An american – vietnamese cross – cultural study of asking for permission in the workplace

What are the major similarities and differences in American and Vietnamese perception of asking for permission in the workplace?...21 2.1.1.. Therefore, a desire to have a further insigh

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

GRADUATE STUDIES ************************

HOÀNG THỊ KIM THOA

AN AMERICAN –VIETNAMESE CROSS –CULTURAL STUDY OF

ASKING FOR PERMISSION IN THE WORKPLACE

(Nghiên cứu giao văn hóa Việt-Mỹ về cách thức xin phép nơi công sở)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics

HANOI – 2016

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

GRADUATE STUDIES ************************

HOÀNG THỊ KIM THOA

AN AMERICAN –VIETNAMESE CROSS –CULTURAL STUDY OF

ASKING FOR PERMISSION IN THE WORKPLACE

(Nghiên cứu giao văn hóa Việt-Mỹ về cách thức xin phép nơi công sở)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Prof NGUYỄN QUANG, Ph.D.

HANOI - 2016

This M.A thesis would not have been possible to do without the invaluableguidance, encouragement and support that I received from many people who Iwould like to show my sincerest gratitude and appreciation

First and foremost, I would like to offer my greatest and deepest thankfulnessand gratitude to Prof Nguyen Quang, my supervisor, for his enthusiastic andprecious guideline and advice throughout the duration of my thesis Without hisinstruction and supervision, this thesis could not have reached the accomplishment

Additionally, a very special thanks goes out to Mr Vu The Anh and Mrs BuiThi Yen who aided me to contact American and Vietnamese officers to ask for theirparticipation in my study From the bottom of my heart, I must acknowledge someAmerican and Vietnamese officers for their energetic contribution in DCT andMCQ

Last but not least, I am also very grateful to my family and relativesparticularly my father, mother and sister who have always supported me andsupplied the best conditions for me to complete this thesis

ii

This paper is carried out at endeavor of exploring the linguistic politeness strategiesutilized by the Vietnamese and the American people in asking for permission in theworkplace From that, major similarities and differences between the two languages

in this regard are revealed

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

to collect data from participants including thirty Vietnamese native speakers andAmerican ones who are currently working in the workplace The result reveals thatthe positive politeness strategy namely ―being conventionally indirect‖ is the mostcommon strategy used by American businesspeople while their Vietnamesecounterparts prefer ―being optimistic‖ & ―giving deference‖ Moreover, somefactors including ages, genders have great influence on the choice of politenessstrategy for Vietnamese clerks whereas no significant influence of those one aremade on the American counterpartners

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ABSTRACT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1.Rationale of the study

2.Aim and objectives of the study

2.1.Aim of the study

2.2.Objectives of the study

3.Scope of the study

4.Significance of the study

5.Research Methodology

5.1.Research Questions

5.2.Research Approach

5.3.Research Methods

5.4.Data Analysis

6.Design of the study

CHAPTER II:

LITERATURE REVIEW & THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.Key concepts defined and discussed

1.1.Communication

1.2.Cross-cultural communication

1.3.Collectivism & Individualism

1.4.Confucious value

2.Speech acts

2.1 What is speech act?

2.2.Classification of speech act:

iv

2.3 Asking for permission as speech act 11

3 Politeness and politeness strategies 12

3.1 Politeness 12

3.2 Politeness strategies 12

3.3 Politeness strategies in asking for permission 14

4 Previous studies on asking for permission 15

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 17

1 Research questions 17

2 Research participants 17

3 Data collection instrument 18

4 Data collection procedure 19

5 Data analysis procedure 20

CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 21

1 Introduction 21

2 Findings and discussion 21

2.1 What are the major similarities and differences in American and Vietnamese perception of asking for permission in the workplace? 21

2.1.1 With boss 21

2.1.1.1 American findings 21

2.1.1.2 Vietnamese findings 22

2.1.2 With colleagues 23

2.1.2.1 American findings 23

2.1.2.2 Vietnamese findings 24

2.2 How do the Vietnamese and Americans ask for permission in the workplace? 24

2.2.1 In some unimportant events 24

2.2.1.1 With colleagues 24

2.2.1.1.1 Vietnamese findings 24

2.2.1.1.2 American findings 26

2.2.1.2 With boss 28

2.2.1.2.1 Vietnamese findings 28

2.2.1.2.2 American findings 29

2.2.2 In some important events 30

2.2.2.1 With colleagues 30

2.2.2.1.1 Vietnamese findings 30

2.2.2.1.2 American findings 31

2.2.2.2 With boss 32

2.2.2.2.1 Vietnamese findings 32

2.2.2.2.2 American findings 33

2.3 What are the similarities and differences in the ways the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace? 34

2.3.1 Similarities 34

2.3.2 Differences 35

2.3.2.1 Differences in asking colleagues for permission 35

2.3.2.2 Differences in asking boss for permission 37

CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSION 39

1.Summary of main findings 39

2.Limitations 40

3.Suggestions for further study 40

REFERENCES 41 APPENDIXES I

vi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

DCT: Discourse completion task

FTA: Face threatening act

H: Hearer

MCQ: Multiple choice questionnaire

NPS: Negative politeness strategy

PPS: Positive politeness strategy

S: Speaker

Table IV.5 Politeness strategies with colleagues in some unimportant events as

seen from Vietnamese respondents

Table IV.6 Politeness strategies with colleagues in some unimportant events as

seen from American respondents

Table IV.7 Politeness strategies with boss in some unimportant events as seen

from Vietnamese respondents

Table IV.8 Politeness strategies with boss in some unimportant events as seen

from American respondents

Table IV.9 Politeness strategies with colleagues in some important events as seen

from Vietnamese respondents

Table IV.10 Politeness strategies with colleagues in some important events as seen

from American respondents

Table IV.11 Politeness strategies with boss in some important events as seen from

Vietnamese respondents

Table IV.12 Politeness strategies with boss in some important events as seen from

American respondents

Table IV.13 Vietnamese businesspeople versus their American counterparts in the

use of politeness strategies with colleagues in some unimportant and importantevents

Table IV.14 Vietnamese businesspeople versus their American counterparts in the

use of politeness strategies with boss in some unimportant and important events

viii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale of the study

Language plays an essential role in our life We use language to inform people ofhow we feel, what we desire, and understand the world around us Communicationdrives our lives However, not only is language for communication but it is also forcultural exchange among nations To support this point of view, Durant (1997: 332)

claims that “to have a culture means to have communication and to have communication means to have access to a language.‖ Language serves as an

expression of culture without being entirely synonymous with it In most cases, alanguage forms a basis for ethnic, regional, national or international identity

According to Brown (1994:65), ―a language is a part of a culture and a culture is

a part of a language; the two are intricately interwoven so that one cannot separate the two without losing the significance of either language or culture‖ Nguyen Quang (1998:2) states that ―One can not master a language without profound awareness of its cultural background and in both verbal and non-verbal communication, culture makes itself strongly felt.‖

In addition, the fact is that many Vietnamese wish to learn a foreign languagetowards a communicative end but are still largely concerned about grammar andvocabulary Consequently, although the utterances and expressions are well-formed,they may experience culture shock when entering into actual cross-culturalinteractions It can be easily realized that different languages and cultures havedifferent expressions as well as different realizations of speech acts by languageusers This results in a variety of research on cross-cultural study of communicationsuch as complementing, thanking, requesting, making a bargain, promising.However, little attention has been put into asking for permission which is expected

to be where appropriate politeness is found, and as a result, the chance ofpermission will increase

Therefore, a desire to have a further insight into major similarities and differences inasking for permission by native speakers of Vietnamese and American has inspired

the researcher to develop a study entitled “A Vietnamese-American cross-cultural study of asking for permission in the workplace‖.

2 Aim and objectives of the study

2.1 Aim of the study

The aim of this study is to find out major similarities and differences in the way the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace

2.2 Objectives of the study

* To analyze the ways the Vietnamese ask for permission in the workplace

* To analyze the ways the American ask for permission in the workplace

* To discuss major similarities and differences in the ways the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace

3 Scope of the study

To some extent, with playing an important role in interpersonal communication,paralinguistic (speed, loudness, pitch, …) and extralinguistic (facial expression,postures, gestures, proximity…) factors are beyond the scope of this study Thestudy is limited within the verbal-nonvocal aspects of the speech act of asking forpermission in view of positive politeness & negative politeness

4 Significance of the study

The thesis will contribute to the knowledge and understanding of how to ask forpermission in the workplace in two different cultures: Vietnam and America, thus,avoidance of culture shock and communication breakdown for success in inter-cultural communication

5 Research Methodology

5.1 Research Questions

The main purpose of the study is to answer the following questions:

- What are the major similarities and differences in American and Vietnamese perception of asking for permission in the workplace?

2

- How do the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the

Secondly, the collected data are classified in the light of positive politeness and negative politeness.

The third step is to comparatively and contrastively analyze the collected data

5.3 Research Methods

In order to reach the goal of this thesis, the research was conducted withcombination of several methods as follows:

 Descriptive method: this method is used to give a detailed explanation for the act

of asking for permission in American and Vietnamese workplace throughquestionnaires

 Analytic method: the analytic method points out some specific strategies ofasking for permission in the workplace in two different cultures through thecollected data

 Contrastive method: this method is used in order to show the similarities anddifferences in the ways of asking for permission in the workplace in Vietnamese andAmerican cultures

 Inductive method: it helps researchers and readers to draw out the

generalizations from the findings

Among them, the analytic and contrastive methods are the dominant ones which aremost frequently used in the thesis

5.4 Data Analysis

The collected data will be analyzed according to the informants‘ status parameters (age, gender) and participants‘ role relationships

The findings are compared and contrasted to find out major similarities anddifferences in the act of asking for permission in the workplace in Vietnamese andAmerican cultures.

6 Design of the study

Chapter I: Introduction

This part includes the rationale, aims and objectives, scope, research questions, significance as well as organization of the study

Chapter II: Literature Review and Theoretical Background

This chapter reviews the previous studies related to the problem under investigation

It provides the theoretical background including theory of culture, cross-culture,culture shock, relation between language and culture; definition, classification ofspeech acts, asking for permission as a speech act; basic knowledge of politenessstrategies

Chapter III: Research Methodology

This chapter consists of the research methods, data collection

Chapter IV: Findings & Discussions

This chapter concerns with the findings and discussion It presents the ways ofasking for permission in the workplace and shows the differences and similarities ofthe polite strategies in expressing the permission request in the workplace betweenAmerican and Vietnamese culture

Chapter V: Conclusion

This chapter summarizes the major findings of the investigation, puts forward theimplications for learning and teaching, and points out the limitations of the study.Some suggestions are also raised for further studies

4

CHAPTER II:

LITERATURE REVIEW & THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1 Key concepts defined and discussed

1.1 Communication

Based on Oxford Advanced Learners‘ Dictionary, “Communication‖ means the

activity or process of expressing ideas and feelings or of giving people information.With a view to deepening and broadening the definition, Hybels and Weaver (2008)

defined communication as any process in which people share information, ideas, and feelings that involve not only the spoken and written words but also body language, personal mannerism and style, the surrounding and things that add meaning to a message It can be easily realized that two above researchers

mentioned some different factors in the process of exchanging the information Inorder to generalize some above factors, Levine and Adelman (1993) confirmed that

communication is a process of sharing meaning through verbal and nonverbal behavior Not only is communication categorized into verbal and non-

verbalcommunication but Nguyen Quang also made a detailed desciption about

intralanguage in verbal communication as well as pararlanguage and extralanguage in non-verbal communication To sum up, it can be understood that

there are some effective ways to share information, to express ideas, feelings incommunication as well as some different factors which contribute to a successfulcommunication

1.2 Cross-cultural communication

According to Oxford Advanced Learners‘ Dictionary, cross-culture is defined as

ideas from two or more different countries or cultures In Nguyen Quang‘s LectureNote, cross-culture is described as the interaction within some social groups, sub-cultures, ethnic cultures as well as some different cultures

Based on the above definition, some scholars expanded their concerns for culture When two strangers from different countries communicate so as to let

cross-others understand their culture, customs, religions, values, norms and beliefs, theyare doing the cross-cultural communication According to Levine and Adelman

(1993), cross-cultural communication is communication (verbal and non-verbal) between people from different cultures; communication that is influenced by cultural values, attitudes and behavior; the influence of culture on people’s reactions and responses to each other A specific example is that Tina (originally

from Malaysia) has worked with a number of Fijians and sometimes she wouldtouch their curly hair and tell them how nice and soft it feels However, someFijians feel very uncomfortable with her doing so because in their culture, you‘renot supposed to touch people on the head—only the chief can do that Through it, ithighlights cultural differences in both non-verbal communication and the socialcodes of conduct Sometimes, some misunderstandings in cross-culturalcommunication can happen due to cultural differences In general, it is essential tobuild up common ground and profound knowledge of different cultures in order toavoid unexpected misunderstadings

1.3 Collectivism & Individualism

Individualism is defined as a situation in which people are concerned withthemselves and close family members only (Hofstede & Bond,1984) Similar toHofstede & Bond, Darwish and Huber (2003) confirmed that individualistic culturesinclude those people who ―are concerned with themselves and family membersonly‖ Concerned about people‘s characteristics in culture, Varner and Beamer(2005) showed that individualistic cultures include those people who show manyindividual characteristics The individual‘s wishes, wants, and needs are the drivingforce behind any action taken at work, home, and/or school Individualists arecomfortable earning personal credit for successful projects as well as taking theblame for failure to meet project goals More clearly, Trampenaars (2011) bestdescribes individualism as societies that:

frequent use of ―I‖,decision are made on the spot by representatives,

6

people ideally achieve alone and assume personal responsibility,vacations taken in pairs or even alone vs group orientation.

On the other hand, collectivism is a situation where people feel they belong to largercollectives that care for them in exchange for their loyalty, and in return those samepeople remain loyal to the group (Hofstede & Bond, 1984) An important value in acollectivist culture is that of saving ―face‖ (Varner & Beamer, 2005) Ting-Toomeyand Oetzel (2002) explain that face is associated with ―identity respect, disrespect,dignity, honor, shame, guilt, status, and competence issues‖ (p 145) Manycollectivist cultures will not deliver bad news or give criticism for fear of losingface An example of losing face is when an employee makes an error that losesmoney for the company The company loses face because the error is oftenattributed not to the individual but to the group More obviously, collectivism ischaracterized by Trampanaars (2011) as follows:

frequent use of ―we‖

decisions referred back by the delegates to the organizationpeople ideally achieve objectives in groups and assume joint responsibility

vacations are taken in organized groups of with extended family.All things considered, the difference between individualism and collectivismcan beexpressed by the range of social ―concern‖, which refers to bonds and links withothers (Hui & Triamdis, 1986)

1.4 Confucious value

Confucianism is not a religion; instead it is a set of guidelines for proper behaviour,and an ideology that underlies, pervades, and guides Chinese culture (Hofstede, 1991; Tu, 1998a; Yan & Sorenson, 2006)

The Confucian values form the core of the Chinese culture They penetrate all levels of social life, and also set standards for family, community and political behaviors Withinthe present study, Confucianism is defined as a philosophy which is the

basic starting point for 53 every individual to arrive at the state of perfect moralityand is a teaching based on a moral code for human relations.

The fundamental principles of Confucianism are grounded in the observance of the five virtues (also known as the ‗Five Constant Regulations‘) namely, Ren (love andbenevolence), Yi (righteousness), Li (propriety or rites), Zhi (wisdom) and Xin (sincerity or trustworthiness) (Chan, Ko, & Yu, 2000; Lu, 1983; Tamney & Chiang, 2002; Yao, 2000)

2 Speech acts

2.1 What is speech act?

J Austin (1962) is considered to be a pioneer in confirming the theory of speechacts According to him, a speech act is an act that a speaker performs when making

an utterance A speech act, then, is described as ―in saying something, we DO something.‖ For example, when someone says ―I am hungry‖, he or she can express

his hunger or ask something to eat A speech act is part of a speech event Thespeech act performed by producing an utterance, consists of three related acts,namely locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act

• Locutionary act is the basic act of producing a meaningful linguistic

expression.The

locutionary act is performed with some purposes or functions in mind

• Illocutionary act: is an act performed via the communicative force of an utterance

In

engaging in locutionary acts we generally also perform illocutionary acts such asinforming, advising, offer, promise, etc In uttering a sentence by virtue ofconversational force associated with it

• Perlocutionary act is what we bring about or achieve by saying something, such asconvincing, persuading, deterring perlocutionary acts are performed only on theassumption that the hearer will recognize the effect you intended

Searle (1969) states that speaking a language is performing speech acts, acts such asmaking statements, giving commands, asking questions, making promises and so

8

on; and more abstractly, acts such as referring and predicting; and secondly, thatthese acts are in general made possible by and are performed in accordance withcertain rules for the use of linguistic elements More obviously, Searle (1972: 136)points out that the minimal unit of linguistic communication is the production ofspeech acts, not the symbol or word or sentence.

In agreement with Searle, Levelt (1989) defines that an utterance with thiscommunicative intention is called a speech act; it is an intentional action performed

by means of an utterance

The definition of speech acts was developed by some another American language

philosophers Yule (1996:47) defines that ―in attempting to express themselves, people do not only produce utterances containing grammatical structures and words, they perform actions via those utterances.‖ According to him, actions

performed via utterances are generally called speech acts, and in English, arecommonly given more specific labels, such as apology, complaint, compliment,invitation, promise or request

For example, you work in a situation where a boss has a great deal of power, then

the boss says: ―You’re fired” The utterance of the expression is more than just a

statement The utterance can be used to perform the act of ending your employment.Also, Yule points out another utterance: ―This tea is really cold!‖ On a wintry day,the speaker makes a cup of tea and believes that it has been freshly made, takes a sipand produces this utterance It is likely to be interpreted as a complaint However,changing the circumstances to a really hot summer‘s day with the speaker beinggiven a glass of iced tea by the hearer, taking a sip and producing this utterance, it islikely to be interpreted as praise It can be confirmed that the same utterance can beinterpreted as two different kinds of speech act

2.2 Classification of speech act:

Some different classification of speech acts can be presented by some differentlinguistics and researchers

Based on Austin (1962), there are five types of speech acts as follows:

o Verdictives: typified by the giving of a verdict by a jury, umpire, arbitrator

such as acquit, grade, estimate, diagnose.

o Exercitives: which are the exercising of powers, rights or influence such as

appoint, order, advise, warn.

o Commisives: which commit the speaker to doing something, but also

include declarations or announcements of intention such as promise, guarantee,

bet, oppose.

o Behabitives: a miscellaneous groups concerned with attitudes and social

behaviors such as apologies, criticize, bless, challenge.

o Expositives: which clarify how utterances fit into ongoing discourse, or

how

they are being used – argue, postulate, affirm, concede.

One of Austin‘s followers is Searle‘s, whose classification has become morepopular Nguyen Hoa (2004:32) confirmed that the key point about Searle‘s system

is that he recognize ―constatives‖ as a kind of speech acts Searle‘s system (1979)includes six types of speech acts as follows:

oCommissive: a speech act that commits the speaker to doing something in

the future, such as a promise, or a threat

 If you don‘t stop fighting, I‘ll call the police

 I‘ll take you to the movies tomorrow.

oDirective: a speech act that has the function of getting the listener to do

something, such as a suggestion, a request, permission or a command

 Please, sit down

 Why don‘t you close the window

oDeclarative: a speech act which changes the state of affairs in the world

 I now pronounce you man and wife

oExpressive: a speech act in which the speaker expresses feelings and

attitudes about something, such as an apology, a complaint, to thanksomeone, to congratulate someone

 The meal was delicious

10

oRepresentative: a speech act which describes states or events in the word,

such as an assertion, a claim, a report

 This is a German car

oPhatic act: a speech act whose function is to establish rapport between

people:

 Nice to meet you

2.3 Asking for permission as speech act

In accordance with Oxford Advanced Learners‘ Dictionary, ―permission‖ means

the act of allowing somebody to do something, especially when this is done by

somebody in a position of authority; therefore, ―asking for permission‖ is defined

as an acting of requiring the others‘ allowance to do something performed throughutterances in interaction

Based on Searle‘s classification of speech acts, asking for permission belongs todirective speech act whose direction of fit is to make the world fit the word (Yule,1996)

In the book ―Meaning and Expression” (1979:22), Searle points out that

permission has the syntax of directives In addition to the emphasis on the simplemeaning of ―giving permission‖- trying to get somebody to do something, he statesthat it consists in removing antecedently existing restrictions on his doing it.Consequently, ―permission‖ is considered to be illocutionary negation of adirective with a negative propositional content and its logical form is ~(~p)

In agreement with Searle, Edda Weigand confirms that ―to permit‖ somethingpresupposes that something is forbidden which must not explicitly expressed but isknown to the community and the speaker asks for the ban to be lifted (2010:190) Inother words, the speech act of ―permitting‖ arises from the specific propositionalfeatures of something forbidden

With Brown and Levinson (1978), asking for permission is face-threatening speechact and is risky for the speaker in losing his/ her face In other words, such requestsare towards speaker rather than hearer as well as activate speaker not hearer

11

However, it might be expected that asking for permission, since by definition theyoccur between unequals, will tend to be less direct than requests for action (cited byShoshana Blum-Kulka and Elite Olshtain) According to the ethnographic study onthe language of requesting in Israel, requests for action is the most direct and askingfor permission is the most indirect, with requests for goods and for informationclustering in between the two extremes (Blum-Kulka, Danet and Gerson, 1983).

3 Politeness and politeness strategies

3.1 Politeness

Hill et al (1986: 349) define politeness as “one of the constraints on human interaction, whose purpose is to consider other’s feelings establish levels of mutual comfort, and promote rapport‖ Leech (1983: 104) interprets politeness as forms of behavior aimed at creating and maintaining harmonious interactions According to Nguyen Quang (2005: 185), “Politeness refers to any communicative act (verbal and/ or non-verbal) which is intentionally and appropriately meant to make others feel better‖.

3.2 Politeness strategies

Positive politeness strategies

Based on Brown and Levinson‘s theory (1987), positive politeness “is oriented toward the positive face of H, the positive self-image that he claims for himself It expresses solidarity and attend to the H’s positive face wants.” In other words, it

confirms that the relationship is friendly and expresses group reciprocity With Yule(1996), he highlights positive politeness as a face saving act concerned with theperson‘s positive face It will tend to show solidarity, emphasize that both speakerswant the same thing and have a common goal Through the analysis of cross-culturecommunication, Nguyen Quang (2003) categorises into some sub-types as follows:

Strategy 1: Notice/attend to H (interest, wants, needs…)

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

Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H

Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers.

Strategy 5: Seek agreement.

Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement.

Strategy 7: Presuppose, raise, assert common ground.

Strategy 8: Joke.

Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose knowledge of and concern for H’s want.

Strategy 10: Offer, promise.

Strategy 11: Be optimistic.

Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity.

Strategy 13: Give or ask for reasons.

Strategy 14: Assert reciprocal exchange.

Strategy 15: Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation) Strategy 16: Condole, encourage.

Strategy 17: Ask personal questions.

Negative politeness strategies

Brown and Levinson (1987) states that negative politeness is oriented toward partially satisfying (redressing) H’s negative face, his basic want to maintain claims

of territory and self- determination When negative politeness is used, the speech

strategies emphasize the deference or respect for the hearer Negative politeness is

defined as a face saving act oriented to a person’s negative face which tends to show deference, emphasizes the importance of the other’s time or concerns and may include an apology for the imposition by Yule (1996) In agreement with two above

researchers, Nguyen Quang (2003) emphasizes that the speaker does not want toimpigne on the addressee‘s privacy, thus, maintain the sense of distance betweenthem through using the negative politeness With the basis of negative politeness, hegives more detailed description of 11 negative politeness strategies as follows:

Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect.

Strategy 2: Question, hedge.

Strategy 3: Be pessimistic

13

Strategy 4: Minimizing the imposition

Strategy 5: Give deference.

Strategy 6: Apologize.

Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H Avoid the pronoun I and You

Strategy 8: State the FTA as an instance of a general rule

Strategy 9: Nominalize to distance the actor and add formality.

Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt or as not indebting H

Strategy 11: Avoid asking personal questions.

However, in a real utterance, some ovelaps and borderlines between positivepoliteness and negative politeness can happen Some people sometimes use both ofthem in a sentence as follows:

Kevin, could I possibly use your computer for a short while? (Kevin: in-group identity marker [Positive politeness] + for a short while: minimise the imposition

[Negative politeness])

3.3 Politeness strategies in asking for permission

As usual, some modal verbs such as: can, could, may, might can be used in asking for permission In addition, ―please”,“would you mind”,“could/ can you mind‖

can be considered tobe markers for asking for permission Each specificcircumstance will be equipvalent to some suitable asking for permission markers.Therefore, this section aims to categorize politeness strategies used to ask forpermission in the workplace Based on the politeness theory of Nguyen Quang(2003), some politeness strategies for asking for permission are classified into:

a Positive politeness strategies (PPS)

- Be optimistic

Ex: Let me borow your pen for a while

Bạn cho tớ mượn cái bút nhé.

- Give or ask for reasons

Ex: I forgot my pen Can I use yours for the day?

Tôi bỏ quên cái bút Ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn có thể cho tôi mượn bút được không?

b Negative politeness strategies (NPS)

- Be conventionally indirect

Ex: Can I have a couple weeks off for vacation?

Tôi có thể xin phép nghỉ 1 đôi tuần cho kì nghỉ?

- Give deference

Ex: Do you mind exchange our shift today?

Anh/chị/bạn vui lòng đổi ca cho mình hôm nay được không?

- Minimize the imposition

Ex: I just want to ask you if I can swap shifts with you.

Anh ơi, cho em mượn cái bút một chút được không?

4 Previous studies on asking for permission

The field of asking for permission is quite common in daily life, therefore, it can bewidely seen in some researches In the light of cross-cultural pragmatics, Mr Tran

Ba Tien (2004) attempts to investigate the similarities and differences in the wayVietnamese and Canadian English speakers ask for permission Its focal points arepoliteness strategies which result is that Vietnamese speakers combine positive andnegative politeness (in other words, it is called overlap strategies) much more thanCanadian English counterparts, from twice to three times as much

Jimmy Dwi Purnawan (2007) do a study of asking for permission produced byJavanese and Chinese couples in Surabaya, which analyses language function inasking for permission expressions Through the analysis, the author finds out thatthe predominant is not seeking permission and the outstanding function is inquiringabout approval/ disapproval function so as to ask for permission from their spouseswith having more authority

Similar to Jimmy, a contrastive analysis about asking and giving permission inVietnamese and English is carried out by Ms Le Thi Thu Le (2010) with focusing

on the similarities and differences in syntactic and semantic formulas The findings

15

point out that the structure ―if‖ is more common in English than that one inVietnamese and the choice of the modal verbs in English is preferable whereassome pharses like ―xin phép‖ ―có thể‖ are widely used in Vietnamese Sometimes,power relations and relationship between interlocuters are referred to, however theyare used to emphasize the differences in semantic formulas.

To sum up, some studies on asking for permission are nearly based on linguistictheory such as: language function, syntactic, semantic formuals The similaries anddifferences in three issues are obviously shown with some specific evidences,especially, there is a variety of the countries which are used to compare including:Vietnamese, English, Chinese, Javanese, Canadian With reference to cross-culture,

in spite of some detailed statistics, Tran Ba Tien (2004) only gives some generalstrategies about several situations in daily life and the concentration on a specificsituations has not been concerned thoroughly Consequently, in my study, I focus onfinding out some specific politeness strategies including some sub-types of positivepoliteness strategies and negative politeness strategies in order to clarify and specifyhow to ask for permission in the workplace more than in some previous studies

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter focuses on introducing the methodology of the thesis; in other words,the methods of collecting the data for analysis This second chapter consists of fivesmaller parts: (1) research questions; (2) research participants; (3) data collectioninstrument; (4) data collection procedure; (5) data analysis procedure

1 Research questions

With the aims of finding out major similarities and differences in the way theVietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace, the thesis is hoped

to answer the following questions:

- What are the major similarities and differences in American and Vietnamese perception of asking for permission in the workplace?

-How do the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the

workplace?

- What are the major similarities and differences in the ways the Vietnameseand American ask for permission in the workplace in terms of politenessstrategies?

2 Research participants

As mentioned above, asking for permission in the workplace in Vietnamese culture was investigated in this study; therefore, those who work insome different offices from both countries were chosen to participate in research Inorder to ensure the reliability of the research, research participants coming fromAmerican offices or those who are working in Vietnam are American-Europeannative speakers In Vietnam, the researcher chose some Vietnamese native speakers

American-in not only state companies but also private enterprises to be research participants.However, there is a variety of factors which affect asking for permission style Alarge and growing body of literature suggests that gender status beliefs cansystematically affect women‘s ability to effectively exert influence and authority inthe workplace Ridgeway in a wealth of social psychological research documentshow sex categorization and the gender labeling of jobs affect expectations and

17

behaviors Specifically, she argues that, once individuals categorize a worker aseither male or female, gender stereotypes are likely to become infused intooccupational roles and responsibilities, thereby affecting the way the job is done,understood, and represented to others (cited in L.Doering &S.Thesbaud‘s artice,2015) Therefore, a range of choosing research participants will be quite wide asfollows.

A total of 60 participants from both countries were randomly selected with the ageranged from 22 to 59 In terms of gender, both male and female participate in thissurvey With regard to nationality, there are 30 American people and 30 Vietnamesepeople carrying out this questionnaire

In addition, the researcher had a tendency towards a variety of given occupations,from businessmen, accountants to bank clerks with a view to enhancing the validity

of the collected data

3 Data collection instrument

The main instrument of the research is survey questionnaire Questionnaire is theimportant way to collect data for analysis Leary (1995) said that surveyquestionnaires are less expensive, easier to group administration Additionally,thanks to the researchers‘ acquaintance, survey questionnaires sent through emailscan reduce their expense and also assist the participants to providing information in

a short time or whenever they are free On the other hand, with questionnaire, somenatural speech patterns can not be exactly collected because the participants willhave much time to think about what he says, especially, the tone, attitudes, emotions

of the performance will not deeply shown However, it is considered to be useful touse the survey questionnaire for primary investigation in asking for permission inthe workplace

Questionnaire is obviously divided into three parts and comprised of somesituations necessarily responded At the beginning of the questionnaire, there was anessential part including the participants‘ personal information such as age, gendersand which have a significant effect on their alternatives of politeness strategies

when asking for permission in given situations The next part was designed to findout the similarities and differences in the attitude towards asking for permission innormal situations in the workplace In this part, 8 alternative situations were raisedand the participants would be required to choose 5-point Likert Scale to decidewhether it is necessary or not to ask for permission for some certain situations in theworkplace 8 situations were categorized into two sub-parts with the first one being

the situations in which the participants are in lower status than the requestees (ask the boss for permission) and the second part including in the situations in which the participants have equal status with the requestees (ask the colleague for permission).

The third part of the questionnaire was designed to investigate the linguistic form ofasking for permission in some certain situations in the workplace 4 given situationswhich are common problems in working environment are shortly described withspecific contexts and the relationship between the interactants For each particularsituation, the participants were asked to accomplish what he/she would say innatural speech

4 Data collection procedure

First of all, a pilot survey will be carried out with some Americans and Vietnamese

in order to ask them if they often ask for permission in some daily situations Fromthe pilot survey, 8 common situations will be chosen to build the alternativequestions to find out the similarities and differences in the necessity of asking forpermission in the workplace perceived by American and Vietnamese After havingfinished the questionnaire, the researcher will contact with the participants

For American participants, the researcher asked the acquaintances who are working

in America for a help to present the questionnaire with their colleagues, neighbor oracquaintance If their friends accepted, a link to questionnaire would be sent to theiremails or facebooks After having finished all of the questions, the participants clickthe button ―submit‖ to send it back For Vietnamese participants, questionnaireswere delivered either in person or via emails

19

5 Data analysis procedure

In order to reach the goal of this thesis, the research was conducted with

combination of several methods as follows:

 Descriptive method: this method is used to give a detailed explanation for the act

of asking for permission in American and Vietnamese workplace throughquestionnaires

 Analytic method: the analytic method points out some specific strategies ofasking for permission in the workplace in two different cultures through thecollected data

 Contrastive method: this method is used in order to show the similarities anddifferences in the ways of asking for permission in the workplace in Vietnamese andAmerican cultures

 Inductive method: it helps researchers and readers to draw out the

generalizations from the findings

Among them, the analytic and contrastive methods are the dominant ones which aremost frequently used in the thesis

Particularly, with the first part of the questionnaire being some alternative questions,the first step is to gather information about American and Vietnamese attitudestowards asking for permission in normal situations in the workplace The collecteddata would be summarized, analyzed and compared in tables, pie charts

Based on some strategies by Nguyen Quang, the answers would be generalized andcategorized into the appropriate strategies From that, the researchers had somediscussions and explanations about the similarities as well as differences of askingfor permission in the workplace in America and Vietnam To find out majorsimilarities and differences in the way people in the two cultures ask for permissionunder the influence of power, gender and age, SPSS software 11.5 will be employedwith the main concentration on the application of cross tabulation