Criticizing behaviors by the Vietnamese and the American - topics, social factors and frequency

Abstract, speech acts as m inim al unit of discourse analysis have been the ếocus oế a large body of research as they do not only represent language form b u t also [r]

VNU Journal 0Í Science, Foreign Languages 23 (2007) 141-154

Criticizing behaviors by ửie Vietnamese and the American:

topics, social factors and frequency

Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa*

Department o f English - American Language and Culture, College o f Foreign Languages; Vietnam National University, Hanoi,

Pham Van Dong Street, Cau Giaỵ, Hanoi Vietnam

Received 05 December 2007

Abstract, speech acts as m inim al unit of discourse analysis have been the ếocus oế a large body of research as they do not only represent language form b u t also reflect cultural values o f the people who perform them Like most other speech acts, the realization o f the speech act o f criticizing is influenced by a num ber o f social and situational factors, t h e perception o f which m ight vary greatly across cultures In addition, cultures m ay also differ in their common topics and frequency of criticism their pc?oplc m ake in everyday life This paper report a cross-cultural study on criticizing behaviors by the Vietnamese and Am erican pKĩople focusing on three aspects: the topics OÍ critics,

factors aiiocting criticising behavior, and the frequency of criticism Responses to questionnaire lloms by 102 Vietnamese and 102 Americans reveal both similarities and differences between the two groups of people in all the three investigated aspects Although the results of the study are Inconclusive, it is hoped that they could be used as reference for further investigation into crihcism

periormancc by the ViotnamesG and Americans.

1 In tro d u ctio n

The action view of language introduced in

the speech act theory [1-3] has started a new

era in language research Speech acts as

m inim al units of discourse A ustin [1] have

become the focus of investigation of m any

language researchers as the concept of speech

act em braces both ''linguistic form and social

norm s" ị4Ị The results of a large body of

research in speech acts reveal th at although

m any speech acts seem to exist in different

cultures and societies, their natures, ửìeir

Tol.: 84-4*8510304

E-mail: hxhoal8@yahoo.com

conditions of realization and the m eans by

w hich they are ren d ered are n ot global m natu re, b u t ra th e r socially and culturally defined [5], For exam ple, research into cross- cultural pragm atics also confirm s that speech acts such as apologizing, requestíng; refusing, etc often evoke different com m unicative styles across cu ltu res [6,7] These stylistic differences m ay be d u e to the speakers' differences in perception of factors such as relative power^ soda! distance, and the degree

of im position o p eratin g on both m acro and

m icro levels of interaction These are the factors th at influence the sp eaker's decisions

ab o u t "w h en to ổpeak an d w hen n ot to speaK

a n d w h al to talk a b o u t w ith whom^ w hen,

141

142 H o a n g T h i X u a n H o a / W sfU Ị o u r m i o f S à e n c e , F o r e ig n L a n g u a g e s 2 3 (2 0 0 7 ) 1 4 Ĩ - Ĩ 5 4

vvherC; and in w hat m an n er." [4], a n d cultures

m ay vary in the perceptions of and hierarchies

for these factors Some cultures p u t certain

relative values ahead of oửiers, as Linton

{1938: 426) contends: "A ll cultures exhibit

pattem ings, a tendency to organize large areas

of their content w ith reference to certain

dom inant attitudes or values"

Like oứìer speech acts, the speech act of

criticizing is culture specific and reflects

fundam ental values of a given society

W eightings given to the social and situational

factors that influence criticism perform ance

m ay vary w ith dư íerent cultures Thus,

criticizing behaviors m Vietnam ese culture,

which encourages collectivism and has been

traditionally influenced by co n fu d an ideology,

and those in Anglo-Am erican culture, w hich

has been identified as a culture high in

mdividualistic value tendencies [8ị m ay d ư íer

in m any aspects This stu d y w as designed to

exam ine som e of those aspects, nam ely ử\e

m ost com m on topics that these tw o people

often criticize on, a n u m b er of the so d al and

situational variables (relative p o w er and soda]

distance betw een m leractants, severity of

offence, the setting, the g ender of the hearer,

etc.) hypothesized to influence the choice of

criticizing strategies by Vietnamese and

American people, and the frequency they

criticize people havm g different relations with

them Hopefully, the results of this study could

help establish the foundation for further

investigating the nature of the speech act of

criticizing, and for com paring critidzing

peoples

2 T h eo retical fra m e w o rk

2.1 Factors affecting speech act performance

Successful perform ance of any speech act

so d o p rag m a tic "w h e th e r to perform " and pragm alm guistic ''h o w to perform " [9, 10|

S o d o p rag m a tic judgm ents involving contextual factors such as social power, distance, rights a n d obligatìons, p u rp o se of the speech act, etc., are the basis for the speaker to decide w h eth er it is ap p ro p riate to perform a given speech act, w hereas pragm alinguistic decisions^ w hich are language-specific, concern linguistic choices related to encodm g speaker's iliocutìonary force in an appropriate way (Bonikowska, ibid)

S tu d ies sh o w th a l social relations such as

d eg re e of social p o w e r a n d distance betw een interlo cu to rs a n d th e ranking of im position of

th e speech acts are am o n g the m ost im p o rtan t variables in d eterm in in g the pragm atic decisions in v o lv ed m the perform ance of speech acts Social d istance is defm ed by Spencer-O atey (11 j as h aving several

co m ponents: 1) scx:ial fam iliarity; 2) frequency

of contact; 3) len g th of acquaintance; 4) fam iliarity, o r h o w w ell people know each other; 5) sen se of like-m inded ness; a n d 6)

p o sitiv e/n eg ativ e affect H ow ever, social

d istan ce moi^t ro m m n n ly iinHprstooH ^ho

d e g re e o f fam iliarity a n d solidarity betw een

th e sp e ak e r a n d th e hearer It is one of the forem ost factors th at d eterm in e the w a y in

w h ich m terlo cu to rs converse because it is an

im p o rta n t d e te rm in a n t of th e d eg ree of

co m fo rt o r p o liten ess m a verbal exchange [12], S tu d ies o f scxrial d istance as a variable in speech act b eh a v io r by N essa W olison [13j,

D 'A m ico-R eisner (1985), H o lm es (1990) cited

by Boxer (1993) reveal ũnai d istrib u tio n s of

d ifferen t speech acts across social d istance

v ary T h e difference m ay b e d u e to th e extent

to w h ich th ey are co n stru ed as face-

th re a ten in g acts F o r instance, die bugle shape [13] o f co m p lim en ts a n d invitations, w hich are

co n sid e red as solidarity-establishing and

ra p p o rt'in sp irin g speech acts, is sk ew ed for

Hcw »^ T h i X u a t i h ỉoa / V N U f o u n ia l o f S c ie n c e , F o r a g ii L a n g u a g e s 2 3 (2 0 0 7 ) 141-154 143

apologies and indirect com plam ts, th e tw o

m ore face-threatening acts

T he second factor lh at often h a s g reat

im pact on speech act p erfo rm an ce is relative

pow er, which Spenccr-O atey (ibid) also breaks

d o w n into 5 com ponents su ch as 1) rew ard

pow er; 2) coercive pow er; 3) e x p e rt pow er; 4)

legitim ate power; and 5) referen t po w er In

this slu d y , the lerni relative p o w e r is u sed to

generally refer to th e p o w e r of th e sp eak er

w ith respect to th e hearer, w h ich reflects the

degree to w hich th e sp e a k e r can im pose

his/her will onto the hearer T he d eg ree of

effect that social p o w er h as on speech act

strategies varies across cu ltures The

differences are especially o b v io u s b etw een

"sm all pow er d istan ce'' a n d "larg e p o w er

distance” cuUures [8j H o fsted e (1991) cited in

Ting-Toom ey found o u t th a t "sm all p o w er

distance" a iltu re s (e.g A u stria, D enm ark,

Israel, Germany, C an ad a, U nited Slates, etc.)

em phasize equal distance, in d iv id u al

credibility, and sy m m etrical interactíon,

w hereas "'large p o w e r d istan ce " cu ltu res

(Malaysia, Indian, Philippines, S ingapore, etc.)

em phasize pow er distance, seniority, age,

r;ink, title, a n d a <5 y TP m e tric a l in te r a c tio n

T he third factor affecting sp eech act

perform ance is ab so lu te ra n k in g of

ini position, w hich refers to th e potential

expenditure of g oods a n d /o r services by the

hearer according to m acro-level socio-culhjra]

norm s operating w ith in a g iven culture

According to B row n a n d Levinson(14],

absolute ranking of im po sitio n d em o n strates

the degree to w hich this im p o sitio n interferes

w ith a n in d iv id u a rs w a n ts of self-

determ ination o r ap p ro v a l (n eg ativ e and

positive face-wants) It in clu d es reference to

the right of the sp eak er to p erfo rm ử\e a c t and

the degree to w hich th e h e are r w elcom es the

im position [5],

Beside those th ree m ajo r factors, a n u m b e r

of other factors are also likely to influence

speech act behavior, such as the speaker's perception of the d eg ree of the offence, the age

of th e tw o interlocutors, the topic, the settừig

of the speech event, etc (15)

A lthough, in g e n e ra l all Ihe above

m entioned factors h av e been found to influence speech act performance^ different cultures m ay give different w eightings to each

of the factors For exam ple, com paring refusal strategies by A m ericans a n d Germans, Beckers Ị16] finds o u t th at A m ericans tend to

v ary their refusal strategies accordm g to status rath er th an social d istance w hile G erm ans vary their refusal strategies according social distance rather th an status However; the investigahon of the speech acts of refusal and apology by Japanese a n d A m erican people by Beebe, Takahashi, a n d Uliss-W eltz {1990) reveals th at Japanese refuse differently according to the statu s of the interlocutors,

w h ile A m ericans are m ore affected by the

d eg ree of fam iliarity or social distance betw een interlocutors Similarly, in Japanese

society, social status is a m ore im portant factor

influencing apology realization w hilst Amf^rirans ^ v e m ore w eight to social distance This fact reflects a basic difference betw een Japanese a n d A m erican societies: The

tw o cu ltu res h av e m arkedly different w ays of view ing a n d expressing p o w er relations Japanese society h a s a sừ o n g ly vertical structure, in co n trast to the m ore horizontal

A m erican society In Japan, even people of

eq uivalent statu s and qualifications are alw ays conscious of their relative rank based on age,

y e a r of joining the com pany, length of service,

a n d so forth These factors strongly influence

th eir selection of com m unication style [17],

In sum , a n u m b er of social and contextual factors have been found to affect speech act perform ance The w eighting of the factors varies across cultures T he sam e speech act

m ay exist in various cultu res b u t its nature

144 T h i X i i ỉ ĩ ỉ i H o ữ Ị V T '/U Ị o u m a l o / S à e n c e , F o r e ig n U in g u a g e s 23 (2 0 0 7 ) 141- 154

and the conditions ío r its realizatio n are

cultural specific Therefore, a cross-cultural

investigate no( only its p â ttc m s 0Í linguistic

realization and so d o -p ra g m a b c strateg ies b ut

also how each of the factors influences on the

speech act in different cultures

2.2 The speech act o f criticizing

Criticizing as the act of "fin d in g f a u i r

(The A m erican H eritage D ictio n ary of the

English Language) [18] o r "sa y in g th a t you

disapprove of so m ething o r so m eb o d y , or

w hat you d o n ot like/think is w ro n g about

som ething" (Oxford L e a rn e r's D ictionary)

(19], o r "expressing d isa p p ro v a l of som eử iing

or som ebody" (C am b rid g e A dvanced

L earner's Dictionary) [20] is h ighly face-

threatening Besides its tw o m ajo r functions;

to point o u t a negatively p erceiv ed b ehaviour

or problem to the o ffender a n d to request

som e repair, criticizing is so m etim es p e rfo m e d

to vent the speaker's n egative feeling or

attitude to the hearer o r the h earer's work,

choice, behaviour, etc C onsequently, criticism

m ay ữnpair the hearer's face, w hich leads to the

unfavourable reaction a n d ju d g m en ts of the

hearer tow ard the speaker, resu ltin g in conflicte

and dam age to the relationship [21] H ow ever,

criticism has a num ber of ad v antages They can

help clear u p a pr<^letTV lessen irritation, and

as W ajnryb [22] p>omts o u t criticism m ay

provide a "rich, timely p o ten d ally fruitful

opportunity for learning"

W hen the speaker fin d s th a t an action

pcrfonned o r a choice m a d e by th e h ea re r is

inappropriate o r unsatisfactory, h e/sh e h as to

m ake a very careful decision: S h o u ld he/she

perform the act of criticism , o r s h o u ld he/she

not? A nd ii yes, how s h o u ld h e/sh e d o it so

that the realization of th e speech act w o u ld

m ost effectively bring a b o u t ứ\e desired

results? In o rd e r to com e to such decisions, the speaker has to ju d g e w h eth er the situation and ihe relationship betw een him self/herself

w ith the hearer are suitable for hirrvher to

m ake the criticism In oth er w ords, the speaker has to decide w h eth er the necessary conditìons for the appropriateness of the speech act are actually satisfied N guyen Thi

T huy M inh [23] in her interlanguage stu d y of criticism s m ad e by V ietnam ese learners, has identified four conditíons for th e speech act of criticism relating to th e sp eak er's perception

of the h ea re r's offence and the speaker's attitu d e to w ard the offence an d his/her desire for a change in th e action or attitu d e of the

hearer Tracy et ai [21] in distinguishing the

speech acts of com plaining a n d criticising also point o u t an im p o rtan t condition for criticism

ihài it is perform ed b y people of higher social

status to those of low er social status

H ow ever, N g u y en Thi T huy M inh argues lhat ỉhe role relationship is n ot a necessary condition for criHcism perform ance as It is not uncom m on for people in low er social position

to b e invited to m ak e crilid sm to their superiors She also a d d s th^t sfK^rh art«i arp context d ep en d en t, and contexts can som etim es be a m ore influential factor in determ ining the illocutìonary force of a specch act As has been discussed in the previous part, the im pact of contextual factors on speech act perform ance can vary w ith cultures, and the role relationship can be perceived differently in different cultures resulting in the variation in the conditions for speech act realisation across cultures, as G reen [24] has suggested: speech acts are not necessarily carried o u t by reference

to the sam e pragm atic preconditions in all languages

A lửtough the existence of the speech act 0Í criticism is universal across languages, its frequency, the situational contexts in w hich it

is found, an d th e types of linguistic form s

H o a n ^ T h i X u a n H o a Ị V N Ư J o u r n a l o fS c ie it c e , F o r e ig n L a n g u a g e s 2 3 (2 0 0 7 ) Ĩ 4 Ì ’ Ì 5 4 145

available and used are culture-specific

Criticizing, like o th e r speech acts, reflect

fundam ental v alues of the society, so the

stu d y of criticism s in one cu ltu re can p rovide

im portant insights into social n o rm s and

values that are em b ed d ed in th at culture

Therefore, a com parison betw een criticizing

perform ance by the V ietnam ese a n d the

Am erican is necessary n o t only because of its

im plications for language teaching and

learning b u t also for cross< ultural

u n d erstan d in g w hich constitutes an im portant

condition for successful cross-cultu ral

com m unication betw een peoples of the tw o

cultures To create a basis for cross-cultural

research on criticizing behaviors by American

and Vietnamese people, this prelim inary study

investigates som e issues concerning the speech

act of criticizing such as the factors that affect

the pragm alinguistic decisions in perform ing

the speech act of criticizing, the com m on

criticism topics, and th e frequency of the

speech act by the Vieữiamese and the

American

T h p iifydy

3.1 Research questions

The stu d y w as designed to get th e answ ers

to the following rcscarch questions:

To w hat extent d o A m ericans and

V ietnam ese differ in:

(a) the factors affecting criticizing

performance?

(b) the topics of criticism ?

(c) the frequency of criticizing?

3-2 Research design

3.2.1 Participants and sampling techniques

Participants for the stu d y are 102

Vietnamese (n*102) living in H anoi a n d 102

A m ericans (n«102) living in N ew H am pshire, USA N e w H a m p sh ire is chosen as Ihe location for th e stu d y because of the following reasons First, b e in g one of the six N ew England sta te s a n d o n e of th e thirteen original colonies of th e U.S., and w ith 96% of the

p o p u latio n a re w h ile, N ew H am pshire has

A nglo-A m erican as its m ainstream and

d o m m an t cu ltu re Second, fifty nine per percent o f th e sta te 's inhabitants are classified

as urban, o n e o f th e low est rates am ong ứìe states, so its p o p u la tio n com position can be considered as m o re sim ilar to th at of Vietnam

th an any o th e r states (Encarta, 2006) In

V ietnam , H an o i is chosen because it is the city

w h ere p eo p le from various parts of the country com e to live^ so its population can have m o st of th e characteristics of the people

in N o rth ern V ietnam Efforts w ere m a d e so th at the tw o groups

d id n o t differ in t e m s of age, placc of residence, e d u c a tio n and gender In o rd er to have ửie re sp o n d e n ts in the tw o groups with sim ilar p aram eters, the survey w as conducted first in N ew H am pshire- Then, based on the fpahires of thp A m priran inform ants, a group

of V ietnam ese in fo rm an ts of sim ilar features

w ere chosen In fo rm an ts in N ew H am pshire

w ere selected v ia a netw o rk in g approach to

q u o ta sam p lin g T his ap proach involved using friends to estab lish contacts w íỉh other

m em bers m th e targ et spccch com m unity

P articipants w ere first chosen on Ihe grounds

of av ailability to the researcher, their

w illingness to p artic ip ate in the study, and

sam p lin g te c h n iq u e w as em ployed to select official in fo rm an ts from those participants The d e m o g ra p h ic characteristics u p o n which the q u o ta w e re set w ere age (four age groups: 20-2^ 30-39, 40-49, and 50-60)" gender,

e d u catio n (secondary, tertiary), and place of residence (u rb a n , rural) The quota

146 H o a n g T h i X u a f i H o a / V N U jo u n m l o f S c ie n c e , F o r e ig n L a n g u a g e s 2 3 ( 2( X) 7) 1 4 7 - Ĩ 5 4

percentages were as follows: (a) age - 25% for

each age group, g ender - 60% female, 40%

male, (b) education - 20% secondary, 60%

college graduates, and 20% postgraduates, (c)

- 40% rural, 60% urban The rationale behind

the quota percentage w as n ot th at they

absolutely m atch the p o p u latio n percentages

on ứxese characteristics Rather, th e goal w as

to insure that th e various g ro u p s w o u ld hav e

sufficient representation to allow statistical

analyses for them And a m o re im p o rtan t

reason w as to ensure th e sim ilarities betw een

the tw o cultural groups

3.2.2 Instrument

Tw o questionnaires, o ne in V ietnam ese

and the other in English, w ere adm inistered to

the Vietnam ese and A m ericans g ro u p s

respectively T w o bilingual V ietnam ese

nationals w ere invited to check th e language

of the tw o versions of th e questionnaires to

m ake sure that they w ere identical in

m eaning, and only different m th e language

Each questionnaire consisted of four m ain

parts: Part 1 w as aim ed to get dem ographic

d ata from the m torm ants such as age^

education, g ender and place of perm an en t

residence- N am es w ere n ot asked for P art 2

was intended to find ou( the factors that

people take into consideration w h en they

decide to critid ze som ebody to th eir face

Factors such as age, gender, so d a] distance,

social status, the effect of th e critìdsm , the

severity of offence (offence in th e stu d y is

consequences w hich is co n trary to social code

of behavioral norm s [25], th e goal of

criticizing, the setting, etc w ere listed w ith a

five-point rating scale indicating the degrees

of consideratíon people take for each factor

w hen they have to criticize so m eb o d y to their

face Inform ants w ere asked to check the

a p p ro p ria te co lu m n beside each factor and

g iv e th eir reaso n s for Iheir choices in the next

co lu m n if th ey w ish ed to T here w as also an

o p en o p tio n for th e inform ants to add their

o w n factor(s) P a rt 3 of the questionnaire

m vestígated th e topics ữ iat people often criticize on T he 12 topics investigated are (a)

ap p earan ce, (b) choices m everyday life, (c)

ừ n p o rta n t choices in life, (d) choice of life

p artn er, (e) b e h a v io r a t hom e, (f) behavior in

p u b lic places, (g) beh av io r a t the workplace, (h) resu lts of w ork, (i) results of housew ork (k) a ttitu d e to life, (1) political view points and (m ) relig io u s beliefs These topics w ere chosen

b ased on th e criticism areas identified by Tracy et al [21] in th eir stu d y of the "good and

b a d criticism s", a n d by the definition of criticism giv en b y N g u y en Thi T huy Minh in

h e r m te ria n g u a g e p ragm atic stu d y of critirism

by V ietnam ese learn ers of English A scale of five p o in ts in d icatin g the degree of comfort

w h e n criticizing (from very com fortable to

v ery un co m fo rtab le) w as also used The last

p a r t p a rt 4, o f th e q u estio n n aire w as to find

o u t th e freq u en cy the Vietnam ese and

A i n c i k d f > kniuT indnU > c i i l i U z c ứxiiU

relatives, su p e rio rs o r subordinates, etc on the

12 topics m e n tio n ed in p a rt 3 Participants

w e re ask ed to check th e colum ns indicahng

th e frequency A six-point scale was used,

ra n g in g from 1 as never to 5 a s very ofieti and 6

as not applicable (th e inform ants d id not have

su ch relationship)

3.2.3 M ode o f data analysis

The resp o n ses ob tain ed from the

q u e stio n n a ire s w ere collated and then

an a ly z e d b y th e statistical tool SPSS Means of

th e e lem en ts w e re co m p ared w ithin groups to

id en tify th e m o st com m on topics of criticizing,

th e ra n k of th e factors th at affect th e criticizing

b e h a v io rs a n d th e frequency o f criticizing by

H o a ttg m X u a t i H o ứ / V N U J o u r n a l o f S c ie n c e , F o r e ig n L a n g u a g e s 2 3 (2 0 0 7 ) 1 4 1 -Ĩ5 4 147

the people in cach gro u p A lso, tw o -lailcd t-

test (a test that asks w h e th e r tw o sam p le

m eans differ en o u g h to lead o ne to believe

that there are statistically significant

differences betw een ỉhe tw o p o p u latio n s) w as

run to find o u t the are a s o f significant

difference betw een the tw o g ro u p s Sỉatìsdca)

significance is m easured b y th e a lp h a level

The value of alp h a w as set 0.005 o r low er

(p ^ 0 0 5 ) for the difference b e tw ee n th e tw o

samples* m eans to b e co n sid e red as

statistically significant

3.2.4 Procedures

Before officially a d m in iste re d to the

respondents^ the questionndires w ere piloted

on a g ro u p 0Í three V ietnam ese a n d a g ro u p of

ihree A m ericans to check th e clarity of the

questions, the n atu raln ess of th e language

em ployed and the q u estio n n aire f o m a t

W hile the form at w as re g a rd e d a s satisfactory

by all the iniorm ants, som e ch an g es in v ario u s

lexical item s w ere su g g ested in o rd e r to

achievc m ore clarity for th e qu estio n s

The English version o f th e q u estio n n aire

wa*? fir^t adm ini^tprpd to A m erican sam ples

M ost of the respondents w ere from S o u th ern

N ew H am pshire U niversity a n d so m e w o rk ed

in oth er institutions in v a rio u s p a rts of the

stale of N ew H am pshire T h e research er

invited ihc inform ants to join th e stu d y v ia her

friend w h o was w o rk in g a t th e u n iv e rsity as a

visiting scholar a t th e tim e First, the

researcher's friend w as m tro d u c e d to different

d epartm ents, schools, centers a n d offices of

ihe U niversity by an in tern a tio n al relation

officer w here she talked to th e p eo p le w o rk in g

there ab o u t the aim of the stu d y , th e p u rp o se

of the questionnaire a n d g a v e a brief

instruction of h o w to co m p lete it She also

answ ered questions by ứ\e staff concerning

the questionnaire T hen sh e left the

q uestionnaires - the n u m b e r of which

co rresp o n d ed to the n u m b er of the staff - in each office/departm ent/school and asked the head of the departm ent/office/school to collect

th e com pleted questionnaires a n d returned

th em to the international stu d e n ts' office for her The researcher's friend did n ot collect the

q uestionnaires herself because she w anted to

g iv e the siã íí Ihe freedom to choose to do it or

not The staff w as also encouraged to invite their friends a n d relatives to join the survey if they w ere interested Thus, in addition lo Ih^ inform ants from th e university^ the researcher

co u ld get a n u m b er of inform ants w orking

o u tsid e the u niversity via the university's staff Finally, 116 com pleted questionnaires

w ere retu rn ed A pproxim ately 29% of the people contacted refused to fíll o u t the questionnaire O nly 102 questionnaires that

m atched Ihe d esired percentages w ere chosen

to b e analyzed by Ihc researcher

The V ietnam ese g ro u p w as selected

according to (he features 0Í the American

g ro u p to m ake su re th at th e tw o g ro u p s had sim ilar param eters except their cultures This tim e the researcher m vited the inform ants to participate in her stu d y m person However,

of the 132 questionnaires sent o u t only 110

w ere returned, a n d 102 w ere chosen

A lthough the total n u m b er of the inform ants

w as not big, it w as assum ed t h a t w ith the

q u o ta sam pling a n d th e sim ilarities betw een the tw o g ro u p s being secured, the results obtained w o u ld reach â reasonable degree of validity and reliability

3.3 findrn^s and discussion 3.3.1- Factors affecting criticizing behaviors

The m eans of th e factors by the two

g ro u p s w ere calculated T hen ửie m eans of different factors w ere com pared w ithin

148 H o a tiỊỊ T h i X u a n H o a f V N U lơ u m a l o f S c ie n c e , F o r e ig n L a n g u a g e s 2 3 (2 0 0 7 ) 14 J-154

g roups to identify the o rd e r of im portance of

these factors for each g ro u p After that, the

m eans w ere com pared across g ro u p s to find

o u t the significant differences behveen the tw o

g roups in term s of factors the tw o peoples

take into consideration w h en criticizing

A com parison of the m eans w ithin groups

show s ứ\aì the o rd ers of im portance of these

factors perceived by ỉhe tw o g ro u p s are

different For th e V ietnam ese, th e p u rp o se 0Í

criticizing is the m ost im p o rtan t factor that

influences their decision to criticize Some

respondents explained that th ey w o u ld n ot

hesitate to criticize if th at h elp ed H to correct

his/her m istake o r change the situ atio n for the

better A ge is the factor th at com es as the

second m ost im portant consideration for the

Vietnamese Like in o th e r Asian countries, age

is usually treated w ith deference in Vietnam

Therefore, th e age difference betw een s and H

will certainly affect S 's criticizing strategies

The th ird factor in the ranking o rd er is

severity of offence T he explanation given by

som e of th e resp o n d en ts w as th at how they

criticized w o u ld d e p e n d on th e seriousness of

n H p n c f* , fn r th p t r iv ia l thi»y w o u ld

even choose to o p t out The setting of

criticizing is the íourứi m ost im p o rtan t factor

The V ietnam ese d o n ot seem to p ay m uch

attention to w here the criticism takes place

The social p o w er of the H, and th e social

distance betw een s ând H rank as th e fifth and

sixth m ost im portant factors respectively

According to the responses, the effect of

criticism w as given less consideration than

m ost oth er factors It com es seventh m the

rank order The explanation p ro v id e d by som e

iniorm ants is th at th ey believed th a t the

pu rp o se of criticizing w as to m ake thm gs

change for th e better, so they d id n ot care

ab o u t the b ad effect on the relationship

betw een them selves a n d th e H th at m ight

com e as tíie consequence of the critìd sm Both

V ietnam ese a n d A m erican inform ants rated gender as the least im p o rtan t thing they had

to take into consideration w hen criticizing The g en d er of H does not affect ửieir decision conceưiing their criticizing behavior

The o rd er of im portance of the factors provided by the A m erican informa-*ils is different from th at by the V ietnam ese To the

Am ericans, the m ost im p o rtan t factor is the setting of the criticism Privacy is believed to

be an im p o rtan t A m erican value Thus, when they have to criticize, they prefer dom g it in private M ost of the inform ants claim ej that they w o u ld n ot criticize an yone m public because, according to them , th at v o u ld

d am ag e th e H 's face seriously, w hich Tiight hav e co u n ter effect to them a s th e H mav react negatìvely a n d talk back to th em m aking them

l o s e t h e i r o w n f a c e D i s t a n c e i s r a n k e d ÍS t h e

second m o st im p o rtan t factor This is consonant w ith the results of the research by Beebe e t al [7] th at A m erican's refusals - also

a highly face-threatening act - are greatly ừiíluenced by th e degree of fam iliarty or social distance betw een m terlocutors Two

f a c t o r s - a n d w P f l t y O Í o í í p n r v - rn m r*

th ird in th e order C om pared with the

V ietnam ese th at ranked ag e as th e second

m ost im p o rtan t factor, th e American inform ants considered the ag e of the person they criticize m u ch less ừ n portant It comes fifth in the scale The p u rp o se of the criticism

a n d th e status of th e H com e sixth and seventh respectively and, like w ith the Vietnamese;

g en d er of the H co nsidered as the least

im p o rtan t factor is at th e bo tto m o f the scale.

If w e believe th at d speech act acts as "a

m irror of cultural values" Ị26], th en th e hctors

ử ìât affect th e decisions involved in

p erio rm in g ử\e speech act also reflect tíxe

values T he differences b etw een the orders of

im portance of the factors a s seen by the tw o

g ro u p s are obvious W hile to the Vieữiamese,

H o a n g T h i X u a n H o a f V7VƯ jo u r n a l o f S á e n c e , F o r e ig n L a n g u a g e s 2 3 (2 0 0 7 ) Ĩ 4 Ĩ - Ì 5 4 149

goah age, and severity of offence are th e m ost

im portant, to the A m ericans th e settm g,

d istance an d effect are

H ow ever, th e results of the tw o ta ile d t-

test reveal only fo u r factors th at are of

significant difference b etw een th e Vietnam ese

and A m ericans As state d above, w ith the p

v alu e set at 0.005/ the factors w here significant

differences are found are only age, gender,

statu s a n d pu rp o se A ccording to Vietnam ese

traditional belief, age itself is a v alu e as it is

attached w ith exj?erience, w isd o m and

know ledge, hence sh o u ld b e treated w ith a

according to A m erican values, age is not

som ething that o ne can be p ro u d o f O ld age

m eans to m an y A m ericans as "uselessness"

[27], so they av o id talking ab o u t it w henever

possible T he second significant difference is

gender, a n d th e th ird is status A lthough

status does n ot com e high in the ranking of

im portance of all th e factors b o th by the

V ietnam ese and A m ericans, the difference in

the m eans betw een the V ietnam ese and

A m erican g ro u p s is significant at the p value

of 0.000 This can b e accounted by com m on

V if'tna m p Q P p p o p io , lik*» A^i;^n

peoplcS; are a ra th e r ''so cially sensitive, statu s

conscious and hierarchically oriented" [28],

w hile A m ericans, w h o are b ro u g h t u p with

the belief that th eir society is an egalitarian

one, w here people are respected m ore for their

real ability and perform ance th an the status

they hold The fourth difference is th e factor of

the purpose of criticizing To the Vietnamese,

this is one of ửie m ost im p o rtan t factors

leading them to Uie decision to criticize or not,

w hile to the A m ericans, th e p u rp o se of

criH dzing is o v e rrid d e n by m o st of other

factors

3.3.2 Topics o f criticism

The second p a rt o f ứie questionnaire aims

a t discovering th e topics th a t V ietnam ese and

A m ericans often criticize on The result of a statistical analysis show s th at th e m eans for

ử \e tw o g ro u p s are generally low, espedaJly

for the A m erican gro u p The highest of the

m eans are ju st 3.23 and 3.12 for the

V ietnam ese a n d A m ericans respectively With

th e m eans as low as 2.5, there are 10 topics often criticized on by the Vietnamese: Behavior a t H om e, Behavior in Public Places, Behavior at W orkplace, Results of H ousew ork,

A ppearance, Choices in ev eryday Life, Results

of W ork, ImpK>rtant Choices in Life, A ttitude

to Life a n d Political Viewpoint; w hereas there are only 7 topics chosen by the Americans; Behavior in Public Places, Choices in Everyday Life, A ttitu d e to Life, Appearance, Behavior at the W ork Place, Results of

H ou sew o rk and R esults of Work

The m eans of th e V ietnam ese g ro u p are generally h igher ửian those of the Am erican

o ne (the m ean of all ữie topics is 2.83 by the

V ietnam ese com p ared to 2.51 by the

Am ericans), sh o w in g th at the Vietnamese probably feel m ore com fortable criHcizing on the various topics, w hich m ay lead to the

r o n r ln s io n t h a t f e n d to r r ir ir Ì7 e

m o re th an A m ericans do A lthough the tw o

g ro u p s d id n o t differ significantly in Iheir

r a n k i n g o f t h e d e g r e e o f c o m f o r t i n c r itic Ì 7 in g

m ost of the topics, th e V ieữtam ese inform anis

d id rank Im p o rta n t Choices in Life; Choice of Life Partner^ Behavior at H om e and Religious Belief significantly higher than d id the

A m erican ones (A lthough p value of variable (d) • choice of life p artn er - is slightly above the significant level, the difference is w orth

p a y in g attention to) T he difference reflects the fact ứìe A m ericans treasu re privacy [29Ị; so they d o n ot ieel com fortable criticizing other people a b o u t their private life W iửi their principle of "non-interference", unless the offence com m itted by H leads to bad consequences for them selves or breaks the

150 H o a n g T h i X u a n H o a ! V N U Ị o u m a l ợ f S c ie n c e , F o r e ig n L x ỉn g u a g e s 2 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) Ĩ 4 Ì - Ì 5 4

social norms, A m ericans avoid criticizing The

tw o groups are s im ih r in th at Religious Beliefs

uncom fortable criticizing

3.3.3 Frequency of criticizing

The third p art of the questionnaire is to

find o ut the frequency the V ietnam ese and

Am ericans criticize people h aving different

relationships w ith them on the topics listed in

p a rt 2 o f the questionnaire T he relatìonships

m clu d e those b e tw ee n s ta tu s e q u a ls (friendS;

colleagues), status u n eq u als (subordm ates -

boss), betw een people as socially distan t as

strangers or as fam iliar as fam ily m em bers

Again, in this p a r t th e m eans by the

Vietnamese g ro u p are generally a lot higher

than those of the A m ericans, a n d inform ants'

answ ers on p a rt 3 q u ite m atch their answ ers

on part 2, which- dem o n strates th e reliability of

the questionnaires

C om parison of the m ean s of the tw o

groups reveals som e sim ilarities as well as

som e differences The first sbnilaritv is th at theự

m eans by both g ro u p s for aJl the topics are

highest w ith close friends and fam ily

mem bers Both V ietnam ese and A m ericans

criticize their friends a n d relatives m ore often

than they d o to oth er people This can be

easily explained by th e fact th at people tend to

relatìonships they th in k th ey are safe In

relationships th at are still uncertain such as

acquam tances or colleagues or boss and

subordinates, people are generally m ore

careful w ith their speech act behavior

M oreover, in the case of criticism, \he greater

the pow er difference o r the distance betw een s

and H, the m ore threaterdng criticism appears

The second sim ilarity b etw een the tw o

g ro u p is th at for b o th g ro u p s the m eans for

the bosses (older a n d younger) are q u ite low

show ing th at both the V ietnam ese and

A m erican in fo rm an ts Sỡldom criticize p>cople

m h ig h e r positions In addition, alth o u g h m ost

of \he in fo rm an ts in both g ro u p s resp o n d ed to

q u estio n 1 th a t g e n d e r w as n ot an im portant factor they to o k in to consideration w hen criticizing, the m ean s of the frequencies show

th at they d o p ay attention to their Iriends'

g en d er w h en criticizing them (close friend of the sam e gender: 3.29, of different gender: 2.87) The m o st n o ta b le difference betw een the

tw o g ro u p s is th a t m ean s for all cases by the

A m erican ừ iío rm a n ts are significantly low er

th a n th e se of th e V ietnam ese ones w ith th e p

v alu e is often sm aller th a n 0.01 (p < 0.01)

A m ericans ev id en tly criticize m uch less often

th a n th e V ietnam ese This conform s to the

resu lts o b tain ed b y question 2, according to

w hich th e d e g re e o f com fort A m ericans feel

w h en h a v m g to m a k e direct criticism is m uch low er th a n th a t by th e V ietnam ese Also, the

m eans of d ifferen t relationships are distiiictively d ifferen t ior the V ietnam ese

g ro u p , w h e re a s for th e A m erican infonnants, the m ean s are low b u t n o t different significantly T his d em o n strates th e fact that relatio n sh ip h as m o re effect on ử\e

V ietnam ese sa m p le w h e n deciding lo criticize

th a n o n th e A m erican one

T he seco n d difference betw een the g ro u p s

is th a t w h ile th e V ietnam ese criticize their

sp o u ses m o st freq u en tly and the spouse relatio n sh ip h as th e h ig h est m eans on m ost topics (except for th e C hoice of life partner),

th e p e o p le m o st freq u en tly c ritid z e d by

A m ericans a re th e ir sibỉừigs This is

in terestin g as it sh o w s th e fact th a t in

V ietnam ese c u ltu re , th e wife a n d husb an d

seem to h av e closer and m o re intim ate

relatío n sh ip th a n in A m erican one so th at

V ietnam ese p e o p le are m o re com fortable

c ritid z m g ử ieir spouses

O f th e fam ily m em bers, g ra n d p a re n ts is ran k ed th e lo w est by th e V ietnam ese