following Yule’s classification (1997), like all the other speech acts, criticizing can beeither a direct speech act or an indirect speech act That means a criticism can be realized byeither direct or indirect strategies When mentioning to the directness level of a criticism,

Blum-Kulka (1987) states, “the more indirect the mode of realization, the higher will be the interpretive demands” It can be interpreted from Blum-Kulka’s point of view that the

directness level of a criticism in this study was determined by the degree of illocutionary

transparency, and thus the amount of effort needed to interpret the illocutionary point of thiscriticism.

The speech act of criticisms were coded according to their: (1) realization strategies,(2) semantic formulas, and (3) modifiers

Criticism realization strategies are defined as the pragmalinguistic conventions ofusage by which criticisms are realized (Adapted from Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper’s,1989; and Takahashi’s definition, 1996)

Criticism semantic formulas are semantic structures that have acquired an illocutionaryforce representing criticisms (Adapted from Clark, 1979)

Modifiers are linguistic devices employed to help reduce the offence of a threatening act

face-II.2 CRITICIZING STRATEGIES AND SEMANTIC FORMULAS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

As stated in 2.1., a criticism can be realized by either direct or indirect strategies

II.2.1 Direct criticisms:

Direct criticisms are ones which explicitly point out the problem with H’s behavior,acts, choices, words, work, products and etc Direct strategies of criticisms in English andVietnamese can be realized via various sub-strategies

II.2.1.1 Negative evaluations:

II.2.1.1.1 In English:

When delivering a direct criticism, S can give out a negative evaluation on H’sbehavior, acts, choices, words, work, products, etc by using some negative-evaluativeadjectives For instance,

(1)It’s crazy Absolutely bloody crazy when only waiting a day or two to see if Joseph

comes back on duty at Twarda [19; 26]

(2)Stephen is wrong When a man like Stephen Powell decides to believe in ghosts, his mind must be sick [31; 92]

(3)David, you are rule and sullen I don’t like sullen boy [7; 17]

(4)It’s foolish to keep on like this [18; 84]

(5)That looks terrific, Lara [2; 32]

In all the above examples, we face with various adjectives with different meanings(crazy, wrong, rude and sullen, foolish, and terrific, etc ), but they are all used to serve thesame purpose – to give negative evaluations on H’s behavior, acts, choices, words, work,products and etc

In addition, the evaluative adjectives with positive meaning in English combined with

a negation will also express negative evaluations on H’s behavior, acts, choices, words, work,

products and etc In the examples below the positive adjectives good, nice, fair, professional, etc go with a negation “no” or “not”, which give negative evaluations on H’s behavior, acts,

choices, words, work, products, etc

(6)It was not particularly nice of you to give me a false name [21; 30]

(7) Oh, Misha That’s not fair [19; 59]

(8)It was no good, sir [29; 19]

(9)It is not professional It makes us look like a bunch of babies [1; 68]

II.2.1.1.2 In Vietnamese:

Interestingly, direct criticisms in the form of negative evaluations in Vietnamese werealso found From the data collected, Vietnamese S usually use the following patterns tocriticize H’s behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products, etc.:

1/ person criticized + negative-evaluative adjective + (modal words)

(10a) Em nhỏ nhen quá ! [48; 33]

(You are so selfish.)

(10b) Hắn bẩn tính lắm [40; 26]

(He plays dirty tricks on me.)

2/ action criticized + là + negative-evaluative adjective + (modal words)

(11a) Cười to như thế là bất lịch sự đấy [46; 28]

(It’s impolite when you laugh so loud)

(11b) Làm thằng đàn ông cứ thấy gái là nghệt mặt ra dở ẹt! [40; 73]

(He looks like an idiot in front of girls.)

(11c) Mày yêu hắn là dở hơi lắm [86; 29]

(You are a nut if you love him.)

3/ action criticized + như + phrase with negative meaning

(12a) Ăn nói với mẹ mà cứ như với đồ bán cá tôm ở ngoài chợ ấy [118; 28]

( You talk to your mother as if you were talking to a scoundrel.)

(12b) Mọi người tránh tao như tránh hủi ấy [125; 28]

(People stay away from me as I am a leprosy.)

4/ person criticized + negative-evaluative adjective + bỏ cha/ bỏ mẹ/ bỏ xừ

(13a) Mày trẻ con bỏ xừ Mày còn chê nó cái gì nữa? [97; 29]

(You are so childish What of him makes you unpleased?

(13b) Thằng bạn trai của bà ấy dốt bỏ mẹ [74; 29]

(Her boyfriend is very retarded.)

5/ person criticized+ negative-evaluative adjective + như + noun

(14) Lão ta đa nghi như Tào Tháo ấy [40; 30]

(He is so suspicious.)

6/ person criticized + đúng /thật/ quả là … + cái thứ /cái người /cái thằng/cái đồ/ cái loại/cái kiểu … + negative-evaluative adjective

(15a) Mày đúng là thằng đàn ông kỳ cục [40; 50]

(You are such a weird man.)

(15b) Anh rõ thật là người từ trên trời rơi xuống ấy Có mỗi cái số xe mà cũng không nhớ nổi [84; 29]

(You are such a fool, man! You can’t even remember your own license plate.)

(15c) Con nhỏ Tư Sương này quả là người đàn bà i-nốc [40; 68]

(Ms Suong is really a cold-blood young girl.)

(15d) Mày đúng là cái thứ ăn hại [64; 29]

(You are such a pervert.)

7/ person criticized + trông thế mà/ thế mà … + negative-evaluative adjective

(16) Cái con mẹ ấy trông thế mà ghê gớm quá [113; 28]

(She looks nice but so horrible.)

8/ Trông/ Nhìn + person criticized + đâu đến nỗi + thế mà + negative-evaluative adjective

(17) Trông con bé ấy đâu đến nỗi thế mà dám làm chuyện động trời [130; 28]

(That little girl looks so innocent, but what she had done is unbelievable.)

9/ Thời nào có cái loại/ cái ngữ …+ phrase with negative meaning + (modal word)

(18a) Thời nào lại có cái loại chồng suốt ngày chỉ rượu với tổ tôm thế này [47; 28] (How on earth having a husband like you, who is only drinking and gambling all day long.)

(18b) Thời đại nào có cái ngữ anh em như chúng mày, mới giàu mà đã lên mặt dạy đời rồi [42; 28]

(How on earth having people like you, who are looking at others as you’re Rockefellers’?)

10/ action criticized + thế mà không biết xấu hổ/ ngượng/ nhục/ hèn/ dơ…

(19a) Vợ liệt sĩ đi tằng tịu với thằng thương binh nguỵ thế mà không biết ngượng là gì [113; 29]

(Shame on her! How can a widow like her is dating with her past-husband’s enemy.)

(19b) Trốn vô nhà thiên hạ giữa đêm khuya lại còn đòi ăn cơm thế mà không biết xấu

hổ [69; 29]

(Shame on you! How can you braking into someone’s house at the mid-night and asking for food.)

11/ action criticized + không biết/ thạo… chỉ giỏi biết/ chỉ được cái + phrase with negative meaning

(20a) Việc nhà thì không biết chỉ được cái “ăn cơm nhà vác tù và hàng tổng”[113; 29] (He doesn’t care his own housework, but willing to do volunteer works.)

(20b) Ăn nói còn chưa thạo chỉ giỏi biết sửa lưng người khác [40; 44]

(You can’t behave yourself, how dare you to criticize others.)

12/ Đã + negative-evaluative adjective + lại còn + negative-evaluative adjective

(21a)Thật xấu hổ khi tao có đứa bạn như mày Đã hèn hạ lại còn đáng thương [38; 137]

(It’s a pity of me to have a friend like you You are such a pitiful and despicable

guy)

(21b) Lũ trẻ ranh ấy đã ngu dốt lại còn bất lịch sự nữa chứ [76; 28]

(Those little devils are discourteous and ignorant.)

13/ Mới nứt mắt/ tí tuổi… đã + phrase with negative meaning

(22a) Mới nứt mắt ra mà đã bày đặt nói dối, lừa gạt người khác [82; 28]

(How can you dare to trick others though you are still a little boy?)

(22b) Mới tí tuổi đầu mà đã đua đòi ăn chơi lêu lổng rồi [76; 28]

(Although he is still very young, he imitates to be a playboy.)

14/ Tưởng + person criticized + positive evaluative adjective + ai dè/ hóa ra…+ phrase with negative meaning

(23a) Tưởng anh can tràng dũng cảm lắm ai dè anh cũng thuộc loại nhát như thỏ đế [40; 40]

(I thought you are a brave man, but you are so chickened.)

(23b) Tưởng Nguyên phong trần lắm hóa ra cũng mít ướt như mình ấy chứ [111; 28] (I thought Nguyen is a tough guy, but he is a weak-hearted man like me.)

15/ person criticized + phrase or idiom with negative meaning

(24a) Chị ta cũng mèo mỡ lắm ! [113; 28]

(She is such a promiscuous woman.)

(24b) Cái ngữ nhà ấy cũng mặt dạn mày dày lắm [93; 29]

(He is such an impudent guy.)

16/ Negative-evaluative phrase

(25a) Quá quắt [69; 28]

( You’re absolutely unbearable!)

(25b) Lắm điều [51; 28]

(Talkative)

(25c) Vô ý vô tứ [43; 28]

(You are so careless!)

17/ Cái kiểu/lối/cách … + action criticized + hay/ lạ/ buồn cười… + (modal word)

(26a) Cái kiểu ăn nói của mày hay thật đấy [88; 28]

(The way you talk is ridisculous and unacceptable!)

(26b) Cái cách làm ăn của lũ chúng nó buồn cười thật [64; 28]

(The way they’re doing business is silly.)

18/ Ai lại/ ai đời/ có đời nào/ đời thuở nhà ai … + lại + action criticized + bao giờ/ như vậy/ như thế…

(27a) Đời thuở nhà ai mất của lại mang cái bộ dạng bình thản và nhơn nhớn quá như vậy [84; 28]

(I can’t understand what type of person he really is when he still kept so calm when finding himself to be lost property.)

(27b) Ai đời mới ba tuổi ranh lại đòi lấy vợ ở riêng như thế bao giờ [122; 28]

(Why he want to get married while he’s just a little kid?)

II.2.1.2.Disapproval:

II.2.1.2.1 In English:

Another way to deliver a criticism directly is to describe S’s attitude towards H’sbehavior, acts, choices, words, work, products, and etc This type of criticizing is categorized

as disapproval strategy

The S who disapproves of an action thinks that it is a bad thing to do, and imaginesthat he could prevent this action from happening by expressing his negative opinion of it, hementally expresses this opinion

To express disapprovals, English people usually use phrases I don’t think …’s very good, I’m (certainly) not in favor of…, I’m (really) not pleased/ displeased/ upset, etc about…, It’s wrong to…, I can’t approve of…, I (really) don’t approve of…, I’m not (very) happy about…, I’m dead against…, In my opinion…, I would like to say how much I disapprove of…., I (certainly) cannot give my approval to…, (I must say) I find…(quite/ completely, etc ) unsatisfactory/ unacceptable, etc Let us cite some examples,

(28) I can’t approve of the way you work alone on this project That’s not your job as editor-in-chief You’ve supposed to delegate responsibility [1; 21]

(29) I’m certainly not in favor of that guy He’s too cocky [1; 14]

(30) It’s wrong to ask questions about things that had already been exhaustively discussed in her presence [21; 8]

(31) I don’t think he is very good [16; 31]

(32) I’m really not pleased about the opinion that he was acting up for the sake of the other guards [19; 33]

(33) Anh không cho việc chú tỏ ra quá cao thượng như thế là tốt lắm đâu [75; 28] (I don’t think your magnanimous behavior is good.)

2/ 1 st person+ (modal word) + không hài lòng/ không tán đồng/ không vui/ khó chịu/ buồn bực/ghét/phản đối + (modal word) + person/action criticized

(34a) Tao ghét cay ghét đắng cái cách hắn cư xử với vợ mình như thế [83; 28]

(I really hate the way he’s treating his wife.)

(34b) Anh cảm thấy không vui lắm khi em trả lời anh như thế [76; 28]

(I’m not very happy about your answer.)

(34c) Tôi kịch liệt phản đối cái kiểu người ta ăn nói tục tĩu đến thế [88; 28]

(I totally oppose their obscene language.)

(34d) Em hoàn toàn không đồng ý việc anh luôn đi sớm về khuya như vậy [90; 28] (I totally disagree that you always leave so early and return so late.)

3/ Thật là + sai lầm/ sai/ tồi tệ/ khủng khiếp/kinh khủng/xấu hổ … + khi+ action criticized

(35a) Thiệt là xấu hổ cho cả lớp chúng ta khi Nam bị bắt quả tang khi đang quay cóp trong khi thi [77; 28]

(What a shame for Nam being caught for cheating!)

(35b) Thật là sai lầm khi mày tiêu xài phung phí như vậy [50; 28]

(It’s would be a big mistake if you are wasting your money like that!

4/ action criticized + là/ thì + sai/ không đúng/ không chấp nhận được/vô lí….

(36a) Đến mình mà nó chẳng coi ra gì thì không thể chấp nhận được [42; 28]

(It’s totally unacceptable that he ignored me since I am his boss.)

(36b) Cái câu “Bắc Kỳ” vừa rồi mới nghe thấy được nhưng nghe lâu là vô duyên lắm [40; 48]

(It is all right to hear your sentence at first time; yet, the more you talk about it, the more I feel it’s just a flat joke!)

5/ 1 st person+ phải nói rằng/phát biểu/cho ý kiế n…+( 1 st person)+ (adverb of frequence) + (modal word)+ủng hộ/tán thành/đồng ý…+ person/action criticized

(37) Ba phải nói rằng ba sẽ chẳng bao giờ ủng hộ việc con luôn đặt ba mẹ trong tình thế đã rồi [80; 28]

(I would never ever agree that you’re always ask me after everything is done.)

6/ Theo+1 st person+person/action criticized+ là/ thì + (modal word) + sai/quá đáng/quá quắt/không chấp nhận được…

(38a) Theo tôi, cô làm vậy là sai rồi [74; 28]

(I think you are wrong!)

(38b) Theo ý kiến của riêng tôi, việc xây được cả một cái trường mà không xây lấy cái nhà vệ sinh thì quá lắm [111; 28]

(In my opinion, they can build a whole school but can’t afford to build a restroom

(39) No, Stefa, the connection would be so far too subtle for any Nazi [19; 67]