A contrastive analysis of moderating criticism the use of disjuncts as mitigating hedges in verbal communication

Therefore, a desire to have a further insight intomajor similarities and differences in using disjuncts as hedges has inspired the writer to develop the research entitled “A contrastive

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-

GRADUATE STUDIES

     

HOÀNG THỊ SÁU

A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF MITIGATING CRITICISM:

THE USE OF DISJUNCTS AS MITIGATING HEDGES

IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION NGHIÊN CỨU ĐỐI CHIẾU VỀ SỰ GIẢM NHẸ Ý CHÊ BAI BẰNG VIỆC

SỬ DỤNG TRẠNG NGỮ TÌNH THÁI LÀM PHƯƠNG TIỆN RÀO ĐÓN TRONG GIAO TIẾP BẰNG LỜI TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT

M.A PROGRAMME 1 THESISField: ENGLISH LINGUISTICSCode: 60.22.15

HÀ NỘI - NĂM 2012

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-

GRADUATE STUDIES

     

HOÀNG THỊ SÁU

A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF MITIGATING CRITICISM:

THE USE OF DISJUNCTS AS MITIGATING HEDGES

IN VERBAL COMMUNICATION NGHIÊN CỨU ĐỐI CHIẾU VỀ SỰ GIẢM NHẸ Ý CHÊ BAI BẰNG VIỆC

SỬ DỤNG TRẠNG NGỮ TÌNH THÁI LÀM PHƯƠNG TIỆN RÀO ĐÓN TRONG GIAO TIẾP BẰNG LỜI TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT

M.A PROGRAMME 1 THESISField: ENGLISH LINGUISTICSCode: 60.22.15

HÀ NỘI - NĂM 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LISTS OF FIGURES AND TABLES v

PART I: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale 1

2 Scope of the study 2

3 Aims of the study 3

4 Objectives of the study 3

5 Research questions 3

6 Methodology 3

7 Design of the study 4

PART II: DEVELOPMENT 5

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 5

1.1 SPEECH ACTS 5

1.1.1 Notion and classification of speech acts 5

1.2 SPEECH ACT OF CRITICIZING 6

1.3 FACE AND POLITENESS 7

1.3.1 What is FACE? 7

1.3.2 What is POLITENESS? 9

1.4 HEDGING DEFINED 12

1.4.1 Hedging from the point of view of pragmatics 13

1.4.2 Hedging as both positive and negative politeness 14

1.5 DISJUNCTS 19

1.5.1 Disjuncts defined 19

1.5.2 Types of disjuncts 20

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW: 23

PRE-CRITICIZING HEDGING 23

2.1 THE PREVIOUS STUDIES ON CRITICIZING 23

2.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON DISJUNCTS AS HEDGES FROM PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE 25

2.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS 26

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 27

3 1 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 27

3 2 RESEARCH APPROACH - CA 27

3 3 DATA COLLECTION METHOD: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 30

3 4 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT 31

3 5 DATA COLLECTING PROCEDURES 31

3 6 DATA ANALYSIS UNITS/ PARAMETERS 31

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 34

4 1 USE OF DISJUNCTS SEEN FROM COMMUNICATING PARAMETERS 34

4.1.1 Data analysis 34

4.2 CONCLUDING REMARKS 39

4.2.1 Similarities 39

4.2.2 Differences 40

4. 3 USE OF DISJUNCTS SEEN FROM INFORMANTS’ PARAMETERS 41

4.3.1 Data analysis 41

4.3.2 Concluding remarks 45

PART III: CONCLUSION 46

1 Review of the study 46

2 Implications of the study 47

3 Limitations of the study 48

4 Suggestions for further study 48

APPENDICES 52

LISTS OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1: Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 69)………….12

Figure 2 Theoretical CAs and Applied CAs …… ……….27

Table 1: Classification of illocutionary acts……… 5

Table 2: Quality hedges …… ……….15

Table 3: Quantity hedges ……… 16

Table 4: Relevance hedges ………17

Table 5: Manner hedges …… ……… 17

Table 6: Types of disjuncts ……… 21

Table 7: Distribution on informants’ status parameters………33

APPENDIX A Survey questionnaire………53 - 58 APPENDIX B Examples of hedges……… 59 - 60 APPENDIX C1 Table 1: Use of disjuncts seen from communicating parameters……

………61- 63 APPENDIX C2 Table 2: Use of disjuncts seen from informants’parameters………….

……… ……… 64- 68

PART I: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

It can not be denied that language plays an important part not only in recording andunderstanding culture but also in communication among people who share or do not sharethe same nationality, social or ethnic origin, gender, age, and occupation Furthermore,

“language not only has a great impact on our thinking and behaviors but also on others"

(Karmic, 1998:79) Hence, understanding social conventions and attention to suchimportant concepts as politeness, and face –threatening act, will certainly enable us tobetter comprehend the different ways of speaking by people from different cultures, thushelping eliminate culture-shocks, misunderstandings and communication-breakdown

Despite good awareness of the ultimate objective of learning a foreign languagetoward successful communication, many Vietnamese learners of English must concede that

a good command of a foreign language or success in foreign language learning lies only inmastering grammar rules and accumulating as much vocabulary as possible Theimportance of vocabulary and grammar has been proved in Laufer and Hulstijn (2001),Putri (2010), Aquilina (1988) and in many other researches In spite of differentapproaches to the matter, these authors state one thing in common that both vocabulary andgrammar are vital aspects in language However, it lies in the fact that even when languagelearners produce grammatically well-formed utterances, they may experience unwantedculture shock and communication breakdown when running into a real and particularcontext of situation This unexpected incidence occurs due to their insufficient knowledgeand awareness of social norms and values, roles and relationships between individuals,especially those from the target culture

Of the universal human speech acts, criticism is considered a high face-threateningact, and a high- demanding politeness in communication, especially in interculturalcommunication In addition, criticisms are socially complex even for native speakers.Furthermore, many local and foreign studies regarding the speech act of criticizing havebeen carried out in different languages and in interlanguage of English learners of differentlanguage backgrounds such as House and Kasper (1981), Tracy, Van Dusen, and Robison(1987), Tracy and Eisenberg (1990), Wajnryb (1993; 1995) and Toplak and Katz (2000),Minh (2005), Hoa (2007), and others The findings of the previous studies were mainly

discussed in the light of cross-cultural perspective Yet, hedging in criticizing frompragmatic perspective is still an area available for more exploration This research,therefore, has chosen hedging as a potential subject The study is done not only to see thesimilarities and dissimilarities in the use of hedges to criticize between the two cultures.Another goal of this research is to raise the awareness of both teachers and learners ofEnglish about the necessity of hedging in language, and to give teachers severalsuggestions in teaching this language phenomenon to their students.

Nevertheless, hedging is a very broad area, and within the limit of the study, it isimpossible to discuss all aspects of hedging in language As criticism is an act yieldinghigh risk of making hearers lose face, it requires different supplementary steps to reducethe weightiness of the utterance This is where hedging can mostly be seen In daily life,no-one likes to be criticized, and no-one wants to criticize others directly because there stillexists the relationship between people, which is considered most important in everysociety Hence, in forced situations, people still criticize but soften it by using such

disjuncts as “frankly, from my point of view, seriously,…” right before the criticism That

is the reason why the use of disjuncts as mitigating hedges in criticism is chosen for theproject

Needless to say, disjuncts as hedging devices used in a certain context for specificcommunicative intents such as one strategy of politeness and mitigation have great effect

on minimizing shocks in communication Therefore, a desire to have a further insight intomajor similarities and differences in using disjuncts as hedges has inspired the writer to

develop the research entitled “A contrastive analysis of moderating criticism: The use

of disjuncts as mitigating hedges in verbal communication.”

To sum up, it is hoped that this study can provide the increase of some cultural knowledge and awareness of the importance of hedges before criticizing amongboth teachers and learners of English in order to avoid hurting their partners in every daycommunication This also helps enhance better cross-cultural communication and foreignlanguage learning and teaching in Vietnam

socio-2 Scope of the study

- The study is confined to the verbal aspects of the act of criticism with the use of

politeness and hedging In addition, adjacency pairs are beyond the scope of this paper

- The study strictly pertains to the perspective of pragmatics though the author realizes that syntactic theory and semantics apparently do explain the meaning of the verbal work

- Northern Vietnamese learners of English and Southern English native speakers are chosen for contrastive analysis

- The data are collected by conducting survey questionnaires to examine the ways theNorthern Vietnamese and Southern English native speakers use disjuncts as mitigating hedges.(30 informants each)

- Hedges under investigation are limited to a single utterance

3 Aims of the study

- To find out the similarities and differences in the way the Northern Vietnamese learners

of English and Southern English native speakers criticize using disjuncts as a politeness strategy

in mitigating criticism

- To raise both teacher‟s and learner‟s awareness of the importance of hedges beforecriticizing in order to avoid hurting their partners

4 Objectives of the study

In order to achieve the targeted aims, two objectives are put forward:

- The data will be collected by conducting survey questionnaires for the chosen informants

in Northern Vietnam and in Southern England (Hedges under investigation are limited to asingle utterance)

- The data will be processed and analyzed quantitatively to see how the two groups usedisjuncts as hedges in criticizing situations and to see if there are any distinct features thatcharacterize the way Northern Vietnamese learners use hedges as compared to that of Southernnative speakers, through which implications will be drawn out

5 Research questions

What are the major similarities and differences in the ways Northern Vietnameselearners of English and Southern English native speakers use disjuncts as hedges inmitigating criticism?

6 Methodology

- Quantitative method in the form of survey questionnaires is much resorted to To collectdata for analysis, Metapragmatic Questionnaire (MPQ) is designed The collected data will beanalyzed using comparing and contrasting techniques to find out the similarities and

differences in the ways Northern Vietnamese learners of English and Southern English native speakers perform the act of criticizing using hedges as a politeness strategy.

- The questionnaires are delivered directly to 30 Northern Vietnamese learners of Englishand to 30 English people via e-mails Based on both Vietnamese and English informants‟

status parameters, the researcher looks for the Vietnamese subjects of similar parameters inorder to have a symmetrical distribution of informants and data for the study

7 Design of the study

The study is composed of three parts:

Part I: Introduction: presents the rationale, scope, aims, research question, and

methodology of the study

Part II: Development: This part consists of four chapters:

Chapter 1: Theoretical background and Literature review :

- Theoretical background: discusses the notions of speech act theory, face, politeness,

politeness strategies, hedges and disjuncts

Chapter 2:: Hedging before criticizing: This chapter explores previous works of criticizing,

hedging, hedging strategies and disjuncts from pragmatic perspective

Chapter 3: Methodology: This chapter states the chosen methods to carry out the study and

to analyze the collected data such as contrastive analysis (CA), and survey questionnaires

It also deals with informants and procedures of the data collection

Chapter 4: Data analysis and findings: This chapter analyses collected data to find out

major similarities and differences in the choice of hedging strategies in given situations byVietnamese learners of English and native speakers of English

Part III: Conclusion: This part summarizes the main findings of the study, provides some

implications for TEFL, and offers suggestions for further research

PART II: DEVELOPMENTCHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This chapter reviews the theories relevant to the topic under investigation in thepresent study, namely speech acts, speech act of criticizing, face, politeness, politenessstrategies, hedges and disjuncts

1.1 SPEECH ACTS

According to Levinson (1983), speech act theory is one of the central issues inlanguage use In this section, the works by such pioneers in the field as Austin (1962),Searle (1974; 1979), and Bach and Harnish (1979) are briefly reviewed in order to providetheoretical frameworks for the study

1.1.1 Notion and classification of speech acts

The notion of speech acts originates from the British philosopher of language John

Austin (1962) In his very influential work “How to do things with words” (1975), Austin

defines speech acts as the actions performed in saying something or actions performedusing language In fact, when speaking, we perform certain linguistic actions such asgiving reports, making statements, asking questions, giving warnings, making promisesand so on In other words, speech acts are all the acts we perform through speaking – allthe things we do when we speak Austin (1962) distinguishes between the three kinds of

acts: locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary A locutionary act is the act of saying something in the full sense of “say” An illocutionary act is the one of using the utterance

to perform a particular function; and a perlocutionary act is the one producing some kinds

of effects that are produced by means of saying something Among the above three kinds

of acts, illocutionary act is the core interest of Austin as well as of other pragmatists

(Levinson, 1983)

Following is how illocutionary acts are classified by different authors:

Table 1: Classification of illocutionary acts

Austin (1962) Searle (1979) Bach and Harnish (1979)

Exposives Assertives/ Representatives Assertives

Exercitives Directives Directives

Effectives

In the present study, criticizing refers to an illocutionary act whose illocutionarypoint is to give negative evaluation on hearers‟ (H‟s) actions, choice, words, and productsfor which he or she may be held responsible This act is performed in hope of influencingH‟s future actions for the better for his or her own benefit as viewed by speakers (S), or tocommunicate S‟s dissatisfaction/ discontent with or dislike regarding what H has done butwithout implying that what H has done has undesirable consequences for S Therefore,criticizing speech act is defined as a verbalized reaction to a given criticism

1.2 SPEECH ACT OF CRITICIZING

The speech act of criticizing has been studied by different researchers such asHouse and Kasper (1981), Tracy, van Dusen, and Robison (1987), Tracy and Eisenberg(1990), Wajnryb (1993, 1995) and Toplak and Katz (2000) and others

Tracy, et al (1987) investigate the characteristics of criticisms by people from different

cultural backgrounds and distinguished “good” from “bad” criticisms According to him, a

good criticism is one that displays a positive language and manner; suggests specificchanges and possible critic; states justified and explicit reasons for criticizing and does notviolate the relationship between interlocutions and is accurate Supporting that point ofview, Wajnrub (1993) holds an effective criticism must be kept simple specific, well-grounded, linked to strategies for improvement and delivered as an attempt to shareexperience It also needs to be softened by means of a number of strategies These include

“measuring words” (to avoid being too negative), “soft-pedaling” (i.e using internal and external modifications to lessen the harshness of the criticism), “using affirmative language” such as comforting messages, “distancing and neutralizing” (to depersonalize the criticism) and “using negotiating language” (to avoid imposing on the addressee.)

(Wajnryb, 1993; cited in Minh, 2005) That point of view seems to be supported by

Wajnryb (1995) who prefers a direct and “economical” criticism rather than indirect,

wordy, and time-wasting one

Following Yule‟s classification (1997), like all the other speech acts, criticizing can

be either a direct speech act or an indirect speech act That means a criticism can be

realized by either direct or indirect strategies When mentioning to the directness level of acriticism, Blum-Kulka (1987) states that the directness level of a criticism in this study wasdetermined by the degree of illocutionary transparency, and thus the amount of effortneeded to interpret the illocutionary point of this criticism.

The speech act of criticism is coded according to their: (i) realization strategies, (ii)semantic formulas, and (iii) modifiers, as follows:

(i): Criticism realization strategies are defined as the pragmalinguistic conventions

of usage by which criticisms are realized (Adapted from Blum-Kulka, House, andKasper‟s, 1989; and Takahashi‟s definition, 1996)

(ii): Criticism semantic formulas are semantic structures that have acquired anillocutionary force representing criticisms (Adapted from Clark, 1979)

(iii): Modifiers are linguistic devices employed to help reduce the offence of a threatening act

face-In this study, criticisms are investigated as an illocutionary act in which the factorsrelated to H and S, namely the relationship, gender, age, occupation have a great impact onthe way they criticize And the author just focuses on one of the modifiers which are used

as hedges to make “good” criticisms and to save H‟s face That is disjuncts

1.3 FACE AND POLITENESS

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness and anything related to thistheory is considered a fundamental requirement in human social life specified by socialorder and human cooperation at pre-condition level Therefore, face and politeness areinterrelated and mutually affected in human interaction

1.3.1 What is FACE?

Since “face, understood as every individual’s feelings of self-image” (Thomas,

1995: 169), can be damaged, maintained or enhanced through interactions and transactionswith others, a person often claims face for him/herself in conversations According toBrown and Levinson (1987: 61-62), face is the respect that an individual has for him orherself Once face is damaged or threatened, there seems to be a risk of communicationbreakdown That is why in everyday interactions we usually avoid embarrassing otherpeople, making them feel uncomfortable because we bear in mind that everybody has somebasic face needs or wants Therefore, maintaining or partially satisfying each other‟s faceseems to be the major and apparently the only motivation to be polite in communication

(Watts, 2003; Holmes, 1995) To many scholars, face consists of two opposing face wants:positive and negative face.

self-that others like, admire, value, or approve of one‟s wants (material or non-material) or theneed to be accepted and liked by others, treated as a member of the group, and to knowone‟s wants are shared by others

61)

In general, the remarkable difference between the positive face and the negativeface is that the former refers to the people‟s wants or desires of making others pleased andsatisfied by their own actions, whereas the latter implies the required freedom andindependence of the people who want to act Therefore, positive face is relevant to thestudy in the extent that using hedges before criticizing helps make the least offence andkeep face among S and their communicating partners

1.3.1.3 Face threatening acts (FTAs)

According to Brown and Levinson (1987), certain illocutionary acts are liable to

damage or threaten another person‟s face; such acts are known as “face threatening acts”

(FTAs) by, for instance, representing a threat to or damaging the H‟s positive face(insulting the addressee or expressing disapproval of what the H holds valuable or doessomething) or his/ her negative face (impinging upon H‟s freedom of action in the case

when H likes gossiping) They define FTAs as “those acts that by their nature run

contrary to the face wants of the addressee and/ or of the speaker” (Brown and Levinson,

1987: 65) Along the same line, Yule (1996) observes that an FTA occurs when a speakersays something that represents a threat to another individual‟s expectation regarding self-image

1.3.2 What is POLITENESS?

1.3.2.1 Politeness defined

Politeness has received various amounts of attention and controversy from all areas

of linguistics, especially sociolinguistics and pragmatics, throughout the 20th century.There have been so far two main approaches to politeness: politeness as social norms(normative politeness) or conversational principle and maxims or do‟s and don‟ts (Lakoff

1973, 1989; Leech, 1983) and face-saving acts or politeness strategies (strategic politeness)(Brown and Levinson 1978; 1987) (cf Dan, 1998; Quang, 2003)

In her cross-cultural study on politeness, Blum-Kulka (1987: 131) suggests that

politeness is “(i) a function of redressive actions with redressive having correlative relationship with indirectness, (ii) an interaction achieved between two needs, the need for pragmatic clarity and the need to avoid coerciveness and (iii) a social distance and role relationship” By giving such a definition, Blum-Kulka implies the tendency that the more

indirect we go, the more polite we become More correctly, she places politeness on thesame part with negative politeness by challenging the claim that there is a directrelationship between indirectness and politeness Intuitively speaking, it seems workable asseen in Anglophone cultures However, it is, too, intuitively untenable because it does not

necessarily means that going direct is less polite, hence “indirectness does not necessarily/ always imply politeness” (Blum-Kulka, 1987: 131) For example:

(1) Indirect: The house looks like a barn! (Nhà cửa gì trông như chuồng lợn thế này!)(Implying „tidy up the room‟)

(2) Indirect: What‟s a wife expected to do at this time? (Implying “It‟s time you prepareddinner”)

Direct : Time to cook, honey

Despite the fact that all utterances are FTAs to various degree, the direct ones seem morecomfortably accepted, thus more polite However, this confirms the idea proposed byDascal (1983, cf Thomas,1995) that indirectness is costly and risky because an indirect

utterance takes longer for the speaker to produce and longer for the hearer to process andthe hearer may not understand what the speaker is getting at risk.

In this study, the adopted model of politeness, or “polite way of talking” which isseen as deviations from Grice maxims (for politeness reasons) is that of Brown andLevinson‟s due to the following reasons:

First, the distinction between normative and strategic politeness is rather loose andrelative in that almost all illocutionary acts should operate within the framework ofinterpersonal relationships

Second, it is the author‟s opinion that normative politeness based on social norms

is the departure or foundation of strategic politeness What require normative politeness to

be realized are interpersonal relationships where interlocutors should follow some certainpoliteness norms to save or preserve the other‟s face

Third, in interpersonal verbal interaction, no matter whether a criticism isconstructive or not, every criticizing utterance carries in itself potential damage or threat tothe addressee‟s positive and negative face

Fourth, politeness strategies, both positive and negative, when used, can (i) supportand enhance the addressee‟s positive face (positive politeness) and (ii) help avoidtransgressing the addressee‟s freedom of action and freedom from imposition (negativeface)

Finally, Brown and Levinson‟s model is adequate for the interpretation of ongoingverbal interaction in which participants are reciprocally attending to one another‟s faceneeds (Watts, 2003)

1.3.2.2 Politeness principles

Lakoff (1973) argues that the majority of conversation is governed by what istermed as politeness principles Similar to Grice (but earlier), she claimed that there arethree maxims or rules that speakers should follow in conversation to maintain politeness:(i): Don‟t impose – This is similar to the theory of negative politeness – trying not toimpose on people or to disrupt them in any way It can be seen through such expressionsas:

(ii): Give options – It is avoiding forcing the other participant into a corner with the use of such expressions as:

- I won‟t be offended if you don‟t want to …

(iii): Make the hearer feel good – We say things that flatter the other participant and makehim/ her feel good; rather in the same way we pander to positive face This can be seenthrough the use of such expressions as:

- What would I have done without you?

- I‟d really appreciate your advice on this

According to Leech (1983), politeness principle (PP) consists of 6 maxims (Tact,Generosity, Approbation, Modesty, Agreement and Sympathy), which are related to thenotion of cost and benefit and much related to offering favorableness to the hearer Leechsees PP as being of the same status as Grice‟s Cooperative Principle (CP), which it

“rescues” by explaining why speakers do not always observe the Gricean maxims(Thomas, 1995)

Brown and Levinson (1987) do not set a rule of politeness principles as Lakoff andLeech did, but drop a hint by providing the following schema, termed “possible strategiesfor doing FTAs”, available to speakers to encounter unavoidable face-threatening acts, tomake appropriate communicative choices and to reduce the possibility of damage andthreat to hearer‟s face or to the speaker‟s own face Once a decision has been made, theyargue, the speaker selects the appropriate linguistic means to accomplish the chosenstrategy Their schema proposes five components of communicative choices: (1) withoutredressive action badly, (2) positive politeness, (3) negative politeness, (4) off record and(5) don‟t do the FTA (or refrain from doing the FTA) Each strategy on the schema isnumbered 1-5, the general principle being that the higher the number the more polite thestrategy

Do the FTA

On record

1 Without redressive action, badly

2 Positive politeness

With redressive action

5 Don‟t do the FTA

Figure 1: Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown & Levinson, 1987: 69)

Finally, they can choose not to do any FTAs, seen as the least face-threatening acts (just to be safe)

To conclude, in doing an FTA, the speaker needs to balance three wants:

The want to communicate content of the FTA

The want to be efficient (or urgent)

The want to maintain H‟s face to any degree

In this study, the author investigates how disjuncts are used as a positive politeness strategy to mitigate FTA in verbal communication

1.4 HEDGING DEFINED

When people talk, is it just information that is being exchanged? A traditional view

on language saw the exchange of information as the sole purpose of human

communication Nowadays, however, it is widely recognized that spoken language

performs a variety of other tasks, too These tasks can be divided into two broad categories,one covering the exchange of information and the other interpersonal aspects of

communication In other words, when we speak, our words do not only convey meaning but carry interpersonal messages as well

One way of conveying interpersonal messages in spoken interaction is hedging.The designation “hedge/ hedging” itself is introduced first by Lakoff (1972) in his article:

“Hedges: A study in meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts” In his

synchronic, non-contrastive study of the oral and written standard English, Lakoff defineshedges as the tool to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy

Brown and Levinson (1987:145) define “hedge” as “ a particle, word or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate or a noun phrase in a set, it says of that membership that it is partial or true only in certain respects or that it is more true and

complete than perhaps might be expected” This definition reveals a fact that hedges are

“strengtheners” as well as “weakeners”.

For domestic researches, the subject matter still requires more attention.Vietnamese linguists such as Giap (1976), Phe (2002), Quang (2003) also view hedging as

a pragmatic phenomenon Phe (2002) in his Vietnamese Dictionary states that hedges areexpressions which prevent communicating partners from unexpected misunderstanding andreaction/responses to what is said According to Quang (2003), hedging is a strategy usedsimply to hedge the propositional content Referring the so-called quán ngữ, a possible

equivalent to gambit in his work “Từ và nhận diện từ trong tiếng Việt”, Nguyễn Thiện

Giáp (1976) argues:

“Gambits are repeatedly-used expression in discourses for coherence, cohesion, communication, emphasis on ideas”

(English version by Hoang, 2003:7)

(Quán ngữ là những cụm từ cố định lặp đi lặp lại trong các văn bản để liên kết, đưa đẩy, rào đón hoặc nhấn mạnh nội dung cần diễn đạt nào đó) (1976:176)

In this thesis, hedging is studied as a politeness strategy in interpersonal

communication The author adopts a similar approach to that of Brown and Levison which means that hedges can either strengthen or weaken the S‟s ideas in interactions

1.4.1 Hedging from the point of view of pragmatics

Hedging has more recently been recognized as a pragmatic rather than a purelysemantic phenomenon In much of the more recent work relating to hedging, it is theinterpersonal aspect of the strategy that has been given emphasis Hedging has beenanalyzed in view of the communication situation, particularly the effect of the strategy onthe relationship between sender and addressee in face-to-face communication Generallyspeaking, the more pragmatics-oriented descriptions of hedging phenomena presented inliterature are often rather circumspect notions for the purposes of a particular researchproject rather than thorough deliberations of the phenomenon Addressing hedging, it can

be defined plainly as the process whereby the author reduces the strength of what he is

writing Markkanen and Schroder (1985) define hedging as a strategy of “saying less than one means”, the function of strategy being to modify the writer‟s responsibility for the

truthfulness of an utterance, to modify the attitude of the author to the propositions andinformation put forth in a text or even to hide this attitude

1.4.2 Hedging as both positive and negative politeness

Much of previous work on hedging is based on Brown and Levinson‟s treatment ofhedges (1978; 1987) where it is reasoned that hedges can be used to avoid “assuming orpresuming that anything involved in the FTA is desired or delivered by H” This is meantthat hedging can be used to indicate that S does not want to impose upon H‟s desires orbeliefs Brown and Levinson thus discuss hedges as a greater length as one of ten strategieslinked to negative face protection Hubler (1983) picks up the idea of hedging phenomena

as indications of negative politeness and contends that hedges are primarily used in

negative face work, hedging devices are “detensifying” elements which sender can employ

to maximize the emotional acceptability of the propositional content presented to the H forapproval On the other hand, hedges can also be interpreted as simultaneously serving thesender‟s negative face

1.4.2.1 Hedging as a negative politeness strategy

Hedges/ hedging in general belong to negative politeness Brown and Levinson(1987) appoint that hedge including particle, word or phrase modifies the degree ofmembership of a predicate or noun phrase in a set

According to the two authors, conversational principles are the sources of strongbackground assumptions about cooperation, in formativeness, truthfulness, relevance, andclarity which on many occasions need to be softened for reasons of face Here to, hedgesare the most immediate tool for the job and the authors discuss such hedges on Grice‟sMaxims

The four maxims of Grice recognized are quality, quantity, relation, and manner

- The quality states:

+ Make yourself as informative as required (for the current purpose of exchange)+ Don‟t make our contribution more informative than it is required

-The quantity maxim says:

+ Don‟t say what you believe to be false and

+ Don‟t say that for which you lack adequate evidence

-The relevance maxim says:

+ be relevant

-Grice‟s specific maxims of manner are:

+ Be perspicacious

+ Avoid obscurity of expression

*Hedges addressed to Grice’s maxims (see the examples in Appendix B, p.59-60)

- Table 2: Quality hedges

(i) Quality hedges may suggest that S does not take full responsibility for the truth of his utterance

There is some evidence to the effect that Có một số dẫn chứng cho thấy là……

As far as I know Theo chỗ tôi biết………

I may be mistaken but Tôi không chắc lắm ………

I think Tôi nghĩ rằng ………

I‟m not sure if it‟s right but Tôi cho là ………

I guess Nghe đâu là ………

I believe Tôi tin là ………

I assume (ii) Or alternately they stress S‟s commitment to the truth of his utterance English Vietnamese With completely honesty I can say Thú thực là ………

I absolutely deny that Tôi thực sự tin rằng ………

I absolutely believe that Tôi hoàn toàn tin là ………

(iii) Or they may disclaim the assumption that the point of S‟s assertion is to inform H English Vietnamese As you know Như các bạn đã biết………

As you probably/ may know Mọi người biết đấy ………

As you and I both know Có người nói rằng ………

Có người cho rằng ………

Người ta cho rằng……… (iv) As quality hedges, we have degrees of probability expressed in increasing doubt

Probably

May/ might

(v) These are also quality performed by auxiliary, emphasizing adverbs on explicit and deleted performatives

I can‟t tell you than that it is Tôi cũng không biết chắc

I should think Tôi không còn biết nói gì hơn

To cut a long story short À, kiểu như nó cũng

So to speak Biết đấy là đâu, biết đâu được chuyện đấy

Some sort of … like

To some extent

In a way

Somehow

Up to a point

- Table 4: Relevance hedges

This may not be relevant/ appropriate/ Không biết có nên nói không

This may sound like dumb question but… Của đáng tội

Not to change the subject ……… Chết một cái là

Now is probably the time to say ………… Quả có thế ạ

I might mention at this point ……… Nói bỏ ngoài ngoài taiSince I‟ve been wondering ……… Dù sao đi chăng nữa

Since it‟s been on my mind ……… Tiện thể là

Sorry, I‟ve just thought ……… Nhân tiện đây

By the way ……… À nhân tiện

Oh I know ……… Nói trộm bóng vía

Anyway ……… Nói anh bỏ quá cho

While I remember ………

While I think of it ………

All right now

_ Table 5: Manner hedges

If you see what I‟m getting at Tôi xin đi thẳng vào vấn đề

If you see what I‟m driving at Ý tôi là………

Not to beat about the bush Nói nôm na là …………

What I meant was………

More clearly, ………

To put it more simply, …

Now to be absolutely clear, I want

I‟m not sure if it makes sense …

I don‟t know if this is clear at all

Such maxim hedges as those we have been discussing are used with greatfrequency in ordinary talks According to Brown/ Levinson, they have in many casesstraightforward politeness applications Quality hedges that weaken S‟s commitment may

redress advice or criticisms: “I think, perhaps, you should” Quantity hedges may be used

to redress complaints or requests: “Could you make this copy more or less final?” Relevance hedges are useful ways of redressing offers or suggestions: “This may be misplaced but would you consider…?” And manner hedges can be used to redress all kinds

of FTAs: “You are not exactly thrifty, if you see what you meant” In addition to the

hedges on the maxims with their FTA uses there are some which, while they may bederived from Maxim hedges, function directly as notices of violations of FTA wants For

example: “Frankly, to be honest, I hate to have to say this but ……, I don’t want to hurt you but (which preface criticisms and bad news)”.

1.4.2.2 Hedging as a positive politeness strategy

In much of previous work, hedging has been viewed as a negative politenessstrategy, but it may also at times be seen to have a positive politeness dimension Brownand Levinson (1978; 1987) are of the opinion that one way to express positive politeness

toward one‟s addressee; to communicate “that one’s own wants … are in some respects similar to the addressee’s wants” (1987: 101) is to avoid disagreement One avoidance

strategy is rending one‟s opinion safely vague, seeking agreement with the addressee whenthe latter has not made his or her position clear Sometimes, S may choose to be vagueabout his own opinions, so as not to get seen to disagree For this reason, one characteristicdevice in positive politeness is to hedge these extremes in order to make one‟s ownopinion safely vague Some hedges can have positive politeness functions as well, notably:sort of, kind of, like, in a way

E.g I really sort of hope that your presentation will be good.

It is beautiful, in a way.

From those points of view, the pragmatic functions of hedges are drawn out as follows:

1 Express fuzziness, inexactitude (the following word is not the exact or best word)

2 Express uncertainty (lack of/decreased commitment to a proposition)

3 Softening a stance or opinion (further qualifies/modifies the statement)

4 Mitigating a criticism or request

5 Preceding sophisticated vocabulary or jargon words

6 Preceding metaphors

7 Filled pauses

In conclusion, hedging is considered to be a strategy used to hedge thepropositional content (the propositional accuracy- Quang, 2003) and illocutionary force ofthe utterance Along the line, the thesis author would add that (i) hedges are expressionswhich do not add any false or truth values to the content of an utterance, (ii) hedges areattitude markers that can be taken as an indication of speakers‟ sensitivity towards thehearer The present study will focus on a part of quality hedges in which disjunctiveadverbials are used as a negative politeness strategy with the function of redressing H‟face

by softening criticisms

1.5 DISJUNCTS

1.5.1 Disjuncts defined

In terms of syntactic features, disjuncts are adverbials which “have a superior role

as compared to the sentence elements; they are syntactically more detached and in some respects “superordinate”, in that they seem to have a scope that extends over the sentence

as a whole” (Quirk et al., 1985:613) They are not considered essential to the sentence, but

which are considered to be the speaker‟s or writer‟s attitude or descriptive statements.They are generally used to refer to the sentence that is not fully described in the previous

conversation Thus, disjuncts commonly appear at the beginning or at the end of sentence

In terms of semantic features, Quirk (1985:440) identifies disjuncts with the speaker's authority for, or comment on, the accompanying clause:

“Semantically, DISJUNCTS express an evaluation of what is being

said either with respect to the form of the communication or to its

meaning.” For example: Frankly, he is slow in the uptake.

Most disjuncts can only be found with an adverb or a prepositional phrase whichare usually positioned initially

For example: From my point of view, he is not a good eloquent speaker.

Seriously, girls aren’t as good at sports as boys.

In terms of pragmatics, one of the foreign authors who studies about disjuncts isHyland (1998) According to his polypragmatic paradigm, disjuncts are used as hedges toshow speaker-oriented, hearer-oriented, and content-oriented Second, disjuncts are under

investigation in House and Kaspers‟s(1981) typology of politely linguistic tools andHomes‟notion of hedges realized in the light of polite language Finally, it is essentiallybackgrounded by Brown and Levinson‟s (1987) paradigm of politeness strategies Of all

10 strategies, only two ways suggest the use of disjuncts as hedges

Strategy 5: Offering or suggesting options

Since criticizing is highly face threatening, S can use this strategy as a way out Inthis case, S does not infringe on H‟s freedom by proposing an option which he thinkscould be possible for H to take

- Có lẽ bộ này hợp với đi chơi hơn đi làm.

Perhaps your clothes are more suitable for going out rather than for going to work.

Strategy 6: Showing concern (to H)

By hedging, S wants to show that he notices or attends to H‟s face

Meanwhile, what he wants to communicate is that his attitude towards H is sincere, and that what he wishes is always beneficial to H

- Bảo thật nhé (Thực lòng mà nói), anh nói thế không đúng đâu.

Frankly (speaking), what you said is not right.

In sum, disjuncts are modifying devices which can strengthen or weaken S‟ideas ininteraction In this study, the author explores disjuncts as politely pragmatic tools in speechact of criticizing as stated by Hylland (1998)

1.5.2 Types of disjuncts

Quirk et al (1985) divides disjuncts into two main semantic types:

+ Style disjuncts: convey the speaker‟s comment on the form of what he is saying,

including: briefly, confidently, frankly, generally, personally, seriously,…

For example: Personally, I don’t approve of her.

+ Content (Attitudinal) disjunct: convey the speaker‟s comment on the content of what he

is saying, including indeed, surely, undoubtedly, perhaps, supposedly, obviously,

… For example: Obviously, nobody expected us to be here.

Sharing the same point of view, Richard (2006) still divides disjuncts into 2 types but each type seems to be divided and analyzed more explicitly and thoroughly as follows:

Table 6: Types of disjuncts

Types of disjunctsStyle: Conveying speaker‟s comment as to Content: Making an observation as toModality and manner Respect Degree of or conditions for truth of

contentValue judgment of contentTruthfully, candidly, Figuratively, generally, 1, Direct claim or an appeal:

honestly, flatly, literally, metaphorically, Admittedly, assuredly, certainly,seriously, strictly, personally, strictly decidedly, definitely, indeed, surely,truly, confidentially, unarguably, undeniably, undoubtedly,

bluntly, briefly, 2, Degree of doubt: allegedly,

broadly, crudely, arguably, apparently, doubtless, likely,frankly, generally, maybe, most likely, perhaps, possibly,roughly, simply presumably, quite likely, reportedly,

reputedly, seemingly, supposedly,very likely

Also realized by: Realized by longer Realized by concessive, conditional, Prepositional phrase: phrases or by clauses reason, and adverbial clauses: by any

in all frankness Comments are frequently chance, I wonder, would you (happen

Infinitive clause: to be hedged: to) know…

frank, to speak frankly, - mainly used to reduce the impact and

to put it frankly urgency of questions and conditions

speaking, putting it

frankly

_Ed clause: put

frankly

Finite clause: if I may

be frank, if I can speak

frankly, if I can put it

frankly

In all frankness, your Personally, I find the Is this color

writing is immature music too arid quite dark for

In short, he is mad and Strictly speaking, she is him, I wonder?

ridiculous out of order

If I may say so without offence, none of you are

competent to make thelegal judgment required

Despite a little bit difference, the two authors have a common view to dividedisjuncts into two types as style and content In the present study, the author just adoptsQuirk‟s theory to design the questionnaires because it will be clearer and easier for theinformants to give the feedbacks

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW:

PRE-CRITICIZING HEDGING

This chapter explores previous works of criticizing, hedging, hedging strategies anddisjuncts as hedges from pragmatic perspective

2.1 THE PREVIOUS STUDIES ON CRITICIZING.

The speech act of criticizing has been studied by different researchers in bothforeign countries and in Vietnam Some foreign authors are well-known in this subjectmatter such as House and Kasper (1981), Tracy, van Dusen, and Robison (1987), Tracyand Eisenberg (1990), Wajnryb (1993, 1995) and Toplak and Katz (2000) and others

Along these perceptions, Toplak and Katz (2000) focus on the difference betweenthe speaker and the addressee when giving their judgments of the criticism given that theaddressee tends to view sarcasm as a more severe act than the speaker does However, theyalso discover that sarcasm is not perceived by the recipient as having as negative an impact

on the relationship between the interlocutors as direct criticisms

Tracy and Eissenberg (1990) in their investigation into the preferences for messageclarity and politeness in giving criticism find that among people from different races andgender The superiors tend to give more weight to message clarity that do subordinates andthat this preference also varies according to gender and race

Despite the fewer domestic studies, significant findings are found out from Sinh‟sproject (2004), Minh‟s (2005) and Hoa‟s (2007) In the research entiled “A Vietnamese –English cross cultural study on the use of hedging in dispraising”, Sinh (2004) studies andcontrasts the use of 10 hedging strategies in dispraising in every day verbal interactionbetween Vietnamese and English In this study, the author designs the surveyquestionnaires including 4 groups of situations, namely appearance, character, socialinteraction, and work relationship The informants are requested to verbally dispraise thefollowing people: close friend, a person they dislike, colleague (opposite sex), colleague(same sex), acquaintance, brother/sister, aunt/uncle, boss (younger), boss (older) Thefindings of the survey reveal that both groups of informants show their dominant

preference to “showing tentativeness and mitigation” and “keeping silent” And the

Vietnamese informants are more sensitive than the Anglicist ones to “keeping silent” but less so sensitive to “showing tentativeness and mitigation” The present research benefits a

lot from this study in the way to carry out the survey, to collect the data and to analyze thedata

In the study entitled “Criticizing and responding to criticism in a foreign language:

A study of Vietnamese learners of English”, Minh (2005) examines pragmaticdevelopment in the use of criticizing and responding to criticism by a group of VietnameseEFL learners with a view to shedding light on the pragmatic properties of these speechacts She discusses how pragmatic transfer has a great impact on EFL learners and shefinds out that the learners of English criticize and respond to criticism very differently fromthe native speakers This is because of the effect of pragmatic transfer in thelearners‟production Obviously, the learners‟perception of their first languages affectstheir foreign language learning

Whereas, Hoa (2007) investigates criticism in cross-cultural perspective She studies onthe similarities and differences in criticizing behaviors by the Vietnamese and Americanpeople focusing on three aspects: the topics of critics, factors affecting criticizing behavior, andthe frequency of criticism She finds out the most striking difference between two groups ofpeople that American criticize considerably less than their Vietnamese counterparts, on alltopics, to people of all relationships This consolidates the fact that Americans highly value

individualism, the central characteristics of which being “non-interference”,“privacy”, and

“self-face concern” The results of the survey reveal certain differences between the two

cultures in criticizing behavior To the Vietnamese, the goal of criticizing, the age of the H, andthe severity of offence are the most important factors, whereas to the Americans the setting ofthe criticism, the distance between themselves and the H, and effect of criticism on therelationship between themselves and the H rank above all other factors The differences maystem from the influence of the Confucian ideology on the traditional Vietnamese society which

emphasizes “hierarchical respect, seniority, age, rank and title” The investigation into the

criticism areas also reveals some similarities and differences between the Vietnamese andAmerican informants Although there is a slight difference in the order, the list of seven mostfrequently criticized topics by the Vietnamese almost match with that of the Americans.However, statistically significant differences are found with four topics: Important Choices inLife, Choice of Life Partner, Behavior at Home and Religious Beliefs

Despite different approaches to the field, the researchers share the same viewpointthat speech act of criticizing is a highly demanding and face –threatening act in humaninteraction specified obviously the relationship between H and S Thanks to their greatcontribution, we have a deeper understanding of the field However, the sensitive speechact still requires a lot of approaching reseachers‟ efforts Therefore, the listed studies setfoundations for future reseaches.

2.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES ON DISJUNCTS AS HEDGES FROM PRAGMATIC PERSPECTIVE

Not many authors carry out researches on disjuncts separately Disjuncts are oftenviewed as one part in hedging studies by some foreign authors There still requires theattention of Vietnamese authors in this subject matter

One foreign author whose findings are very significant and benifical for otherresearchers in the field is Nikula (1997) He studies about disjuncts as hedges to softencriticisms In this research, the author finds out one of the ways to lessen criticisms is usingdisjuncts in order to make the criticisms more acceptable to the interlocutor Criticisms areoften hedged because in an unhedged form they might sound threatening to the hearer andtherefore be likely to be rejected This becomes clear when considering the followingexamples of criticism:

You are mistaken.

Frankly, you are mistaken.

The second example contains the disjunct “frankly” used as a hedge This

helps to mitigate the content of the utterance thus making it less threatening to the hearer

As can be seen, hedging is closely related to politeness When we hedge our utterances inorder not to sound too direct or rude, we are performing “facework”

From pragmatic perspective, Salager-Mayer (1994,1997), Chan Swee Heng andHelen Tan (2002) state that disjuncts can be assumed as adverbial hedging:

For example: Generally, girls are more eloquent speakers compared to boys In these

studies, the authors find out one thing in common that disjuncts can be used as a politenessstrategy to reduce the force of the utterances so that FTAs can be lessened or avoided

Despite different approaches on disjuncts, the use of disjuncts as hedges can beseen as a positive politeness strategy If we assume that hedging is conditioned by the

speaker‟s wish to tone down his criticism or dispraise, it can verify a view that hedgingcan be taken as a token of politeness And hedges are used as positive politeness makers toblur the speaker‟s intent in mitigating and reducing the FTAs of criticizing or dispraising.

2.3 CONCLUDING REMARKS

All the authors share the same view that in real-life communication, the speech act

of criticizing has proven to be composed of different speech acts and of great risk ofcausing FTA That how to avoid or mitigate the criticisms in order to save H‟s face andmaintain the conversation is still a demanding matter Therefore, criticism and itsinterrelation with hedges are still under- investigated from different perspectives

As the result, a comparison between criticizing performance by the Vietnamese andthe English is necessary not only because of its implications for language teaching andlearning but also for cross-cultural understanding which constitutes an important conditionfor successful cross-cultural communication between peoples of the two cultures

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

This chapter deals with all the matters related to methodology applied to get the final findings of the study, namely research question, research approach (Contrastive Analysis - CA), data collection method (survey questionnaire), data collection procedure,and data analytical units/parameters

CA is a linguistic enterprise aimed at producing inverted (i.e contrastive, not comparative) two-valued typologies (a CA is always concerned with a pair of languages), and founded on the assumption that languages can be compared.

CA is defined, according to him, as a form of interlanguage study and a centralconcern of applied linguistics As a matter of fact, CA has had much to offer not only topractical language teaching, but also to translation theory, the description of particularlanguages, language typology and the study of language universals In relation tobilingualism, CA is concerned with how a monolingual becomes bilingual; in other words,

it is concerned with the effects exerted by the first language (L1) on the foreign languagebeing learnt (L2) Thus, CA has been a preferable method used by Vietnamese linguists inrecent years as it enables them to contrast Vietnamese with other languages not only of thesame typologies, but also of different ones It also helps bring out many interestingdifferences and similarities between languages, which make a great contribution tolightening the language teaching and learning burden

It has been suggested that there are two kinds of CA.: theoretical and applied ones

According to James (1980:142, theoretical CA.s “do not investigate how a given category present in language A is presented in language B Instead they look for the realization of a universal category X in both A and B.” Meanwhile, applied CAs are “preoccupied with the problem of how a universal category X, realized in language A as Y, is rendered in

language B.” That means applied CAs are unindirectional whereas theoretical CAs are

static, because they do not need to reflect any directionality of learning, which is illustrated

in the following diagram:

Figure 2 Theoretical CAs and Applied CAs

In this study, applied CA.will be considered a means of measuring the similaritiesand differences in the choice of hedging strategies between the Northern Vietnameselearners of English and the Southern English native speakers Because according to James(1980), applied CAs are interpretations of theoretical CAs rather than independentexecutions, since an applied CA executed independently is liable to lose its objectivity;that is, its predictions will tend to be based on teachers‟ experience of learners‟ difficultiesrather than derived from linguistic analysis

Furthermore, mentioning to learning theory, particularly the theory of “transfer”- aterm used by psychologists in their account of the way in which present learning is affected

by past learning, Lado (1957:2)states,

“ individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture – both productively when attempting to speak the language and to act

in the culture, and receptively when attempting to grasp and to understand the language and culture as practiced by natives.”

In fact, there are two types of transfer, namely “positive transfer” (or “facilitation”) and “negative transfer” (or “interference”), which may occur during the process of learning

language by learners who have already attained considerable degrees of competence intheir first language:

- “Positive transfer” (or “facilitation”): the transfer makes learning easier and may

occur when both the first language and second language have similar features

- “Negative transfer” (or “interference”): the constraint of L1 or the borrowing

of a first language pattern or rule leads to an error or appropriate form in the foreign

language

Therefore, to gain the effective teaching and learning of the L2, it is necessary forteachers to recognize the potential transfer problem areas and integrate strategies thatwould help the learner to overcome difficulties and to avoid errors attributed to thesetransfer problem areas.

Considering that learning difficulty and differences between L1 and L2 are directly

and proportionally related, Lado (1957:1-2) suggests, “the student who comes in contact with a foreign language will find some features of it quite easy and others extremely difficult Those elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him and those elements that are different will be difficult.”

However, James (1980) argues that learners will have more difficulties in learningthe language when the source and the target languages are relatively similar rather than

when they are different Moreover, he concludes that “different” or “exotic” languages may

not be difficult to learn, for L1 and L2 are so far apart that there is a very little or no L1interference Supporting that point of view, Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis claimed thatthe principal barrier to second language acquisition is the interference of the first languagesystems with the second language system and that a scientific, structural analysis of thetwo languages in question will yield a taxonomy of linguistic contrasts between themwhich in turn would enable linguists to predict the difficulties a learner would encounter

Apart from that, human learning theories highlighted interfering elements oflearning, concluding that where no interference could be predicted, no difficulty would beexperienced since one could transfer positively all other items in a language Lado (1957:vii) in the preface to his book “Linguistics Across Culture” says: “The Plan of the book rests on the assumption that we can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulties

in learning, and those that will not cause difficulty by comparing systematically the language and the culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the

students.” Then in Chapter One of the book, he continues: “ in the comparison between native and foreign languages lies in the key to ease or difficulty in foreign language learning.”

Dunnet et al suggest six aspects of culture that learners and teachers should befamiliar with:

(i) Languages cannot be translated word-for-word … (ii) The tone of a speaker's voice (the intonation pattern) carries meaning… (iii) Each language-culture employs gestures and

body movements which convey meaning… (iv)…languages use different grammatical

elements for describing all parts of the physical world (v) All cultures have taboo topics…

(vi) In personal relationships, the terms for addressing people vary considerably among

languages (1986, 148-149)

As the matter of fact, Vietnamese learners of English are affected by culture transferwhich is the cultural interference caused by cultural difference, according to Yan Zhou (2008).Generally speaking, it means that in culture communication, people use their own culture rulesand values to guide their words and deeds, even thoughts Therefore, there surely exists thedifferences in criticizing between the Vietnamese learners of English and the native ones Thisstudy aims at clarifying how similarly and differently the targeted informants treat in the samesituations of criticism

3.3 DATA COLLECTION METHOD: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Data is collected from survey questionnaires because of some advantages over

the some other types of survey in that they are cheap, do not require as much effort from

the questioner as verbal or telephone surveys, and often have standardized answers that

make it simple to compile data

The author designs only one version of survey questionnaire The survey is

conducted with 30 chosen Vietnamese learners of English and 30 Southern English

speakers who are asked to give their specific utterances when they have to criticize in

specific situations and under certain variables To collect data for analysis, Metapragmatic

Questionnaire (MPQ) is designed MPQ consists of two parts in which part 1 is getting

general information about the informants and part 2 is getting to know how native English

and Vietnamese learners of English use disjuncts as hedges in mitigating criticism in each

situation While part 1 helps provide the author with the data related to

informants‟parameters, part 2 provides the author with statistical data of using disjuncts

in terms of comminucating parameters in each situation of criticizing In the second part,

5 situations with open- ended questions are designed to elicit the use of disjuncts as

hedges and the linguistic form of criticisms

The questionnaires are delivered directly to 30 Northern Vietnamese learners ofEnglish and to 30 English people through e-mails Data analysis methods are bothquantitative and qualitative The collected data of informants using attitudinal or styledisjuncts or making no criticism will be converted into correlative percentage and analyzed

quantitatively in comparing and contrasting techniques to find out the similarities anddifferences in the ways the Northern Vietnamese learners of English and the SouthernEnglish native speakers perform the act of criticizing using hedges as a politeness strategy.Moreover, sharings and explanations in informants‟ responses to the open-ended questions

in the questionnaires are qualitatively stated

The targeted populations are Vietnamese and English native speakers who areliving in their own cultures In order to draw conclusions about the similarities anddifferences in the ways Vietnamese and English express criticism in their own language,the author has to examine samples

Sampling is the crucial methodological issue in survey research because it affects

the result which can be drawn from the study The author is fully aware of the importance

of a sample which is adequately representative the population the researcher aims at.Therefore, the author uses probability sampling for its reliable result Probability samplinginvolves selecting a sample that we know the probability that each element has beenselected Simple random sampling is used in this study to ensure that the essentialcharacteristics of the sample are like those of the population Informants‟ parameters andcommunicating partners‟ parameters are considered to give a good sample Informants‟parameters are supposed to affect the strategies they use However, the degree of influencewill be proved after analyzing the data

3.4 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT

Data is collected by meeting Vietnamese people directly and sending the Englishpeople emails Finally, 60 survey questionnaires including 30 in Vietnamese and 30 in English have been selected for analysis

3.5 DATA COLLECTING PROCEDURES

The research sites are Hoa Binh province in Vietnam and the Southern England, inwhich places 30 Vietnamese and 30 other English informants are living, studying andworking Data is collected by meeting Vietnamese people directly and sending the Englishpeople emails Finally, 60 survey questionnaires including 30 in Vietnamese and 30 inEnglish have been selected for analysis

3.6 DATA ANALYSIS UNITS/ PARAMETERS

This research is to investigate some major Vietnamese – English differences andsimilarities in using disjuncts as hedges to mitigate criticisms In order to collect sufficient

data for contrastive analysis, the author designs one version of survey questionnairesincluding two parts:

Part 1: General information about the informants

Part 2: How Vietnamese and English informants use disjuncts as hedges in mitigatingcriticism in each situation with different communicating partners

The situations in the questionnaires are designed to reflect real life situations whichconsist of criticizing in five popular topics (appearance/ character/ performance/ ability/family) and in three relationships: society, family and business

The survey is intended to elicit what type of disjuncts and how often the informantsuse that kind of disjunct as hedges in mitigating the criticisms It consists of five situations

as follows:

Situation 1: How would you verbally criticize someone if he/she dresses untidily?

Situation 2: How would you verbally criticize someone if he/she said/did something very

annoying to you?

Situation 3: How would you verbally criticize someone if he/she performed his/ her work

badly?

Situation 4: How would you verbally criticize someone if he/she could not speak English

well despite his/her great effort?

Situation 5: How would you verbally criticize someone if he/she behaved badly?

The informants‟ communicating partners were people in familial, social andbusiness relations:

√ Colleague (same sex)

√ Colleague (opposite sex)

√ Boss (younger)

√ Boss (older)

 gender,

All the informants are Northern Vietnamese and Southern English native speakers

The data collected show that both Vietnamese and English informants have lived inurban areas for quite a long time and they can speak at least one European language

Therefore, the status parameter of “living area” would not be discussed.

It is also observed that some informants, both Vietnamese and English have written

down “I say nothing in such a situation” or “I suppose that I don’t see anything” They

claim that criticizing is a highly sensitive speech act, or highly potential FTA and theyrarely do such act

Table 6: Distribution on informants’ status parameters

Informants’ status parameters Vietnamese English

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4.1 USE OF DISJUNCTS SEEN FROM COMMUNICATING PARAMETERS

The data analyzed concerning the use of disjuncts seen from communicating

parameters are from the questionnaire (Appendix A, p.53-58.) The analytical units of

analysis are the percentages of informants using either attitudinal or style disjuncts whencriticizing and the percentages of informants who would make no criticism

Attitudinal Style

10 0 English Vietnamese

To criticize a close friend, Southern English informants use the strategy 6 “showing concern” by mostly using the style disjuncts “frankly, to put frankly, if I may be frank, personally, generally, crudely and truthfully ”, followed by direct criticizing at the highest

rate: 60% in which just over 17% of adverbial clauses is used Attitudinal disjuncts are less

preferably used by the English accounting for 40% with the use of the strategy 5 “offering

or suggesting options” to show the degree of doubt such as “maybe, perhaps” Similarly,

these are also the approximately rate of Northern Vietnamese learners who also prefer style

disjuncts such as “frankly and truthfully” to attitudinal disjuncts when criticizing their close

friends: 46.7% and 43.3% However, Northern Vietnamese learners tend to use individualadverbs rather than adverbial clauses This may be resulted from the fact that theVietnamese seem to ease and simplify the target language to make it similar to their source

language and to avoid mistakes It may mean that negative transfer has an impact on theway Vietnamese people learn a foreign language Furthermore, Northern Vietnameselearners of English tend to criticize indirectly rather than directly For instance, in most

cases they say “Frankly, a red shirt could fit you better” Meanwhile, Southern English criticize directly “ Frankly, this shirt doesn’t fit you well”.

4.1.1.2 Someone you dislike

70 60

40

Style 30

10

nothing

0 English Vietnamese

Attitudinal adverbial clauses such as “by the chance, I wonder, would you happen

to know” followed by rhetorical questions rank the higher between the two types with the

two groups: 63.3% among English and 60% among Vietnamese Surprisingly, with the

people they dislike, “saying nothing” is one of the choices of the Southern English

(16.7%) And 20% compared to 40% of the Vietnamese learners use style disjuncts such as

“truthfully, simply” to give their criticism to the people they don‟t like However, a small

difference in the way the Northern Vietnamese criticize their communicating partners theydislike is that they use more idioms than the Southern English

70 60 50