Rationale of the study
The primary objective of language learning today is effective communication, which involves understanding the culture of the language's country A strong vocabulary and grammar knowledge are essential, but without pragmatic competence, misunderstandings may occur Therefore, grasping the cultural context is crucial for successful communication.
Effective human communication relies on cooperation and mutual understanding By recognizing social conventions and the significance of concepts like politeness and face within specific cultures, we can enhance our comprehension of diverse communication styles This understanding plays a crucial role in reducing ethnic stereotypes and minimizing misunderstandings among individuals from different backgrounds.
Successful conversations rely on the adherence to conversational principles, particularly the cooperative and politeness principles Politeness is crucial in the communicative process, influencing speakers' decisions on whether to initiate a conversation or respond to invitations Accepting invitations is generally straightforward, while declining can be challenging due to its potential to threaten face Nonetheless, there are instances where declining an invitation is unavoidable.
Refusal, akin to the concept of decline, is a universal speech act present in all languages Numerous researchers have examined the act of refusal, primarily focusing on literary works, both published and online, as well as English materials authored by native speakers.
This paper examines the speech acts of declining invitations among native English speakers and compares them to those of Vietnamese speakers It aims to explore how learners respond to declining invitations in a cross-cultural context, highlighting the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese The research seeks to assist Vietnamese learners in navigating cultural challenges, fostering tactfulness and flexibility in language use, as encapsulated by the Vietnamese proverb: “You don’t have to buy words, so don’t let them hurt the feelings of others.” Additionally, the study aims to enhance the communicative competence of Vietnamese learners of English and provide practical suggestions for teaching declining invitations, emphasizing the significance of incorporating cross-cultural activities in English education in Vietnam.
Aims and objectives of the study
• Find out the similarities and differences in the way Vietnamese and English speakers using hedge when declining an invitation
• Help avoid potential cross-cultural conflicts between Vietnamese and English speakers, with focus on the proper use of hedging in invitation declining
• Helps to enhance and improve language communicative competence of Vietnamese learners of English
• Give some suggestions on teaching hedging in the situations of invitation declining.
Research questions
1 What are the major similarities and differences in the ways native speakers of English and native speakers of Vietnamese using hedges to decline invitations?
2 Do social distance, relative power, and gender affect the choice of hedging strategies by native speakers of English and Vietnamese native speakers?
Scope of the study
This study examines the speech acts of declining invitations among native English speakers and compares them with those of Vietnamese native speakers The goal is to explore the similarities and differences between these two groups from a cross-cultural perspective.
Design of the study
The thesis consists of three parts:
Part A: Introductions, this part presents the overview of the thesis including rationale, aims and objectives, research questions, scope and design of the study
Part B: Development, this part consists of four chapters:
Chapter 1: Literature review, this chapter provides the theoretical background including speech act theory, politeness strategies, pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics
Chapter 2: Methodology, this chapter focuses on presenting research participants, research procedure, data collection, as well as methods of analysis
Chapter 3: Findings and Discussion presents the results from survey questionnaires and observations, highlighting the similarities and differences in the decline of invitation speech acts between English and Vietnamese It also examines the impact of three variables on the choice of inviting forms among two groups of participants.
Part C: Conclusions, this part summaries the major findings recorded during the making of the thesis, presents the limitations of the study, provides some suggestions for further research
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Generalization of speech acts
J Austin takes the pioneering role in formulating the theory of speech acts In his first book discussed in the theory of speech act entitled “How to do things with words (1962)”, he assumes that language not only functions as stating and describing things but also as performing acts He gives examples that an apology or a promise conveys psychological or social practice and takes place at the right time when someone apologizes or promises, not before the actual action He also points out that the declarative sentences are not only used to say things or describe states of affairs but also used to do things According to Austin, when people produce utterances, they often perform actions via those utterances These actions are called speech acts: such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, or request
Searle (1976) emphasized that the fundamental unit of linguistic communication is not merely the symbol, word, or sentence, but the act of producing these elements during a speech act This production conveys information and serves various functions, such as promising, inviting, or apologizing In everyday language use, speech acts can occur before or after the utterance is made For instance, an apology, as in "I am so sorry, I broke your car," occurs after the action, expressing regret for a past event In contrast, promises or requests, like "I'll pay you back tomorrow," are stated before the action takes place, indicating an intention to act in the future.
A speech act, as defined by Paltridge (2000, p.15), is an utterance that functions in communication, encompassing examples such as apologies, greetings, requests, and refusals These acts can range from a single word, like "No," to longer phrases, such as "I'm sorry, I can't, I’ll be on duty this weekend." Effective speech acts require not only language proficiency but also an understanding of cultural context Factors such as authority, social distance, and situational setting play a crucial role in determining the appropriateness and effectiveness of politeness strategies in directive speech acts, particularly requests.
According to Yule (1996), speech acts are actions performed through utterances that go beyond mere grammatical structures and words In everyday communication, individuals engage in various speech acts, such as apologies, greetings, complaints, invitations, compliments, and refusals For instance, the phrase “Could you open the window” functions as a request rather than a simple question, while “We’re having a party on Saturday evening and wanted to know if you’d like to join us” serves as an invitation Furthermore, understanding speech acts necessitates not only linguistic knowledge but also cultural awareness, as illustrated by the Vietnamese greeting “Where are you going?” which conveys a friendly salutation.
According to Austin (1962), a speaker can perform three acts:
• Locutionary act: the act of saying something in the full sense of
• Illocutionary act: the act performed in saying something
• Perlocutionary act: the act performed by or as a result of saying
For instance, in a response to A’s statement “I am gonna marry her in the next
In a conversation, the phrase "Are you kidding me? How come? Way too fast" illustrates an illocutionary act, as it poses a question Simultaneously, this utterance signals a disagreement, which is an example of a perlocutionary act, indicating the speaker's expectation that the listener will understand the implied dissent.
Searl (1965), basing on the speakers’ intention, presents one of the most influential and widely used classifications of speech acts His classification consists of five broad types, namely:
• Representatives (Assertives): commit the speaker to something being the case such as assertions, reports, conclusions, descriptions, etc…
Exercise may be just as good as medication to treat heart disease
• Directives: the speaker gets the hearer to do something This class includes order, request, challenge, invite, etc…
Would you like some coffee?
• Commisieves: commit the speaker himself to some future action such as promise, refusal, threat, swear, etc…
I swear I don’t know what to tell her
• Expressives: express feelings and attitudes about a state of affairs such as apology, compliment, thanks, etc…
I sincerely thank for your help
• Declaratives: change the world via utterance This includes many of those which Austin first considered as performatives
Yule (1996) identifies a classification system for speech acts that encompasses five primary functions: declarations, representatives, expressives, directives, and commissives Additionally, he provides a table that outlines this classification of speech acts.
Speech act types Direction of fit S=speaker
Commissives words change the world makes words fits the world makes words fits the world make the world fits words make the world fits words
Politeness theory
Politeness plays a crucial role in human communication, particularly in English, where it serves to strengthen and maintain relationships between individuals As defined by Leech (1983), politeness involves minimizing the impact of impolite remarks (negative politeness) while enhancing the effectiveness of polite expressions (positive politeness).
Early work on politeness by Goffman (1967,p 77) describes politeness as
Politeness in communication involves the appreciation expressed through avoidance or the presentation of rituals According to Lakoff (1973), effective communication requires clarity in conveying messages Fraser and Nolan (1981) define politeness as constraints on verbal behavior, while Leech (1983) views it as actions that foster harmonious interactions He introduces the Politeness Principle as a key aspect of interpersonal rhetoric, outlining six maxims that guide polite communication.
• Tact maxim: Minimize cost to other Maximize benefit to other
• Generosity maxim: Minimize benefit to self Maximize cost to self
• Approbation maxim: Minimize dispraise of other Maximize dispraise of self
• Modesty maxim: Minimize praise of self Maximize praise of other
• Agreement maxim: Minimize disagreement between self and other
Minimize agreement between self and other
• Sympathy maxim: minimize antipathy between self and other
Minimize sympathy between self and other
Politeness is essential for maintaining social order and fostering human cooperation, as noted by Brown and Levinson (1987) They aimed to create a universally applicable model of politeness across cultures Similarly, the frameworks proposed by Lakoff (1975), Leech (1983), and Brown and Levinson emphasize the universal nature of their politeness principles The overarching concept is to explore different interactive strategies, grounded in the idea that individuals engage in rational behaviors to fulfill their desires.
In Vietnam, politeness is paramount, with daily actions and lifestyles grounded in morality rather than mere reason Historically, politeness was valued even more than education Students influenced by Confucian culture learned the principle of "tiên học lễ, hậu học văn," which emphasizes the importance of good manners before the pursuit of knowledge.
Vietnamese society has transitioned from an agricultural focus to an industrialized and globalized landscape, leading to significant lifestyle and mindset changes among its population Despite this shift, many traditional values persist, particularly the preference for indirect communication In Vietnam, directness is often viewed as lacking tact, contrasting sharply with Western norms where it is typically valued This cultural nuance plays a crucial role in social interactions and reflects the enduring characteristics of Vietnamese life amidst modernization.
In Vietnamese culture, questions like "Where are you going?", "What are you doing?", "Are you married?", "How old are you?", and "How much do you earn a month?" reflect a genuine concern for others, aimed at fostering closeness and solidarity However, in non-Confucian societies, such inquiries are often seen as intrusive to personal privacy, particularly regarding marital status, age, income, and religion, which are typically avoided in casual conversations with acquaintances The decline of traditional politeness strategies has led to the development of social norms in Vietnam that emphasize the importance of polite refusal As a result, while many Vietnamese individuals have become fluent in English, their approaches to declining requests tend to be more indirect compared to their English-speaking peers This study explores the implications of these cultural differences in the context of English language learning and teaching in Vietnam.
The notion of face and Face-threatening act
The main issue of politeness is the notion of face Face is defined as “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” (Brown and
In the context of social interactions, the term "face" is linked to the English idiom "to lose face," which signifies actions that lead to a loss of respect and reputation among others (Levinson, 1987, p 61).
Levinson identifies "face" as essential wants, categorizing it into positive face, the desire to be liked by others, and negative face, the wish for autonomy in one's actions (1987) Brown and Levinson (1978) describe face as an emotionally invested aspect that can be lost or enhanced through interactions In daily conversations, we often navigate topics carefully to maintain face, providing reassurance and avoiding disagreements When clarity is lacking, we emphasize key points while offering non-verbal feedback to protect both our own and others' face Goffman (1967) highlights the significance of saving face, as individuals may be attached to their self-image or seek higher social aspirations He introduces "face work," the practice of maintaining a consistent public image, where gaining or losing face affects social appreciation In social interactions, respect for one's public self-image is crucial; threats to this image are termed face-threatening acts, which can be mitigated through face-saving actions (Yule 1996).
In everyday interactions, individuals may engage in "face-threatening acts" that jeopardize another person's self-image These actions can undermine both negative face, which relates to the freedom of action, and positive face, which involves the desire for one's wants to be appreciated by others Requests can particularly endanger the addressee's negative face by limiting their autonomy, while refusals may threaten their positive face by suggesting that the speaker does not value their input.
To mitigate face-threatening acts (FTAs), interlocutors employ targeted strategies based on a rational evaluation of the potential risks involved As illustrated in the accompanying figure, speakers select specific strategies when addressing listeners According to Brown and Levinson (1987), a lower numerical value associated with these strategies indicates a greater likelihood of face threat.
Hedge
The term "hedge" or "hedging" refers to a barrier or means of protection, as defined in the Oxford English Dictionary Introduced by G Lakoff in his 1972 article "Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts," hedges are words that influence the clarity of meaning Lakoff emphasizes the importance of semantic analysis for these terms, describing them as those that make meanings fuzzier or less fuzzy, thus raising intriguing questions about language and semantics.
In his 1972 article "Fuzzy-Set - Theoretic Interpretation of Linguistic Hedges," Zadeh built upon Lakoff's concept of 'hedges' to analyze various English hedges, including simple terms like 'very' and 'slightly,' as well as more complex ones such as 'technically' and 'practically.' He posits that hedges function as operators on fuzzy sets that represent the meanings of their operands, highlighting their varying dependence on context.
The initial development of linguistics highlighted hedging phenomena as purely semantic; however, pragmatics has since critiqued this view, emphasizing its role in the interpersonal function of language This perspective allows us to identify the speech function—whether it is an offer, command, statement, or question—along with the attitudes and judgments it conveys, as well as the rhetorical features that define it as a symbolic act (Halliday).
Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987), dealing with politeness in verbal interaction from the point of view of pragmatics, viewed hedges as a device to avoid disagreement Brown and Levinson (1987: 145) define ‘hedges’ as:
A particle, word, or phrase that alters the degree of membership of a predicate or noun phrase within a set indicates that this membership is either partial or conditionally true It suggests that the membership may hold more truth and completeness than initially anticipated.
The term "hedge" or "hedging" is interpreted in various ways within the literature, with descriptions including compromisers (James, 1983), downtoners (Quirk et al., 1972, 1985), understatements (Hubler, 1983), weakeners (Brown and Levinson, 1987), and downgraders (House and Kasper).
1981), softeners (Crystal & Davy, 1975), backgrounding terms (Low,1996), approximators and shields (Prince at all.1982) and pragmatic devices (Subble& Homes, 1995), mitigators(Labov and Fanshel 1977, Stubbs, 1983), tentativeness (Homes, 983,1995) and vagueness (Channell 1994)
Hedges can be linked to gambits, which encompass various social, psychological, and communicative signals According to Richards (50:118), gambits serve to indicate whether a speaker's contribution introduces new information, builds upon previous remarks, or expresses opinions and agreements.
Vietnamese linguists, including Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (2000), Hoàng Phê (2002), and Nguyễn Quang (2003), perceive hedging as a pragmatic phenomenon Nguyễn Thiện Giáp, in his work "Từ và nhận diện từ trong tiếng Việt," discusses the concept of Quán Ngữ, likening it to gambits He asserts that gambits are expressions frequently employed in discourse to enhance coherence, cohesion, communication, and to emphasize ideas.
According to Hoàng Phê's Vietnamese Dictionary, hedges are expressions designed to prevent misunderstandings and manage responses to statements Nguyễn Quang (2003) describes hedging as a strategic approach aimed at softening the propositional content of communication.
This paper examines hedging from a pragmatic perspective, linking it to speech acts and politeness phenomena A hedge is defined as lexico-syntactical elements that modify a proposition or as a strategy that alters a proposition Hedges can be positioned before or after a proposition The term 'hedging' refers to the use of linguistic strategies as hedges within specific contexts for particular communicative purposes.
Hedging is closely associated with the pragmatic perception of speech acts, which are fundamental to any comprehensive theory of pragmatics.
Hedging can be understood as a form of speech act that serves to convey the speaker's intentions and attitudes, such as making excuses, asking questions, expressing gratitude, or offering apologies and promises This communicative strategy involves various methods, including the use of hedging devices or hedges.
Hedging involves taking protective measures against undesirable outcomes that may impact you Additionally, when you hedge a question or issue, you refrain from providing a definitive answer or committing to a specific action or decision.
Hedges play a crucial role in communication, serving as devices of politeness that significantly influence language choices within cultural and social contexts As noted by Janet Homes (1995:75), "Hedges attenuate or reduce the strength of the utterance," highlighting their importance in effective interaction.
They damp down its force or intensity or directness"
Research on hedges reveals a variety of definitions and classifications Traditionally, hedges are viewed as "semantic modifiers" or "approximations," a concept introduced by R Lakoff in 1972 Lakoff emphasized the semantic role of hedges in statements, noting their ability to either weaken or strengthen category membership (Loewenberg, 1982) E F Prince, Frader, and Bosk further categorized hedges into two groups: approximators and shields.
Approximators are expressions that alter the original meaning of a proposition or offer alternative interpretations based on context They can influence the truth conditions of statements, occasionally leading to a complete change in meaning Approximators are categorized into two types: adaptors and rounders.
Factors affecting directness and indirectness in human interaction
There are many socio-cultural factors affecting the directness-indirectness of utterances Nguyen (1998) proposes 12 factors that, in his view, may affect the choice of directness and indirectness in communication:
1- Age: the old tend to be more indirect than the young
2-Sex: females prefer indirect expression
3-Residence: the rural population tends to use more indirectness than the urban
4-Mood : while angry, people tend to use more indirectness
5-Occupation: those who study social sciences tend to use more indirectness than those who study natural sciences
6-Personality: the extroverted tend to use more directness than the introverted 7-Topic: while referring to a sensitive topic, a taboo, people usually opt for indirectness
8-Place: when at home, people tend to use more directness than when they are elsewhere
9-Communicative environment/setting: when in an informal climate, people tend to express themselves in a direct way
10-Social distance: those who have closer relations tend to talk in a more direct way
11-Time pressure: when in a hurry, people are likely to use direct expressions 12-Position: when in a superior position, people tend to use more directness to their inferiors
The strategies and number of semantic formulas used in the act of refusing are influenced by various factors A semantic formula can be defined as a word, phrase, or sentence that fulfills a specific semantic criterion or strategy (Fraser 1981) It serves as a means to accomplish a particular speech act, encapsulating the primary content of an utterance, such as a reason, explanation, or alternative (Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford 1991, p.48).
Social Distance and Social Status
Social distance significantly influences politeness behaviors, as defined by Leech (1983) and Brown and Levinson (1987) It refers to the roles individuals assume in relation to each other and their level of familiarity, impacting the degree of intimacy between them Brown and Levinson (1987) assert that politeness tends to increase with greater social distance Conversely, Wolfson (1988) notes that there is limited solidarity-creating speech among strangers and close acquaintances due to their established relationship dynamics, suggesting that relationship negotiations are more prevalent among friends.
The role of social status in communication involves the ability to recognize each other’s social position (Leech 1983; Brown and Levinson 1987; Holmes
Holmes (1995) argued that individuals with high social status are more likely to experience deferential behavior, such as linguistic deference and negative politeness Consequently, those of lower social status tend to avoid offending their higher-status counterparts and exhibit greater respect towards them.
Pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics
This study focuses on the cross-cultural perspective of declining invitations, necessitating an exploration of pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics Pragmatics has garnered significant attention from linguists, with efforts aimed at defining this linguistic phenomenon According to Richards, Platt, & Webber (1992), pragmatics encompasses the interpretation and use of utterances based on real-world knowledge, the understanding of speech acts, and the influence of speaker-hearer relationships on sentence structure Yule (1996) emphasizes that pragmatics involves speaker meaning, contextual meaning, and the communication of more than what is explicitly said As every culture possesses its own unique speech acts, different cultures express themselves through distinct systems of speech acts, which become entrenched and codified in their respective languages (Wierzbicka, 1991).
Giap (2007) states that in different cultures, speech acts are performed in different ways through different languages
Linguists, these days, has studied, contrasted how language is used in different cultures, which is called contrastive pragmatics Nguyen Thien Giap
To successfully master a language and engage in effective intercultural communication, it is essential to possess not only linguistic knowledge but also a strong understanding of pragmatics This study examines the speech act of invitations in both English and Vietnamese through a contrastive analysis, emphasizing the importance of a cross-cultural perspective during data collection and analysis.
METHODOLOGY
Participants
The thesis aimed to explore the similarities and differences in speech acts of invitations between English and Vietnamese, involving native speakers of both languages as participants A total of sixty survey questionnaires were distributed and analyzed, with all participants providing information about their nationality, age, occupation, gender, and education level to identify factors influencing the speech acts To ensure reliability, participants were asked for permission before taking part in the survey Among the thirty native English speakers, equally divided by gender, ages ranged from nineteen to thirty-eight, and their professions included professors, teachers, students, businessmen, managers, accountants, engineers, and architects from diverse English-speaking countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada Similarly, the group of thirty native Vietnamese speakers, also balanced by gender, were aged between twenty-one and forty-three and spoke Vietnamese as their first language.
Research procedure
The research is scheduled to be completed in six months, which, while not an extensive duration, is strategically planned and executed in a systematic manner to enhance the thesis findings The process is clearly outlined to ensure effective progression.
• Writing discussions and pointing out solutions
Data collection instruments
To ensure high reliability in the study, a survey questionnaire instrument was utilized to explore the similarities and differences in declining invitations between native English speakers and Vietnamese speakers The questionnaires, provided in both English and Vietnamese, consisted of two sections: personal information about participants (nationality, age, education level, and occupation) and situational questions requiring open-ended responses Designed to reflect real-life scenarios, the six open questions emphasized the contexts, relationships, and social statuses relevant to invitation declining speech acts Each question included a situation description followed by a prompt for the participants' answers A total of fifteen questionnaires were distributed for each language version, with participants instructed to provide their responses directly beneath each question To address the research question regarding the influence of social distance and relative power on the selection of hedging strategies by both English and Vietnamese speakers, the study incorporated six situations that clearly illustrated the status relationships and social distances between interlocutors.
Situation 1(S1): The speaker is higher power than the hearer; they are familiar (HF)
Situation 2(S2): The speaker is higher power than the hearer; they are unfamiliar (HU)
Situation 3(S3): The speaker and the hearer are equal in power; they are familiar (EF)
Situation 4(S4): The speaker and the hearer are equal in power; they are unfamiliar (EU)
Situation 5(S5): The speaker is lower power than the hearer; they are familiar (LF)
Situation 6(S6): The speaker is lower power than the hearer; they are unfamiliar (LU)
Research method
The data collected was statistically analyzed using quantitative methods, focusing on frequency distribution Results for each group of power settings, which included two situations, were summarized in a table that displayed the number of participants selecting each option along with the corresponding percentages.
Survey research is a quantitative method that involves gathering data from a representative sample of a population through structured questionnaires, which may include both closed and open-ended questions This approach is particularly effective for cross-cultural studies, as it allows researchers to analyze a smaller portion of a larger population In this study, the questionnaire is meticulously designed based on specific hypotheses to explore the similarities and differences in how Americans and Vietnamese hedge invitation declines, considering various factors such as gender, power, and social distance.
The evaluations and comments on the results, hence, are made inductively.
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
An overview of results
The study presents an overview of results derived from survey questionnaires completed by two participant groups: native English speakers and native Vietnamese speakers.
Direct decline Hedge to decline
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Table 1: the frequency of hedging in invitation declining by English and Vietnamese participants
Table 1 indicates that a significant majority of both English (94.5%) and Vietnamese (96.7%) speakers utilize hedges when declining invitations Direct refusals, expressed simply as "No," are only observed in specific contexts: when the speaker holds more power than the hearer and both parties are unfamiliar, or when they are equal in power but still unfamiliar Notably, the frequency of direct declines varies by gender; English male and female speakers show similar rates (3.2% and 2.2%, respectively), while Vietnamese speakers show a more pronounced difference (2.75% for males and only 0.55% for females) This disparity can be attributed to cultural perceptions of gender equality, with the UK exhibiting less gender distinction compared to Vietnam, where Confucian male chauvinism influences social interactions Consequently, Vietnamese women are more cautious in their speech, resulting in a lower likelihood of declining invitations directly without hedging.
This study examines hedging in invitation declining from a pragmatic perspective, highlighting its role as a politeness strategy that minimizes face threats Analysis of data from Vietnamese and English informants reveals six primary hedging techniques in invitation declining: Delaying, Regret and Apology, Giving Excuses, Showing Respect, Giving an Alternative, and Mixing Different Ways.
Followings are their examples of each strategy taken from the survey
Delaying a response serves to reflect the invitee's hesitation and reluctance in declining an invitation This pause also provides the invitee with the opportunity to select the most considerate words for the decline, minimizing potential hurt feelings for the inviter.
Delaying can be categorized into four types:
The preface serves as a strategic delaying tactic that allows speakers to initiate their decline in a safe and tactful manner This technique can be effectively executed using adverbs and interjections, such as "well," "actually," "umm," "nah," and "yeah" in English, as well as "ờ," "à," "ừm," and "quả là" in Vietnamese.
- Well thanks But I’m on a diet (S4)
-Ờ Có lẽ tớ không tới dự được Hôm đấy cả nhà lại đi du lịch mất rồi.(S3) (Err… perhaps I can’t come That’s when we’re away on holiday)
Doubt and hesitation in an invitation serve to convey to the inviter that the invitee is uncertain about declining, leaving room for the possibility of attendance This ambiguity instills hope in the inviter regarding the invitee's potential presence.
- I don’t know if I can go, perhaps not, thanks for the invite (S1)
- Anh cũng không chắc có đến được không Hôm đấy anh đi công tác (S1) (I’m not sure if I can come I will be on business that day)
Mitigation phrases like "sort of" and "kind of" in English, along with "có vẻ là" and "có lẽ là" in Vietnamese, can effectively lessen the impact of a decline, softening the seriousness of a refusal.
Examples: - Aw, I’m sort of busy today, maybe another time (S1)
- Có vẻ là hôm đấy hơi khó đấy Vợ chồng tớ phải đưa bọn nhóc về quê (S4)
(It seems impossible that day We have to take the kids to our homeland)
The strategy of Showing Regret aims to convey the invitee's feelings of remorse when declining an invitation It emphasizes that the invitee genuinely wishes to accept but must decline due to unavoidable circumstances This approach seeks to elicit the inviter's understanding while expressing an apology.
- Oh, Gosh! A., what a pity!, Unfortunately, bad luck, what a shame! I wish… in English
- Trời ơi…, chán quá…, tiếc nhỉ …, Giá mà… in Vietnamese
- What a shame! I have to leave soon (S6)
- Tiếc quá hôm đấy tớ lại đi công tác (S4)
(What a pity, I’ll be on business that day)
Examples:- Gosh I’m sorry I can’t attend it.( S3)
- Cho em cáo lỗi với sếp… Hôm đấy em phải ra mắt nhạc phụ nhạc mẫu tương lai) (S4)
(I’m afraid I have to say sorry, boss I’ll meet my future parents in law that day)
Excuses play a crucial role in declining invitations, as they clarify the reasons for the refusal These excuses can be truthful or fabricated, but a common strategy is to make them non-personal or refer to prior commitments By employing these tactics, the invitee can elicit sympathy from the hearer, thereby softening the impact of the decline and mitigating any potential offense.
- Ôi,cháu xin lỗi bác Mẹ cháu đang chờ ở dưới ạ( S6)
(Oh I’m sorry, aunt! My mother is waiting)
- I’m really sorry, but I’ll be on duty this Sunday night (S3)
To navigate the potential embarrassment of declining an invitation, invitees often opt to prioritize the feelings of their hosts by first acknowledging and appreciating the invitation This approach not only enhances the host's sense of importance but also allows the invitee to decline the invitation gracefully, minimizing the risk of face-threatening acts (FTAs) in social interactions.
Three common ways to show esteem before declining an invitation that will be mentioned are: (1) expressing thanks, (2) expressing interest and (3) expressing surprise
•Expressing thanks: Giving thank is an easy and common way to show appreciation to the invitations
Examples:- Thanks for thinking of me, but I’m really swamped at the moment
Cảm ơn bạn.Nhưng tớ không thích đồ ngọt (S3)
(Thank you But I don’t like sweets)
•Expressing interest: the invitee can show their interest and concern for the invitation by giving good comments on it or showing enthusiasm for it
Examples:- How nice are the couple! But I’m afraid I can’t make it that day.(S5)
-Chúc mừng chú nhé Nghe nói nhà đẹp lắm Nhưng chắc hôm đấy anh không tới được rồi (S2)
(Congratulations! It is said that your house looks very beautiful But I don’t think I can come that day)
•Expressing surprise: Showing a nice surprise is also a good way in expressing your concerns for the invitation
- Oh, really? What’s a nice surprise! (S1)
-Ôi sếp quyết định cưới vợ thật rồi ạ? Em xin chúc mừng sếp Em mà không phải về quê vợ thì nhất định sẽ đến dự ạ (S5)
( Wao, did you decide to married? Congratulation! If I haven’t to go to my wife’s homeland, I’ll definitely come)
Strategy 5: Giving an Alternative: is considered as the compensation for the
When declining an invitation, the invitee often suggests an alternative to mitigate the inviter's feelings and reduce the impact of the refusal This approach aims to preserve social harmony and maintain the relationship by offering a considerate response.
This Sunday, I have a packed schedule How about we ask my wife to lend a hand in preparing for your party? Unfortunately, I’ll be tied up with work.
(My wife will come and give you a hand with the preparation for the party
But I’ll be on duty.)
Examples:- Oh, I’ll be on business that day I’ll bring you a gift when I come back (S3)
- Hẹn bác lần sau ạ!Hôm nay cháu bận mất rồi
(Maybe another time Today I am busy.)
Hedging in declining invitations can be achieved through a single hedge or a combination of multiple hedges Strategy 6 effectively incorporates a blend of the various strategies previously discussed.
Example:- Wow, congratulations! Unfortunately I have got something planned before I don’t think I can come
In this case, hedging contains different hedges: Showing Appreciation, Showing Regret and Giving Excuses
Vào thứ 7, mình không thể tham gia buổi tổ chức vì có việc quan trọng Mình sẽ đến chúc mừng hạnh phúc của hai bạn vào dịp khác.
(Saturday? Where? Let me see Perhaps I will come to congratulate you the day before because I have a very important work on Saturday.)
In this decline, there is a mixture of: Showing Esteem, Delaying, Giving an Alternative and Giving excuse
The frequency of each hedging strategy in each situation was calculated in the following tables (This table for both men and women)
Table 2: Frequency of hedging strategies used by English and Vietnamese participants
Table 2 reveals that both Vietnamese and English speakers rarely employ the Delaying strategy when declining invitations, with usage rates ranging from 3.3% to 10% English speakers predominantly favor expressing regret and apologies, utilizing this approach in nearly all situations In contrast, Vietnamese participants tend to prefer providing excuses, reasons, or explanations when hedging The frequency of these hedging strategies varies based on the power dynamics and distance between the invitee and inviter, categorized into three groups: high power settings, equal power settings, and low power settings.
HF HU EF EU LF LU
Results of data analysis
3.2.1 The choice of hedging strategy to decline invitation in high power settings
2: Regret and Apology 5: Giving an Alternative
3: Excuse/reason/ explanation 6: Mixing different ways
Figure 1: Hedging strategy provided by the English and Vietnamese participants in situation 1 and situation 2
Figure 1 illustrates that the Delaying strategy is rarely utilized in both scenarios, with only 3.3% of Vietnamese participants employing it when the inviter is familiar In comparison, a slightly higher percentage of English participants use this strategy, at 6.6% in situation 1 and 3.3% in situation 2.
- I don’t know if I can go, perhaps not, thanks for the invite (S1)
- Anh cũng không chắc có đến được không Hôm đấy anh đi công tác (S1)
(I’m not sure if I can come I will be on business that day)
- Aw, I’m sort of busy today, maybe another time (S2)
- I’m not sure if I can come I have some family affair that day (S1)
English participants frequently utilize regret and apology as their preferred strategies, accounting for 26.4% and 17.4% of their responses, respectively In contrast, only 10% of Vietnamese participants employ these strategies to decline in situation 2, although this figure rises to 16.5% when the inviter is familiar.
- What a shame! It must be so much fun (S1)
- Tiếc quá hôm đấy tớ lại đi công tác (S1)
(What a pity, I’ll be on business that day)
- Gosh I’m sorry I can’t attend it.( S1)
- Tiếc quá, hôm nay mình không mua được rồi (S2)
- ( What a pity, I can’t buy it today)
- What a pity, I’ve just went shopping (S2)
Figure 1 indicates that a significant majority of Vietnamese participants prefer using the excuse/reason/explanation strategy when interacting with individuals of equal or lower power, with the highest usage observed in situation 1 at 36.3% Although the percentage drops slightly to 29.7% with unfamiliar invitees, it remains notably high In contrast, English participants show a clear disfavor for this strategy, with minimal variation between the two situations at 16.5% and 13.2%, respectively Typical responses from participants highlight these trends.
- Anh xin lỗi, hôm đấy anh phải tiếp đối tác rồi (S1)
( I’m sorry, I have to entertain our partner that day )
- I’m really sorry, I can’t come back until next Sunday (S1)
- Xin lỗi, chị đang bận lắm (S2)
- Sorry, I need to go now (S2)
In comparing the strategies of Showing Respect and Giving Alternatives in declining invitations, significant differences emerge between familiar and unfamiliar invitees As illustrated in Figure 1, both English and Vietnamese participants predominantly employed Showing Respect when declining invitations from familiar individuals, with rates of 23.1% and 26.4%, respectively In contrast, the use of Giving Alternatives was minimal, at 10% for English participants and 6.6% for Vietnamese participants However, when faced with unfamiliar invitees, the trend shifts dramatically; only 6.6% of English participants and 10% of Vietnamese participants used Showing Respect, while the use of Giving Alternatives surged to 33% and 27.3%, respectively, with English participants slightly leading by 5.7%.
- That sounds really nice But I don’t think I can come (S1)
- Cảm ơn em đã mời Nhưng chị sợ rằng không tới dự được.(S1)
(Thank for your invitation But I probably will not be able to come)
- That sounds really nice But I can’t make it today (S2)
- Có hàng mới về à? Hấp dẫn nhỉ? Nhưng chị đang vội đi (S2)
(New arrivals? That sounds really nice But I’m on a hurry)
- I’ll come as soon as I arrival (S1)
- Tuần sau anh sẽ qua thăm nhà mới nhé!Tối thứ 7 tuần này phải ăn tối với đối tác rồi (S1)
(I’ll visit your new house next week This Saturday evening, I have to entertain our partner)
- Maybe next time I’m really busy now (S2)
- Mai mình qua xem nhé! (S2)
Mixing various strategies appears to be a reliable method for decline, showing minimal variation in frequency across different distances Vietnamese participants utilized this approach similarly in both scenarios, with rates of 10.9% and 13% In contrast, English participants employed this tactic slightly more often in the first situation, at a rate of 17.4%.
- Wow, good news! Unfortunately I have got something planned before
- Đã tân gia rồi à? Nhanh quá nhỉ? Chắc chị sẽ đến chơi sau rồi, chị phải đi công tác 1 tuần (S2)
(Housewarming? Finished so fast, right? But I’ll probably come another day, I’ll on business trip for one week)
- I’d love to come But I have to go now Maybe tomorrow (S2)
- Có chương trình khuyến mại à? Cũng hấp dẫn đấy Chị sẽ ghé xem sau nhé! Chị đang bận chút việc (S2)
(You are giving promotion? It’s interesting I’ll come to see later I’m a bit busy now)
3.2.2 The choice of hedging strategy to decline invitation in equal power settings
2: Regret and Apology 5: Giving an Alternative
3: Excuse/reason/ explanation 6: Mixing different ways
Figure 2: Hedging strategy provided by the English and Vietnamese participants in situation 3 and situation 4
As we can see in the figure 2 that Delaying strategy is used most in these cases, especially Vietnamese participants employed the highest tactic among
6 situations (10% in situation 3, 6.6% in situation 4) The extent is 6.6% and
Both cultures exhibit a cautious approach when explaining reasons to conversational partners of equal status, leading to a tendency to take more time in finding the most suitable way to decline Typical responses reflect this careful consideration.
- Well thanks But I don’t think I can go (S3)
- Ừm, chiều thứ 7 tớ lại về quê mất rồi (S3)
(Um…I’m going to my homeland this Sunday)
- Gee, you see I’m trying to lose some pounds.(S4)
- Ờ, thực ra thì tớ thích sô cô la đắng hơn (S4)
Figure 2 highlights that Vietnamese participants predominantly use the strategy of Excuse/reason/explanation, especially in situation 4 (36.6%), as they fear that the inviter may misinterpret their intentions when declining in similar power settings In contrast, this tactic is employed 10% less (26.4%) when the inviter is familiar English participants also favor Excuses, particularly in situation 2 (23.1%) and slightly less in situation 1 (13.5%) However, their most commonly used strategies are Regret and Apology, which are utilized consistently across situations (26.4% in situation 3 and 24.9% in situation 4) Vietnamese participants show a 6.6% difference in their use of Regret and Apology, opting for this approach more frequently with unfamiliar inviters (23.1%) compared to familiar ones (16.5%).
- I’m afraid to say sorry! My boss will send me to business trip on that day (S3)
- Xin lỗi cậu Hôm đấy tớ lại có việc không hoãn được (S3)
(I’m sorry! I have some work that can’t be postponed on that day)
- Xin lỗi tớ không thích ăn ngọt lắm (S4)
- Unfortunately I can’t come on Saturday (S3)
- Ước gì tớ đến dự được Tớ lại phải đi trực cả ngày chủ nhật (S3)
(I wish I could come I’m on duty all day on Sunday)
- Bad luck, I’m on a diet now (S4)
- Tiếc quá, tớ đang muốn giảm cân (S4)
(What a shame! I’m trying to lose weight)
Both Vietnamese and English speakers exhibit a similar tendency to show respect towards various partners in different situations, with a rate of 17.5% Vietnamese individuals slightly lower their respect when declining unfamiliar invitations, at 16.5% The use of mixed strategies in equal power settings shows minimal difference, with English participants reporting 11.5% in situation 3 and 14.8% in situation 4, while Vietnamese participants show 10% and 10.9% respectively.
- Thank you for your invitation, but I don’t think I can come (S3)
- Tớ muốn đến dự lắm, nhưng chủ nhật vẫn ở quê ngoại (S3)
(I really like to come, but we’ll still be in my wife homeland this Sunday)
- Thanks for thinking of me, but I don’t like sweets (S4)
- Cảm ơn bạn, nhưng tớ không thích ăn vặt trong lớp (S4)
(Thank you! But I don’t like eating in the classroom)
- Aw, what a shame! It must be so much fun But I’m sorry, I can’t come (S3)
- Ôi, ước gì tớ có thể đến được Tiếc là tớ lại có hẹn tối chủ nhật rồi (S3) (Oh, I wish I could come What a pity, I’ve a date on Sunday night)
- Oh, it looks great! But I can’t You know, I’m on a diet (S4)
- Cảm ơn cậu, trông ngon quá Nhưng ăn đồ ngọt khát nước lắm (S4) (Thanks! It’s look delicious But eating sweet make me thirsty)
The most significant difference arises when participants utilize the Giving an Alternative strategy, which is not employed by any participants to decline unfamiliar invitors Among familiar invitors, English participants prefer this strategy more than their Vietnamese counterparts, with usage rates of 24.9% and 19.8%, respectively.
- I’ll be on vacation this Sunday, but I’ll bring you a big gift when I come back (S3)
- I’m not sure to come but I’ll try my best (S3)
- Tớ sẽ cố gắng về sớm để đến dự, nhưng tớ không dám hứa chắc chắn đâu nhé! (S3)
( I’ll try to finish work early to attend, but I can’t promise certainly)
3.2.3 The choice of hedging strategy to decline invitation in low power settings
2: Regret and Apology 5: Giving an Alternative
3: Excuse/reason/ explanation 6: Mixing different ways
Figure 3: Hedging strategy provided by the English and Vietnamese participants in situation 5 and situation 6
In situations 5 and 6, none of the participants opted for the Delaying strategy, suggesting that they perceive its use as impolite when they hold a lower power position than the inviters.
Regret and apology remain popular strategies among English participants, with 33% using them in situation 5 and 36.3% in situation 6 In contrast, Vietnamese participants employed this tactic at rates of 16.5% and 26.4%, respectively.
- I’m afraid I have to say sorry, boss I can’t attend it (S5)
- Tiếc quá sếp ơi, hôm đấy em lại về quê vợ Em xin lỗi sếp (S5)
(What a pity, Boss! I’ll take my wife to her homeland on that day I’m sorry)
- What a pity, I’ve got an appointment today (S6)
- Tiếc quá, cháu phải về nhà ngay ạ (S6)
(What a shame! I have to back home now)
In equal power settings, the Vietnamese tend to use excuses, reasons, or explanations most frequently when declining offers, with a consistent tactic employed in both situations (33%) In contrast, English speakers exhibit a significantly lower usage of this approach, showing no notable difference between the two scenarios (16.5% and 17.4%, respectively).
- Sorry, I’m afraid I can’t cancel my appointment to come (S5)
- I’m sorry I can’t come back until next Tuesday (S5)
- I’m sorry but I have plans already (S6)
- Cháu xin lỗi bác ạ, mẹ cháu đang chờ (S6)
(I’m sorry, my mother is waiting)
Both groups demonstrate a higher frequency of showing respect when declining invitations from familiar individuals compared to unfamiliar ones Notably, English participants utilize this strategy more often than their Vietnamese counterparts, with 26.4% of English participants opting for this approach in situation 5 and 17.5% in situation 6.
Meanwhile, the tactic made by Vietnamese ones is 17.5% and 10.8% respectively Some of the typical answers are as follows:
- How nice are the couple! But I’m afraid I can’t make it that day (S5)
- How nice are the couple! Congratulations! I wish I could come but I have a very important work on Saturday (S5)
- Ôi, chúc mừng cậu nhé! Nhưng chắc tớ không đi công tác về kịp rồi (S5)
(Congratulations! But I’ll not back from business trip that day)
- Oh, really? What’s a nice surprise! But I’m afraid I can’t attend it (S5)
- That sounds really nice… I am really sorry… I don’t think I can stay (S6)
- Ôi, cháu thấy mùi thơm quá Nhưng mẹ cháu dặn phải về sớm rồi ạ (S6) (Woo, It’s smelled beautifully But my mother recommend me to come back early)
In situation 5, Vietnamese participants utilize the strategy of giving an alternative more frequently than their English counterparts, with rates of 26.4% and 17.4%, respectively However, both groups exhibit the same response rate of 10% when declining an unfamiliar inviter in situation 6 Additionally, there is a similarity in the use of mixed strategies by both groups in situation 5, recorded at 6.6% Notably, English participants are more inclined to employ mixed strategies for unfamiliar inviters, with 28.9% compared to 10.9% from Vietnamese participants.
- Tối thứ 6 vợ chồng em đến chúc mừng hạnh phúc sếp trước nhé! Thứ 7 thì chúng em lại có kế hoạch không hoãn được rồi ạ (S5)
(Will my wife and I come to congratulate you on Friday evening? We have some work that can’t be postponed on Saturday)
- Chúc mừng anh chị ạ! Nhưng chắc em phải đến ăn kẹo hôm trước vậy, thứ 7 em phải đưa bọn nhóc về quê (S5)
(Congratulations! But I’ll come the day before, because I have to take the kids to my homeland on Saturday)
- Maybe next time I’ve to go soon (S6)
- Cháu hứa lần sau sẽ ở lại ăn tối ạ Hôm nay nhà cháu có khách (S6) (I promise to have dinner with you next time My family entertain some guests today)
- Wow, congratulations, boss! Unfortunately I have got something planned before I don’t think I can come
Chúc mừng anh! Mọi người đều khen chị nhà rất xinh Em rất muốn đến chúc mừng hạnh phúc của anh chị, nhưng hôm đó em trai em cũng tổ chức cưới, nên vợ chồng em phải về quê.
( Oh, congratulations! People said that she was very beautiful I’d love to come but my brother will also get married on that day, we have to come back my homeland)
- Well, you know, I can smell your food It’s really beautiful I wish I could stay But my parents are waiting for me (S5)
- Hoa kể với cháu là bác nấu ăn ngon lắm Cháu luôn mong được 1 lần thưởng thức tài nghệ của bác Tiếc là hôm nay cháu phải về (S6)
(Hoa told me that you cooked very well I hope to enjoy your dishes What a pity! I have to leave now)
Discussion
As mentioned in chapter three, there were two research questions raised during the process of data analysis
1 What are similarities and differences between the ways English native speakers and Vietnamese speakers using hedges to decline invitations?
2 Do social distance and relative power affect the choice of hedging strategy by native speakers of English and Vietnamese native speakers?
In this part, after the results from survey questionnaires were introduced, the discussion of these two research question was about to be made:
3.3.1.: The similarities and differences between the ways English native speakers and Vietnamese speakers using hedges to decline invitations
The analysis reveals intriguing insights into how native English and Vietnamese speakers decline invitations across three distinct power dynamics: equal, high, and low power settings, encompassing six specific situations.
From the data analysis, a lot of similarities and differences can be seen in the ways of using hedges to decline invitations between Vietnamese and English participants
Both languages exhibit a notable similarity in their use of hedging in invitations In situations where the speaker holds more power than the hearer or where both parties are unfamiliar, direct refusals are rare This reflects a shared cultural trait: individuals in both cultures tend to be cautious about how they articulate their reasons for declining an invitation By doing so, they aim to mitigate the potential loss of face for the inviter and soften the impact of the refusal.
100% Vietnamese and English participants say that they will hedge when declining an invitation made by someone who has more power than him/her
Both English and Vietnamese participants infrequently utilize the Delaying strategy among the six strategies studied, with none employing it to decline invitations from individuals in higher or equal power dynamics This approach can come across as informal, making it unsuitable for rejecting invitations from superiors or in formal contexts.
Mixing various approaches is commonly utilized in many situations, often with minimal consideration for power dynamics and distance To mitigate face-threatening behavior, this method may serve as a secure means of declining in both cultures.
Both Vietnamese and English participants tend to used Showing Respect strategy much more when decline to the familiar inviters than unfamiliar ones, especially in situation 1, 2, 5, and 6
In equal power dynamics, both English and Vietnamese participants demonstrate a similar tendency to show respect, regardless of their familiarity with each other However, in different power contexts, both groups are more inclined to use this strategy with familiar invitees compared to unfamiliar ones.
Beside all common features discussed above, there are various dissimilarities in declining invitations in English and Vietnamese
According to survey results, Vietnamese males are less likely to use hedging when refusing invitations compared to their English counterparts Conversely, Vietnamese females tend to employ hedging more frequently than English females.
Traditionally, Vietnamese people are not accustomed to expressing apologies in social situations Instead, they convey their regret through phrases such as "Trời ơi," "Tiếc quá," "Ước gì," and "Giá mà."
In Vietnamese culture, providing excuses or explanations is a common strategy for declining invitations across various situations and with different acquaintances In contrast, English individuals tend to decline informal invitations, particularly from close friends, without offering excuses; instead, they often express regret and apologize.
3.3.2 The effect of social distance and relative power to the choice of hedging strategy by native speakers of English and Vietnamese native speakers
This section examines how social variables impact the hedging strategies employed by English and Vietnamese native speakers when declining invitations It highlights the similarities and differences in their approaches, focusing on three key social factors across six distinct situations.
Table 2 reveals that power settings significantly influence the choice of Delaying strategy in both languages Participants do not employ this strategy to decline when they possess lower power than the inviter The use of this tactic increases slightly when they hold higher power and reaches its peak when both parties are at the same power level.
Social distance significantly influences the selection of hedging strategies, more so than power dynamics, particularly evident in situations 3 and 4 Notably, a considerable number of both Vietnamese and English individuals opt to give an alternative when declining invitations from familiar acquaintances; however, this strategy is not employed with unfamiliar invitees.
Moreover, both Vietnamese and English participants tend to used Showing Respect strategy much more when decline to the familiar inviters than unfamiliar ones, especially in situation 1, 2, 5, and 6
Chapter five of the thesis provides a concise overview of the study's key findings and implications for teaching, along with a discussion of the study's limitations and recommendations for future research It is divided into two sections: the first focuses on summarizing the major findings and their educational implications, while the second addresses the study's limitations and offers suggestions for further investigations.
Summary, major findings and implications on teaching
This study examines the similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese invitations, drawing on a comprehensive literature review It is grounded in the theoretical frameworks of speech acts and politeness strategies, as well as existing theories in pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics The research categorizes invitations in both languages by referencing previous studies and relevant linguistic literature.
The analysis utilized data from two groups of participants, comprising thirty native English speakers and thirty native Vietnamese speakers The study employed survey questionnaires as the primary data collection tool, featuring six distinct situations presented to both groups.
This study explores the similarities and differences in how English and Vietnamese speakers make invitations It addresses two key research questions: first, it examines the major similarities and differences in the use of hedges to decline invitations among native English and Vietnamese speakers Second, it investigates whether social distance and relative power influence the choice of invitation forms in both languages.
This study employs statistical data analysis methods, including comparison and contrast Following the presentation of results, a discussion was conducted to address two research questions, along with the introduction of implications for teaching.
The research examines hedging in invitation declining through a pragmatic lens, identifying six primary strategies: Delaying, Showing Regret, Giving Excuses, Showing Respect, Giving an Alternative, and Mixing Different Ways It explores the influence of power distance and event formality on hedging practices among Vietnamese and American individuals The findings reveal that a significant majority of both English (94.5%) and Vietnamese speakers (96.7%) utilize hedges when declining invitations Gender also plays a crucial role, with 99.5% of Vietnamese and 97.8% of English female participants indicating a tendency to hedge, compared to 97.3% of Vietnamese males and 96.8% of American males who also hedge frequently.
In Vietnamese culture, providing detailed excuses is a common practice, especially when declining requests However, this tendency can be perceived as excessive and unnecessary in conversations with Americans.
In Vietnamese culture, it is common for individuals to refrain from frequently expressing gratitude or apologies, particularly in social situations or among close acquaintances This tendency can lead to misunderstandings when Vietnamese people decline invitations from American partners, who often use phrases like "sorry" and "thank you" as a sign of respect, even in familiar relationships Consequently, the lack of these expressions in Vietnam may be perceived as insincere or artificial.
The favorite strategy used by both Vietnamese and English people is Mixing Different Ways, while the least favored tactic is Delaying
Language is a fundamental element of culture, and understanding one requires an understanding of the other (Raines, 1999) Second language learning often involves second culture learning (Brown, 1989), highlighting the complexity of refusing in a second language (L2), as it necessitates grasping the socio-cultural values of the target culture To communicate effectively in L2, learners must acquire the socio-cultural strategies commonly used by native speakers and understand the rules for their appropriate application This study will explore the contrasts in making invitations in English and Vietnamese, providing implications for Vietnamese learners of English.
Teachers play a crucial role in helping students understand the cultural similarities and differences in making invitations between Vietnamese culture and English-speaking cultures By distinguishing and emphasizing the appropriate hedging strategies for both informal and formal contexts, teachers enable students to grasp the functions of this speech act This understanding boosts students' confidence in engaging in conversations, particularly with native English speakers Ultimately, it is vital for teachers to prepare students to effectively use English for communication.
Teachers should equip students with essential input to deepen their understanding of invitation declining in both languages and improve their language and communicative competence Modern technology offers various resources, such as the Internet, television, and videos, enabling teachers to present diverse examples of invitations This approach allows students to explore suitable hedging strategies that reflect real-life situations, contrasting with the more limited options found in textbooks, and brings authentic materials into the classroom.
To enhance pragmatic skills in foreign language classrooms, instructors should create contextualized, task-based activities These activities should provide learners with diverse pragmatic input and encourage them to generate suitable responses.
To effectively conduct a speech act, language instructors must teach language forms and functions within the context of communicative oral activities This approach should encompass both formal and informal situations, aiming to enhance learners' sociolinguistic competence in a second language (L2).
Incorporating both socio-cultural and sociolinguistic information into language curricula and textbooks is essential Students must learn to navigate various speech acts in a second language (L2) while considering factors such as social status, social distance, and gender relations between speakers and interlocutors.
Teachers should create numerous communicative opportunities for their students by transforming the classroom into a mini society, neighborhood, or office Engaging in role play and mapped dialogues allows students to practice declining invitations in English, fostering their enthusiasm and creativity.
FitzGerald (1999) emphasizes that teachers must remember they are preparing students for a globalized world, where opportunities to work internationally or with diverse colleagues at home are increasingly common As a result, students will likely need to effectively communicate with both native and non-native English speakers.
Limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies
The fact that participants for this study were all volunteers may have some effects on the data collection and analysis Schumacher and McMillan (1993:
Volunteers often exhibit higher levels of education and social class, as well as greater intelligence and sociability They tend to be more unconventional, less authoritarian, and more altruistic and extroverted compared to those who do not volunteer.
The methodology of written data elicitation presents limitations, as it does not account for prosody, non-verbal gestures, or facial expressions Additionally, the absence of time constraints allows participants to correct their responses, which may not accurately reflect their real-life speech Therefore, incorporating naturalistic data collection methods, such as role-plays or recordings in authentic settings, is recommended to enhance the validity of findings in more comprehensive studies.
While previous research has explored the similarities and differences in declining invitations between English and Vietnamese from a cross-cultural perspective, it has not addressed all aspects of this extensive cultural and linguistic convention Therefore, additional studies are needed to uncover more insights on this topic.
A comparative study on hedges in declining invitation in English and Vietnamese in terms of politeness strategies
A comparative study on using hedges in English and Vietnamese before giving bad news
A comparative study on hedges in refusing request in English and Vietnamese
The thesis has been completed with greatest efforts However, during the making of the thesis, shortcomings and mistakes are inevitably unavoidable Therefore, sympathetic comments and suggestions are highly appreciated
1 Austin, J.L (1962) How to Do Things with Words Oxford: Oxford University Press
2 Back, K., and Harnish, R (1979) Linguistic Communication and Speech
Acts MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass
3 Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B.S (1991) Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session Language Learning, 40,467-501
4 Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B.S (1991) Saying “No” in English: Native and nonnative rejections In L.Bouton, & Y Kachru(Ed.),Pragmatics and languagelearning, 2, 41-57
5 Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B.S (1993) Redefining the DCT: Comparing openquestionnaires and dialogue completion tasks In L.Bouton,
& Y Kachru(Ed.), 143-65 Pragmatics and Language Learning,4,
6 Brow, P, & Levinson, S (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language
7 Channell, J (1994) (ed.) Vague Language Oxford: Oxford University
8 Crawford, A.C (1966).Customs and culture of Vietnam Hanoi: Charles E Tuttle Company
9 Crystal, D and D Davy (1975) Advanced Conversational English
10 Fraser, B (1981) On apologizing In F Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine (pp 259-271) The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter
11 Fraser, B., & Nolan, W (1981) The association of deference with linguistic form International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93-
12 Giáp, Nguyễn Thiện (2007) Dụng học Việt ngữ Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Đại Học Quốc Gia Hà Nội
13 Goffman, E (1967) Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior New York: Pantheon Books
14 Halliday, M.A.K and Hasan, R (1976) Cohesion in English London:
15 House, J., & Kasper, G (1981) Politeness markers in English and German In F Coulmas (Ed.).Politeness markers in English and German(pp
16 Holmes, Janet (1995).Women, Men and Politeness London: Longman
17 House, J (1989) Politeness in English and German: The function of please and bitte In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J &Kasper, G (Ed.), Cross- cultural Pragmatics:
18 Hübler, A (1983) Understatement and Hedges in English
Pragmatics and Beyond IV(6) Amsterdam: John Benjamins
19 Leech, G (1983) Principles of Pragmatics London: Longman
20 Lakoff, R (1973) The logic of politeness; or minding your p’s and q’s Papers from the9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Lingustic Society (pp.292-305) Chicago,IL: Chicago Linguistic Society
21 Lakoff, R (1975).Language and woman’s place New York Harper and Row
22 Lakoff, R (1972) Language in context Language 48, No 4: 907-927
23 Lakoff, R (1972) Fraser, B (1981) On apologizing In F Coulmas
(Ed.),Conversational Routine(pp 259-271) The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter
24 Labov, W & Fanshel, D (1977) Therapeutic discourse: psychotherapy as conversation New York: Acadamic Press
25 Loewenberg, I (1982) Labels and Hedges: The Metalinguistic Turn
26 Low, G (1996) Intensifiers and hedges in Questionnaire items and the lexical invisibility hypothesis Applied Linguistics 17 (1): 1-37.XV(3): 193-
27 Murphy, B and Neu, J (1996) My grade’s too low: The speech act set of complaining In S M Gass and J Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures:
Challenges to communication in a second language(pp 191-216) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
28 Paltridge, B (2000) Making Sense of Discourse Analysis Australia: Gold Coast Mail Centre
29 Phe, Hoang (chu bien) (2002) Tu dien tieng viet Nxb KHXH, Ha Noi
30 Prince, E F., Frader, J., & Bosk, C (1982) On hedging in physician- physician discourse In R J Di Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the professions
31 Quang, Nguyen (2003) Các chiến lược lịch sự dương tính trong giao tiếp
32 Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G & Svartvik, J (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language London: Longman
33 Richard J C., Platt J., Webber H (1992) Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics Oxford: Longman
34 Rounds, P (1982) Hedging in Academic Discourse: Precision and Flexibility Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan
35 Searle, J.R (1969) Speech acts- An essay in the philosophy of language Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
36 Searle, J.R (1975) Indirect speech act In P Cole, & J Morgan (Ed.)
Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts(pp.59-82) New York: Academic Press
37 Stubbs, Michael (1983) Discourse analysis: the sociolinguistic analysis of natural language Oxford: Basil Blackwell
38 Walters, J (1979) Strategies for requesting in Spanish and English: Structural similarities and pragmatic differences Language Learning,
39 Wolfson (1988) Wolfson, N (1988) The Bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance In J.Fine (Ed.),Second language discourse: A textbook of current research Norwood: NJ: Ablex
40 Wolfson, N (1989) The social dynamics of native and non-native variation incomplimenting behaviour In M Eisenstein (Ed.),The dynamic interlanguage
41 Wolfson, N., Marmor, T., & Jones, S (1989) Problems in the comparison of speech actacross cultures In S Blum-Kulka, J House, & G Kasper (Ed.), Cross- cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies(pp.174-196) Norwood:
42 Wierzbicka, A (1991) Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts Journal of Pragmatics, 9,145-178
43 Wierzbicka, A (1987) English speech act verbs: A semantic dictionary Sydney; Orlando, Fla.; London: Academic Press
44 Yule, G (1996).Pragmatics Oxford: Oxford University Press
45.Yule, G (1996) The Study of Language Cambridge: Cambridge
46 Zadeh, L A (1972) A fuzzy-set-theoretical interpretation of linguistic hedges Journal of Cybernetics 1972; 2: 4–3
2 Aims and objectives of the study 3
1.3 The notion of face and Face-threatening act 11
1.5 Factors affecting directness and indirectness in human interaction 23
1.6 Social Distance and Social Status 24
1.7 Pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics 25
CHAPTER III: FINDING AND DISCUSSION 31
3.2.1 The choice of hedging strategy to decline invitation in high power settings 39
3.2.2 The choice of hedging strategy to decline invitation in equal power settings 43
3.2.3 The choice of hedging strategy to decline invitation in low power settings 47
3.3.1.: The similarities and differences between the ways English native speakers and Vietnamese speakers using hedges to decline invitations. 51
3.3.2 The effect of social distance and relative power to the choice of hedging strategy by native speakers of English and Vietnamese native speakers 53
1 Summary, major findings and implications on teaching 55