Luận văn an american vietnamese cross cultural study of interrupting and asking for clarification in business meetings

ABSTRACT This paper is carried out al endeaver of exploring the linguistic politeness strategies utilized by the Vietnamese and the American businesspeople in making interruption aud ask

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNTVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONALSTUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

BULTHI MAL

AN AMERICAN -VIETNAMESE CROSS -CULTURAL STUDY

OF INTERRUPTING AND ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION IN

BUSINESS MEETINGS

(Nghiên cứu giao văn hóa Việt-Mỹ về cách thức ngắt lời và yêu cầu

làm rõ ý trong các cuộc họp kinh doanh}

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics Cade: 60220201

HANOI— 2056

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONALSTUDLES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

BÙI THỊ MAI

AN AMERICAN —VIETNAMESE CROSS -CULTURAL §TUDY

OF INTERRUPTING AND ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION IN

BUSINESS MEETINGS

(Nghiên cứu giao văn hóa Việt-Mỹ vẻ cách thúc ngắt lời và yêu cầu

làm rõ ý trong các cuộc họp kinh doanh)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics

Code: 60220201 Supervisor: Prof NGUYEN QUANG, Ph.D

TIANOI— 2016

DECLARATION

T certify thal the work presented in Uhis research report has beun performed and interpreted solely by myself 1 confirm that this paper is submitted in fulfillment of the requirement for the M.A Degree and has not been submitted elsewhere in any other form for the fulfillment of any other degree or qualification

Hanoi, 2016

Bùi Thị Mai

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This M.A thesis could not have been accomplished without the imvaluable help, encouragement and support form a number of people who I would like to show

my sincerest gratitude and appreciation

To begin with, I would like to oxpress my greatest and decpest thankfulness to Prof, Nguyen Quang, my supervisor, for his enthusiastic and precious guideline and advice throughaut the duration of my thesis Without his instruction and supervision,

this thesis could not have reached the fulfillnent

Additionally, I wish to send my special thanks to Mr Iloang Van Nam, a sales representative at Danko Logistic Company, for his wholchearted facilitation Without his support, 1 cannot obtain emails for contacting American and Vietnamese

businesspeople to ask for their participation in my study Thus, my honest thanks also

come to Ihe American and Vietnamese businesspeople who passionately provide their

responses to my DCT and MCQ

Last but nol least, T owe a greal debt of gratitude to my family and

relatives particularly my father, mother and brother who have always supported

me and supplied the best conditions for me to complete this thesis

ABSTRACT

This paper is carried out al endeaver of exploring the linguistic politeness strategies utilized by the Vietnamese and the American businesspeople in making

interruption aud asking for clanfication in business meetings From thal, major

similarities and differences between the two languages in this regard are revealed

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

omployed to collect data from participants including thirty Vietnamese native speakers and American ones who are curently working in business sector ‘he result reveals that the positive politeness strategy namely “minimizing imposition” is the most common strategy used by American businesspeople while their Vietnamese counterparts prefer “apologizing and minimizing imposition” in semiformal and

informal business meetings Moreover, the speakers ages, genders and positions have

great influence on the choice of politeness strategy for Vietnamese businesspeople

while those factors make no significant influence on the American ones

iii

1 Rafionale + 01 t0 2211 E0 10H00 HH1 01mg re "

3 Ains and objectives of the gtudV HH ri 3

3.1 Aims of the study

3.2 Objectives of the study ¬

A Scope of the study

5 Research questions

6 Research method

7 Structure of the study

CHAPTER Il: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.3 Cross- culture and cross-cultural communication

2 Overview of cross-cultural pragmatics

3 Tnterrupling as a speech act

4, Politeness strategies in interrupting ond asking for clarification

4.3 Previous studics on interrupting and asking, for clarification

CHAPTER LE: METHODOLOGY ¬

1.1, Multiple choice questionnaire "— -

2 Participants

3 Data collection procedure

4 Data analysis method

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

3 The similarities and diỂẨerennces cu eeHieerrrrrerieerroe 37)

3.2.1 Differences in serni-formal meetings coi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DCT: Discourse completion task

TTA: Face threatening act

H: Hearer

MCQ: Multiple choice questionnaire

NPS: Negative politeness strategy

Table IE American businesspcople’s usc of politeness strategies in informal meetings

‘Table LIL 6 Vietnamese businesspeople versus their American counterparts in the use

of politeness strategies in semiformal meetings

Table TIT 7 Victnamese businesspeople versus their American counlerparts in the use

of politeness strategies in informal meetings

vill

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 11.1 Possible Strategies for Doing FTAs (Brown/Lovinson, 1987:60)

Figure IL2 Tow to get a pen from someone else (following Brown/Levinson 1987) (Yule, 1996:66)

Figure II.1 Victnamosc businesspeople’s use of politeness strategies in scmifonnal

Figure IIL SVietnamese businesspeople versus their American counterparts in the use

of politeness strategies int yemi-format meetings

Figure IIL 6Vietnamese businesspeople versus their American counterparts in the use

of politeness strategies m mlonmal meetings

CHAPTER T: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

Language has become an indispensable part in the development and civilization

of human beings Language is not only for communication but also for cultural

exchange among nations The close association between language and culture is

undeniable Henee, it is very difficult for an individual to acquire a language without studying and understanding its culture

Cross-cultural communication is an intsresling and allraclive field to find oul

the similaritics and differences between languages and cultures in various situations in

terms of speech acts and politeness strategies Many studies regarding the speech acts

of requesting, giving and recciving compliments, promising and soon have been carried

out in Vietnam and im other countries where learners of English are of different language backgrounds However, ‘interrupting and asking for clarification’ in

conversations in general and in the context of business meetings in particular is one of the areas that is not paid much attention to

There are different ways to interrupt and ask for clarification in Vietnamese and

in American English However, how to interrupt politely and get effectiveness of clarifying are by no means easy People often have difficulties selecting appropriate and polite ways io inlerrupt another person in anolher language and in difTerent

contexts This leads the author to the decision to conduct research into “An American — Viemamese cross-cultural study of interrupting and asking for clarification in business

mectings” to find out the similarities and differences in how businesspeople interrupt and ask for clarification in these situations in the two different languages and cultures

2 Significance of the study

Hinding out the similarities and differences in interrupting and asking for

clarification between Vietnamese and American entrepreneurs in the context of

Dusiness moctings is expected to make a significant contribution to cross-cultural

pragmatics in theory, and effective conmuueation in praotios Therefore, Vietnamese businesspeople can be more confident when communicating and attending business

amectings with American counterparts

3 Aims and objectives of the study

3.1 Aims of the study

In the light of cross-cultural pragmatics, this study aims at comparing and contrasting linguistic politeness strategies in the speech acts of interrupting and asking for clarification employed by American businesspeople and their Vietnamese

counterparts in business mecting context

3.2 Objectives of the study

The study is designed

* firstly, to investigate ways of interrupting and asking for clarification in business meetings in Vietnamese and American English,

* sccondly, to compare and contrast the use of politeness strategies in the ways the Viemamese and American businesspeople interrupt and ask for clarification in business meetings

4 Scope of the study

The [English-speaking informants ta be surveyed are all American dusinesspeople and the Vietamese-speaking counterparts are all Norhem Vietnamese

The study only focuses on the verbal aspects of interrupting and asking for clarification The analysis of the data collected from the survey questionaire concentrates on the ways the American and Vietnamese businesspeople of different ages, genders and positions interrupt and ask for clarification in business meelings This would mean major similarities and differences between the two cultures would be drawn out from the analysis of the use of negative politeness and positive politeness

strategies.

5 Research questions

To fulfill the objectives above, the answers to the following research questions are sought:

1 What politeness strategies are used by American and Vietnamese

businesspoeple in interrupting and asking for clarification in business meetings?

2 What are the major similarities and differences in interrupting and asking for clarification in terms of politeness strategies between the Vietnamese and

American businesspeople?

6 Research method

The main method of this study is quantitative All the considerations, remarks,

inferpretations, comments and assumptions given in this study arc based largely on the analysis of statistic data with reference to publications ‘The practical access includes:

conducling survey questionnaires, sludying relevant publications, discussing wilh:

American and Vietnamese colleagues, and consulting with the supervisor

Survey research is the method of gathering data from respondents supposed to

‘be representatives of some population In this survey, the author samples a population

Since populations can be quite large, the researcher directly questions only sample of the population Therefore, this method allows the researcher to gain potential gencralivability Besides, survey research tends to be reliable method if questionnaires are well-constructed and standardized, (Blackstone, 2012).That is the reason why

survey method is employed in this study

7 Structure of the study

‘The thesis consists of the followings:

Chapter I INTRODUCTION:

This chapter includes the rationale, aims, objectives and scope of the study

Chapter II: TIIZORETICAL BACKGROUND

Such key concepts as culture, cross-culture, speech acts, and politeness are defined, and politeness principles, politeness strategies in interrupting and asking for

clarification are critically discussed Also, a review of related studics will be presented Chapter I: MUTHODOLOG Y

This chapter provides a methodological framework for collecting and analyzing data

Chapter [V: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

In this chapter, data analysis and findings of the study are presented with the

iHustralion of tables and charts

Chapter V7 CONCLUSION

Summary of the major findings and suggestions for further research are presented in

this part

CHAPTER Wi: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1 Key concepts defined and discussed

1.1 CulLure

There are probably as many conceptions of culture as there are researchers in the ficld Traditionally, culture has cither been seen as a sct of symbolic meanings

located in the minds of people or been defined as a context variable Cultures are seen

as both products of past behavior and as shapers of future behavior and at the same

time; humans are seen as producers of culture and are being influenced by it (Segall,

Dasen, Berry, &Poortinga, 1999) Levine and Adelman (1993-17) give a more concrete definition: “Cullure is a shared background (for example national, cthiic, religious)

yesulting from a common language and communication style, customs, beliefs,

attitudes and values.”

Reovnt approaches comprohend cullures as “dynamic open syslems thal spread across geographical boundaries and evolve through time” (Llong & Chiu, 2001, p 181) rather than stable and slalie entines Tn short, the author of tis thesis is in line with the idea that culture is always changing because it consists of learned patterns of behavior and belief Obviously, language cannot occur alane and is never separated from social

activilies and ils culture

1.2 Business culture

According to MoCarthy (1996: 4), business culture “embodies the character or

elhos of business as reflovied im the way ils porsormel think and act” Regarding this

term, Gallagher (2003) defines business culture in terms of what it both is and is not

“A business cullure is your values and beliefs, generally unspoken, your slyle, the lype

of people you hire and what behavior you reward.” In contrast, business culture is not

“your products and services, promoted externally, your policies and procedures, your

recruiting provess and whal behaviors you say you want”, (p 4) Overall, business

culture is built from time-tested and conventional business practices In other words,

‘business practices and ways of thinking over a long, period of time shape the business culture of a country

1.2.1 Overview of American business culture

According to Gary (1999), the U.S is a saciety of cultural diversity However,

there also exists a dominant culture and immigrants became a part of this culture by giving up their differences so that they cauld fit into the mainstream of the society

As Jolin (2008) points out, Americans belong to a rule-based culture, in oller words; behaviors are based on respects for rules and personal relationships are relatively

wmnimportant in enforcement of rules This characteristic also makes the U.S a “low- context” culture in the sense that “Americans are dircet, and have no problems of spelling, out what they want”, (Katrine, 2007, p.4)

Yirs (2002) shows thal American parlicipanis use communication as a means

to convey a positive self-image This result could be due to the particularly high value

of the U.S culture on individualism dimension The U.S participants in his study are

also concerned about making others feel good about themselves as well (ie., equally important and validated) These values also have influences on American business communication

Firstly, they fond to “get down lo business” in a meeting mush more quickly than in cultures where relationships are important Secondly, an action plan or agenda

with a clear cut schedule is provided at almost all formal business meetings, and

contracts aro written out ahead of time In negotiating, American businesspcople are more likely to be very open and direct, and normally do not enjoy haggling Additionally, Americar tend not to be comloriable with silence and will make every

effort to maintain constant communication Interruptions are not always welcomed

either, in presentations all questions and comments should be held to the end of a

gathering unless otherwise specified (Gestcland, 1999).Unlike many other countries,

6

business in the United States is based on personal power rather than class, status or seniority Iliring relatives or friends solely based on favoritism is completely unethical

in the United States Furthermore, in less formal business settings, Americans are mare relaxed and place great emphasis on personal achievements Americans are not reserved about their personal opinions and express themselves freely in the work environment, including giving, input on important decisions, (Gary, 1999)

1.2.2 Overview of Victnamese business culture

Katrine (2007) reckons thal Vietnam, like other Asian countries, bias a ‘high context’ culture in the sense that words spoken may vary in their moaning depending

on the context, and people maintain close relationships over a long, period of time Similarly, it can be said that Vietnam belongs to relationship-based culture, according

to John (2008) More specifically, in relationship-based cultures, behaviors are

regulated through close supervision by authority figures, improper behaviors may lead

to shame, loss of face, punishment or ostracism, (Joln, 2008) Moreover, Adler and Gundersen (2008) when describing individualism versus collectivism claims that

Viemamese culture is the later case where employees see themselves as part of a group

whose needs should determine behavior Besides, Confucian concept and hierarchy

also have significant influence in Vietnam Hence, these values greatly determine the way Vietnamese people conduct their business

Tirstly, hierarchy and face manifest themselves in different ways at business

meetings For example, the most senior person should always enter the room first

Silonce is also common in meetings where someone disagroos with another and remains quiet, so as not to cause a loss of face Secondly, relationships are critical to successful business partnerships Mectings in Vilar are generally relaxed afTairs, but

smal! talk is also used to establish a sense of familiarity and of a relative status among,

the participants As Vietnam is a very hierarchical society, Vietnamese in general feel smncomfortable if they do not know the status of the people with whom they interact,

(Chambers, 1997).In addition, in Vietnam where high power-distance is associated with low uncertainty avoidance, employees view their orgamzations as families, and

‘bosses are expected to take care of their omployces financially and physically, (Adlor

& Gundersen, 2008)

1.3 Cross- culture and cross-cultural communication

Cross-culture can be understood as “the meeting of two cultures or languages across the political boundaries of nation-states” (Kram, 1998: 81) The term “oross-

collure” or “inlercullure” usually refers to the mesting of two cullures They are

predicated on the cquivalenec of one nation-one culture-onc language and on the

expectation that a “culture-shack” may take place upon crossing national boundaries

Cross-culture secks ways 1o understand the other on the other side of the border

As for the concept of cross-cultural communication, researchers are of different opinions from divergent angles Jia (1997) defines cross-cultural communication as a

subject which focuses on the communicative activities of people trom different cultural

‘background and the essence and rules of the communicative activities The consensus

viewpoint is that the term “cross-cultural” does not anly mean the communication of

different countries, but also the communication of people from different nations,

different social status and sc on Thus, cross-cultural communication ¡is the

exchange and negotiation of information ideas, feclings and altitudes between

individuals who come from different cultural backgrounds

2 Overview of cross-cultural pragmatics

Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993) define cross cultural pragmatics as “the study of linguistic acts by language users from different cultural backgrounds,” (as cited in Lovasiro, 2012:80) According lo Wierzbicka (1991), the term “cross-cultural pragmatics” has been used in the study of language that focuses on several communicative aspects including the way people speak differently in different

communitics, and how different speech styles reflect different cultural valucs and

pilorities These ideas are adopted in the most recent study on “politeness strategies as linguistic variables” (Holmes 2009), which acknowledges that different cultures have different methods of expressing consideration for others

Wierzbicka (1991) suggests that the term “cross-cultural” is used for describing

not only native-non-native interactions, but also any communicative patterns

employed between two people who, in any particular domain, do not share a common linguistic or cultural background Cross-cultural pragmatics isn’t important

as a whole

only for comparing different cultures but also for general pragmatics

General pragmatics is only able to phrase its theories with the help of cross-cultural

studies,

3 Interrupting as a speech act

3.1 Definition of interrupting

Although the term “interrupting” bas drawn much attention from researchers,

there is still little consensus about the definition of interrupting According to West and Zimmerman (1975), interrupting can be seen as a form of simultaneous speech, which

is defined as a violation of a speaker's turn at talk and as a device of exercising power

and control in conversation Moreover, James and Clarke (1988) indicate that

interrupting happens when one person initiates talks while another person is already talking

Regarding the classification of interruption, various categorization schemes for

interruption are proposed by different researchers Tn this study, the author would adopt

the classification of interruption proposed by Roger and Schumacher (1983) in which interruptions are divided into successful and unsuccessful interruptions

Since the anns of this paper is io focus on politeness slrategics employed in lhe way businesspeople interrupt and ask for clarification, only successful interruption is

considered in this research According to Roger and Schumacher (1983), successful

9

interruptions consist of those events in which the first speaker is prevented from completing an utterance by the second speaker taking the floor

Interrupting actions may have difforent intentions such as showing disagreement, asking for opinion, adding ideas or asking for clarification ‘he case in

this study is interruption to ask for clarification This situation usually originates from

the listeners’ divergent problems but mostly resulting from the circumstance when the listeners do not understand what the speaker is saying

3.2 Theory of speech act

One of the important approaches within intcrlanguage pragmatics is the

application of the notion of speech acts According to Yule (1996:47), “Actions

performed via utterances are generally called speech acts.”

Austin (1962, pp 94-108) categorizes the utterance into three layers:

(1) The locutionary act refers to an ullerance simply constructed by ils Titeral or

propositional meaning

(2) The illocutionary act is the real action performed by the utterance, ie the

conventionalized meaning

(3) The perlocutionary at refers to the effect of the utterance upon the listener

Austin considered the illocutionary act as the most important of the three acts because

it is actually what ths speaker warls to achieve through the action of uilerng the

sentences, Searle (1976) asserts that all illocutionary acts fit into five categories:

(Representatives which tell people how things are, (e.g suggest, deny, swear report,

otc.)

(2) Directives are attempts by the speaker to get the hearer to do something (e.g order,

request, invile, command, cic.)

(3)Comissives by which the speaker commits himself to do things (e.g intend, promise, vow, undertake, etc.)

10

(4Jxpressive express speakers’ feelings and attitudes (e.g thank, congratulate, apologize, detest, etc.)

(5)Declarations or declaratives bring about changes in the institutional state of affairs through utterances (e.g resign, appoint somebody, fire somebody, etc.) or instance, a priest stating: “I now pronounce you man and wife”

Speech acts may be either direct or indirect depending, on the direct and indirect relationships between their structures and functions

3.3 Interrupting as a speech act

In English, as Yule (1996) states, more specific labels are normally given to speech acts, namely apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, or request The basic function of interruption is lo prevent the first speaker from being able to finish what he/she is saying and to allow the second speaker to take over the floor đam

conversation rules, mde and disrespectful act However, James & Clarke (1993)

& Clarke, 1993) Tl is offen regarded negatively as violating nonnal

indicate that interruption can be supportive and cooperative speech act as the speakers

can work out a topic together and produce shared meaning Hence, interruption can

sometimes be neutral in case one might interrupt because of a problem with the communicative process; that is, one’s failure in understanding what the speaker is saying Under such circumstance, onc may legitimately Ineak into asking for clarification Based on the theory proposed by Yule (1996) and Searl (1976),

interrupting and asking for clarification belongs to the speech act of request It is the

kind of request for verbal action, that is, the speaker is asked to clarify what he or she

is saying; for example: Could you explain what you mean by ?

4, Politeness strategies in interrupting and asking for clarification

4.1 Politeness and politeness strategies

4.1.1 Politeness

eside theory of speech acts, particularly requests, the theory of politeness can

be considered one of the most fundamental backgrounds of this paper As a result, the

following part of this thesis mentions the theoretical background related to politeness and politeness theory Since politeness and politeness strategies tend to be one of the

chief aspects of pragmatics, abimdant research bas been conducted in this area by

divergent rescarchers However, carlicr studies sccm to all stem from the theory

suggested by Brown &Levison (1987) Consequently, in this thesis the theory of

Brown &Levinson (1987) serves as the principal Coundation

‘Yo begin with, Yule (1996:60) defines politeness as “the means employed to

show awareness of another person’s face.” Accordingly, il is essential to trace Brown

and Levinson’s definition of ‘face’ This term is considered as:

The public self-image thal every mernber wants Lo claim for himself, consisting in two

related aspects:

a) Negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-

distraction- i.< to freedom of action and freedom front imposition

b) Positive face: the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially

including the desire that this selfimage be appreciated and approved of) (Brown

and Levinson 1987:61)

Alihough there is a mutual awareness for both people (speaker and hearer) in a

conversation to preserve each other’s face, some circumstances when speaker

(henceforth S) says something that threatens another individual's expectations of self-

image (their “face”) arc discussed by Yule (1996) Tn this case, this is described as a

face threatening act (henceforth H'I'A) In their theory, Brown &Levinson (1987:65)

also admil thal

An FTA is any verbal act a speaker (S) addresses to any hearer (I) with a specific intention which § intends H to recognize, this recognition being the communicative point of S’s doing the communicative act Any utterance is

always to some extent an imposition on II and S; any utterance is intrinsically

face-threalening Some FTAs are mors threatening than others

Yule (1996)tends to have an agreement in defining the concepl of politeness with

Brown &Levinson (1987) as he declares that politeness can be treated as a fixed concept However, Watts (2003:16) states that “politeness is a dynamic concept, always open lo adaptation aud change in any group, in any age and indoed any lime”

In this regard, Watts appears to refute the universality of politeness as proposed by Brown and Levinson (1987), bul considering it a flexible conception

In short, in person, various definitions of politeness, the writer tends to fall on Yule

1 Withort Lene: sedeessive actioa

HAI, Ý

On a

~ i fo wecunt POLTIINESS 2 POUTIVE

mã a a FTA Ta the WiE seáresdie ‘wien

1.DONT TRO TRE, Grester FTA

Figure 11.1 Possible Strategies for Doing I7I'As (Brown/Levinson, 1987:60)

Aiming at clarifying these strategies, Yule (1996) applies this theory into a specific

situation: “How to get a pen from someone else” as presented in the following chart:

© Positive politeness strategy shows S$ recognizes that H has a desire to be

respected It also confirms that the relationships is friendly and expresses

group reciprocity

© Negative politeness also recognizes H’s face But it also recognizes that S is

in some way imposing on that face

14

© Oifrecord indirect; an FTA is avoided by not (literally) making a request at all but an indirect statement that must be inferred to be a request by hearer,

4.1.2.1 Negative politeness strategies

Negative politeness strategies, which emphasize the right of freedom of the hearer, are acknowledged as “deference strategies” by Yule (1996:66) For him, it can

be the typical strategy of a whole group or just an option used on a particular occasion Besides, this strategy is involved in what is called ‘formal politeness” Yule (1996) also

stales some [eatures associaled wilh a deference strategy such as: being impersonal (as

if nothing is shared and referring to neither S nor 11); emphasizing S’s and II's

independence (marked through an absence of personal claims, for example)

Brown and Levinson (1987:131 lend to provide a more Jucid description of negative politeness by giving ten different strategies as follows:

(10) Redress other wants of H's

Neuyen Quang (2003: 183), from his observation of cross cultural communication,

adds one more negative politeness strategy

Strategy 11: Avoid asking personal questions

In the positive politeness - oriented communities, ‘asking, personal questions’ is

a considerably effective strategy to show concem ta II Meanwhile, this is considered

to impinge on H’s privacy Therofore, avoiding asking such private questions as: “How much do you earn a month?”, “Llew nice your skirt is How much is it?” is another

negative politeness strategy

4.1.2.2 Positive politeness strategies

According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 70), positive politeness “is oriented toward the positive face of II, the positive self-image that he claims for himself”

Nguyen Quang (2003: 27) considers the notion of positive politeness, based on the

cuncem of the solidarily between inleractanls, as “any communicative act (verbal and/

or nonverbal) which is intentionally appropriate and meant to show the speaker's concern {o the addressee, thus, enhancing the sense of solidarity between them”

Positive politeness strategies are usable not only for KFA redress, but in general

as a kind of social accelerator, where 5, in using them, indicates that he wants to ‘come

closer’ to H Therefore, Brown and Levinson (1987:102) sketch 15 positive politeness

strategies applied by speakers in communication as follows:

(1) Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods)

(2) Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)

(3) Intensify interest to IT

(4) Use in-group identity markers

(3) Seek agreement (by the safe topics, repetition or minimal encouragers)

(11) Be optimistic

(12) Include both S and IT in the activity

(l3) Give (or ask for) reasons

(14) Assume or assert recipracity

(15) Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation)

Nguyen Quang (2003: 78-85), adds two more strategies, namely:

Strategy 16: Comfort and encourage

Fg: You have my whole-hearted support

Strategy 17: Ask porsonal questions

E.g: Are you married ar single?

We have mentioned 17 positive politeness strategies and 11 negative politeness strategies, which are mainly used in communication However, a clear-cut distinction

between posilive politeness siralegies and negalive politeness ones is hardly reached

In one utterance, we may find both negative politeness and positive politeness strategies applied:

E.g: Honey, wait for me for just a second? (‘positive politeness’: in group identity

marker- foney- and ‘negative politeness’: minimizing the imposition- just a second)

4.2 Politeness strategics in interrupting and asking for clarification

Tnterruption markers such as ‘excuse me’, ‘sory for interrupting’ bear wilncss

to the effort made to mitigate the effect of an interruption The choice of interruption

markers depends on interrupter and circumstance In some cases, the interrupter may

choose to interrupt by asking a question This section aims to categorize politencss

strategies employed in order to interrupt and ask for clarification in the context of business meetings

On the basis of the politeness theory by Brown and Levinson (1987) and Nguyen Quang (2003), the researcher classifies politeness strategies for interrupting

and asking for clarification into:

a Pasilive patiteness strategies (PPS)

- Seeking agreement by repetition

E.g: Are you saving that “ °?

Có phải éng/ba/anh/chi’ban dang ndi rang “ "?

- Asking for reasons

Eg: Why do not you make it clearer?

Sao 6ngba/anh’chj’ban không trình bày vẫn đề này rõ hon?

b Negative politeness strategies (NPS)

~ Minimizing imposition

E.g: If] may interrupt, could you explain what you mean by ?

Xin phép cho 161 due ngét lei éng/bavanh/chitban, ông/bà/mmhlchibạn có thể

giải thích ÿ của mình về

- Apologizing and using verbal aff - record

E.g: Sorry to interrupt, but I am not really sure I understand what you mean by

âm lỗi đã ngất lời Sng/ba/anh/chi/ban, những tôi thực sự chua hiểu rõ ý cha

ang/bivianhicht’ban vé ?

- Apologizing and minimizing imposition

E.g: Excuse me for interrupting, but could you just clarify it, please?

Xin lỗi di ngất lời ông/bàianh/chụbạn, nhưng ông/bà/anhichÿbạn cô thể vui lòng nói rố hon van đề đó được không?

- Minimizing imposition and using verbal off record

E.g: Hold on just a minute, I do not really understand what you mean

Cho tôi xia chỉ một phúi thôi, tôi thực sự chua hiểu ÿ của ông/bà.anh/chựbạn

về

4.3 Previous studies un interrupting and asking for clarification

A larger number of empirical studies have been carried out on interruption The

pioncer on this matter should be mentioned 1s Zimmerman and West (1975), who

18

records 31 conversation segments that took place in public places to examine the relation between interruption and gender They find that men consistently interrupt women throughout the talk With similar concern, Anderson and Leaper (1998) cany out a summary study of 43 existing studies on the relation between gender and

interruptions The authors find that on the whole, men are more likely than women to

initiate interruptions

Other studies have explored interruptions in specific sacial settings such as

television fiction, discussion groups, family therapeutic sessions and medical

interviews Zhao& Gantz (2003) focus on cooperative/ disruptive interruptions made

‘by male and female characters in prime-time television fiction The findings reveal that

men are more likely to use disruplive mlerruptions, while wornen are more likely to use

cooperative interruptions ‘t'his difference, however, is significant only in work settings

where inlerruplers have a Ingher status than inlerrupied speakers; in more equal

communicative settings the gender factor are found to be insignificant

In a qualitative study on interruptions in therapeutic sessions, O'Reilly (2008)

examines the interruption strategies by family therapists to parents and children The

author records and transoribes 22 hours of family therapy and analyzes how interruption strategies vary according to status of interrupters The findings of this study show hal the use of politeness markers correlates with power and staius in an institutional setting

Like O'Reilly, Menz and Al-Roubaie (2008) carry out a quantitative srudy on the relation of gender and social status with mtcrruptions, and sclected 48 medical

interviews for a qualitative analysis ‘I'he results show that supportive interruptions

function aa clanifiealions, completions, or lexical corrections, non-supporlive

interruptions function to bring about subject change or addressee change The results

also indicate that in medical interviews, the status determines the frequency of

interruptions In addition, gender also plays a small part in deciding the type of an interruption

In short, the empirical studies on intexruptions mainly focus on three issues: the

relations between gender and interruption, the relations between status / institutional

settings and imerruption and the relations between interruptions, politeness and efficiency of communication ‘The relation between interruption and gender are found

to be extremely varied The current paper examines the similarities and differences in interrupting and asking for clarification between Amerivan business people and Victnamesc counterparts in business mectings with reference to three social factors: gender, age and position Like O'Reilly, it also investigates relations between

politeness strategies and inlerrupling and asking [or clarificalion strategios

CHAPTER HI: METHODOLOGY

1 Data collection instruments

The instrament to gather data is questionnaires The questionnaires are composed of close structure items which are multiple choice questionnaires (MCQ) and open-ended ilems which are DCT (discourse completion task)

1.1, Multiple choice questionnaire

Two questionnaires are designed to collect data The first one is a multiple- choice questionnaire (CQ) which is plotted separately for the author's to examine the reliability of the DCT, also the other part of the survey questionnaire The MCO

consists of 10 suggested items which cover the situations attendants frequently

interrupt and ask lor clarification in business mectings These questionaires are

designed to deliver to participants of the two groups: American businesspeople and

their Vietnamese counterparts, Hence, the survey questionnaire is designed into two

versions Ihe American English version is for American informants, and the

Vietnamese one is for Vietnamese informants

1.2 Discourse completion task

‘there have been so far some good methods for cross-cultural and inter-language

studies; for example, ethnographic method, role-play method and discourse completion task (DCI) However, these first two methods are of huge disadvantages such as

contextual variables in ethnographic method or time-consuming on tape records in

role-play approach DCT appears lo be the method whieh can solve the limitation of

the two methods above DCT consists of two different types: Oral Completion ‘Task

and Written Completion Task The first one is modeled as a closed role-play and in this

closed role-play; lhe researcher will verbally describe the silualions and ask the role- playing people what to say in the situations ‘fhe second one consists of written

interactions Briefly described situations are given and the researchers wall ask the

informants to write down what they will say in those situations Although this method

has the limited point which is non-authentic collected data or the absence of prosodic and non-verbal features, the author still chooses this one for the following reasons

Firstly, while natural talk always includes elements unknown to the observer, the

scenarios making up the DCT can be designed to include all pertinent contextual

factors relevant to the envisaged study Factors such as social distance and power can

be systematically varied and then correlated with preferences for particular strategies,

allowing the investigation of the impact of social variables on strategy choice, (Barron, 2003).Second, DCT can be distributed to large groups of infonnants within a short period of time, hence these seem to be suitable for the author's study with time

constraint!

‘the instructions in both MCQ and DCT are clearly provided so that the

tiformants can easily undersiand and give their best answers The author hopes that

the tokens collected from the survey questionnaire are authentic, natural, typical and

reliable for consideration and evaluation [lowever, as limitations of the study, some aspects are not covered such as paralinguistic factors (pitch, intensity, rate, other vocal

qualities, eto.), non-verbal factor (facial expressions, gestures, eye contact, etc.), setting

of communication (place, distance, lighting system, heat, etc.), and mood factars (happy, unhappy, bore, excited, ote.)

2 Participants

The sample or participants of the study will be thirty Vietnamese and thirty

American native speakers The questionnaire will be delivered to only those participants As the scope of the research is to investigate interrupting and asking for clarification in business meclings, the parliciparits are those who are currently working

in business sectors Yhey are Native American and Vietnamese people, not

immigrants, so that the results of the survey will hopefully be reliable

3 Data collection procedure

The first version of questionnaire (MCQ) will be distributed to the two groups

of participants The goal of this questionnaire is to ostablish specific situations or contexts in which businesspeople often interrupt and ask for clanfication in business meetings After that, the discourse completion task will be administrated to two groups

of participants In case the research cannot deliver these questionnaires to the participant directly, this will be fulfilled via email The analysis of the result is based

on a coding scheme and the SPSS soflware 11.5

4 Data analysis method

The unit for analysis for both interrupting and asking for clarification in the discourse completion task is the utterances or sequence of ullerances supplied by informants in completing the task item ‘he analysis of the data yielded by the responses lo the discourse completion task is based on a number of dimensions of speech acts and politeness strategies These dimensions will be given operational definitions and presented in the forms of coding scheme The coding scheme is mostly based on Brawn & Leveinson’s theoretical framework on politeness strategy To find out major similarities and differences in the way business people in the two cultures interrupt and ask for clarification under the influence of power, gender and age SPSS sofware] 1.5 will be employed with the main concentmation au the application of cross

tabulation.

CHAPTER TY: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

1 Comments on MCQ

‘Lhe multiple choice questionnaire is designed to discover situations in business meetings in which interrupting and asking for clarification is common for businesspeople The results arc illustrated in tables and figures (sce Appendix 3) Of

the ten situations designed, it is noticeable that almost Vietnamese and all American

participants choose the situation of disagreement to be the very common case to make

interruptions and ask for clarification Additionally, the fmdings reveal that when the speaker is saying something out of context is the second most common case of

inlerruplion Besides, a majorly of both Vietnamese and Armenvan participants opl for

the moment when audiences do not understand what the speaker is saying to be the

case of interruption Based on the three most popular situations, a DCT is designed to

pul these silualions into three difforcut contexts of business meclings namely: fonnal,

semiformal and mformal to find out how the Vietnamese and American

businesspeople interrupl and ask for clarification i Uhose conlexLs

2 How do Vietnamese and American businesspeople interrupt and ask for

clarification im business mectings’?

2.1 In formal meetings

‘Lhe atmosphere of business meetings can be formal, semi-formal or informal

depending on not only settings, the issues discussed but also the importance of

participanls The responses galhered from DCT designed on the basis of features of formal business meetings reveal that almost American and Vietnamese participants da

nol interrupt and ask for clarification im case of formal meetings