Cross cultural communication

Based on the theoretical background of cross-cultural communication, this study aims atinvestigating the similarities and differences in expressing satisfaction in the Vietnameseand Amer

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1

ABSTRACT 2

PART A: INTRODUCTION 3

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 5

I Aims of the study 5

II Method of the study 5

III Scope of the study 5

IV THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 6

1 Speech acts 6

2 The notion of speech acts 6

3 Expressing satisfaction as a speech acts 6

3 1 Face and politeness 8

3.1.1 Face 8

3.1.2 Politeness 8

PART C: CONCLUSION 13

1 Summary of the study……… 13

2 Limitations and suggestions for further study 13

3 Time lines: 14

REFERENCES 15

APPENDICES 16

A special word of thanks goes to my classmates and many others, without whose supportand encouragement it would never have been possible for me to have this thesisaccomplished.

Last but not least, I am greatly indebted to my family, my husband for the sacrificethey have devoted to the fulfillment of this academic work

Based on the theoretical background of cross-cultural communication, this study aims atinvestigating the similarities and differences in expressing satisfaction in the Vietnameseand American languages and cultures It focuses primarily on the popularity andpreference of strategies of expressing satisfaction To do such research, the author of thestudy takes informants’ social parameters such as age, sex, marital status, living area, andknowledge of foreign language(s) into consideration Besides, their surveyed responsesare carefully analyzed to build a frame, a common set of strategies in the field.Anticipated findings are presented and compared in a brief and concise way

PART A: INTRODUCTION

With the great speed of developing and expanding, English has emerged as themost powerful international language all over the world Starting from its use graduallyturning into colossal, plus the characteristics of convenience, English on those days can

be said to be the “golden key to every door” In Vietnamese context, as a result of theopen policies and a lot of encouragement and support from society, the needs of learningEnglish `have also been magnified However, for the sake of examination, thereal purpose of learning English has been somehow distorted A long time ago, themethod of English teaching at school was Grammar- Translation Method with the stress

on grammatical points Up till now, thanks to the conscientious research from languageteachers and educators, the pendulum of English language teaching has swung toCommunicative approach Acquiring a new language means a lot more than themanipulation of syntax and lexicon Language is not just a system of sounds, words andgrammatical structures in isolation, yet it is seen as a system of communication existing

in a community The goal of language teaching is, therefore assumed to be learners’ability to communicate in the target language As a matter of fact, to attain the goodcommand of communication, culture learning apparently becomes indispensable

Winston Brembeck (1977: 37) noted that, “To know another’s language and not his

culture is a very good way to make a fluent fool of oneself” It is also true of English In

order to help learners achieve communicative competence, we have to pay close attention

to the target culture That dialectical connection has always been a concern of researchersand it has received more and more confirmations Thomas (1983) states that the lack ofsocial linguistic competence results in rudeness, miscommunication or evencommunication breakdown because non-native speakers’ inappropriate use of culturalnorms and conventions are considered as manifestation of “impoliteness orunfriendliness” due to “boorishness or ill will” rather than lack of pragmatic knowledge.Accordingly, culture learning no longer remains humble and unnecessary inthe syllabus In contrast, it needs to be taken into great consideration and concentration

Nguyen Quang (1998: 2) states that, “One cannot master a language without profound

awareness of its cultural background and in both verbal and non-verbal communication, culture makes itself strongly felt.” Learners can truly master English only when they are

able to have good understanding of the interrelationship between culture and language.With these reasons in view, the researcher would like to carry out a small-scale study on

expressing satisfaction as a speech act, which is viewed in the light of Politeness

(Positive politeness-Negative politeness) in American English and Vietnamese Due tothe limit of the paper, she would not be able to deal with all aspects but invest in somemajor differences and similarities in expressing satisfaction in the two languages It ishoped that the study may help learners avoid culture shock and pragmatic failures inexpressing satisfaction as well as in cross-cultural communication

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

I Aims of the study

The study focuses on those following aims:

-To provide some similarities and differences in politeness strategies of expressingsatisfaction in American English and Vietnamese

-To find out factors that affects the choice of politeness strategies when expressingsatisfaction in American English and Vietnamese

- To raise awareness of cross-cultural factors in expressing satisfaction and help learners

of English avoid cultural shock in cross-cultural communication

II Method of the study

Quantitative method is primarily deployed Remarks, assumptions and conclusions of thestudy are mainly based on the contrastive analysis of data What is more, the qualitativemethod will assist along and be paid due attention to The practical approaches are:

- Conducting survey questionnaires

- Referring to publications

- Consulting the supervisor

- Discussing with Vietnamese and American friends

- Applying personal observation

III Scope of the study

- The paper investigates expressing satisfaction as a speech act in English andVietnamese Therefore only verbal expression of satisfaction is analyzed Thestudy focuses on the dimension of Politeness (Positive Politeness and NegativePoliteness).Due to the limitation of time and resources, the study only concentrates

on investigating strategies of expressing satisfaction in English and Vietnamese insome situations together with some typical socio-cultural factors among variousones governing the choice of politeness strategies Besides, the number ofinformants is limited: 40 informants from the U.S and 40 informants fromVietnam (Northern Vietnam)

IV THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1 Speech acts

First mentioned by Austin in 1962, the term “Speech acts” has become a topic ofsustained investigation in almost every field of English- speaking world Blum-Kulka and

Kasper (1989:2) emphasize, “The study of speech acts is to remain a central concern of

pragmatics, especially cross-cultural pragmatics”.

2 The notion of speech acts

In producing utterances, people do not only intend to offer linguistic expressions but also

to perform actions through these utterances An utterance like “I am hungry”, forexample, could probably be interpreted under appropriate contexts as a remark on thespeaker’s appetite, as a request for money, or, as a request for attention from a youngchild This phenomena inspired the British philosopher John Austin to initiate the speechact theory, which has later been inherited, refined and developed by a number ofphilosophers and linguists like Hymes (1964), Searle (1969),Leech (1983), Schmidt andRichards (1983), Levinson (1983), Green(1989), Yule (1986) and others Speech act, in

Richards et al.’s words, is “an utterance as a functional unit in communication”

(1992:342) In his three- fold division of speech acts, Austin (1962, cited from Levinson,1983) categorizes them as:

- Locutionary act: the utterance of a sentence with determinate sense and references

- Illocutionary act: the making of a statement, offer, promise, etc in uttering a sentence,

by virtue of the conventional force associated with it (or with its explicit performativeparaphrase)

- Perlocutionary act: the bringing about of effects on the audience by means of uttering

the sentence, such effects being special to the circumstances of utterance Of the three

dimensions, in Yule’s opinion, “the most essential act that counts is illocutionary force

because the same utterance can potentially have quite different illocutionary forces” and

that partly explains why Yule states, “The term ‘speech act’ is generally interpreted quite

narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of an utterance”.(1996:51)

3 Expressing satisfaction as a speech acts

In accordance with the classification of Speech acts from Searle, expressing satisfaction belongs to the type of expressive, i.e “those kinds of speech act that state what the

speaker feels … And in using an expressive, the speaker makes words fit the world (of feelings)” (Yule,1996:53) To be more precise, they are based on psychological states and

relate to the expression of feelings or emotions to the receiver In a straightforward way,

“satisfaction” found in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (7th edition) is the goodfeeling that you have when you achieved something or when something you wanted tohappen does happen It is often mistaken among those good feelings as happiness, joy,content or fulfillment However, when taking a close look, there are some slightdistinctions among them Happiness is a state of mind or feeling characterized bycontentment, love, satisfaction, pleasure, joy, etc It often depicts the good feelings of aperson in general, therefore, “satisfaction” is meant beyond the shade of

“happiness”.Contentment (rather formal) is a feeling of happiness or satisfaction withwhat you have Fulfillment is a feeling of happiness or satisfaction with what you do orhave done

So on so forth, satisfaction should be concisely identified as “the gratification you feel

after you have fulfilled a need, wish or expectation.”(From the “Secret society of happy

life”(2002:90)) Lying on such basis, expressing satisfaction is meant to be an act

of showing how happy and content somebody is when he/she have attained somethinglonging It is such an amorphous feeling; therefore the expression of it may vary fromperson to person To grasp it briefly, there are supposed to be two main strategies whenexpressing satisfaction, that is:

- Raising common ground.

However, as stated from the beginning, the purpose of this study is to investigateexpressing satisfaction as a speech act Therefore, it is to take the focal point on verbalstrategies and explore the differences between two cultures (Vietnamese and American)

3.1 Face and politeness

3.1.1 Face

The notion of face was proposed and understood by Goffman (1967, in Thomas,1995:168) as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself in others’assumptions that he has taken during a particular interaction It is an image of self-described in terms of approved social attributed However, the best-known definition offace is that by Brown and Levinson(1978:61), which is derived from Goffman’s andbased on the assumptions that every competent adult member of a society has (and know

each other to have) face In their words, face is “the public self-image that every member

wants to claim for himself”, consisting in two related aspects: Negative face: the basic

claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction, and Positive face: thepositive consistent self-image or “personality” claimed by interactants”

3.1.2 Politeness

Politeness has recently emerged as one of the favorite issues for linguistic scholars tostudy on Therefore, concerning the concept of politeness, there have been manydefinitions surrounding Following are several widely known ones Linguistically,

politeness is defined as “the interactional balance achieved between two needs: the need

for pragmatic clarity and the need to avoid coerciveness”(Blum- Kulla, 1987:131) In

this sense, tipping the balance in the favor of either of the needs may lead to impoliteness

Culturally, politeness is viewed as “a fixed concept, as in the idea of “polite social

behavior” or “etiquette, within a culture” (Yule, 1996:60) Yule further states that such

different general principles for being polite in social interaction within a particular culture

as being tactful, generous, modest, and sympathetic towards others can be specified

considered to be “politeness” varies in different cultures Cross-culturally, politeness in

communication is seen as “a system of interpersonal relation designed to facilitate

interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange” As all linguistic actions involve a potential face threat of some

kind, it particularly requires the speaker to choose a proper politeness means so that theother’s face is respected As there are negative face and positive face, there are Negative

Politeness (NP) and Positive Politeness (PP) respectively

 Positive politeness

Positive politeness, according to Brown and Levinson, “is oriented towards the positive

face of H, the positive self-image that he claims for himself” Yule (1996) seems to clarify

the notion when he defines positive politeness as a face saving act tending to showsolidarity, emphasizing that both S and H want the same thing and that they share thesame goal In short, positive politeness shows concerns for others Nguyen Quang, well

aware of the sense of solidarity between interactants, sees positive politeness as “any

communicative act (verbal and/or nonverbal) which is appropriately intended to show the speaker’s concern to the addressee, thus, enhancing the sense of solidarity between them”(2004:12).In order for a speaker to minimize the face- threatening aspects of an act,

Brown and Levinson specify the super- strategy of going on record with positivepoliteness into 15 positive politeness strategies employed in communication Whatfollows is a sketch of these strategies, each illustrated with example(s)

Strategy 1: Notice, attend to hearer (his interest, wants, needs, goods)

The teacher highly appreciated your last essay May I have through it?

Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with hearer)

You count faster than a computer!

Strategy 3: Intensify interest to hearer

I jump on my bike and off I ride out of the gate, into the road, straight to school Do you know what happens next? When I nearly reach the T- junction, a large dog runs across the road so suddenly that I respond no reactions I crash right into it and land on the ground three meters from the bike Thank God, I am alright but the rim of the front wheel

is warped…Can you give me a lift home?

Strategy 4: Use in- group identify markers

Where have you been, darling?

Strategy 5: Seek agreement

A: I’m so tired of staying day and night! B: So am I.

Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement

A: Do you like the red pullover? B: It’s really beautiful, in a way.

Strategy 7: Presuppose/ Raise/ Assert common ground

How can we, student, afford that rent?

Strategy 8: Joke

OK if I tackle those cookies now?

Strategy 9:

Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of or concern for hearer’s wants

I know you have a lot of work to do but it’s a really good film.

Strategy 10: Offer/ promise

Take it easy I’ll help you.

Strategy 11: Be optimistic

I’m sure you won’t mind if I turn the fan on.)

Strategy 12: Include both speaker and hearer in the activity

Let’s have some cookies, then.

Strategy 13:

Give (or ask for) reasons

Why don’t you phone him now?

Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity

I’ll come with you if you help me with this problem.

Strategy 15: Give gifts to hearer

I’ve just been out shopping Here’s hotdog for you Like it?

Strategy 16: Comfort and encourage

Keep calm You’re on the right way.

Strategy 17: Ask personal questions

Are you married?

 Negative politeness

Negative politeness, according to Brown and Levinson, “is oriented mainly toward

partially satisfying (redressing) H’s negative face, his basic want to maintain claims of territory and self-determination” In Bentahila and Davies’s words, negative politeness is

understood as a concern not to impose upon others or restrict their freedom, but remaindistance While positive politeness narrows the distance between interlocutors,negative politeness keeps a distance between them In brief, negative politeness a voidsinterfering with others’ personal affairs Nguyen Quang, well aware of the sense ofdistance between interactants, refers to negative politeness as “any communicative act(verbal and/or nonverbal) which is appropriately intended to show that the speaker doesnot want to impinge on the addressee’s privacy, thus enhancing the sense of distancebetween them.”Brown and Levinson introduce 11 negative politeness strategies used incommunication as follows:

Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect

I would like to say how deeply grateful I am.

Strategy 2: Question/ hedge

It’s hot here, don’t you think so?

Strategy 3: Be pessimistic

I don’t think you can do me a favor.

Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition

I just want to have a sip of that.

Strategy 5: Give deference

What would you like, madam?

Strategy 6: Apologize

I’m sorry to have to inform you that you have missed the opportunity.

Strategy 7: Impersonalize speaker and hearer

Can one trust such people?

Strategy 8: State the face threatening act as a general rule

Customers are requested not to smoke in this area of the restaurant

.Strategy 9: Nominalize

It’s my pleasure to be able to inform you that …

Strategy 10: Redress other wants of hearer’ser

I don’t know how I can express my gratitude to you for your consideration to my mother.

Strategy 11: Avoid asking personal questions

“Asking personal questions” is a positive politeness strategy to give concern to hear,whereas this is considered to interfere with hearer’s personal affairs Thus, avoidingasking such personal questions as “How old are you?”, “How much do you earn amonth?” … is regarded as one negative politeness strategy So far, 17 positive politenessstrategies and 11 negative politeness strategies have been briefly showcased It should,however to be noted that there is often no clear-cut distinction between positivepoliteness and negative politeness strategies in real life communication forsometimes, people may combine different strategies to attain theircommunicative purposes