A Vietnamese-American cross cultural study of giving comments on contestants’ performance by judges in Vietnam Idol and American Idol

A Vietnamese-American cross cultural study of giving comments on contestants’ performance by judges in Vietnam Idol and American Idol Trần Thị Hoàng Ngân Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ Luận

A Vietnamese-American cross cultural study of giving comments on contestants’ performance

by judges in Vietnam Idol and American Idol

Trần Thị Hoàng Ngân

Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ Luận văn ThS Chuyên ngành: English Linguistics; Mã số: 60 22 15

Người hướng dẫn: Nguyễn Thị Thơm Thơm

Năm bảo vệ: 2011

Abstract: This thesis focuses on cross-cultural similarities and differences in giving

comments on contestants’ performance by judges in Vietnam Idol and American Idol Politeness strategies realized for giving comments are analyzed with data taken from the video clips of the two shows The thesis falls into two major chapters: Chapter I:

“Theoretical preliminaries” deals with the notion of culture, cross-culture, speech acts, classifications of speech acts, politeness, and politeness strategies Chapter II: “Data analysis and findings”: Video clips are used to collect data for the study Giving comments which resorts to various strategies of politeness is a flexibly and effectively communicative act in both Vietnamese and American cultures

Keywords: Tiếng Anh; Giao văn hóa; Tiếng Việt

Content

PART A: INTRODUCTION

I RATIONALE

It is of little doubt that language plays a very important role in human’s life Then, English, nowadays, has become an international means of communication in our modern life However, almost all of people learning English find very difficult to understand or to convey English native speakers’ ideas or thinking, maybe, because of the cultural difference between Vietnam and English speaking countries Besides, the lack of the learners’ awareness of the target language culture and the cultural differences is also the source of culture shock in every aspect of cross-cultural communication It is the reason why those days, the study of communication and cross-cultural communication has become an urgent need thanks to the popularity of mass media and the increasing demand

of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Doing research on communicative acts has, therefore, been of great significance

With the development of society, the need of entertainment has been increasing more rapidly People seek many ways to relax their mind such as go for holiday, go camping and

so on However, the simplest way of entertainment is music Many music shows and games have been broadcasted on TV attracting the interest of most of people Vietnam Idol and American Idol are very famous shows of music nowadays Besides selecting an excellent contestant to become the idol of music, the audience also concern the manner the judges give comments on the performance of contestants Thus, Vietnamese – American cross-cultural studies appear useful and vital in this way

Commenting is common in many languages and cultures It is realized by comforting, showing concern or expressing likes or dislike or reaction, etc with the hearer Cross-cultural study on judges’ commenting on contestants’ performance has not received much concern form linguistics and researchers Then, how do Vietnamese and American judges give comments on contestants’ performance? How are the two manners different? Which manner is a positive way? This leads the author to the decision to conduct a research into

“A Vietnamese-American cross-cultural study of giving comments on contestants’

performance by judges in Vietnam and American Idol” to find out the similarities and

differences in the manner of giving comments of Vietnamese and American judges on contestants’ performance The findings from the study hopefully would be a source of assistance in understanding between the two cultures American and Vietnamese

II AIMS OF THE STUDY

The aims of the study are:

- To convey ways which judges give verbal comments on contestants’ performance

in Vietnam Idol 2010 and American Idol 2011

- To point out the similarities and differences in the manner American and Vietnamese judges commenting in their target language and culture

- To answer the two research questions:

+ Which politeness strategies are used by Vietnamese judges and which ones are chosen by American judges?

+ Who employs more politeness strategies in verbal communication: Vietnamese judges and American ones?

- To contribute to raise cross-cultural awareness in using verbal cues for foreign language teachers and learners as well as other potential interactants of international communication

III SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The study is focused on the verbal aspect of the act of giving comments by judges on contestants’ performance after live show in the two latest shows: Vietnam Idol 2010 and American Idol 2011 basing on the politeness theory by Brown and Levinson and other

linguistics researchers Because of some limitations, the author only focuses on the final

round: top 4 and top 3 perform

IV METHODOLOGY

This part is focused on a detailed depiction of the methodology applied in the research paper More specially, the size and characteristics of the research subject altogether with research instruments, data collection procedure as well as data analysis procedure are put into description and justification

IV.1 Selection of subjects

In order to conduct this study, the researcher has employed top 4 and top 3 performs of Vietnam Idol 2010 and also two ones of American Idol 2011 the research subjects in this study have been chosen under the procedure of information-oriented sampling, as opposed

to random sampling In these two performs of American Idol 2011, the researcher has obtained 51 utterances of commenting; meanwhile, she has got 36 commenting utterances

of Vietnam version, which makes a total of 87 utterances This size of the samples could somehow be considered eligible enough for the researcher to carry out a reliable study

IV.2 Research methods

To conduct the study, the researcher has employed two methods namely quantitative and qualitative ones The combination of these two methods has offered the researcher valid data for later analysis

Regarding the aim of the study, the researcher has found that quantitative is the most feasible method to deal with the research problems It is because in the social sciences, quantitative research refers to the systematic empirical investigation of quantitative properties and phenomena and their relationships The objective of quantitative research is

to develop and employ mathematical models, theories and/ or hypotheses pertaining to phenomena The process of measurement is central to quantitative research because it provides the fundamental connection between empirical observation and mathematical expression of quantitative relationships

Besides, qualitative research is a method of inquiry employed in many different academic disciplines, traditionally in the social sciences, but also in market research and further contexts Qualitative researcher aims to gather an in-depth understanding of human behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior The qualitative method investigates

the why and how of decision-making, not just what, where, when Hence, smaller but

focused samples are more often needed, rather than large samples

IV.3 Data collection procedures

The data collection procedure has been divided into two successive phases

Phase 1:

This phase has concentrated mainly on collecting 4 shows of American Idol and another 4 shows of Vietnam Idol To be more specific, the researcher has spent a lot of time finding then watching 12 Vietnamese episodes and 12 American ones then collected 4 episodes of each version

Phase 2:

The researcher has watched then taken notes all the transcripts of the commenting parts of totally 8 American and Vietnamese shows Afterwards, she has identified the strategies of politeness used in every commenting utterance transcripted Simultaneously, prominent examples of each strategy have been noted down to exemplify the researcher’s later analysis

IV.4 Data analysis procedures

First, the verbal data have been interpreted into subtypes of politeness strategies As observed, there are seven strategies that are most commonly used by both Vietnamese and American judges

After that, the researcher has calculated the frequency of commentators’ using the above politeness strategies This step has been followed by her converting the frequency into the percentile forms for comparison

Finally, the researcher has compared the frequencies of politeness strategies used by Vietnamese judges and American ones

V COMMENTS ON THE INFORMANTS

In the two shows Vietnam Idol and American Idol, there are two groups of informants The Vietnamese group consists of 3 informants (one female and two males), but in the final round, one informant is added The second group was 3 judges (also one female and two males)

Details of the informants’ parameters are:

- Vietnamese group:

+ Two females: singer (Siu Black) and editor (Diem Quynh)

+ Two males: director (Quang Dung) and composer (Quoc Trung)

- American group:

+ One female: singer/actress and record producer Jennifer Lopez

+ Two males: singer-songwriter Steven Tyler and music manager Randy Jackson

VI DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The thesis consists of three parts

Part A: INTRODUCTION

This part includes the rationale, aims, scope of the study, methodology and design of the

study

Part B: DEVELOPMENT

This part is divided into two chapters:

Chapter I: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES

In this chapter, theories of culture, cross-culture, culture–shock, language-culture interrelationship, speech act, and classifications of speech acts, politeness, politeness principles and politeness strategies, definition of the two shows are critically discussed

Chapter II: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

In this chapter, the author focuses on analyzing the manner of giving comments of judges through the two shows with the illustration of video clips (if necessary) The similarities and differences in the way of giving comments by Vietnamese and American judges are drawn from detailed and critical analysis of data

Part C: CONCLUSION

Summary of the major findings and suggestions for further research are mentioned in this part

REFERENCES

In English

1 Austin J.L (1962) How to do things with words, Cambrige, Mass: Havard

University Press

2 Bach, K & R.M Harnish (1979) Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts,

Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press

3 Bock P.K (1970) Culture Schock – A reader in modern Cultural Anthropology,

USA: Alfred A.Knopf, Inc, New york

4 Berko R M et al, (1989) Communicating, Houghton Mifflin Comapany, Boston

5 Blum-Kulka, S (1987) Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or

Different? Journal of Pragmatics, ii, 131-14-6

6 Blum-Kulka, J House, & G Kasper (Eds.) (1989) Cross-Cultural Pragmatics:

Requests and Apologies Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corperation

7 Brown P., Levinson S (1978) Politeness some universals in language usage, CUP

8 Brown P., Yule G (1989) Discourse Analysis, CUP

9 Cook G (1990), Discourse, OUP

10 Crystal, D (1992) An Encylopedic Dictionary of Language and Languages,

England: Blackwell

11 Crystal, D (1996) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of language, Cambridge: CUP

12 Condon J C (1975) An introduction to Intercultural communication, Macmillan

publishing company, New York

13 Dinh Thi Be (2008) A Vietnamese – English Cross - Cultural study of Promising,

M.A Minor Thesis, VNU-CFL

14 Downes W (1998) Language and society, CUP

15 Geis M (1998) Speech Acts and conversational interaction, CUP

16 Green G M (1989) Pragmatics and natural language understanding, Lawrence

Eribaum Associates

17 Grundy, P (2000) Doing Pragmatics, USA: Anorld

18 Homes, J (1992) An introduction to Sociolinguistics, London & New York:

Longman

19 Holliday, A et al (2004) Intercultural Communication, Routledge

20 Hymes D (1966) Language in culture and society, Harper international Edition

21 Hymes D (1972) Socio linguistics, CUP

22 Hudson R A (1990), Sociolinguistics, CUP

23 Kaplan, J (1972) Culture thought patterns in Intercultural Education and

Language Learning, 16, pp.1-20, St Paul

24 Karen Risager (2006) Language and Culture: Global Flows and Local

Complexity, Multilingual Matters LTD, Canada

25 Kramsch C (1998) Language and culture, OUP

26 Lakoff G (1977) What can you do with words, politeness, pragmatics and

performatives, In Roger, Andy, Wall, Bob and Murphy, John (eds.), Proceddings

of the Taxas Conference

27 Lakoff G (1973) The Logic of Politeness; or Minding your p’s and q’s Paper

from the 9th Regional Meeting, ed Claudia Corum, T Cedric Smith-Stark, and Ann Weiser, 292-305 Chicago: The Chicago Linguistic Society

28 Leech, G (1974) Semantics, England: Penguin Books, Ltd

29 Leech, G (1983) Principles of Pragmatics London and New Yorl: Longman

30 Levine, D R & Aldeman, M B (1993) Beyond Language Intercultural

Communication for English as a Second Language UK: Prentice/Regents Hall

31 Levinson, S.C (1983) Pragmatics, UK: CUP

32 Lyons J (1977) Semantics, CUP

33 Nguyen Quang (1998) Cross-cultural Communication CFL - Vietnam National

University - Hanoi

34 Nguyen Quang (1994) Intercultural Communication CFL - Vietnam National

University – Hanoi

35 Nguyen Quang Ngoan (2004) Some Vietnamese-American Cross-Cultural

similarities and differences in disagreeing with power-unequals M.A Thesis,

VNU, CFL, Hanoi

36 Nguyen Thi Thom Thom (2005) A Vietnamese-American Cross-Cultural Study on

Extending condolences to the relatives of the deceased, M.A Thesis VNU-CFL,

Hanoi

37 Nguyen Van Do (2007) Language Culture and Society, sl

38 Nunan D (1992) Research Methods in Language Learning, UK: CUP

39 Phan Thi Van Quyen (2001) Some English-Vietnamese Cross-Cultural

Differences in Refusing A Request M.A Thesis, VNU, CFL, Hanoi

40 Phillip R Harris and Robert T Morgan (1998:226) Managing Cultural

Differences, cited in Culture Shock at

www.northtexasism.net/Resources/CultureShock.pdf

41 Richard, J.C & Schmidt, R.W (1983) Language and Communication, London

and New York: Longman

42 Richard, J.C et al (1992) Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied

Linguistics, UK : Longman

43 Samovar, L.A and Porter, R.E (1991), Communication between Cultures

California: Wadworth, Inc

44 Saville-Troike, M (1986) The enthnography of communication: An introduction,

New York: Basil Blackwell

45 Saville – Troike, M (1982) The enthnography of communication, Oxford: Basil

Blackwell

46 Searle J.R (1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language, CUP

47 Searle J.R (1971) Speech acts, Cambridge, England, OUP

48 Tomalin B., Stwmpleski S (1993) Cultural Awareness, OUP

49 Trudgill P (1983) Sociolinguistics, An introduction to Language and Society,

Penguin Bools

50 Valdes J.M (ed.) (1995) Culture Bound, Cambridge, CUP

51 Verderber R (1981) Communicate, Wadsworth publishing company

52 Watts R.J (2003) Politeness, CUP

53 Wesley A (1998) Longman Dictionary of language and culture, Longman

54 Wierzbicka (1987) An English speech act verbs, Academic press

55 Yule G (1996) Pragmatics, OUP

56 Yule G (1997), Pragmatics, OUP

57 (U.S Army, 1983) at http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadcom.html

58 George M Foster Understanding Culture Shock at http://www.rotary5080ye.org/understanding_culture_shock.htm

59 Wardhaugh, R (1992) An introduction to Sociolinguistics, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers

60 Hill et al (1986:349) cited in The Universality of face in Brown and Levinson’s

politeness theory: A Japanese perspective by Peter Longcope at www.justinecassell.com/discourse09/ /longscope.pdf

In Vietnamese:

1 Đỗ Hữu Châu (1995) Giáo trình giản yếu về dụng học, NXB Giáo dục

2 Nguyễn Hòa (2003) Phân tích diễn ngôn – Một số vấn đề lý luận và phương pháp NXB Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội

3 Nguyễn Văn Độ (2004) Tìm hiểu mối liên hệ ngôn ngữ văn hóa, Nhà xuất bản Đại

học Quốc gia Hà Nội

4 Nguyễn Văn Chiến (1992) Ngôn ngữ học đối chiếu và đối chiếu các ngôn ngữ

Đông Nam Á, Nxb, Trường Đại học Sư phạm Hà nội

5 Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (2002) Dụng học Việt Ngữ, Nxb, ĐHQG – Hà Nội

6 Hoàng Phê (1992) Từ điển Tiếng Việt, Nhà xuất bản Khoa học xã hội, Hà Nội

7 Nguyễn Quang (1999) Một số khác biệt giao tiếp lời nói Việt-Mỹ trong cách thức

khen và tiếp nhận lời khen, Luận án Tiến sỹ, ĐHKH-XHNV, ĐHQG Hà nội

8 Nguyễn Quang (2002), Giao tiếp và giao tiếp giao văn hóa, ĐHQG Hà Nôị

9 Nguyễn Quang (2003) Giao tiếp nội văn hóa và giao văn hóa, Nxb ĐHQG Hà

Nôị

10 Trần Ngọc Thêm (1997) Cơ sở văn hóa Việt Nam, Nxb Giáo dục