Recommended Citation Vo, Tram, "An Interlanguage Pragmatic View: The Influence of Vietnamese Native Language and Culture on Their L2 Production and Comprehension" 2018... University of S
INTRODUCTION
Statement of the problem
Knowledge of linguistic structures forms the backbone of communicative competence, but it is not the only factor in successful verbal interaction To achieve the objective of a conversation, a speaker must also understand the interlocutor’s culture and behavior, especially the implicature behind utterances Misinterpretations frequently occur in cross-cultural communication, underscoring the relevance of pragmatic competence As Thomas (as cited in Ho, 2002) notes, a lack of linguistic knowledge can cause forgivable errors in intercultural contexts, yet subtle pragmatic failures can make speakers seem aberrant or even arrogant In short, it is not only what one says, but how and when one says it, that shapes a favorable conversation Therefore, pragmatic competence—the ability to convey and decode the intended meanings of utterances—plays a decisive role in effective communication.
Pragmatic competence is often overlooked in Vietnam’s public language education, even though students excel at grammar, their conversational flow with native English speakers suffers from inadequate pragmatic knowledge The main cause is negative pragmatic transfer from Vietnamese culture and values, combined with a lack of awareness of L2 norms, which often makes Vietnamese learners’ English sound unnatural to native speakers This thesis identifies noticeable differences in L2 production by Vietnamese learners of English compared with native speakers, focusing on negative transfer while briefly addressing positive transfer It draws on extensive contrastive research and uses Vietnamese L1 baseline data, interlanguage data from Vietnamese learners, and English native-speaker baseline data (Takahashi, 1995) to offer plausible explanations for pragmatic failure The study highlights the significance of teaching cross-cultural knowledge and pragmatic competence within the Vietnamese EFL curriculum, an area long neglected, as noted by Thomas (as cited in Franch, 1998).
"pragmatic failure often passes unchecked by the teacher or, worse, it is attributed to some other cause, such as rudeness, and the student is criticized accordingly".
Purpose of the Study
This project has a dual objective: to survey existing research on pragmatic transfer among Vietnamese learners of English and to offer deeper analyses of their interlanguage pragmatics in English use, with a focus on speech acts, politeness, and terms of address By compiling notable differences in L2 production between Vietnamese learners and native English speakers, it highlights how cultural and linguistic backgrounds shape English use To understand why Vietnamese learners produce English in certain ways, it examines core aspects of Vietnamese culture and language and assesses their impact on L2 production and comprehension Compared with prior pragmatic transfer studies by Vietnamese scholars, this work provides greater elaboration on the Vietnamese cultural context Ultimately, the researcher aims to raise awareness among English native teachers and Vietnamese English educators about the effects of Vietnamese pragmatics on interlanguage and L2 production The emphasis is on pragmatic competence in language learners rather than on linguistic form.
Research Questions
At the end of the thesis, this study aims to find answers to the following research questions:
1 What is the core perception that underlies the behaviors and communicative style of Vietnamese people, in general, and Vietnamese learners of English, in particular?
2 To what extent does Vietnamese pragmatic knowledge influence the L2 production of the learners?
3 How does the learners’ interlanguage differ from native speakers of English in terms of pragmatics?
Theoretical Framework
This thesis is based on two primary concepts of pragmatics: speech act theory and politeness theory
Speech acts are actions carried out through language Through everyday utterances we can refuse an invitation, express an apology or gratitude, correct someone when we think they are wrong, or compliment a kind act People use their language to perform three main kinds of acts: locution, illocution, and perlocution Locution refers to the saying, or the utterance per se, whose interpretation is based on its grammatical form Illocution means the intention of the speaker A locution can carry many illocutionary acts, and vice versa, an illocution can be conveyed through many locutions Illocutions often require hearers to take further actions.
Within discourse analysis, a locution like “I am cold” can carry an illocutionary force that signals an implied request, such as “Please close the door” or “Please adjust the thermostat.” When the listener responds by closing the door or resetting the thermostat, the utterance traces a perlocutionary effect by eliciting that behavior In this view, the speaker has effectively achieved the intended perlocutionary force through the listener’s action Wardhaugh (1998) outlines how locution, illocutionary force, and perlocutionary consequences interrelate, showing how a simple utterance can lead to concrete outcomes.
Politeness is ruled by social cultural norms of a particular area or country, which
“prescribe a certain behavior, a state of affairs, or a way of thinking in a context” (Fraser,
Politeness is assessed by whether an action aligns with social norms: when it does, the behavior is considered polite; when it breaks those norms, it is seen as impolite (Fraser, 1990) The idea of politeness is closely tied to Brown and Levinson's (1987) face theory, which defines face as the public self-image that every person seeks to uphold According to their framework, there are two aspects of face: positive face, the desire to be liked and recognized by others, and negative face, the wish that one’s actions be unimpeded by others.
Brown and Levinson argue that in individualist cultures many speech acts are face-threatening because they clash with the addressee’s face wants A speech act is called a negative face-threatening act when it appears to restrain the hearer’s freedom of action, highlighting how direct or imposing language can intrude on autonomy This idea, cited by Kachru and Smith (2008) and rooted in Brown and Levinson’s original framework (1987), explains why politeness strategies are often employed to mitigate threats to social face during communication.
Brown and Levinson’s politeness theory (1987) outlines face-threatening acts (FTAs) that can threaten either the hearer’s negative face or positive face Negative face‑threatening acts constrain autonomy through requests, suggestions, reminders, and threats, as in the example, “If I were you, I would stop thinking about that issue.” Positive face‑threatening acts undermine the hearer’s desire to be liked and respected by expressing disapproval, criticism, or using address terms inappropriately; for instance, saying “I think you have put on some weight” can threaten the addressee’s positive face because it touches on a sensitive topic they may not want to hear (Kachru & Smith, 2008).
Positive politeness, according to Brown and Levinson (1987), is “approach-based,
Positive politeness strategies “anoint the face” of the addressee by signaling shared interests or desires, meaning speakers tend to frame their messages by highlighting common ground with the hearer rather than creating distance In this approach, conversations are guided by approaching problems through a sense of solidarity and connection, which helps to build rapport The technique relies on compliments, casual language, and an emphasis on friendship to foster a friendly, cooperative interaction Wardhaugh (1998) notes that these strategies are effective for enhancing solidarity and smoothing interpersonal communication.
Negative politeness is an avoidance-based approach to communication that seeks to partially redress the hearer's negative face—the wish not to be imposed upon—by recognizing the hearer's autonomy, boundaries, and self-determination, as Brown and Levinson (1987) explain Practitioners of negative politeness are careful not to intrude on the hearer's willingness to act, choosing language and behavior that minimize imposition Core strategies include using formal language, showing deference, offering apologies, and opting for indirect phrasing to soften requests and maintain respect.
Methodology
This study uses two research approaches—comparative and qualitative—to analyze pragmatics among Vietnamese learners The comparative approach identifies the most salient pragmatics aspects that reflect sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic transfers, focusing on speech act realization strategies, politeness perception, and the use of address terms The qualitative component involves collecting and examining a range of articles on Vietnamese perception of speech acts in both the learners’ native language and the target language to illustrate the researcher’s viewpoints.
Specifically, the study compares data from the same speech acts produced by Vietnamese native speakers in Vietnamese and in English to examine whether L1 culture and language influence L2 linguistic production; it also collects and qualitatively analyzes articles on pragmatic transfer from the cultural and linguistic perspectives of Vietnamese learners.
Limitations of the Study
Limitations of the study are numerous First, not all aspects of pragmatics are represented; only a limited number of case studies on pragmatic transfer by Vietnamese English learners are examined In addition, to lessen methodological complexity, nonverbal components of pragmatics—such as tone, intonation, and nonverbal behaviors—are not analyzed, even though they play a crucial role in interpreting utterances Finally, the analyses’ objectivity may be influenced by the researcher’s perspective as a Vietnamese native speaker.
Significance of the Study
The essence of the study lies on an attempt to provide deeper and thorough understandings about pragmatic transfer in the case of Vietnamese learners It presents Vietnamese and English educators with brief yet core knowledge of how the Vietnamese perceive the surrounding environment in terms of social behaviors and context, which builds grounds for their production and comprehension in the foreign language
Furthermore, it also raises a concern for cross-cultural teaching in language classrooms in Vietnam, where the teaching of pragmatic competence is still lacking Finally, the study tries to show that a comparative approach in cultural aspects of the first and target languages is essential for students in the perception of politeness of the target language.
Definition of Terms
Apologies: a face-saving act that the speaker offers to the hearer to admit the responsibility for conducting some behaviors that may harm the hearer’s benefits (Ellis,
Communicative competence: the ability to produce and comprehend a language successfully in social contexts Communicative competence includes linguistic competence, sociolinguistic competence and strategic competence (R.L.Trask, 2005, 28)
Complaints: utterances that the speaker uses to express disapproval or unpleasant feelings towards a past or ongoing action caused by the hearer (Olshtain & Cohen, 1991,
Compliments: a type of speech act that speaker employs to express politeness and interest in the hearer (Olshtain & Cohen, 1991, 154-165)
Criticisms: the act of giving judgement or opinions about the quality of something
Cross-cultural: associated with two or more different cultures
Curriculum: all the courses designed for a particular subject (Online Cambridge
EFL: the teaching of English to speakers of other languages who live in a country where
English is not a main language (Online Cambridge Dictionary, 2018)
Grammar: the rules of how words and sentences are formed in a certain language
Imperative: a type of sentence used to give order or direct request to do something
Intonation refers to the variation in the pitch of the voice in spoken language, influencing how emphasis and meaning are conveyed in communication (R.L Trask, 2005, 88) Kinship terms are the words used to refer to relatives, and every language has a distinct system of kinship terms (R.L Trask, 2005, 90).
Modality is a linguistic system that encodes the speaker's attitude toward a proposition, including expressions of obligation, permission, and prohibition In English, modality is realized through modal auxiliary verbs such as can, could, may, might, will, would, should, shall, and must, as well as lexical means like likely, probably, possibly, and have to This framework, described by Trask (2005) and Cruse, explains how speakers convey levels of certainty, necessity, possibility, and obligation through form and context.
Modifier: in linguistics, a modifier is a linguistic element attached to a head element to provide more information about that element (R L Trask, 2005, 126) It can be a single word, a phrase, or a dependent clause For example, in the noun phrase “a beautiful skirt,” the modifier “beautiful” adds information about the skirt’s quality.
Qualitative approaches are a family of research methods in applied linguistics designed to illuminate how people behave in social contexts They draw on diverse data types, from descriptive accounts of behaviors or events to narratives and visual records, enabling researchers to explain and interpret social phenomena (Holliday, 2015, 49–60).
Requests: a kind of speech acts used to ask the hearer to (not) perform an act according to the speaker’s interests (Ellis, 2008, 172-186)
Terms of address constitute a society’s linguistic system for addressing individuals These forms can be a single word (Professor), a phrase (your Highness), a proper name (Paul), or a professional or social title (Ms.) (Nordquist, 2017).
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Pragmatic transfer is an interdisciplinary field that investigates pragmatic knowledge and learner interlanguage This article provides a concise overview of these concepts and then reviews the related empirical literature It particularly examines speech acts and politeness across languages, analyzing how learners’ pragmatic choices are shaped by cross-linguistic transfer The review also centers on studies of pragmatic transfer among Vietnamese learners, offering focused insights into how native language influences pragmatic interpretation and use.
Review of the Literature
Pragmatics, a subfield of linguistics, examines how utterances are interpreted within social contexts Pragmatic competence refers to the ability to produce language that is appropriate and acceptable in a given situation Because the intended meaning can differ from the literal expression, pragmatics is essential for effective communication For decades, pragmatic competence received limited attention in second language acquisition, even when learners mastered vocabulary and grammar They might string words correctly and apply syntax rules, but still fail to use language appropriately in real interactions; mastering when, how, and where to articulate a message is a more complex skill than grammar alone As Bardovi-Harlig (2000) put it, "High levels of grammatical competence do not guarantee concomitant high levels of pragmatic competence."
Pragmatics is twofold: pragmalinguistics and sociopragmatics Pragmalinguistics deals with the resources for conveying communicative acts and interpersonal meanings (Kecskes, 2012) Bardovi-Harlig (2000) describes it as the linguistic competence that lets speakers carry out the speech acts that their sociopragmatic competence indicates are desirable In practice, this means speakers select linguistic forms, tone, and politeness strategies to realize acts such as requests, offers, and refusals in context-appropriate ways, illustrating how pragmatic knowledge combines language with social norms to achieve effective communication.
Gratitude in communication is conveyed through expressions such as “thank you” and “I deeply appreciate it,” both of which belong to a speaker’s pragmalinguistic repertoire The choice between these forms signals the speaker’s attitude and social relationship with the interlocutor, a core concern of sociopragmatics Described by Leech as the sociological interface of pragmatics, sociopragmatics is grounded in the background and cultural knowledge of L1 speakers, providing the foundation for how language is interpreted and performed across any communicative context.
Cross-cultural pragmatics research is extensive, with the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Patterns project standing out as one of the largest studies in the field By employing Discourse Completion Tasks, it collected requests and apologies in L1 and L2 from 1,946 informants who were native speakers of Australian English, American English, British English, Canadian French, Danish, German, Hebrew, and Russian (Blum-Kulka & Olshstain, 1984; Roever, 2015) The analysis also examined how indirectness relates to politeness in the speech acts of Hebrew and English, revealing that these two dimensions are not directly comparable and that the most indirect strategies were not necessarily perceived as the most polite by speakers of both languages (Blum-Kulka, 1987).
ILP integrates interlanguage and pragmatics, two interdisciplinary domains: interlanguage, which studies how learners develop their second-language abilities, and pragmatics, which examines linguistic use in context According to Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993), ILP does not merely focus on how nonnative speakers produce and comprehend communicative patterns in a second language; it also relates to intercultural style, a unique communication style that characterizes and differentiates the cultures of the learner’s first language and the target language.
Interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) research into L2 acquisition has explored pragmatic competence, including complaint speech acts and refusal strategies Wijayanto, Agus, Laila, Malikatul, Prasetyarini, Aryati, and Susiati (2013) studied complaint speech acts by Indonesian learners of English using oral discourse completion tasks and found that directness was favored, especially in conversations with hearers who were unfamiliar and of lower social status A more recent study by Montero (2015) examined refusal strategies among English teaching majors at a Costa Rican university, revealing a tendency to use indirect strategies rather than direct ones.
Pragmatic transfer studies the impact of learner’s culture and language “on their
Pragmatic transfer refers to the transfer of a learner’s L1 pragmatic knowledge to interlanguage (IL) and the target language (L2), and it occurs in two forms: positive transfer, when L1 knowledge is usefully applied, and negative transfer, when irrelevant L1 pragmatic knowledge interferes with pragmatic acquisition At the sociopragmatic level, negative transfer can hinder the ability to perform key speech acts—such as apologizing, refusing, responding to invitations, and giving or receiving compliments—and can shape learners’ choices of politeness strategies toward the target community (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993) At the pragmalinguistic level, negative transfer can affect the selection of linguistic forms and strategies that modify politeness levels An example is the Vietnamese learner’s literal translation “Sorry for my carelessness I will compensate you another one,” illustrating how L1 structures can map directly onto L2 expressions (Nguyen, 2012) Negative transfer may also reflect attitudes toward cultural identity, with some advanced learners deliberately foregrounding their own cultural values to distinguish themselves from the target community and maintain loyalty to L1 patterns (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993).
Pragmatic transfer has attracted attention from linguistic scholars and educators In Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz's 1990 study, speech-act performance in refusals by Japanese English speakers, English native speakers, and Japanese native speakers was examined using Discourse Completion Tasks The findings reveal that Japanese learners’ L1 patterns shape L2 production at three levels: the sequencing of semantic formulae, the frequency of semantic formulae, and the content of semantic formulae in refusals These results illustrate how first-language influence can shape second-language pragmatics, with implications for teaching and assessment of L2 pragmatic competence.
Using Assessment Questionnaires and Dialog Construction, Bergman and Kasper
In 1993, researchers examined apologies produced by Thai learners of English and by native speakers of American English They found that the two groups differed greatly in strategy choice, with pragmatic transfer accounting for about half of the differences.
A series of ILP studies has examined how Vietnamese pragmatics can interfere with the performance of English language learners The collective results from these studies are first summarized in Table 1 and then analyzed in greater depth in Section 3.
Table 1 Interlanguage Pragmatics of Vietnamese learners of English
Study Focus Participants Data collection instruments
Nguyen 2010 Compliments responses by VLE
Learners tend to perform more non-agreement strategies than NSs
Metapragmatic Questionnaires and Discourse Completion Tasks
Learners’ choice of strategy depends greatly on social power status compared to NSs
Metapragmatic Questionnaires and Discourse Completion Tasks
Both learners and NSs performed similar strategies, but learners tend to avoid the acknowledgme nt of responsibility in higher-lower status
Oral peer- feedback task, written questionnaires, and interview
Learners’s use of strategy seems to be more offensive than NSs’ counterparts
Learners’ strategy use is less diverse than NSs’ counterparts
Summary
The literature reviewed here establishes the foundation for this study, clarifying the subject matter and guiding the researcher in shaping research questions and theoretical stance Much of the existing work on Vietnamese learners centers on pragmatic transfer, explored through patterns of speech act realization Building on these insights, this thesis broadens the scope to a comprehensive pragmatics inquiry that includes speech acts, politeness, and address terms, while also highlighting the sociocultural factors that shape learners’ production and interpretation of the target language.
RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Brief knowledge of Vietnamese value system
Like many Asian cultures shaped by Confucian thought, Vietnamese culture is distinctly collectivist In contrast to individualism, which centers on personal rights, privacy, and self-expression, a collectivist orientation emphasizes group harmony, collaboration, and shared values Vietnamese people tend to work and live in ways that strengthen communal relationships and uphold traditional values that sustain social cohesion The core values—tinh thần cộng đồng (community spirit), tinh thần tương thân tương ái (spirit of solidarity), and sự tôn trọng lẫn nhau (mutual respect)—capture the collective ethos that guides everyday life in Vietnam.
Vietnamese culture centers on community spirit, or collective spirit, as a defining feature that shapes dedication to family, harmony, and individual identity (Vo, 2016) The people are deeply family-oriented, with the family occupying the foremost priority and guiding actions, behaviors, and relationships A typical Vietnamese household embraces three generations living under one roof, reflecting strong intergenerational ties and a sustained sense of communal responsibility.
Although the nuclear family is increasingly common among younger generations, Vietnamese families continue to sustain strong ties with parents and grandparents through regular visits and caring actions In Vietnamese culture, parents take responsibility for nurturing and educating their children throughout childhood and adulthood, often providing financial support for education beyond adolescence Children show respect through filial piety, a central virtue influenced by Confucianism and Buddhism that manifests as respectful manners, obedience, and a sense of responsibility for their parents’ welfare in their golden years When these obligations are unmet, individuals can face severe criticism from in-group members and society, regardless of personal success or social status.
Another hallmark of Vietnamese community spirit is harmony, with maintaining healthy and harmonious relationships central to Vietnamese society In both in-group and out-group interactions, people strive to prevent conflict by managing or concealing unpleasant emotions and by avoiding voicing opinions that might contradict others.
Vietnamese identity diverges from Western notions of the self by emphasizing a collective sense of belonging, in which a person is not an isolated individual but a member of a family and a broader community From early life, individuals are trained to see themselves as part of a group, with family background, social relationships, and educational achievements shaping who they are In this framework, an individual's success or failure is often attributed to the family or the group to which they belong The group-based identity is evident in the way Vietnamese people refer to themselves as 'we' rather than 'I' when sharing personal thoughts (Phan, 2008) Because a person is viewed as a representative of a particular group, the family’s reputation rests on that person’s behavior and achievements (Nguyen, 2002) When someone succeeds, especially at a young age, common compliments include 'Her/his parents raised him/her well' or 'The mother knows how to teach the child.'
Beyond the widely recognized "community spirit," Vietnamese culture is also defined by tinh thần tương thân tương ái—the spirit of solidarity—embodied in interdependence and empathy Interdependence is reflected in strong family bonds: parents show love and children reciprocate, siblings help one another, and relatives maintain harmonious relationships and frequent contact Empathy extends to out-group members, known as đồng cảm, guiding more considerate attitudes and careful speech toward those facing adversity This compassion is often expressed through proverbs such as lá lành đùm lá rách ("good leaves protect and help torn leaves") and thương người như thể thương thân ("treat others as you would treat yourself"), illustrating how Vietnamese communities foster mutual care and social cohesion.
Last but not least, one of the most significant shared value of Vietnamese society is sự tôn trọng lẫn nhau (‘mutual respect’), shown through politeness, obedience
Linguistic means shape how respect is expressed in social interactions, as Nguyen (2002) notes From early childhood, individuals are taught to show deference to others based on age, status, and position, with age often serving as the decisive criterion In this hierarchy, seniors receive unquestioned respect from younger generations regardless of their status Children demonstrate respect to their parents through obedient behavior and courteous language, while the elderly convey politeness to subordinates through appropriate manners and verbal conduct Additionally, respect is communicated through terms of address and mitigating devices, topics that will be explored in more detail later.
Positive pragmatic transfer
Positive pragmatic transfer facilitates L2 performance and comprehension, yet it has received less scholarly attention than negative transfer A key issue remains whether transfer reflects the activation of universal pragmatic knowledge or transfer from L1 pragmatic norms, a distinction Takahashi (1995) notes as still unresolved Nevertheless, empirical studies involving Vietnamese scholars and English/Linguistics students suggest that Vietnamese and English speakers share similarities in politeness perceptions of speech act realization strategies Since negative pragmatic transfer arises from L1–L2 value differences, these cross-language similarities may yield positive transfer that eases the use of the target language.
In a recent study on indirectness and directness in American English and
Le (2012) reports that both groups prefer directness to indirectness when they want to elucidate a situation, reveal a truth, or get to the point briefly, yet both Vietnamese and American speakers also use indirectness strategies to minimize face-threatening acts and maintain politeness This aligns with Nguyen (2015), who notes that directness strategies are preferable for expressing satisfaction among American and Vietnamese speakers In a separate study on apologies by Vietnamese native speakers, Vietnamese EFL learners, and English native speakers, Nguyen (2012) finds that all three groups employ similar apology strategies in given situations, specifically using an expression of apology along with other strategies, evidence of positive pragmatic transfer from Vietnamese L1 to L2 production and perception.
Negative pragmatic transfer
It can be said that pragmatic failure is attributed to negative pragmatic transfer, which in fact receives enormous attention from linguists and SLA researchers As Franch
(1998) states, “lack of culturally relevant information, irrespective of linguistic
Apology strategies involves the use of ‘an expression of apology’ (I’m sorry, I apologize), ‘an
My explanation is that I was too busy; I accept responsibility: It is my fault; I’ll buy you a new one to repair the situation; I promise forbearance: I will never do it again; and I want you to know I am genuinely concerned about how this has affected you.
Pragmatic proficiency, as Nguyen (2012, p.20) notes, can be a powerful constraint in inhibiting or promoting pragmatic transfer in Vietnamese-influenced English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts This paper discusses three core elements of pragmatics that demonstrate the linguistic and cultural influences of Vietnamese on EFL acquisition and production: speech acts, politeness, and forms of address.
Speech acts have long been a central focus of pragmatic research, underscoring how language shapes communicative behavior A substantial body of studies examines the impact of Vietnamese language and culture on how Vietnamese learners of English use speech acts This section discusses two categories of speech acts—responses to compliments and responses to criticisms—and explains how linguistic and cultural background influence their use and interpretation.
Compliments are a pleasant way to build rapport and strengthen relationships, whether within or across groups, yet what counts as a fitting compliment and how it is received vary across cultures, reflecting the recipient’s beliefs and values Cultural values shape attitudes toward compliments and produce distinct response patterns, with receivers’ reactions signaling their underlying culture Nguyen (2010) investigated the transfer effects of Vietnamese pragmatics on the English speech acts of Vietnamese learners by using discourse completion tasks to compare three groups The study included ten Vietnamese native speakers from diverse majors, ten native English speakers residing in Virginia, and ten Vietnamese learners of English who were senior English-teaching program students Results show differences in language use among the three groups and support the view that learners’ interlanguage production mirrors their culture and mother tongue.
Responses to compliments differed across the three participant groups in both strategy use and frequency VNS and VLE used fewer agreement strategies than ANS, although all three groups favored agreement strategies over non‑agreement ones Within the same strategy, VNS and VLE shared similar compliment‑response sub‑strategies, whereas ANS employed different sub‑strategies For example, in the domain of agreement strategies, ANS showed a higher frequency of these responses than the other groups.
Appreciation tokens, comment acceptance, comment history, and return are sub-strategies analyzed in the study, but these were less often performed by VNS and VLE Interestingly, neither VNS nor VLE used comment history in response to compliments Pragmatic transfer appears in the diverse selection of non-agreement sub-strategies, with the two Vietnamese groups using a high number of non-agreement sub-strategies.
‘question’, ‘disagreement’ and ‘scale down' No data was found about ANS performing
‘qualification' in response to compliments
Agreement compliment response strategies express an agreement to the speaker’s compliments by
According to Herbert’s taxonomy of compliment responses (Nguyen, 2010), six performing strategies structure how people reply to praise: appreciation tokens (for example, “Thanks” or “Thank you”), comment acceptance (“Thanks, I like it, too”), praise upgrade (“I look thinner in this dress, right?”), comment history (“I bought it last year”), reassignment (“It is a birthday gift from my mother”), and return (“You look great today, too”) These strategies illustrate direct acknowledgment, mutual engagement, elaboration, contextual background, reframing of compliments, and reciprocal reinforcement to shape conversational dynamics across social platforms and everyday interactions.
Non-agreement compliment response strategies express a refusal to the speaker’s compliments by
3 performing strategies such as ‘scale down’ (It is darker than I thought), ‘question’ (Really?),
‘disagreement’ (I don’t really like it), ‘qualification’ (It’s OK, I like yours better), and ‘no acknowledgment’ (silence) [Herbert’s taxonomy of complement responses from Nguyen, 2010]
Additionally, the way compliments are incorporated into strategic communication varies The data show that even when American speakers tend to modestly refuse compliments, they still insert appreciation tokens before responding, highlighting a consistent pattern in politeness management within these strategies.
An example of the disagreement strategy is the utterance “Thank you but I am not that good I’m glad you like it though.” By contrast, the former strategy was not found in utterances produced by VNS and VLE, who exclusively used the disagreement form, as shown in (1) and (2).
(1) VNS: “Không đâu Tôi còn phải học hỏi thêm ở mọi người.”
(No I have to learn from everyone.)
(2) VLE: “No That's just a small thing that everyone could do.”
(Nguyen, 2010) Interestingly enough, ‘appreciation tokens’ produced by the Americans were sometimes followed by affirmative sentences to emphasize the addressers’ effort of fulfilling the tasks while VLE combined it with promising commissives The phenomenon is obvious in a circumstance where there is a distance of power and social status between the interlocutors Let’s look at the following examples, in which participants need to respond to a compliment from their teachers for their excellent presentations:
(3) ANS: Thank you I worked hard
(4) VLE: Thanks I will try more
(Nguyen, 2010) These responses undoubtedly distinguish American individualism from
Vietnamese collectivism Known for “their devotion to individualism” (Althen &
Bennett, 2011), the Americans see themselves as separate individuals Children are taught to make their own decision and take responsibility for it, thus, should also be proud of their accomplishment In (3), the student had a tendency to attribute the accomplishment to one’s individual self and admit how hard he/she had tried to achieve it Vietnamese people, on the other hand, are trained to practice humility to the extent that one should be modest and not boastful about her/his achievements A plain acceptance to a compliment, especially from seniors, is regarded as impolite and haughty In the above responses, although the Vietnamese students were happy at the teacher’s acknowledgement of their outstanding performance, they took it humbly by kindly “rejecting” the compliment (as in
When respondents acknowledge issues described in (1) and (2) or accept them with a pledge to perform better in later tasks (as in (4)), they signal a commitment to improvement In this context, the line "I will try more" is typically understood as a promise to give their best effort to avoid disappointing you next time.
At the pragmalinguistic level, VLE often renders L1 responses literally into L2, as in the reply "You exaggerate too much I think it’s as normal as the others," a direct translation of the Vietnamese sentence Bạn nói quá lên rồi Mình nghĩ nó cũng bình thường (như những nhà khác) thôi Although this pragmatic transfer does not necessarily lead to miscommunication, these utterances may sound unnatural to native English speakers, who may or may not tolerate cross-sociolinguistic differences.
Act of criticizing is considered a problematic speech act not only for learners but also for native speakers of the target language (Nguyen, 2008) In her study, Nguyen
A 2008 study found that Vietnamese learners of Australian English (VLAE) and Australian native speakers differed in their choice of strategies, semantic formulae, and mitigating devices when performing a speech act The study compared three groups: 36 Vietnamese learners of Australian English preparing for undergraduate and graduate study in Australia (VLAE), Vietnamese native speakers, and 12 Australian English native speakers (AENS) After class, participants wrote short essays and then worked in pairs to provide feedback on each other’s writing Analysis of the conversations recorded during these feedback sessions showed that VLAE used more indirect criticisms (45%) than AENS (31%), and correspondingly fewer direct criticisms (VLAE 55% vs AENS 69%).
First, learners and Australians used a range of strategies when delivering direct criticism VLAE participants tended to offer fewer statements of the problem than the AENS group Consistent with this pattern, the AENS group appeared to prefer generalizing rather than directly naming the problems, probably as a face-saving strategy for interlocutors For example, their remarks illustrate this tendency.
Summary
Analysis of the data reveals a pragmatic gap among Vietnamese English learners: although they are proficient in English grammar, they encounter hindrances in producing the target language in real communicative situations Vietnamese language and culture shape pragmatic competence, influencing how politeness, social hierarchy, and value systems transfer into learners' interlanguage The resulting pragmatic transfers—both positive and negative—are most evident in speech acts realization, politeness value and strategy choice, and the use of address terms Because L1 and L2 norms diverge, learners interpret politeness differently and adjust their strategies accordingly, often deviating from the norms of the target language.
Although positive transfer clearly enhances learners' pragmatic competence because of shared pragmatic components between languages, it is oversimplified to claim that negative transfer only causes failure in cross-cultural communication Apart from its unwanted effects, deviation from L2 norms can reflect the learners' L1 culture and is not always intrusive or offensive As Zegarac and Pennington (2000) explain, negative transfer gets its name from the dissimilarities between L1 and L2 pragmatics in production and perception, not because of its negative influence They show that when L2 production diverges from target norms, native speakers might attribute nonnative responses to a lack of awareness of cultural differences rather than deliberate impoliteness In Vietnamese learners, this phenomenon appears in sociopragmatic transfer, with more 'hints' strategies employed by NSV and VLE than by NSE when addressing addressees of higher status The transfer is classified as sociopragmatic transfer.
Although data may show a negative transfer from native baselines, this does not automatically cause communication failure Grounded in Brown and Levinson's politeness theory, hints are off-record and represent the most indirect form of complaint speech When formality is required, it is better to be more polite and respectful than casual, since casualness can seem tactless or rude No one will misjudge someone who shows respect, so negative transfer does not necessarily affect communication; success depends on the interlocutor adjusting the conversation to a comfortable level If the interlocutor wants distance, the conversation can proceed as is; if a more casual tone is desired, distance can be shortened with verbal signals that put the other at ease or by explicitly stating that formal speech is not necessary In terms of address terms, Western high schools often prefer first names with native teachers, but using a formal title is not degrading; this dynamic is common in language classrooms where teachers may have limited understanding of learners' cultures, leaving the choice to the teacher to accept the students' preferred form of address or to ask them to call the teacher by the first name.