Thesis: Directness in conversations in american english and vietnamese A comparative study

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING DONG THAP UNIVERSITY LE THU HA DIRECTNESS IN CONVERSATIONS IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE —- A COMPARATIVE STUDY Branch: English Pedagogy Degr

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

DONG THAP UNIVERSITY

LE THU HA

DIRECTNESS IN CONVERSATIONS IN AMERICAN

ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE —- A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Branch: English Pedagogy Degree: Higher education

BA THESIS Supervisor: Phan Ngoc Thach M.A

DONG THAP, 2012

I confirm that the thesis entitled “Directness in conversations in American English and Vietnamese - A comparative study” has been performed and interpreted exclusively by myself I clarify that the work is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the BA degree and has not been submitted elsewhere in any other form for the fulfillment of any degree or qualification

The author

Le Thu Ha

Last but not least, my special thanks are sincerely sent to my parents, my friends and so many others who continuously offer spiritual support and encouragement during the process of doing this thesis

Le Thu Ha

Students of English in Vietnam need a general consciousness of directness and indirectness since they will benefit in many aspects First, knowing how and when to use directness and indirectness for communicating purposes is a way serving politeness and face saving That good point is for social interaction In the field of teaching, directness and indirectness can be used by the teacher to balance the quality and quantity of work- share between the teacher and the students and improve the teacher-student relationship

Vietnamese students of English have difficulties in adjusting the degree of

directness and indirectness in their conversations Evidently, various cross- cultural

values build up diverse language styles Directness and indirectness in conversations

do not except and the cultural gap between Eastern and Western countries

unintentionally causes difficulties for the students Moreover, the condition for

students to sharpen their flexibility in choosing appropriate degrees of directness and indirectness is still limited because their sensitivity to directness and indirectness 1s not put in the adequate attention

The thesis “Directness in conversations in English and Vietnamese- A comparative study” is carried out with four specific purposes The first purpose is to remind students

of English of the values of directness and indirectness in aspects of life and career as discussing about the importance of directness and indirectness Secondly, a general summary about directness and indirectness is given to provide people with a firm

foundation about directness and indirectness Thirdly, directness in English as well as

indirectness in Vietnamese is investigated to find out similarities and differences between the two Lastly, hopefully, this research can give some indications for directness and indirectness to teachers and students of English

CONTENT

I5 Ôi .V.VNIÔ))EHtd 1 ACKNOWLEGMENTTS - L LH Tờ 1 / in) v.(G(lJÚ% ằ 11 CONTENT LH nọ kh 1 0:0 4 Ii\4Ọ 4ệ) )đẶ ệỌ Ọ¡93))EiiđiáắđdỎ 4 I0 /(Uio dtddddtdadẦẢẦ 4

IRONMINI váy i00) 000 1 ẠOOÝÝ 5

I N20 000602 U0ỉì 0 IẠIẠIẠIIŨ 6 I0 iá0i2200) 000) l2 7 IN,N9)y32:00107/:1019)) 09) 0)ì)-lđìì:=-:aaiaiiiiaiii 8 ử0: 0.1 9 IBINSIG.VNDI4504 5) AIs)x:iiiiiiiii 9

2.1.1 `AÁ successfuÌ COnVẠTSAfIOI HH ni và 9 2.1.2 Cooperatlon 1n CORVẠTSAfIOTI S 090011019 1 111 vn ng kg 10 2.1.3 Speech acts 20 ccccceccccccssssssececceceeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeseeeeceeeesaeaeeeeeeeeseeaganeeess 11 2.2 Directness 1n CORVẠTSAfIOTS .- HH và 13 2.2.1 Definttion of direcfness 1n CORVẠTSAfIOTS SG SG và 13 2.2.2 The significance of directness 1N CONVETSALIONS .ccccccceceeeeseeeececeeeeeeeeeeees 14 2.2.3 The influences On directness USAGE ce ceeeeccceccecceeeneeeecceceeeaeseeeeeeeeeseeaaeeeens 14

2.2.4 Indirectness verSus GIreCtneSS .cccccscececccccceccccccecececccecscecaceecscecucescececuces l6

00:0 ae 20 I/1530s19)9/9)89 Gà 3+ a 20 3.1 Research qU€S(IOIS 1111 Q S911 1n ng và 20

3.2.2 The SUDJOCtS 20 3.3 Research DrOC€dUTC - - 101111 nọ và 20 3.4 Research metHhO(S - - - + + 3002299131131 1 HH nh 21

3.4.2 Material generalization .ccccceceecsseeeccecceeeeseeeeceeceeeaaseeeeeeeceeaaaeeeeeeeeeaenees 21 3.4.3 COMPALISON .La 21 B.S SUMIMALY 0 21

0010 — 22

"hờ 22 4.1.1 Both Vietnamese and American English involve some commonly general purposes of using directness and indirectness 1n cCOnVerSafIO'S - - 22 4.1.2 Devices of indirectness are the same in Vietnamese and American English .22 4.1.2.1 Rhetorical strategies and markers .ccccceccccneseseeeeececceeeeeeeeeeeeeeenaaeeeeees 22 4.1.2.2 Lexical and Referential Markers - - + + << 31311 1 vs 24 4.1.2.3 Syntactic Markers and Sf†rUC{UT€S S S11 r 26 4.1.3 Both Vietnamese and American use directness and indirectness abiding the COOperafIV€ DTIICIDÌ€S 2 1+ 2908101101110 1111111 111 1n ng 26

4.2 DIÍÍ€T€TC€S - - - - -cc CC ĐC 900009 0009000300000 00 00 00 00 00 110 ni ni ni nu ni cv cà 27

ADL Styles ca 27 ÔÝÔ P.00 Ầ 33 4.2.3 Reasons and purposes of using directness and 1ndirectness 37 4.3 Conclusion about directness and indirectness in American English and

VICINAMESE cee ceceececccceccececccceccecsccsceccecnccececsctscecsceceecscsceceectceectcesctseecscescnseecs 41

IMPLICATIƠONS - - HH HH no non no no ST nh nh ky 42

5.1 What should people notice about directness and indirectness in conversations 42 5.2 Some exceptions of directness and indirectness in Vietnamese and American 3115: 0222757575 — AdaAĂA ÃlaiIiáaáaáiIiiiii 43 5.3 Implicatlons for t€aCH€TS c3 110110103311110 1011 11 111 11v ng 44 5.4 Implications for SfUd€TIS -. c2 00111290111 vn ng ng kg 45

535054505111 47

INTRODUCTION

1.1Motivation

Ochs states that humans learn norms and rules of social interaction through

socialization in specific contexts (1986) Gayle (2002) also affirms that different

contexts regulate people’s interaction behaviors and perceptions of behavioral interactions of others in various ways Therefore, people in different areas of the world behave differently Their behaviors also vary from one group to another in the same nation Differences also exist among various communities in terms of status, gender, and context Inevitably, it causes culture shocks According to Deena and Mara (1982), directness is one of the most necessary parts in the American English using Meanwhile, Jeffrey and Chinh (1997) believe that in

Asian cultures including Vietnamese one, directness is not a valued trait Hence,

there are significant differences in using directness between American English and Vietnamese, particularly in conversations Certainly, these differences can cause certain cross-cultural problems for American and Vietnamese speakers Approaching cross-culture seems to be one of the good ways to help students get used to diverse conducts and improve their communicative competence Learning the use of directness in conversations in the two languages is a very essential part to promote interactive effectiveness

Cross-cultural study demands learner remarkable efforts Therefore, doing research on the use of directness in conversations is believed to be one of the very first steps to approach it Because of the limited time of exposure to cross- culture, an absolute perception is obviously unconceivable to students of English

at Dong Thap University However, learners’ capacity for understanding and interpreting communication styles and patterns will be widened once they work hard to deal with intercultural problems They not only can use appropriate styles

and patterns of communication, contact naturally but also can be more confident

in their conversations with less misunderstanding, shocks, disappointment, anxiety, and unexpected events

Conversations are very important in researches as well as in daily life People can raise communication effectiveness when they know the right way of exchange either directly or indirectly in daily language However, the number of communication styles is uncountable, which cause problems for students of English at Dong Thap University, especially students who work in English- speaking environment and communicate with English-speaking people Consequently, it is more and more essential for them to know how to use conversations effectively to promote their communication skills Actually, suitable directness in conversations and teaching support more flourishing

communication, improved achievements, better relationships, and successful

teaching

Such complexity and problems mentioned above, it makes the necessity of this thesis “Directness in conversations in American English and Vietnamese - A comparative study” The research needs to be done A desire to enrich knowledge

of English is indispensible In addition, if the research is exact and becomes a

factual science one, it will be an adding reference about directness in

conversations for students of English at Dong Thap University

1.2 Aims of the study

The research aims to:

- Realize similarities and differences between American English and

Vietnamese directness in conversations

- Indicate implications of learning and using directness in conversations for students

- Support students in using conversations’ directness in both English and Vietnamese more effectively in order to avoid culture shocks

1.3 The research questions

Are there any similarities and differences in using directness in conversations between American English and Vietnamese?

What are some implications for learning and using directness in conversations?

Directness plays a very essential role in daily life of American people as Deena and Mara say, “American English strongly emphasizes directness in verbal interaction” (2002, p 20) They need brief and straight dialogues Deborah (2007) supposes that sometimes telling the complete truth can actually get communicators into trouble When people converse daily, unpredicted situations

may occur with their directness In addition, Gayle asserts, “The more direct the

refusal, the more the threat to the person’s face.” (2002, p 3) Brown and Levinson (1987) affirm “some degree of indirectness usually exists’? (p 56) To balance directness and indirectness in conversations is not easy Conversing used

in the right way brings about a lot of advantages It gives people chances to develop their personality and emotion, spend time more effectively, and improve relationships and confidence

Appropriate directness in conversations helps people understand and support each other They could recognize what the partner needs and what they should

do Also, they could acknowledge their strong points and weak points from which they could get lessons and experiences through frank advice Apposite conversations are good for community’s sake because it could increase the solidarity

Clever and straight conversations have positive psychological effects on students

In teaching, the teacher evaluates his students constructively and gives them advice in a frank way, which could support students to know their strengths and shortcomings They may learn from the mistakes Teacher’s advice shows students exactly what they need to do to perfect themselves Sincere and straight comments from the teacher could inspire students This makes the students feel that they are well-treated and cared

In addition, the teacher offers them positive points of view Clear and honest conversations can be the motivation for students They become interested in their study They want to overcome their shortcomings Furthermore, students can give their idea straight, which helps the teacher know what they need so that the

teacher can adjust the way of teaching Moreover, open and _ practical conversations can improve the relationship between teacher and students In general, appropriate directness in conversations helps teaching and studying

more successful

In conclusion, appropriate directness helps people to avoid unexpected troubles and struggles appearing in daily conversations, as well it supports teacher to be helpful and reliable consultant This thesis “Directness in conversations in American English and Vietnamese - A comparative study” intentionally recommends directness in daily life talk and in teaching to students Furthermore,

an exciting point is that directness in conversations between American English and Vietnamese are compared, which support students more cross cultural knowledge and appropriate way of using directness in conversations

1.5 Related previous study

Many scholars have been done researches on “directness” Arthur (2001) performs “Directness in the Use of African-American English” He presented the

form, meaning and function of directness Nevertheless, his work is not a

comparative study and it is about African-American English only Gayle, Mahmoud, and Waguida (2002) are also successful with their thesis “Directness

vs Indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English communication style” They make clear communication style, directness and indirectness in term of refusals Their results were analyzed according to the frequency of strategy usage and directness as related to country, gender, and status However, their study is a comparative study on Egyptian Arabic and American English Both of the works above are not related to Vietnamese language

In Vietnam, there are studies on indirectness in Vietnamese such as “Meandering speeches of Vietnamese” (2007) by Nguyen Dang Khanh and “Synonymous sentences using meandering speeches” (2010) by Nguyen Huu Chuong Also, some contrastive researches on directness in Vietnamese and American English are carried out Nguyen Thi My Ngan did a research named “Refusing and offer

in English and Vietnamese- A contrastive analysis” in 2010 Besides, “Some

Do Thi Mai Thanh and Tran Thi Le Quynh in 2011 However, all the researches

mentioned above do not determine popularly same points and different points

two languages

This thesis, a comparative study on directness in conversations in both American English and Vietnamese, will demonstrate some common similarities and differences between them, indicate implications of learning and using directness

in conversations for students, and support them in using conversations’ directness

in both English and Vietnamese more effectively in order to avoid culture

shocks

1.6 Organization of the thesis

The thesis comprises five main parts as introduction, literature review,

methodology, comparative study and implications

The first chapter, introduction, includes motivation, aims of the study, research

questions, significance of the study, previous related studies, and organization of

the thesis

The literature review chapter gives information about directness in conversations

with three sections The first one is about related theories, the second is about directness in conversations, and the last one is about low-context and

Joan (2002) defined “Conversation is discourse mutually constructed and

negotiated in time between speakers; it is usually informal and unplanned” (p 28) She also affirms that conversations usually occur in strings of related and combined utterances It means that each speaker is affected by what the previous speaker said, and what speaker says affects what the next speaker says

According to Joan (2002), a real conversation must perform required standards which are exchange structure, turn-taking, adjacency pairs, and sequences

Firstly, the exchange structure must be carried out in a fixed order of moves

There are three basic moves: the initiation, the response, and the follow-up which

is abbreviated into IRF (Initiation-Response-Follow-up) In other words, participants start up a conversation, response, and then follow up it

Secondly, turn-taking helps participants show their cooperation in conversations Next, adjacency pairs are known as frequently occurring patterns in pairs of utterances Particularly, the utterance of one speaker makes a certain response of the next speaker

Lastly, certain sequences, which are stretches of utterances or turns, emerge in conversations These can be pre-sequences, insertion sequences, opening and closing sequences Pre-sequences prepare the ground for a further sequence and signal the type of utterance to follow Insertion sequences allow pairs to occur

embedded within other adjacency pairs Openings tend to contain a greeting, an enquiry after health and past reference Pre-closing can be drawn out on occasions and it can be long in British and North American conversations (Joan, 2002)

A successful conversation brings people a lot of benefits such as widening and deepening people’s relationship “Even the most casual of conversations have an interactional function Casual conversations in parties can have the practical task

of ascertaining whether the future social cohesion is possible or desirable and, for some, whether establishing an intimate relationship is going to be feasible” said

Joan in 2002 (p.28)

2.1.2 Cooperation in conversation

Cooperation in conversations is also expressed through the way people talk - direct or indirect Use directness in a right way can reduce “face-threatening” and show communicators’ collaboration Therefore, cooperation theory provides a basic knowledge for directness researching

Conversations are carried on efficiently with cooperation Cooperation also helps participants focus on the already identified items and use simple language to mention the items in their own way It makes sure that the participants can get their partner’s ideas

Cooperation in conversation is nurtured by the cooperative principles, which are frequently mentioned many books such as “Pragmatics and Discourse” by Joan Cutting or “Studies in the Way of Words” by Paul Grice According to Paul Grice (1991), there are four maxims of the principles including maxims of quantity, quality, relation, and manner which ensure a successful conversation The first maxim of the cooperative principles is the maxim of quantity “which says that speaker should be as informative as required” (Joan, 2002, p 35) It means that maxim of quantity shoes people what should be included in their

conversations.

11

The second maxim is the maxim of quality Joan (2002) affirms that maxim of

quality says people to be genuine and truthful It encourages partakers to say true things

The maxim of relation is the third one of cooperative principles It says participants in conversation to say something relevant to what they have heard or what they have been said

The last one is the maxim of manner which says people to be brief and orderly, and avoid obscurity and ambiguity (Joan, 2002)

Those principles are also described clearly by Paul Grice in 1991 (p 26, 27):

Quantity:

1 Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange)

2 Do not make your contribution more informative than is required

Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true

1 Do not say what you believe to be false

2 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

Three students are sitting at the “bun-lunch’, the social occasion at which the university lays on filled rolls and fruit juice on the first day of the course, to welcome the students and help them get to know each other

MM I think I might go and have another bun

AM I was going to get another one

BM Could you get me a tuna and sweetcorn one please?

AM Me as well? (Joan, 2002, p 15)

The first level of the analysis is locutionary act which is the form of the words uttered The second one is illocutionary force or the function of the words, the specific purpose of the speaker The last one is perlocutionary effect known as

the effect on the hearer, the hearer’s reaction

Searle (as cited by Joan, 2002, p 16) classifies speech acts into five macro-

classes which are declarations, representatives, commissives, directives, and

expressives The first class is declaration including words and expressions such

as “I beg’, “I declare”, and “I resign” The second one is representatives which contain words of cases such as describing, claiming, hypothesizing, insisting, and predicting The third class is commissives which excites the speaker’s future action with promising, offering, threatening, refusing, vowing and volunteering The fourth class is the directives which are known as forces making hearer do something such as commanding, requesting, inviting, forbidding, suggesting, etc Expressives is the class in this analysis It comprises speaker’s feels like apologizing, praising, congratulating, deploring, and regretting

In addition, according to George (1996), there are two general types of speech acts The first one is direct speech act and the second one is indirect speech act

We have a direct speech act when an easily recognized relationship between the

three structural forms (declarative, interrogative, imperative) and the three general communicative functions (statement, question, command/ request) And

whenever there is indirect relationship between structure and a function, we have

an indirect speech act

Speech acts are mentioned in this chapter because they are main parts constructing conversations Studying directness in conversations means studying

13

directness in some speech acts Speech act theory provides the author of this study a firmer theoretical background to do the research

2.2 Directness in conversations

2.2.1 Definition of directness in conversations

Directness, the subject of this chapter, is a highly important aspect of American verbal culture

It involves speech events such as cussing out (cursing directed to a particular addressee), playing the dozens (a game of ritual insults), snapping, reading people (theatrically delivered negative criticism), verbally abusing people (see below), going off on someone (a sudden, often unexpected burst of negatively critical, vituperative speech), getting real (a fully candid appraisal of a person, situation, event, etc.), and trash talk (talk in competitive settings, notably athletic games, that is boastful and puts down opponents)

professor responded immediately (Deena & Mara, 1982, p 20, 21)

Directness is also showed at a dinner party

Host Would you like some more dessert?

Guest No, thank you It’s delicious, but I’ve really had enough

Host OK, why don’t we leave the table and sit in the living room?

(Deena and Mara, 1982, p 21)

In addition, Marcyliena (1998) defines directness in conversations as the absence

of indirection and audience collaboration and a disregard for social context His definition makes the notion of directness more superior

2.2.2 The significance of directness in conversations

Directness plays a very important role in conversations Directness is available in

educational, work, and legal contexts where formal communication is defined

in relation to tasks and individual activities and where power relationships

are extreme In addition, direct conversations are often used to disambiguate a situation, determine truth, among other functions (Marcyliena, 1998) Therefore,

directness used in conversations in a right way could help interlocutors elucidate

a situation and reveal truth

According to Marcyliena (1998), directness is considered to be functional rather than truthful or dishonest Because direct discourse is void of intent which can be co-constructed, it is often view suspiciously outside of institutional contexts This

is especially true for direct questions Direct questions are institutional ways of knowing which are not based on the truth (intentionality) of the questioner

or respondent

Arthur (2001) states that direct speech can be used to maintain propriety, teach,

inform, aid in negotiating roles, role hierarchies, entertain, pass time,

demonstrate verbal wit and creativity, express the speaker's emotional state, and define a social situation The functions of directness are very numerous, which makes its importance in conversations larger and larger

2.2.3 The influences on directness usage

The deepest factor which concerns the usage of directness in conversations is the culture because the language always has relations to culture which has many

dimensions such as ideas, customs, skills, arts, and tools in a given period of

time Henry (1961) affirms that “language is not only the product of culture, but

also is the symbol of culture” (p.7) Larry, Richard, and Nemi (1981) state that

culture and communication are attached because culture not only determines the participants, the issue, and the process of conversation but also helps to clarify how people encode messages, the conditions and circumstances under which diverse messages may or may not be sent, noticed, or interpreted In other words, culture is the groundwork of communication

15

In addition, directness in conversations is also influenced by high or low-context culture as stated by Benjamin (2005) “‘There is a difference in directness between high and low context cultures, with low context cultures relying on directness and high context cultures exhibiting a more indirect communicative style’(p 15) Therefore, culture has a strong impact on directness usage Together with this main factor, there are some more factors affecting on directness usage in

conversations

Context where a conversation happens is an element influencing its directness

Directness is available in educational, work, and legal contexts where formal

communication is defined in relation to tasks and individual activities and where power relationships are extreme (Marcyliena, 1998) Therefore, the more

formal the context is, the more direct the conversation 1s

Arthur (2001) affirms that direct speech is normally multilayered in terms of meaning and function, both of which are mostly dependent on emotional states of interlocutors and audience response He also asserts that the kinds of speech

events associated with directness merit theoretical attention In sum, the level of

directness is various in different emotional states

Another factor that has much influence on directness is relationship Depending

on the association and the position of communicators, the conversation can be

direct or indirect Deena and Mara (1982, p 21) say, “There are limits to the

degree of directness a person allowed to express, especially with people of higher status such as teacher and employers.” Their theoretical point is illustrated in the example below

A male student was surprised at the reaction of his female teacher when he said, “What has happened to you? You look like you gained a lot of weight!” When the teacher replied, “That’s none of your business,” he answered in an embarrassed tone, “I was just being honest.” In this case, his honesty and directness were inappropriate because of the

teacher-student relationship (Deena & Mara, 1982, p 21)

In addition to the factors above, the consciousness of directness in conversations

plays the role of the main cause In other words, the more people know about

directness, the more levels of directness may be applied to the practical situation

in real life However, lessons on directness in conversations and their practice are not really available in Vietnam, for example students of English at Dong Thap University are introduced to directness in American English briefly when learning unit 2 “Verbal Patterns” of Cross Culture course by Deena and Mara (1982, p 19-41) As a result, the students can hardly use directness in a right way

in their conversations To know about correct directness for different situations 1s essential for limiting unexpected misunderstandings from the listener and avoiding

offence listener

“In sum, directness, in all social settings, comes in degrees, affected in complex ways by the many mental and material factors that come into play in any social situation.” (Arthur, 2001, p 15)

2.2.4 Indirectness versus directness

Besides directness, indirectness is also a very important definition to be

discussed in this chapter Indirectness, in fact, 1s opposed to directness

Directness is a method people use when they want to refer to something as Deborah defined, directness is “the way people mean what they don’t exactly say” (2007, p 55) Directness is demonstrated more clearly in the example

below

B says, “Are you wearing that dress to the concert?” to conveys a non-question speech act, like a statement “I don’t think you should wear that dress to the concert.” or even a command “Go put on another dress.”

Thai (2007, p 12) also asserts, “Indirectness in interpersonal communication

exists in various cultures around the world; however, it occurs in greater

frequencies in L2 writing than in Western composing It can involve a circular discoursal style in which the communicative purpose is achieved strategically (by using such devices as hedges, rhetorical questions) or stated only after a number

of remotely-related points have been presented It can also be manifested in the unstated relationships between propositions or between propositions and the

“Indirectness is thus most generally attributed to politeness” (p.13)

In addition to indirectness’ advantages Thai alleges, Deborah (2007) supposes that sometimes telling the complete truth can actually get communicators into trouble, for example a communicator asks a question and his partner gives him a

truthful answer with no explanation, the communicator may think the answer is

suspicious even though the partner is telling the truth Therefore, directness is not always the best choice as Deborah states, “reason we can’t solve the problems of indirectness by being direct is that there are always unstated assumptions” (p.66) 2.3 High-context versus low-context culture

High and low contexts are factors that influence on directness in conversations (Benjamin, 2005) In this section, high-context and low-context are compared to highlight the difference in directness between Vietnamese and American

According to Hall (1976), a high-context communication or message is “one in which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in

the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the

message” (p 91) On the contrary, in low context communication, most of the information is in the explicit code

In addition, Hall (1976) also contrast high context culture with low-context

culture in the table below

Many covert and implicit

messages, with use of

metaphor and reading

between the lines

Many overt and explicit messages that are simple

and clear

Locus of control and

attribution for failure

Inner locus of control and personal acceptance for

More focus on verbal

communication than body language

Flexible and open grouping patterns, changing as needed

People bonds

Strong people bonds with affiliation to family and community

Fragile bonds between people with little sense of loyalty

relationship Task more important than relationships

19

Flexibility of time Time is open and flexible |Time is highly organized

Process is more important |Product is more important than product than process

misunderstandings rise from the fact that in low-context cultures, communication

is more explicit and rule governed whereas in high-context cultures, communication is not as open and overt When high-context members interact

with low-context member, both form and content of the interaction are different

Low-context members focus on the figure On the other hand, high-context members concentrate on the ground

William (1991) maintains that when low-context communicators make

attributions about high-context communicators, they overestimate dispositions, while high-context communicators overestimate the influence of the situation on

the individualist

As Hall’s model, Vietnamese culture is considered high-context (Mark and Diep, 2005) while American culture is low-context (Gayle, Mahmoud & Waguid, 2002) Evidently, Vietnamese is less direct compared with American people Of course, there are some misunderstandings occurring when Vietnamese people communicate with American people In addition, Americans focus on the figure while Vietnamese concentrate on the ground Lastly, Americans overestimate dispositions when Vietnamese overestimate the influence of the situation on the

individualist.

Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY

The chapter provides the way the study was carried out and the details of the research including research questions, the author and the subjects of the research,

the research procedure, the data collection instruments and the summary

— Writing the outline

— Writing the proposal

— Collecting the material

— Studying the material

— Analyzing the material

Vietnamese conversations

3.4.2 Material generalization

Basing on analyzing directness in conversations in American English and Vietnamese, structures of directness are formed and appropriate usages of directness are suggested

3.4.3 Comparison

A comparison between directness in conversations in American English and Vietnamese are performed to make clear the differences between them and the dissimilarities in using them The material for the method is from daily and ordinary conversations, literature works and other helpful material related to

Chapter 4

COMPARISION

4.1 Similarities

4.1.1 Both Vietnamese and American English involve some commonly

general purposes of using directness and indirectness in conversations

The purposes of using directness in conversations are to disambiguate a situation and to determine a truth (Marcyliena, 1998) Directness indicates “impatience with avoiding issues” (Deena & Mara, 1982, p 20) Both Vietnamese and American people use directness in conversations when they want to elucidate a situation, reveal a truth, or get to the point briefly

Like Vietnamese people, American people sometimes talk indirectly when they want avoid or postpone a particular sensitive point in conversations In the both languages, indirectness is used to prevent “face-threatening-acts” and to preserve

politeness (Thai, 2007) In addition, indirectness sometimes can _ help communicators get out of troubles (Deborah, 2007) Thai also says that

indirectness takes away listener’s social self-image from being undermined and thus expresses speaker’s nice purpose as well as cooperation, which will foster social harmony or solidarity (2007) Moreover, indirectness used in the form of strategic vagueness can safeguard speaker from the responsibility for information accuracy or protect the message from the shock of direct expressions This helps

to save both interlocutors from conceivable conflicts (Thai, 2007)

4.1.2 Devices of indirectness are the same in Vietnamese and American

English

Hinkel (1997) classified many indirectness devices in three groups: rhetorical

strategies and markers, lexical and referential markers, and syntactic markers and

structures, which are used in both American English and Vietnamese

4.1.2.1 Rhetorical strategies and markers

There are three items in this category They are used for persuasive objectives