Luận văn an american vietnamese cross cultural study of asking for permission in the workplace

ABSTRACT This paper is carried out at endeavor of exploring the linguistic politeness strategies utilized by the Vietnamese and the American people in asking for permission in the workpl

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, IIANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

HOANG THI KIM THOA

AN AMERICAN -VIETNAMESE CROSS -CULTURAL STUDY OF

ASKING FOR PERMISSION IN TITE WORKPLACE

(Nghiên cửu giao văn hóa Việt-Mỹ về cách thức xin phép nơi cũng sở)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

English Linguistics

60220201

HANOI - 2016

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOT UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

SERA AAR AAARRARERAAAR REE

HOANG THI KIM THOA

AN AMERICAN -VIET NAMESE CROSS —CULTURAL STUDY OF

ASKING FOR PERMISSION IN THE WORKPLACE

(Nghiên cửu giao văn hóa Việt-Mỹ về cách thức xin phép nơi công sở)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME TIIESIS

Field: English Linguistics Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Prof NGUYEN QUANG, Ph.D

HANOI - 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

‘This M.A thesis would not have been possible to do without the invaluable guidance, cncouragemenl and support Uhal T recived from many people whe T

would like to show my sincerest gratitude and appreciation

First and foremost, I would like to offer my greatest and deepest thankfulness and gratitude to Prof Nguyen Quang, my supervisor, for his enthusiastic and precious guideline and advice throughout the duration of my thesis Without his

instruction and supervision, this thesis could nol have reached the accomplishment

Additionally, a very special thanks goes out to Mr Vu The Anh and Mrs Bui Thi Yon who aided me to contact American and Vieinamese officers to ask (or their participation in my study Krom the bottom of my heart, | must acknowledge some American and Vietnamese officers for their energetic contribution in DCT and MCQ

Last but not least, 1 am also very grateful to my family and relatives particularly my father, mother and sister who have always supported me and

supplied the best conditions for me lo complete this thesis

ABSTRACT

This paper is carried out at endeavor of exploring the linguistic politeness strategies utilized by the Vietnamese and the American people in asking for permission in the workplace From that, major similarities and differences between the two languages

in this regard are revealed

On the basis of quantitative method, discourse completion lask (DCT) is employed

to collect data from participants including thirty Victnamese native speakers and

American ones who are currently working in the workplace The result reveals that

the positive polileness strategy namely “being conventionally indirect” is the mos!

common strategy used by American businesspeople while their Vietnamese

counterparts prefer “heing optimistic” & “giving deference” Moreover, some

factors mcluding ages, genders have greal influence on the choice of pelilencss strategy for Vietnamese clerks whereas no significant influence of those one are

made on the American counterpartners

ii

LIBT OF AI33RIEVIATIONR àc c ctn nhehhereiierrre vii

CHAPTER l: INTRODUCTION sec wines T

2.1 Aim of the study

2 Objectives of the study

2.3, Asking for permission as specch act

4 Previous studies ơn asking for permission "¬ lS

4, Data collection procedure cc.ecccecccsssssssversssseunssssssisssassetins vont 19

2.1 What are the major similarities and differences m Americar and

Vietnamese perception of asking for permission in the workplace?

2.1.1.2 Vietnamese findings eee `"

2.2.1.1.1 Vietnamese findings - Khai 4

2.2.1.1 2 American fimdlngs c- occcoccccoocecrrree

CILAPTER IV: CONCLUSION 39

REFERENCES 4l AAPPENDIXEHS ak

vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DCT: Discourse completion task

FTA: Face threatening act

H: Hearer

MCQ: Multiple choice questionnaire

NPS: Negative politeness strategy

PPS: Positive politeness strategy

$: Speaker

vii

‘Table 1V.5 Politeness strategies with colleagues in some unimportant events as

seen from Vietnamese respondents

Table TV.6, Politeness strategies with colleagues in some unimportant events as

seen from American respondents

Table TY.7 Politeness strategies with boss in some unimportant events as seen

from Vietnamese respondents

‘Table 1V.8 Politeness strategies with boss in some unimportant events as seen

from American respondents

Table TY.9 Politeness strategies with colleagues in some important events as seen from Vietnamese respondents

Table IV.10 Politeness strategies with colleagues in some important events as seen from American respondents

Table TV.11 Politeness strategies with boss in some important events as seen from

Vietnamese respondents

Table IV.12 Politeness strategies with boss in some important events as seen from American respondents

‘Table LY.13 Vietnamese businesspeople versus their American counterparts in the

use of politeness strategies with colleagues in some unimportant and important

events

Table [V.i4 Viemamese businesspeople versus their American counterparts in the

‘use of politeness strategics with boss in some unimportant and important events

vill

CITAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

i Rationale of the study

Language plays an ossential role in our life We usc language to inform people of

how we feel, what we desire, and understand the world around us Communication

drives our hves However, not only is language for communication bul it is also for

cultural exchange among nations ‘To support this point of view, Durant (1997; 332) claims that “to have a culture means to have communication and to have communication mecms to have access to a language.” Vanguage scrves as an expression of culture without being entirely synonymous with it In most cases, a language forms a basis for ethnic, regional, national or international identity According to Brown (1994:65), “a language is a part of a culture and a culture is a

part of a language; the two are intricately interwoven so that one cannot separate

the two without losing the significance of either language or culture” Nguyen Quang (1998:2) states that “One can not master a language without profound

awareness of its cultural background and in both verbal and non-verbal

communication, culture makes itself strongly felt.”

Tw adilition, the [act is thal many Vietnamese wish to leam a Corcign Janguage

towards a communicative end but are still largely concemed about grammar and

vocabulary Consequently, allhough the utterances and expressions are well-formed,

they may cxporicnce culture shock when entering into actual oross-cultural interactions It can be easily realized that different languages and cultures have different expressions as well as (ifferonl realizations of speech avls by language users ‘This results in a variety of research on cross-cultural study of communication such as complementing, thanking, requesting, making a bargain, promising However, little altention has been pul into asking for permission which is expected

to be where appropriate politeness is found, and as a result, the chance of

permission will increase

Therefore, a desire to have a further insight into major similarities and differences

in asking for permission by native speakers of Viemamese and American has

inspired the researcher to develop a study entitled “A Vietnamese-American

cross-cultural study of asking for permission in the workplace”

2 Aim and objectives of the study

2.1 Aim of the study

‘The aim of this stady is to find out major similarities and differences in the way the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace

2.2 Objectives of the study

* Lo analyze the ways the Vietnamese ask for permission in the workplace

* To analyze the ways the American ask for permission in the workplace

* To discuss major similarities and differences in the ways the Victnamesc and American ask for permission in the workplace

3 Scope of the study

To some extent, with playimg an imporlant role in interpersonal cormmunicalion,

paralinguistic (speed, loudness, piich, .) and extralinguistic (facial expression,

postures, gestures, proximity ) factors are beyond the scope of this study The study is limited within the verbal-nonvecal aspects of the speech act of asking for

permission in view of positive politeness & negative politeness

4, Significance of the study

‘The thesis will contribute to the knowledge and understanding of how to ask for

permission in the workplace in two different cultures: Vietnam and America, thus,

avoidance of culture shock and communication breakdown for success in inter- cultural communication

5 Research Methodology

5.1 Research Questions

‘The main purpose of the study is to answer the following questions:

- What are the major similarities and differences in American and Vietnamese

perception of asking for permission in the workplace?

- How do the Victnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace?

- What are the major similarities and differences in the ways the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace in terns of polilariess stralogios?

5.2 Research Approach

To study how to ask for permission in the workplace in Vietnamese and American cultures, a conlrastive analysis is applied Firstly, strategies of asking [or permission are collected in Vietnamese and American workplace from questionnaires

Secondly, the collected data are classified in the hght of positive politeness and negative politeness

‘The third step is to comparatively and contrastively analyze the collected data

5.3 Research Methods

Tn order to reach the goal of this thesis, (he research was conducted with combination

of several methods as follows:

© Descriptive method: this method is used to give a detailed explanation for the act

of asking for permission in American and Vietnamese workplace through questionnaires

* Analytic method: the analytic method points out some specific strategies of asking for pennission in the workplace in two different cultures drough the

collected data

ϩ Contrastive method: this methed is used m order to show the similarities and

differences in the ways of asking for permission in the workplace in Vietnamese

and American cultures

® Fnductive method: iL helps researchers amd readers to draw out the gonoralizations from the findings

Among them, the analytic and contrastive methods are the dominant ones which are most frequently used in the thesis

5.4 Data Analysis

The collected data will be analyzed according to the informants’ status parameters

(age gender) and participants’ role relationships

The findings arc compared and contrasted to find out major similaritics and differences in the act of asking for permission in the workplace in Vietnamese and Amencan culties

6 Design of the study

Chapter [: Introduction

This part includes the rationale, aitus and objectives, scope, research questions,

significance as well as organization of the study

Chapter LI: Literature Review and Theoretical Background

This chapter reviews the previous slucies related tu the problem under investigation

It provides the theoretical background including theory of culture, cross-culture,

culture shock, relation between language and culture, definition, classification of

specel acts, asking for permission as a spooch act; basic knowledge of politeness

strategies

Chapter IJ: Research Methodology

This chapler consists of the research methods, dala collection

Chapter [V: Findings & Discussions

This chapier concerns with the findings and discussion Th presents the ways of

asking for permission in the workplace and shows the differences and similarities of

the polite strategies in expressing the permission request in the workplace between Amenean and Vietnamese culture,

Chapter V: Conclusion

This chapter summarizes the major findings of the investigation, puts forward the

implications for leaming and teaching, and points out the limitations of the study

Some suggestions are also raised for further studies

CHIAPTER H:

LITERATURE REVIEW & THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1 Key concepts defined and discussed

1.1, Communication

Based on Oxford Advanced Leamers’ Dictionary, “Communication” means the activity or process of expressing ideas and feelings or of giving people information

With a viow to deepening and broadening the definition, Hybels and Weaver (2008)

defined communication as any process in which people share information, ideas, and feelings that involve nat only the spoken and written words but also body language, personal mannerism and style, the surrounding and things that add meaning to a message lt can be easily realized that two above researchers mentioned some different factors in the process of exchanging the information In order to generahze some above factors, Levine and Adchnan (1993) confirmed that communication is a process of sharing meaning through verbal and nonverbal

behavior Not only is communication categorized into verbal and nen-

verbalcormmumication but Nguyen Quang also made a detriled descipion abont intralanguage in verbal communication as well as pararianguage and extralanguage in non-verbal communication To sum up, tL can be understood that

there are some effective ways to share information, to express ideas, feclings in

communication as well as some different factors which contribute to a successful commumicaiion,

1.2 Cross-cultural communication

According to Oxford Advanced Leamers’ Dictionary, cross-culture is defined as

ideas [rom lwo or more differen countries or cultures Tn Nguyen Quang’s Loelure

Note, cross-culture is described as the interaction within some social groups, sub-

cultures, ethnic cultures as well as some different cultures

Based on the above definition, some scholars expanded their concerns for cross- culture When two strangers from different countries communicate so as to let

others understand their culture, customs, religions, values, norms and beliefs, they are doing the cross-cultural communication, According to Levine and Adelman (1993), cross-cultural communicahon is communication (verbal and non-verbal) between people from different cultures; communication that is influenced by cultural values, attitudes and behavior; the influence of culture on people’s reactions and responses lo each other A specific example is thal Tina (originally

from Malaysia) has worked with a mumber of Fijians and sometimes she would touch their curly hair and tell them how nice and soft it feels Ilowever, some

Fijians feel very uncomfortable with her doing so because in their culuure, you're

not supposed to touch people on the head only the chief can do that Through it, it

highlights cultural differences in both non-verbal communication and the social

codes of conduel Sometimes, some misunderstandings 1m cross-cultural communication can happen due to cultural differences In general, it is essential to

‘build up common ground and profound knowledge of different cultures in order to

avoid unexpacled misurderstadings

1.3 Collectivism & Individnalism

Todividualism is defmed as a sibsalion in which people are concerned with themselves and close family members only (Hofstede & Bond.1984) Sunilar to Llofstede & Bond, Darwish and [uber (2003) confirmed that individualistic cultures

include those people who “are concerned with themselves and [amily members only” Concemed about people’s characteristics in culture, Varner and Beamer (2005) showed that individualistic cultures include those people who show many

individual characteristics The individual’s wishes, wants, and needs are the driving force behind any action taken at work, home, and/or school Individualists are

comfortable earning personal credit for successful projects as well as taking the

blame for failure to meet, project goals More clearly, Tramperaars (2011) best

describes individualism as societies that:

frequent use of ‘T”,

decision are made on the spot by representatives,

people ideally achieve alone and assume personal responsibility

vacations taken in pairs or even alone vs group orientation

On the other hand, collectivism is 8 situation where people feel they belong to larger collectives that care for them in exchange for their loyalty, and in retum those same people remain loyal to the group ([Iofstede & Bond, 198) An important value in a collectivist culiure is thal of saving “face” (Varner & Beamer, 2005) Ting-Toomcy and Qetzel (2002) explain that face is associated with “identity respect, disrespect,

dignity, honor, shame, guilt, status, and competence issues” (p 145) Many

collectivist cultures will nol deliver bad news or give criticism for fear of losing

face An example of losing face is when an employee makes an error that loses money for the company The company loses face because the error is often aliributed nol to the individual but to the group More obviously, collectivisar is characterized by Trampanaars (2011) as follows

frequent use of “we”

decisions referred back by the delogates to the organization people ideally achieve objectives in groups and assume joint

responsibility

vacations are taken in organized groups of with extended family

All things considered, the difference between individualism and collectivismcan be

expressed by the range of social “concern”, which refers lo bonds and links with

others (Hui & Triamdis, 1986)

1.4, Confucious valuc

Confucianism is nat a religion: instead it is a set of guidelines for proper behaviour,

and an ideology that underlies, pervades, and guides Chinese culture (Hofstede,

1991; Tu, 1998a; Yan & Sorenson, 2006)

The Confuctan values [orm the core of the Chinese cullure They peuetrate all levels

of social life, and also set standards for family, community and political behaviors Within the present study, Confucianism is defined as a philosophy which is the

Dasie starting, point for 53 every individual to arrive at the state of perfect morality and is a teaching based on a moral code for human relations

The fidamental principles of Confucianism are grounded in the observance of the five virtues (also known as the ‘Five Constant Regulations’) namely, Ren (love and benevolence), Yi (righteousness), Li (propriety or rites), Zhi (wisdom) and Xin

(sincerity or wuslworthiness) (Chan, Ko, & Yu, 2000; Tn, 1983: Tamney & Chiang, 2002; Yao, 2000)

2 Speech acts

2.1 What is speech act?

J Austin (1962) is considered to be a pioneer in confirming the theory of speech acts According to him, a speech act is an act that a speaker performs when making

an utleranee A speech acl, then, is described as “in saying something, we DO

something.” Tor example, when someone says “I am hungry”, he or she can express

his hunger or ask something to eat A speech act is part of a speech event The speech act performed by producing art ullerance, consists of three related acts,

namely locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act

+ Loculionary act is the basic act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression, The

locutionary act is performed with some purposes or functions in mind

+ Tilocutionary act: is an acl performed via the communicative foree of an nileranoe

In

engaging in locutionary acts we generally also perform illocutionary acts such as

informing, advising, offer, promise, etc In uttering a sentence by virtue of

conversational force associated with it

* Perlocutionary act is what we bring about or achieve by saying something, such

as convincing, persuading, deterring perlocutionary

is are performed only on the assumption that the hearer will recognize the effect you intended

Searle (1969) states that speaking a language is performing speech acts, acts such as

making slalements, giving commands, asking questions, making promises and so

on; and more abstractly, acts such as referring and predicting; and secondly, that these acts are in general made possible by and are performed in accordance with cerlain mules for the use of Linguistic elements More obviously, Searle (1972: 136) points out that the minimal unit of linguistic communication is the production of speech acts, not the symbol or word or sentence

Tu agreement, with Scarle, Levelt (1989) defines that an uflerance wilkr this

communicative intention is called a speech act; it is an intentional action performed

‘by means of an utterance

The definition of speech avis was developed by some another American language

philosophers Yule (1996:47) defines that “in attempting to express themselves, people do not only prodwe utterances containing grammatical structures and

words, they perform avtions via those ullerances.” According lo hit, actions

performed via utterances are generally called speech acts, and in English, are

commonly given more specific labels, such as apology, complaint, comphment,

invilalion, promise or request

For example, you work in a situation where a boss has a great deal of power, then

the boss says: “Fou’re fired” The ullerance of the expression is more than just a statement The uttcranee can be used to perform the act of ending your employment

Also, Yule points out another utterance: “This tea is really cold!” On a wintry day,

the speaker makes a cup of tea and believes thal it has beer [reshly made, lakes a

sip and produces this utterance It is likely to be interpreted as a complaint Tlowever, changing the circumstances to a really hot summer’s day with the speaker

being given a glass of iced tea by the hearer, taking a sip and producing this

utterance, it is likely to be interpreted as praise It can be confirmed that the same utterance can be interpreted as two different kinds of speech act

2.2, Classification of speech act:

Some different classification of speech acts can be presented by some different linguistics and researchers

Based on Austin (1962), there are five types of speech acls as [ollows

Verdictives: typiticd by the giving of a vordict by a jury umpire, arbitrator such as acquit, grade, estimate, diagnose

Exercitives: which are the exercising of powers, righls or influcrice suck as appoint, order, advise, warn,

Commisives: which commit the speaker to doing something, but also include declarations or announcements of intention such as promive, guarantee, bel, oppose

Behabitives: 2 miscellaneous groups concemned with attitudes and social behaviors such as apologies, crilicize, bless, challenge

Expositives: which clarify how utterances fit into ongoing discourse, or how they are being used — argue, postulate, affirm, concede

One of Austin’s followers is Searle's, whose classification has become more popular, Nguyen Iloa (2004:32) confirmed that the key point about Searle’s system

is that he recognize “constatives” as a kind of speech acts Searle’s system (1979)

includes six types of speech acts as Collows

c Commissive: a speech act that commits the speaker to doing something in

the future, such as a promise, or a threat

= Ifyou don’t stop fighting, Il call the police

= Pll take you to the movies tomorrow

@ Directive: a speach act that has the Cunetion of gelling the lislener lo do

something, such as a suggestion, a request, permission or a command

= Please, sit down

= Why don't you close the window

c Declarative: a speech act which changes the state of affairs in the world

= [now pronounce you man and wife

œ Expressive a speech act in which the speaker expresses feelings and

attitudes about something, such as an apology, a complaint, to thank

someone, to congratulate someone

= The meal was delicious

10

c Representative a specch act which describes states or events in the word, such as an assertion, a claim, a report

= Tins is a German car c¢ Phatic act: a speech act whose function is to establish rapport between people

= Nice to mel you 2.3 Asking for permission as speech act

In accordance writh Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary, “permission” means the

act of allowing somebody to do something, especially when this is done by

somebody in a position of authority; therefore, “asking for permission” is defined as

an acting of requiring the others’ allowance to do something performed through

ulleranices in interaction

Based on Searle’s classification of speech acts, asking for permission belongs to

directive speech act whose direction of fit is to make the world fit the word (Yule,

1996)

In the book “Meaning and Expression” (1979:22), Searle points out that permission has the syntax of directives In addition to the emphasis on the simple meaning of

“giving penmission”- trying to get somebody te do something, he states that it

consists in removing antecedently existing restrictions on his doing it

Consequently, “permission” is considered to be illoculionary negation of a directive

with a negative propositional content and its logical form is ~(~p)

In agreement with Searle, Zdda Weigand confirms that “to permit” something

presupposes that something is forbidden which must not explicitly expressed but is

known to the community and the speaker asks for the ban to be lifted (2010:190) In

other words, the speech act of “permitting” arises from the specific propositional

features of something forbidden

With Brown and Levinson (1978), asking for permission is face-threatening speech act and is risky for the speaker in losing his/ her face In other words, such requests are (owards spoaker rather (han hearer as well as activate speaker not hearer

11

However, it might be expected that asking for permission, since by definition they occur between unequals, will tend to be less direct than requests for action (cited by

Shostema Blum-Kulka and Flite Olshiain) According lo the ethnographie study on

the language of requesting in Israel, requests for action is the most direct and asking for pemmission is the most indirect, with requests for goods and for information dlustenng in belween the two extremes (Blum-Kulka, Danat and Gerson, 1983)

3 Politeness and politeness strategies

3.1 Politeness

Hill ef al (1986: 349) define politeness as “one of the constraints on human

interaction, whose purpose is to consider other’s feelings establish levels of mutual comfort, and promote rapport” Leech (1983: 104) interprets politeness as forms of

behavior aimed at creating and maintaining harmonious interactions According to

Nguyen Quang (2005: 185), “Politeness refers to any communicative act (verbal and/ or non-verbal) which is intentionally and appropriately meant to make others (feel better”

3.2 Politeness strategies

Positive politeness strategies

Based on Brown and Levinson’s theery (1987), positive politeness “iy oriented

toward the positive face of Ll, the positive self-image that he claims for himself It

expresses solidarily and allend to the H's positive face wants.” Tn other words, it

confirms that the relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity With Yule (1996), he highlights positive politeness az a face saving act concemed with the

person’s positive face It will tend to show solidarity, emphasize that both speakers

want the same thing and have a common goal Through the analysis of cross-culture communication, Nguyen Quang (2003) categorises into some sub-types as follows:

Strategy 1: Notice/attend ta H interest, wants, needs )

Strategy 2: Lxaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with 11)

Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H

Strategy 4: Use ingroup identily markers

Strategy 5: Seek agreement

Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement

Strategy 7: Presuppose, raise, assert common ground

Strategy 8: Joke

Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose knowledge of and concern for II’s want

Strategy 10: Offer, promise

Strategy 11: Be optimistic

Strategy 12: Include both S and II in the activity

Strategy 13: Give or ask for reasons

Strategy 14: Assert reciprocal exchange

Strategy 15: Give gifis to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)

Strategy 16: Condole, encourage

Strategy 17: Ask personal questions

Negative politeness strategies

Brown and Levinson (1987) slates thal negative politeness is oriented toward partially satisfying (redressing) H’s negative face, his basic want to maintain

claims of ierritory and self- determination When negative politeness is used, the speech strategies emphasize the defercnec or reapect for the hearer Negative

politeness is defined as a face saving act oriented to a person’s negative face which

tends lo show deference, emphasises the importance of the olher’s time or concerns

and may include an apology for the imposition by Yule (1996) In agreement with two above researchers, Nguyen Quang (2003) emphasizes that the speaker does not

‘want to impigne on the addressee’s privacy, thus, maintain the sense of distance

between them through using the negative politeness With the basis of negative politeness, he gives more detailed description of 11 negative politeness strategies as

follows:

Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect

Strategy 2: Question, hedge

Strategy 3: Re pessimistic

13

Strategy 4: Minimizing the imposition

Strategy 5: Give deference

Strategy 6: Apologize

Strategy 7: Impersonalise S and H Avoid the pronoun I and You

Strategy 8: State the FTA as an instance of a general rule

Strategy 9: Nominalice to distance the actor and add formality

Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt or as not indebting H

Strategy 11: Avoid asking personal questions

However, in a real ullerance, some ovelaps and borderhnes between posilive

politeness and negative politeness can happen Some people sometimes use both of

them in a sentence as follows:

Kevin, could I possibly use your computer for a shori while? (Kevin: in-group identity marker [Positive politeness] + for a short while; minimise the imposition

[Negative politeness])

3.3 Politeness strategies in asking for permission

As usual, some modal verbs such as: can, could, may, might can be used in asking

for permission In addition, “please”, “would you mind”, “could/ can you mind” can

be considered tobe markers tor asking for permission Each specific cucumstanes

will be equipvalent to some suitable asking for permission markers ‘Therefore, this

section aims to calegorize politeness slralegics used to ask for permission in the

workplace Based on the politeness theory of Nguyen Quang (2003), some politeness strategies for asking for permission are classified into:

a Positive politeness strategies (PPS)

- Be optimistic

Ex: Let me borow your pen for awhile

Ban cho tớ mượn cái búi nhé,

- Give or ask for reasons

Ex; I forgot my pen Can I use yours for the day?

14

Téi b6 quén cai bit Ong/ba/anh’chi/ban cd thể cho tôi mượn bút được

không?

h Negative politeness strategies (NPS)

- Be conventionally indirect

Ex: Can I have a couple weeks off for vacation?

Tôi có (hễ xin phép nghỉ 1 đôi tuân cho kì nghỉ?

- Ghve deference

Ex: Do you mind exchange our shift taday?

Anhichi‘ban vui lòng đổi ca cho mình hôm nay được không?

- Minimize the imposition

Ex: I just want to ask you if I can swap shifts with you

Anh oi, cho em mugn cdi búi mội clưú được không?

4, Previous studies on asking for permission

The field of asking for permission 1s quite common in daily life, therefore, it can be

widely scen m some resvarches In the light of cross-culiural pragmaties, Mr Tran

Ba Tien (2004) attempts to investigate the similarities and differences in the way

Vietnamese anid Canadian English speakers ask for permission Tis focal points are

politeness strategics which result is that Vietnamese speakers combine positive and

negative politeness (in other words, it is called overlap strategies) much more than

Canadian English counterparts, [rom Iwice to three limes as much

Jimmy Dwi Pumawan (2007) do a study of asking for permission produced by Javanese and Chinese couples in Surabaya, which analyses language function in

asking for permission expressions Through the analysis, the author finds out that

the predominant is not seeking permission and the outstanding function is inquiring about approval! disapproval fiction so as to ask for permission from their spouses

with having more authority

Similar to Jimmy, a contrastive analysis about asking and giving permission in Vietnamese and English is carried out by Ms Le Thi Thu Le (2010) with focusing

on the similarities and differences in synlactic and semantic formulas The findings

15

point out that the structure “if” is more common in English than that one in

Vietnamese and the choice of the modal verbs in linglish is preferable whereas

some pharses like “xin phép” “ed thé” are widely used in Viclnamesc Sometimes, power relations and relationship between interlocuters are referred to, however they

are used to emphasize the differences in semantic formulas

Ta sum up, some studios on asking for permission are nearly based on linguistic theory such as: language function, syntactic, semantic formuals ‘Ihe similaries and differences in three issues are obviously shown with some specific evidences,

especially, there is a variety of the countries which are used to compare including

Vietnamese, linglish, Chinese, Javanese, Canadian With reference to cross-culture,

in spite of some detailed statistics, Tran Ba Tien (200) only gives some general stratogies ahoul scveral silualions im daily life and the concentration on a specilic situations has not been concemed thoroughly Consequently, in my study, I focus

on finding out some specific politeness strategies including some sub-types of posilive politeness siralegics and megallve pohlerress siralcgies im order Lo clarify and specify how to ask for permission in the workplace more than in some previous studies

16

CHAPTER TI: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapler focuses on intrnducing the methodology of the thesis; in other words,

the methods of collecting the data for analysis ‘this second chapter consists of five smaller parts: (1) research questions; (2) research participants; (3) data collection

instrument; (4) dala collection procedure; (5) data analysis procedure

1 Research questions

With the aims of finding out major similarities and differences in the way the

Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace, the thesis is hoped

to answer the following questions:

- What are the major similarities and differences in American and Vietnamese

porceplion ol asking for permission in the workplace?

- How do the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace?

- What are the major similarities and differences in the ways the Vietnamese

and Amerigan ask for permission in the workplace in terms of polileness

strategies?

2 Research participants

As mentioned above, asking for permission in the workplace in American-

Vietnamese culture was investigated in this study; therefore, those who work in some different offices from both countries were chosen Lo participate im tesearch Tr order to ensure the reliability of the research, research participants coming from American offices or those who are working in Vietnam are American-Turopean

native speakers In Vietnam, the researcher chose some Vietnamese native speakers

in not only state companies but also private enterprises to be research participants

Tlowever, there is a variety of factors which affect asking for permission style A

large and growmg body of literature suggesis Wal gender status beliefs can

systematically affect women’s ability to effectively exert influence and authority in the workplace Ridgeway in a wealth of social psychological research documents how sex calegorivation and the gondor labeling of jobs alfecl expectations and

behaviors Specifically, she argues that, once individuals categorize a workor as aither male or female, gender stereotypes are likely to become infused into occupational roles and responsibilities, Ihereby afTecting the way the job is done, understood, and represented to others (cited in L.Doering &S.thesbaud’s artice, 2015) Therefore, a range of choosing research participants will be quite wide as

follows

A total of 60 participants from both countries were randomly selected with the age ranged from 22 to 59 In terms of gender, both male and female participate in this survey With regard to nationalily, there are 30 American people and 30 Vietnamese people carrying out this questionnaire

In addition, the researcher had a tendency towards a variety of given occupations,

from businessmen,

of the collected data

countanis io bank clerks with a view to enhancing the validity

3 Data collection instrument

Tho main istrument of the research is survey questionnaire Questiormaire is the

important way to collect data for analysis, Leary (1995) said that survey

questionmaires are less expensive, easier lo group aduvimistration Additionally, thanks to the researchers’ acquaintance, survey questionnaires sent through emails

can reduce their expense and also assist the participants to providing information in

ashor! (ie or whenever they are free On the other hand, with questiormaire, some

natural speech pattems can not be exactly collected because the participants will have much time to think about what he says, especially, the tone, altitudes, emotions

of the performance will not deeply shown However, it is considered to be useful to

use the survey questionnaire for primary investigation in asking for permission in the workplace

Questionaire is obviously divided info three parls and comprised of some

situations necessarily responded At the beginning of the questionnaire, there was an essential part including the participants’ personal information such as age, genders and which have a significant effect on their allemnatives of polilencss slralogics

18

when asking for permission in given situations The next part was designed to find out the similarities and differences in the attitude towards asking for permission in

normal silualons in the workplace Th this parl, 8 aHternulive situations were raised

and the participants would be required to choose 5-point Likert Scale to decide whether it is necessary or not to ask for permission for some certain situations in the

workplace 8 silualions wore calogorived inta two sub-parts with the first one being

the situations in which the participants are in lower status than the requestees (ask the boss for permission) and the second part including in the situations in which the

paricipams have equal stalus with the requesices (ask the colleague for

permission}

The third part of the questionnaire was designed to investigate the linguistic form of

asking for permission in some certain siluations in the workplace 4 giver silualions

which are common problems in working environment are shortly described with

specific contexts and the relationship between the interactanis For each particular situation, the parlicipanls were asked lo accomplisty what he/she would say in

natural speech

4, Data collection procedure

Furst of all, a pilot survey will be carricd out with some Americans and Victnames¢

in order to ask them if they often ask for permission in some daily situations rom

the pilot survey 8 common situations will be chosen to build the alternative

questions to find out the similarities and differences in the necessity of asking for permission in the workplace perceived by American and Vietnamese After having

finished the questionnaire, the researcher wilt cantact with the participants

For American participants, the researcher asked the acquaintances who are working

in America for a help to present the questionnaire with their colleagues, neighbor or

acquainance Tf their (ends accepted, a link to questionnaire would be sent lo their

emails or facebooks After having finished all of the questions, the participants click the button “submit” to send it back For Vietnamese participants, questionnaires

were delivered cither in person or via emails

19

5 Dala analysis procedure

In order to reach the goal of this thesis, the research was conducted with combination

ol’ several tnethods as [ollows:

* Descriptive method: this method is used to give a detailed explanation for the act

of asking for permission in American and Vietnamese workplace through questionnaires

œ Analytic method: the analytic method points out some specific strategies of asking for permission in the workplace in two different cultures through the collected data

« =Contrastive method: this method is used in order to show the similarities and

differences in the ways of asking for permission in the workplace in Victmamese

and American cultures

« Inductive method: it helps researchers and readers to draw out the

generalizations from the findings

Among them, the analytic and contrastive methads are the dominant ones which are most frequently used in the thesis

Particularly, with the first part of the questionnaire being some alternative

questions, the fist step is lo gather information about American and Vietuar

attitudes towards asking for permission in nonnal situations in the workplace ‘The collected data would be summarized, analyzed and compared in tables, pie charts Based on some strategies by Nguyen Quang, the answers would be generalized and categorized into the appropriate strategies Krom that, the researchers had some discussions and explanations about the similarities as well as differences of asking for permission in the workplace in America and Vietnam To find out major similarities and differences in the way people in the two cultures ask for permission under the influence of power, gender and age, SPSS software 11.5 will be employed with the main concentration on the application of cross tabulation

20