Conversation analysis disagreeing in english and in vietnamese, phân tích hội thoại hành động bác bỏ trong tiếng anh và tiếng việt

Luận văn, khóa luận, tiểu luận, báo cáo, đề tài

VINH UNIVERSITY FOREIGN LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT

NguyÔn thÞ thuû

CONVERSATION ANALYSIS: DISAGREEING

IN ENGLISH AND IN VIETNAMESE

VINH UNIVERSITY FOREIGN LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT

GRADUATION THESIS

CONVERSATION ANALYSIS: DISAGREEING

IN ENGLISH AND IN VIETNAMESE

(Phân tích hội thoại: Hành động bác bỏ

trong tiếng anh và tiếng việt)

Field : Discourse Analysis

Supervisor: M A Nguyễn Thị Tờng Student : Nguyễn Thị Thuỷ

Class : 44A1

Course : 2003 - 2007

Vinh – 2007 2007

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor M A NguyÔn ThÞ Têng, who introduced me to this topic – “Conversation Analysis: Disagreeing

in English and in Vietnamese” and helped me very much to do this study If I had not

received her valuable guidance, comments, and criticism, I would not havecompleted my thesis

And I would also like to express my indebtedness to all my teachers at

Foreign Language Department, especially M A Phan ThÞ V©n H¬ng, M A NguyÔn ThÞ BÝch HiÒn, Miss Mindy Schott, Miss Anne Edmunds and Miss

Sandy Gannon for their advice along with their great help with useful and

up-to-date materials concerning my field of study

I also wish to thank the students at Foreign Language Department who werewilling to answer my questionnaires

Finally, my sincere thanks go to my family and my friends who gave me thebest conditions to finish this thesis

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 Reasons for the study 1

2 Scopes of the study 2

2.3 Factors affecting directness and indirectness in disagreeing 14

PART A – INTRODUCTION

1 Reasons for the study

In the developing world, people need to contact and exchange informationwith each other In other words, people need to communicate But how tocommunicate appropriately is not easy, especially between people of differentcultures, different languages

Moreover, when we take part in a conversation, it is common that we havedifferent ideas or even opposite ones At that time, we want to express ourdisagreement about that matter This fact has raised one question: “How to expressone’s disagreement appropriately in order to keep the conversation going on?” It isconsidered an “art”! And this “art” is changeable in different languages

For example: C and D have opposite ideas about Miss A

C: Miss A is a wonderful girlfriend (Questionnaire)But D disagrees with C In English, to express his disagreement, D can usethe particle of negation “NOT”, or “NO”, or both:

D: I don’t think so.

or D: No, I don’t think so

or simply D: No!

However, in Vietnamese, D can use various particles of negation like “…kh«ng ph¶i ”, “ ch¼ng ph¶i ”, “ ®©u (cã) ph¶i ”, “cã ph¶i lµ ®©u ”, “ cã…”, “…ch¼ng ph¶i…”, “…®©u (cã) ph¶i…”, “cã ph¶i lµ…®©u…”, “…cã …”, “…ch¼ng ph¶i…”, “…®©u (cã) ph¶i…”, “cã ph¶i lµ…®©u…”, “…cã …”, “…ch¼ng ph¶i…”, “…®©u (cã) ph¶i…”, “cã ph¶i lµ…®©u…”, “…cã …”, “…ch¼ng ph¶i…”, “…®©u (cã) ph¶i…”, “cã ph¶i lµ…®©u…”, “…cã …”, “…ch¼ng ph¶i…”, “…®©u (cã) ph¶i…”, “cã ph¶i lµ…®©u…”, “…cã …”, “…ch¼ng ph¶i…”, “…®©u (cã) ph¶i…”, “cã ph¶i lµ…®©u…”, “…cã …”, “…ch¼ng ph¶i…”, “…®©u (cã) ph¶i…”, “cã ph¶i lµ…®©u…”, “…cã …”, “…ch¼ng ph¶i…”, “…®©u (cã) ph¶i…”, “cã ph¶i lµ…®©u…”, “…cãg× mµ lµ…”, “…ch¼ng ph¶i…”, “…®©u (cã) ph¶i…”, “cã ph¶i lµ…®©u…”, “…cã”, etc

D: C« A kh«ng ph¶i lµ mét ngêi b¹n g¸i tuyÖt vêi

or D: C« A ch¼ng ph¶i lµ mét ngêi b¹n g¸i tuyÖt vêi

or D: C« A ®©u ph¶i lµ mét ngêi b¹n g¸i tèt

or D: C« A cã ph¶i lµ ngêi b¹n g¸i tèt ®©u

or D: C« A cã g× mµ lµ mét ngêi b¹n g¸i tuyÖt vêi

During the process of learning English with the study of Pragmatics,Discourse Analysis and Background to English speaking countries, etc weunderstand more about the language, in general, and the strategies of disagreeing theEnglish people use, in particular And knowing the similarities as well as thedifferences between these strategies in English and in Vietnamese will help us toexpress our disagreement appropriately whenever we communicate with the native

or the foreign That is why we want to compare disagreeing in English and inVietnamese Besides, to help Vietnamese students to master these strategies in dailyconversations, we would like to suggest some practising activities

2 Scopes of the study

The study focuses on strategies of disagreeing in English and in Vietnamese

mainly in verbal communication.

Communication

Verbal communication Nonverbal communication

Intralanguage Paralanguage Extralanguage Lexicon Vocal characteristics Body language/Kinesics Rules of grammar (Pitch, Volume, Rate) Object language (clothing, Rules of phonetics Types of vocal quality make-up, gifts,…) Rules of language use Vocal interferences Environmental language and interaction skills Silence, … (setting, time, colour,…)

3 Methods of the study

Quantities methods

Contrastive

Analysis of questionnaires

4 Aims of the study

We do the study with the following aims:

- To understand more about ways of disagreeing in English and inVietnamese, then to express our disagreement appropriately in any case

- To compare and contrast those strategies of disagreeing in these two

languages in order to see their similarities and the differences under the influence ofthe language and the culture

5 Design of the study

The thesis is devided into three main parts:

Part A: Introduction

Part B: Development

Part C: Conclusion

PART B – 2007 DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1 - THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This chapter presents the theoretical background on which the study is based

It includes four sections in which section 1.1 presents two main functions of

language - Transactional and Interpersonal languages; then conversations along

with the role of context, turn-taking and adjacency pairs in the interpretation of theutterance are analysed in section 1.2 Finally, sections 1.3 and 1.4 view speech act,politeness and strategies of politeness

1.1 Functions of language

Generally, language is considered as a means of communication In everydaylife, people use language for communication with various purposes: to exchangenews, to convey their feelings and thoughts to others, to define their relationship toeach other, to be a member of a social group, or to set up a certain type of speechevent of theirs, etc In other words, language performs many functions in differentsituations However, “it would be unlikely that on any occasion a natural languageutterance would be used to fulfill one function to the exclusion of the others”.(Brown.G and Yule G.)

Normally, listening to a conversation, we can know the communicative goals

or why and for what purpose the conversation is carried out Moreover, from the

utterances in the conversation, we can realize the relationship between the participants and their personal attitudes towards the mentioned matter These are two

main functions of language Brown and Yule call them Transactional and Interpersonal languages They propose that: “That function which language serves

in the expression of content, we will describe as transactional and that function

involves in expressing social relationship and personal attitude we will describe as

interactional” (Discourse Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 1983: 1)

Another linguist, Bennet (1976: 5) also remarks that “it seems likely thatcommunication is primarily a matter of the speaker’s seeking either to inform ahearer of something or to enjoy some action upon him.”

In the history of Discourse Analysis, many linguists have tried to call out themain functions of language such as Buhler (1934): Representative/ Expressive,Jakobson (1960): Referential/ Emotive, Halliday (1970b): Ideational/ Interpersonal,Lyons (1977): Descriptive/ Social-expressive But we would like to use the two

terms of Brown and George Yule: Transactional and Interpersonal in which the

function that language serves to express “content” is described as “transactional” andthe function language using to express “social relations” and “personal attitudes” iscalled interactional

a) Transactional language

According to Lyons (1977: 32), the main function of language is the

“international transmission of factual, or propositional information”

As mentioned above, Bennett (1976: 5) also proposes that in a conversation,the speaker wants either to inform the hearer something or to enjoin some actionupon him

Clearly, transactional language is primarily message-oriented (i.e the speaker

wants the hearer to get the information correctly) For example, a doctor tells apatient how to take a medicine, a lecturer explains rules to a student, or a policemangives directions to a tourist, etc

In transactional language, the speaker either gets some services/goods or

offers those to other people If he/she receives directions to go to some where, or of

doing something, he/she gets services/goods On the contrary, if he/she givesdirections or explanations, he/she offers services/goods to others

Services/goods here are understood broadly as any act performed by theutterance such as lending money, asking for advice, or passing a pot of salt, etc; notonly buying or selling something.

Moreover, transactional language is popular in written language such as

business writings like memoranda between two companies, or reports, or bills, etc

Transactional language is formed by “turns”, “moves” and “acts” which will

be presented clearly later in section 2.1.2

b) Interactional language

One of other important roles of language is to establish and maintain social

relationships These relationships are established during the process of opening,

maintaining and closing conversations In other words, interpersonal language is

associated with conversations

Obviously, interpersonal language is relationship-oriented To open a

conversation, the speaker tries to make a good impression on the hearer, then step bystep he/she talks about what he/she wants to mention to create a new relationshipwith the interlocutor It may be an apology, or a praise, or a love story, etc Andwhen the conversation comes to an end, once again, the speaker attempts to make agood impression to prepare for the next conversation in the future

However, in different cultures, in daily conversations, people have differentconventional ways of using language to establish social relationships For example:

In English, we can greet other people by saying “Hello/ Hi” or “Goodmorning”, etc Meanwhile, in Vietnamese, a question may become a greeting like

“Where are you going?” Therefore, participants in a conversation need to share thesame knowledge background or a common point of view

All the mentioned above features of Transactional language (TL) and Interpersonal language (IL) are summarized in the following table:

THE COMPARING TABLE OF TRANSACTIONAL LANGUAGE

AND INTERACTIONAL LANGUAGE

Transactional language (T L) Interactional language (I L)

- A prominent feature in written

language

- Associated with conversations

- Formed by “turns”, “moves” and

“acts”

- Formed by shared knowledge of the S andH

NOTE: Although written language is mostly used for primarily transactional

purposes, some kinds of writtings are used to maintain social relationships like letters

to thank someone, or to express love for someone, etc

1.2 Conversation

The word “conversation” includes two Latin roots: ‘con’ and ‘vers’in which

‘con’ means together, with; ‘vers’ means to turn about in a given direction.

There are many different definitions of a conversation but all of them define

that a conversation is an informal talk and in the conversation, there are at least two

people who exchange information to each other Following are some definitions of aconversation:

Dictionary of English language and culture of Longman (1992: 279) defines

a conversation as “an informal talk in which people exchange news, feelings, andthoughts.”

“Conversations (and talk-exchanges in general) are usually structured

sequences of expressions by more than a single speaker This structure is rarelyconsciously apparent to speaker.” (Akmajian A., Demers R A & Harnish R M.,1988: 415)

With these features, conversations play an important role in the development

of our society and in fact, conversations and written language are two main means ofcommunication of human beings Therefore, Shotter (1993) states that “the basis ofsocial life is conversational” Also, Neil Thompson (2003: 83) thinks that “a greatdeal of meaning that we make of our lives come from our interactions with otherpeople - our conversations.”

When people interact with others, each side contributes to the process ofinterpreting the situation, making sense of it and acting accordingly In other words,their conversation happens in a particular context which, in turn, decides what theparticipants should do

Conversations are a part of the communication Communication is “a socialaffair usually taking place within the context of a fairly well defined social situation

In such a context we rely on one another to share our conception of what thesituation is” (A Akmajian, R A Demers & R M Harnish, 1998: 391)

1.2.1 Context

Context plays an important role in interpreting utterances Many linguistshave taken the context into account

a) What is the context?

Lancaster (1975: 56-57), an anthropologist who researches primatecommunication, defines the communication context as follows:

“The context, then, of any communicative act includes a network of social

relations that have a considerable history behind them, all of which is relevant to the

message and how it is received and responded to.”

(Quoted by Akmajian A., Demers R A & Harnish R M., 1988: 37)

Meanwhile, Neil Thompson (2003: 83) tells that “The context of an

interaction sets the scene and shapes the meanings that will be attributed to what is

said.”

Neil Thompson also reports that “According to Gumperz, contextualization

cues guide people’s expectations about how conversational and other exchanges

should develop appropriate modes of speaking the interpersonal relations involved,and the speaking rights of those involved.”

In summary, context refers to the situation that gives rise to utterances and

within which the utterances are interpreted There are two types of contexts:linguistic and non-linguistic

Linguistic context includes all linguistic elements in the utterance.

Non-linguistic or experiental context consists of the type of the communicative

event, the topic, the setting, etc - everything around the utterance

b) Features of the context

Clearly, utterances in different contexts convey very different messages

Firth emphasizes the role of context of situation for linguistic work with thefollowing catergories:

A The relevant features of the participants: persons, personalities(i) The verbal action of the participants

(ii) The non-verbal action of the participants

B The relevant objects

C The effect of the verbal action

(Firth, 1957, quoted by Brown G & Yule.G., 1983: 37)While Firth stresses three catergories of the context of situation, Hymes paysattention to the dual roles of context in interpretation of the utterance They are:

- Limiting the range of possible interpretations

- Supporting the intended interpretation

“The use of a linguistic form identifies a range of meanings A context can support a

range of meanings When a form is used in a context, it eliminates the meanings possible to

that context other than those the form can signal: the context eliminates from consideration the meanings possible to the form other than those the context can support.”

(Hymes, 1962, quoted by G Brown & G Yule, 1983: 37-38)Besides, Hymes proposes some elements of a context Firstly, he defineseight elements of the context as follows:

1 Addressor – The speaker or writer who produces the utterance.

2 Addressee (later audience) – The hearer or reader who is the recipient of the

utterance

3 Topic – What is being talked about.

4 Setting – Where, when the event is situated.

5 Channel – How is the contact between the participants in the event is

being maintained - by speech, writing, singing, etc

6 Code – What language, dialect or style of language is being used.

7 Message-form – What form is intended (chat, debate, sermon).

8 Event (The nature of the communicative event within which a genre may

be embedded)

Later, he proposes two more elements: Key (evaluation) and Purpose (what

did the participants intend should come about as a result of the communicativeevent)

Similarly, Lewis (1972) provides an index of coordinates which a hearer

would need to determine the truth of a sentence.

a) Possible-word coordinate: this is to account for states of affairs which

might be, or could be supposed to be or are.

b) Time-coordinate: to account for tensed sentences and adverbials like

today or next week.

c) Place-coordinate: to account for sentences like here it is.

d) Speaker-coordinate: to account for sentences which include first person

reference (I, me, we, our, etc.)

e) Audience-coordinate: to account for sentences including you, your,

yourself, etc.

f) Indicated object coordinate: to account for sentences containing

demonstrative phrases like this, those, etc.

g) Previous discourse co-ordinate: to account for sentences including

phrases like the latter, the aforementioned, etc.

h) Assigment co-ordinate: an infinite series of things (sets of things,

sequences of things…)

To summarize, the context is the situation in which the conversation iscarried out It plays an important role in interpreting utterances of the conversation.Therefore, to understand the meanings of an utterance, we have to put it in itscontext.

1.2.2 Exchanges and Turn-taking

a) Exchanges

In most of daily conversations there is a correspondence of one’s saying and

another’s reply or between the utterance function and the expected response:

A: Greeting B: Greeting A: Congratulation B: Thanks

A: Apology B: Acceptance/

Rejection

A: Inform B: Acknowledgement A: Leaving-taking B: Leaving-taking

These constitute adjacency pairs which include two parts in which the first

part creates an expectation of the second part Preference structure divides the second

parts into preferred and dispreferred parts.

Preferred Dispreferred

Invitation Accept Refuse

Table 2- The general patterns of preferred and dispreferred structures

(following Levinson 1983), (quoted by George Yule, 1996: 79)

While agreeing is a preferred response to a speech act of assessment or a

proposal, disagreeing is post-event and dispreferred response in which a different

opinion is pre-event act and initiation.

b) Turn-taking

In a two-people conversation, it is no need to determine who the speaker or the hearer is because whenever there is a speaker, there must be a hearer or “Ngêi nãi ph¶i cã ngêi nghe” However, in a conversation of many people, allocution may aim at only some certain participants or at all The current speaker can use verbal or

non-verbal signals to inform the next speaker This creates a series of turn-taking: Speaker – Hearer – Speaker – Hearer – Speaker – Hearer and so on Normally, in a conversation, turn-taking has the following order:

OpeningTaking a turn(Holding a turn)Passing a turnClosing

We can also see three big moves in a conversation as follows:

Initiator Follow-up EndingFor example:

Initiator: Hello, John!

Follow-up: Hello, Peter How are you?

I’m very well, thanks And you?

Ending: I’m fine Thanks.

(Streamline English – B Hartley & P Viney, Oxford University Presss, 2000: 7)

However, this order of turn-taking is changeable in a real-life conversationbecause it is affected by a list of facts which is proposed by Sacks, Schegloff &Jefferson (1978) as follows:

1 Overwhelmingly, one party talks at a time

2 A change of speaker recurs

3 Transitions between turns with no gap are common

4 The order of turns is not fixed, but varies

5 The length of turns is not fixed, but varies

6 The length of the conversation is not specified in advance

7 What parties say is not specified in advance

8 Relative distribution of turns is not specified in advance

9 The number of parties can vary

10 Talk can be continuous or discontinuous

11 Techniques to allocate turns are used

12 Mechanisms exist for dealing with turn-taking errors or violations

(quoted by Virginia LoCastro, 2003: 157)Therefore, to control the order of turn-taking in a conversation, Sacks,Schegloff, and Jefferson (1974) in one analysis also propose three followingprinciples:

Principle1: The speaker “selects” the next speaker.

Principle2: The first to talk becomes the speaker.

Principle3: The speaker continues his or her own remarks.

The current speaker can “select” the next speaker in various ways such asasking a question, or calling his/her name These principles help us to “minimize thechances of disruptive overlap”

However, in fact, there is mostly the presence of overlaps or interruptions ineveryday conversations

For example:

‘Pity you’re married,’ Vermaas said

‘Why? Marie’s wonderful ’

‘I mean, if you weren’t married, you could take one of the widows, and thenthe house…’

‘Who are those men?’ Paul interrupted, referring to the horde of

strange-looking men who seemed always to be clustered about a building which abutted ontothe French church

‘Them?’ Vermaas said with some distaste ‘They’re Germans.’

(The covenant – Michener J A., Fawcett Crest Books, 1980: 237-238)

In the first six sentences, Vermaas speaks then Paul speaks But in the

seventh sentence, Paul interrupts Vermaas when he wants to change the topic In

other words, he overlaps Vermaas’s turn

In another case, if the hearer wants to know a new thing, he may overlaps the

speaker’s turn Paul is an example – He interrupts the speaker because he wants toknow where the Cape is

‘And he should have shared half with his brother at the Cape _’

‘Where’s that?’ Paul interrupted It was the first time in his life he had heard

mention of this place

(The covenant - Michener J A., Fawcett Crest Books, 1980: 242)

1.3 Speech act

In the history of Linguistics, many linguists have studied speech act such asJ.L Austin (1962), Grice (1957, 1975), Hymes (1964), Searle (1969, 1975, 1979),Levinson (1983), Brown and Yule (1983), Mey (1993), Thomas (1995) and Yule(1996).They all propose that people do not only use grammatical structures andwords but they also perform actions via those words In other words, the saying of

words constitutes the performing of actions or we use language to do something This is quite different from using language in doing something which is the process

of making and receiving sounds between the speaker and the hearer

The action performed by producing an utterance including three following related acts:

A locutionary act is the basic act of utterance performed by producing a

meaningful linguistic expression This meaningful expression is formed by sounds,words and grammatical rules Therefore, one may fail to produce a locutionary act ifhe/ she has problems with making sounds, words, or he/she does not know thosegrammatical rules

An illocutionary act: whenever we produce an utterance, we have some kind

of function of producing the utterance in our mind The act is performed by thecommunicative force of an utterance is called illocutionary act

A perlocutionary act is the function of the utterance to create an effect In

other words, the perlocutionary act is what we achieve by saying something

For example: The speech act performed by the utterance “Shoot the snake!”

has three following related acts:

Locutionary act: An imperative sentence

Illocutionary act: The speaker wants to warn and request the hearer to shoot

the snake

Perlocutionary act: The hearer shoots the snake.

George Yule classifies speech acts into five kinds They are declarations,representatives, expressives, directives, and commissives

Declarations are those of speech acts that change the world via their

utterance For example:

“And the objection is overruled”, the judge said

(Final argument - Clifford Irving, 1993: 376)

In a court, only the judge can decide whether an objection is overruled orsustained

Representatives express what the speaker believes to be the case or not

(assertions, conclusions, and descriptions) For example:

“You’re jealous”.

(K’s first case - LG Alexander, 1992: 20)

In this case, Mike’s wife asserts that he is jealous

Expressives express what the speaker feels (pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy

or sorrow)

For example:

‘He has sons, too Nine and eight.’

‘Interesting.’

(The covenant - James A Michener, 1980: 257)

Directives are those that speakers use to get someone else to do something or

they state what the speaker wants (commands, orders, requests, suggestions).

For example:

‘It’s not a farm,’ Will explained patiently ‘It’s only called Upper Farmbecause it’s on higher land, on the other side of the coast road It’s all one farm.’

‘Right Do go on.’

‘Yes…’ Will tried to pick up his thread again

(A dark devotion - Claire Francis, Macmillan Publishers Ltd., 1997: 207)

Commissives state what the speaker intends (promises, threats, refusals,

pledges) For example:

Jacques looked at the photograph carefully ‘It’s very old,’ he said, ‘andthat’s good If only a few people go there, perhaps you can buy it But if it is newand a lot of people go there, they will be angry, and it will be difficult to buy it Go

and look at the stones Find out how old the place is I’ll talk to some friends.

Perhaps they can help.’

‘Thank you very much, Jacques I won’t forget this.’

(Woodoo Island - Michael Duckworth, Oxford University Press, 200: 13)

These kinds of speech acts are classified according to their functions Thesefunctions can be recognized through words or the context within which the words aresaid Basing on the structure of the utterance, George Yule also proposes another

way of dividing speech acts into Direct and Indirect speech acts.

“Whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function,

we have a direct speech act Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a

structure and a function, we have an indirect speech act.” (George Yule, 1996: 55)

In other words, in an indirect act, different structures can be used to

accomplish the same basic function For example: a question , a conditional sentence

or a declarative can be used to give advice to someone as follows:

Why don’t you tell him the truth?

If I were you, I would tell him the truth

You’d better to tell him the truth

I advise you to tell him the truth

1.4 Politeness and strategies of politeness

1.4.1 Politeness and face

In daily life, one is said to be a polite person if he/she knows how to behave

or speak appropriately to other people

According to G Yule, “it is possible to treat politeness as a fixed concept, as

in the idea of ‘polite social behaviour’, or etiquette, within a culture.”

Lakoff (1977) defines politeness as “a system of interpersonal relations

designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the potential for conflict and

confrontation inherent in all human interchange.”

Politeness or “lịch sự” in the Vietnamese Dictionary is defined in two ways.

1 Having an elegant attitude (thái độ nhã nhặn) in interactions, having mannerswhich are suitable with the social rules and etiquettes

2 Being elegant (trang nhã) such as wearing elegant clothes or “Ăn mặc lịch sự”

(Hoàng Phê, NXB Đà Nẵng, 1996)

Here, politeness is understood in the first way And in order to be considered

as a person having an elegant attitude in interactions and having manners which aresuitable with the social rules and etiquettes, we have to save the “face” or “thể diện”

of our interlocutor Face is the public self-image that everyone in the society wants

to claim for himself

George Yule (1996: 61-62) distinguishes two types of face They are Negative and Positive faces.

Negative face is the want to be independent, to have freedom of action and

not to be imposed on by others

Positive face is the want to be connected, to be treated as a member of the

same group

If a person says something that represents a threat to another individual’s

expectations regarding self-image, it is called a “face-threatening act” (FTA) If the

possibility that some action threatens another’s face happens, the speaker can say

something to lessen the possible threat This is called a “face-saving act” (FSA).

1.4.2 Politeness strategies

Many linguists have tried to systematize principles and strategies ofpoliteness in order to make them clear for everyone to follow and apply them in dailyconversations In this section, we would like to present four main principles andstrategies of politeness They include four maxims of Grice’s cooperative principles,Lakoff’s three rules of politeness, George Yule’s politeness based on the FSA, andlast but not least,negative and positive strategies proposed by Brown and Levinson.

 Grice’s cooperative principles

In order to have a successful conversation, the speaker and the hearer have tocooperate with each other unless there will be mistakes and misunderstanding - Thespeaker can say one thing and the hearer can say another thing or like theVietnamese often say “¤ng nãi gµ, bµ nãi vÞt”

Therefore, Grice proposes four following maxims:

Quantity: 1 Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the

current purposes of the exchange)

2 Do not make your contribution more informative than isrequired

Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true.

1 Do not say what you believe to be false

2 Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence

Hedges of

quantity

Hedges of quality Hedges of relevance Hedges of manner

Beginning with an adverb or a clause with an adverb

change the topic, but…Regretfully…/

unfortunately…/

Unluckily,…

Well as a matter

of fact,…/ Well, the thing is…/ In other words,…/ It’s another way

of saying that…/

To put it more simply,…/ Simplyput,…/ More clearly,…

Beginning with a declarative with I

I’d say that …/ I

must say that…/ I

should think

that…/ I’ll just say

that… I won’t

bore you with all

the details, but…

I’m told that…/

I’ve been toldthat…/ I may bemistaken, but…/

I’m not sure if this

Beginning with an If – clause

If I remember it right,…/

If my memory is correct,…/ If I’m not mistaken,…

If you want to know,

…/ If you care to know,…/ If you ask, me…

If I could explain…

 Lakoff also presents three rules of politeness as follows:

Rule 1: Don’t impose on your hearer - This rule minds the speaker not

intruding on the hearer’s privacy or embarrassing hearer with the mention of

“unmentionables” for private affairs The unmentionables are “non-free goods” likesex, money, defecation, etc

Rule 2: Give hearer options - This rule calls for the giving of options to

hearer since if you let the other person make his own decisions, he can not complainthat you are imposing your will on him Lakoff considers this rule as “let theaddressee make his own decision”

Rule 3: Make hearer feel good – Be friendly - This rule involves establishing

rapport, cameraderie, a sense of equality or respect, distance and a recognitionaccording to the real relative statuses of the speaker and the hearer Therefore, if thespeaker is of higher or equal status to his addressee, he should use familiar orsolidarity forms of address If the speaker’s status is lower than that of his addressee,

he should use deferential or polite forms

 Meanwhile, George Yule (1996) divides politeness according to the FSA

An FSA which tends to show solidarity or the fact that both speaker and the

hearer want the same thing is called positive politeness And an FSA which tends to

show difference, emphasize the importance of the other’s time or concern, ane even

include an apology for the imposition or interruption is called negative politeness.

While analysing “How to get a pen from someone else”, George Yule

proposes some following strategies of politeness:

How to get a pen from someone else

say something say nothing

(but search in the bag)

on record off record

( “I forgot my pen”)

face saving act bald on record

(“Give me a pen”)

positive politeness negative politeness

(“How about letting me use your pen?”) (“Could you lend me a pen?”)

(George Yule, 1996: 66)

 Brown and Levinson (1987: 131, 102) also divide politeness into negativeand positive strategies In each type, they propose ten strategies with examples All

of twenty strategies are presented in the following table:

1 Be conventionally indirect Could you please pass the salt?

2 Question, hedge I don’t suppose you could pass the

salt

3 Be pessimistic You don’t have any envelopes, do

4 Minimize the imposition I just dropped by for a second to ask…

5 Give deference We very much look forward to your

dining with us

7 Impersonalize S and H It appears that we may have to…

8 State the FTA as a general

rule

Passengers will refrain from…

9 Nominalize I’m surprised at your failure to reply

10 Go on record as incurring

debt or as not indebting H

I’d be eternally grateful if you could…

Positive

politenes

s

strategies

1 Notice, attend to H (interest,

wants, needs, approval)

You must be hungry…

2 Use in-group identity

Help me with this bag, luv?

5 Joke How about lending me a few fivers?

6 Offer, promise I’ll drop by sometime next week

8 Include both S and H in the

activity

Let’s have a drink next week

9 Give or ask for reasons Why not go to the seashore?

10 Give gifts (sympathy) to H I’m really sorry to hear about your cat

(quoted by Virginia LoCastro, 2003: 117-118)Most of the speech acts can be performed by these strategies Some of themwhich can be used to express disagreement will be analysed in Chapter 2, section2.5

CHAPTER 2 - DISAGREEING IN ENGLISH AND IN

VIETNAMESE

Chapter 2 consists of six sections in which section 2.1 considers the nature ofdisagreeing as a response to a speech act; section 2.2 analyses the relationship ofdirectness and indirectness with disagreeing Next, factors affecting directness andindirectness in disagreeing and degrees of disagreement are presented in sections 2.3and 2.4 respectively Later, twelve strategies of disagreeing are pointed out in section2.5 Last but not least, some similarities and differences of disagreeing in Englishand in Vietnamese are analysed in section 2.6

2.1 Disagreeing as a response to a Speech Act

Agreeing and disagreeing are responses to speech acts of assessment or

proposal While agreeing is a preferred part of the adjacency pair, disagreeing is a

dispreferred one These two speech acts are considered to be at two opposites

extremes The negative suffix “dis” partly reflects the contrary of two acts –

“disagree” means “not agree”.

“Disagreeing” here is understood as “Hành động bác bỏ” According to Đỗ

Thị Kim Liên (2005: 124), this speech act is performed with the followingconditions:

- The speaker performs speech acts of descriptions, assertions, conclusions or

interrogations about something which is relevant to the hearer.

- The hearer shows his or her attitudes of disagreement, opposition or implicit

opposition.

According to Wierzbicka (1987: 128), “disagreeing is a fairly forceful andself-confident act, more than agreeing”

Edward de Bono calls agreeing and disagreeing “arts” and these two

“extremes” need to be harmonized Edward de Bono also proposes six reasons andpurposes of disagreeing in real life They are:

- Because of the rude and aggressive nature of the hearer,

- In order to be the winner,

- To prove yourself,

- To suppress others,

- To prove that you are the better,

- Because of the way you are educated,

- Because you think that it is the only way you can use to know the matter

In any case, to express disagreement, one may be very rude to use somephrases like “You idiot!” or “Shut up!”, or very polite to use a softening phrase like

“I respect your opinion, but…”, or simply say “No”

Obviously, it is easier for us to agree with someone than to disagree It is easy

to break your relationship if you do not know how to express your disagreementappropriately Moreover, people have their own opinions and it is difficult topersuade them to change theirs because disagreeing belongs to the “dispreferred”part of the adjacency pair Therefore, we need to know some ways of disagreeing inorder to apply them appropriately in the daily conversations In any case, we canexpress our disagreement directly or indirectly

NOTE: Disagreeing here does not include Refusal although some authors

consider Refusal as a part of disagreeing like in NTC’s Dictionary of everyday

American English expressions, Richard A Spears, Betty Birner & Steven Kleinedler

list expressing Rejection and Refusal in Disagreeing However, there are some differences between two acts These two speech acts, disagreeing and refusing, have been distinguished by Đỗ Thị Kim Liên (2005: 127) The speech act of refusing or

“Hành động từ chối” is performed by the following conditions:

- The speaker does not perform the speech acts of descriptions, assertions,

conclusions or interrogations, but of imperative acts or asking for favour.

- The hearer does not perform those acts and as a result, this has a negative

effect on the relationship between two people Therefore, the hearer often use the

bald-off strategy or “nói vòng”, “nói tránh”.

2.2 Directness – Indirectness – Politeness in disagreeing

Directness seems to be associated with the imperative form of language,

while indirectness with the interrogative form In a direct speech act, there is a

matching between the structure and the communicative function such as a declarativefunctioning as an assertion like “I disagree with you” However, in an indirect speechact, the structure and its communicative function are not matched For example: a

declarative, or an exclaimation, or a question can perform the act of praising If

somebody wants to praise a girl’s eyes, he/she can use one of the followingutterances:

What lovely eyes she has! (or How lovely her eyes are!)

I have never seen such lovely eyes before

Have you ever seen such lovely eyes?

Similarly, to express disagreement, one can use a declarative like “I’m afraid

I don’t agree with you”, a question like “Are you kidding?” or an interjection like

“No way!”, etc This creates many different ways of disagreeing which will be mentioned later in section 2.5

Obviously, if a speaker uses too many direct speech acts, the hearer’s facemay be violated, especially when the speaker expresses his/her disagreement.Therefore, indirect speech acts are mostly preferred in many cases

Thomas (1995: 119-22) considers indirectness as a strategy to achieve

communicative goals and face-saving which are two main criteria of a successful

conversation

Also, Brown and Levinson (1987) propose that “the greater the face threat,the greater the need to use linguistic politeness, and the more indirectness is used.” (quoted by Virginia LoCastro, 2003: 123)

In other words, indirectness ensures politeness in risky cases such asdisagreeing, or refusing, or declining, etc This explains why indirectness is preferred

in many cases

Indirectness can be realized linguistically by sentence form or modality, or by

conversational implicature which requires the addressee to use his/her background

knowledge and the context of the utterance to interpret the meaning

As mentioned above, indirectness can increase the degree of politeness but itdoes not mean that an indirect utterance is always polite because “a perceived lack ofclarity is a marker of impoliteness as well.” (Virginia LoCastro, 2003: 123)Moreover, in some certain cases such as those of morality or safety, it is necessaryfor the speaker to speak his/ her mind, to use direct ways to make everything clear

Indirect ways of disagreeing may be short but most tend to be longer

utterances such as: I’m afraid that …/ I’m sorry,…/ I respect your opinion, of

course, however…/ I can’t say that I share your view.

Along with face expression, shaking of the head, or other body language, thespeaker can use many indirect ways to express his or her disagreement likemetaphors, rhetorical questions, etc which will be mentioned in section 2.5, thesection of strategies of disagreement

2.3 Factors affecting directness and indirectness in

disagreeing

Brown and Levinson emphasize the selection of three following factors:

- Distance, especially social distance – considering the relationship between

the interactants

- Power – which also refers to relationship

- Imposition – the speaker’s concern with the weight of seriousness attached

to a linguistic action

And it is important to choose a strategy to balance these three factors

More specifically, NguyÔn Quang (1999: 12-13) suggests sixteen factors andtheir effects on the choice of politeness strategies

1 Age - The old and children tend to use positive strategies of politeness

more than the young and the middle-aged

2 Gender - Women use more negative strategies of politeness than men.

3 Residence - Those who live in cities tend to use negative strategies more

than those who live in the country

4 Living condition - Those who have worse living condition use positive

strategies more than those who have better living condition

5 Foreign language acquisition & Acculturation - Those who are good at

European languages often use more negative strategies than those who do not knowforeign languages or master Eastern languages

6 Occupation - Those who work in a highly personal environment often use

negative strategies more than those who work in a highly public environment

7 Distance - When there is not a close relationship, the Vietnamese tend to

use more negative strategies

8 Mood - To the same addressee, when one wants to change his mood from

“warmer” to “cooler”, the Vietnamese often change positive strategies to negativeones

9 Emotion - When a Vietnamese speaker wants to express his close emotion

to his addressee, he uses more positive strategies

10 Personality - The Vietnamese who are extrovert and active tend to use

positive strategies more than those who are introvert and inactive

11 Attitudes - When being in a bad mood (sad, angry, etc.), the Vietnamese

often use more negative strategies

12 Communicative environment - In an environment which is not solemn,

the Vietnamese often use more positive strategies

13 Topic - When the topic is safe and emotive, the Vietnamese often use

more positive strategies

14 Purpose - When the purpose seems to be adventageous for the speaker,

the Vietnamese tend to use more positive strategies

15 Imposition - If two Vietnamese people are equal in power and/or in age,

the higher the imposition of the speech act is, the more they tend to use negativestrategies

16 Personal & Public tendency - Those who belong to the group

considering community often use positive strategies more than those whoconsidering individualism

Obviously, age is an important factor affecting the choice of ways of

disagreeing of the Vietnamese Normally, the older the interlocutor is, the moreformal way of disagreeing we use to show our respect This is reflected clearly in thepersonal pronoun used for that person This will be analysed clearly in section 2.6

The personality is also an important factor Some people prefer the direct

way of disagreeing because they think it is the quickest and the most effective way toexpress their opinion Contrastly, others like to use indirect ways of disagreeingbecause they want not to make their interlocutor disappointed

Besides, the topic can determine the attitude of the participants in the

conversation to the mentioned matter If the topic is relevant to the hearer and of his/her interest, he/she will pay attention to it and express disagreement in case he/shehas opposite ideas However, if the hearer does not care about the discussed matter,he/she will not express himself/herself even when he/she disagrees Moreover, sometopics require mostly the directness in disagreement such as political, or businessnegotiations

Mood is an interesting factor affecting ways of expressing disagreement of

the speaker Generally, when we are in a good mood, we are willing to forgivesomeone’s mistakes, or to be patient to consider opinions of other people and changeour opinion if we see it is wrong On the contrary, when we are tired or bored, we donot want to be annoyed As a result, we would like to express our disagreementdirectly and we can keep our disagreement till the end

Along with age, personality, mood and topic, other factors mentioned abovelike residence, purpose, imposition, etc have some certain effects on the ways of

disagreeing of the interlocutor Under the influence of these factors, the speaker canchoose different degrees of disagreeing.

2.4 Degrees of disagreeing

Recognizing different degrees of disagreement can help us to express ourdisagreement appropriately in any case

Linda A Ferreira (1984: 78-96) divides disagreeing into two degrees They

are Disagreeing strongly and Disagreeing with tact.

To Disagreeing strongly, we can use some utterances like They’re wrong!/ I

don’t care who says…, I believe that…/ How can they say that?/ A lot of people believe that…, but I know…

To Disagreeing with tact, we can use some utterances such as I can see that,

but …/ I don’t know about that./ I know that…, but…

Similarly, C J Moore & Judy West (1999: 22) also divide disagreeing into

two degrees: Disagreeing more formal like “I’m not sure I disagree” and

Disagreeing less formal like “I think you’re wrong”

However, the degree of disagreeing is divided more specifically by MalcolmGoodale (1987: 40-48) He divides disagreeing into five degrees

1 Softening strong disagreement

We can express our softening strong disagreement by using one of softening

phrases to beginning our utterance like Frankly,…/ To be quite frank,…/ To put it

bluntly,…/ With respect,…/ With due respect,…(more formal)/ With all due respect,

…(even more formal), etc

Malcolm also reminds that “Strong disagreement is relatively rare in English.Any of the phrases for ‘softening’ may be used before any of the phrases for strongdisagreement”

For example:

Interviewer: (…) but surely those kind of advantages, to return to what wesaid earlier, are only offered to those with, offer to the “haves”, not to the “have-nots”, not to people without jobs They’re for people with money

Mrs Thatcher: But with all due respect, we unfortunately have just over three

million unemployed in this country, and we have between two to three million people who are working.(…)

(HEADWAY Upper-intermediate, Oxford University Press, 1987: 135)

2 Strong disagreement

In the statements expressing strong disagreement, we can see strong adverbs

like “totally”, “entirely”, “completely”, etc For example: I totally disagree with you./

I don’t agree at all./ You’re completely mistaken./ I disagree entirely./ Under no circumstances could I agree to that./ What you are saying is just not feasible.

Or the speaker can say directly his/her disagreement like Joanna does

Joanna: I think you’re wrong, Bill It’s ridiculous to go to Hong Kong The

exhibition in Milan is excellent and we’ll get lots of orders

(Enterprise three - C J Moore & Judy West, 1987: 22)

3 Softening neutral disagreement

It is similar to softening strong disagreement but we are not oblidged to usethese phrases However, it is better for us to use ‘softening phrases’ in any

disagreement such as I m afraid, ’m afraid,… …/ I’m sorry,…/ With respect,

…/ I respect your opinion, of course, however,…

These are similar to softening strong disagreement but you are not oblidged

to use these phrases with neutral disagreement

For example:

‘Go on,’ said Mrs Bantry to Dr Lloyd ‘I love stories about sinuous Spanish dancers It makes me forget how old and fat I am.’

‘I’m sorry,’ said Dr Lloyd apologetically ‘But you see, as a matter of fact,

this story isn’t about the Spanish woman.’

(The Companion, quoted in Crime never pays, Oxford University Press, 2000: 15)

4 Neutral disagreement

The speaker expresses his/her disagreement neutrally, not too strongly He/

she can say one of the following utterances: I don’t completely agree with you on

that./ I really can’t agree with you on that./ I can’t say that I share your view./ We’ll have to agree to differ./ I’m not totally convinced by your argument./ I can’t accept your point of view./ I can’t help feeling that…/ I feel I must disagree./ I really must take issues with you here.

For example:

Joanna Summers: I’m not sure I agree at all I’m against going Publicity at

Milan will be just as effective as in Hong Kong The cost of going to the Far East isenormous and it won’t be worthwhile

Bill Thomas: I don’t think Joanna is quite right there There are many good

reasons for going The cost is high but our experience indicates it will be wellworthwhile

(Enterprise three – C J Moore & Judy West, 1987: 22)

5 Tactful disagreement

In this case, the speaker really wants to seek an agreement, but he/she cannot To save the hearer’s face, he/she can use one of the following ways to expresshis/her disagreement:

I agree up to a point, but / To a certain extent I agree with you, but…/ You have a point there, but…/ I take your point, Mr Hoffman, but have you considered…?, etc.

For instance:

Director: Yes, you see, too young, and I think too tall Now Bill’s the rightage, at least

Producer: I know what you mean, but he’s got so much experience of the

stage and the television.(…)

(HEADWAY Upper-intermediate, Oxford University Press, 1987: 126)

2.5 Strategies of disagreeing

There are many different strategies of disagreeing From the theory ofpoliteness and from the data of our questionnaires, we would like to present twelvefollowing strategies of disagreeing

1 Dick: That’s different Dogs can bite

Karen: It’s not different Besides, most dogs are friendly Mice are

horrible

(The chicken smells good, Picket W P & Passaic High School, 1997: 117)

2 - Em đã đọc “Chiến tranh và hoà bình” của Lép Tônx-tôi cha? Em giống Natasa

(Have you read “War and peace” by Leptonxtoi? You are like Natasa.)

- Không! Em ghét cô ấy.

(No! I hate her.)

(§i qua nh÷ng giÊc m¬, §inh Thuú H¬ng, quoted in Cã mét t×nh

yªu kh«ng nãi, NXB GD, 2005: 97)

NOTE: In some cases, particles of negation “no”, “not” or “nor” appear to

express agreement, not disagreement It depends on the first part of the adjacencypair For example:

Agree with a negative statement:

Nor/ neither + auxiliary/ modal verb + pronoun

A: I don’t hate mice

B: Nor/ neither do I

2 Asking a question

We have some common questions to ask in disagreement like Truly?/

Really?/ No kidding?/ Are you serious?/ Are you pulling my leg?/ No way!/ You’re

not making this up, are you?/ You’re making this up, aren’t you?/ You’re not trying

to pull one over on me, are you?

Besides, one can express his disagreement by asking Wh-questions or Yes/No

2 Jennifer: I want to learn to drive

Father: Are you kidding? You’re only 16.

(The chicken smells good - Picket W P & Passaic High School, 1997: 135)

3 Asking for reasons

In this case, we do not agree with the speaker because we do not know thereasons of what he/she wants to do After knowing the reason the hearer can changehis/her opinion if that reason is logical However, if it is not persuasive, the hearerwill protect his/her opinion untill the end

For example:

1 - But you took every bit of it! I don’t have a penny! What about spendingmoney?

- Why on earth do you want spending money? You’ll be out at Himmelhoch

in the morning and you can’t spend anything there I’ll take care of the hotel bill It’stime you realized you’ve married a working man, Meg, that you’re not the pamperedsquatter’s daughter with money to burn…

(The thorn birds - Colleen McCullough, 1983: 333)

2 - Thôi, thế thì tôi chỉ còn cách li dị vợ tôi mà thôi!

(Oh, the only way I have now is to divorce!)

- Chết nỗi! Tại sao thế?

(What! Why?)

(Số đỏ - Vũ Trọng Phụng, quoted by Nguyễn Đăng Mạnh, 1996: 275)

4 Giving gift to the hearer (sympathy, understanding, cooperation)

This is similar to make the best of a bad situation in which we try to expressour sympathy, understanding and cooperation to the speaker Usually, in this case,the hearer is disappointed or bored with something Therefore, we want the hearer tothink about the good sides of the matter Here are some common phrases:

That’s life./ That’s the way life is./ It’s the best we can do under the circumstances./ Cheer up! / Chin up!/ Don’t let it get you down./ The important thing is that you tried./ Winning isn’t everything.

For examples:

1 H: I think the bass is too loud

G: No, it sounds perfect…it sounds better than mine.

(Streamline English - Hartley B & Viney P., Oxford University

Press, 1995: 48)

2 - Nói chuyện mỹ thuật với bình dân thì thật là phí lời

(Talking about arts with the common people is nonsense!)

- Không! Không! Ngài là nhà báo, ngài phải nâng cái bình dân lên cái

nghĩa vụ hiểu biết mỹ thuật mới đợc Tôi, tôi là một nhà mỹ thuật, tôi đã hi sinh cả

một cuộc đời tôi rồi!

(No! No! You are a journalist, you have to teach them arts I myself havesacrificed all my life.)

(Số đỏ - Vũ Trọng Phụng, quoted by Nguyễn Đăng Mạnh, 1996: 294)

5 Using metaphor

Basically, we can use one of the following metaphoric statements to express

our disagreement: You missed the boat!/ You’re missing the boat./ You don’t have a

leg to stand on./ You haven’t got a leg to stand on./ Horsefeathers!, etc.

Beside of the conventional metaphoric ways, the speaker and the hearer need

to share the same background knowledge or viewpoint in order to understand the

meaning of the metaphor

Example 1: - Sally’s very clever, isn’t she?

- Yes She’s as bright as a button.

(Intermediate Headway English course - NXB ĐH Quốc gia

Hà Nội, 1999: 139)

Example 2:

Kemp: Nah Just listen We’ll go up the fire escape to the roof If we set fire

to the roof, the tenants will have time to get out but there’ll be so much damage to the building that they’ll have to sell

Butch: That’s what I like about you, Kemp – your concern for other people.Kemp: That’s right, Butch I’ve got a big heart

Butch: Yeah, it’s about as big as Spike’s brain.

(TRANSITIONS - Ferreira L A., Newbury House Publishers, Inc., 1984: 122)

Here, Spike is a bad man who is mean, ugly and does Kemp’s dirty work.Both Kemp and Butch know him well They imply that they are of the same flock ofbirds

6 Using rhetorical questions

The speaker asks rhetorical questions without the intention to get the answerfrom the hearer And the hearer does know that But if the hearer still disagrees andhe/she wants to continue to discuss, he/she will answer that question and express his/her opinion

For example:

Juliet: You see, people investigating reincarnation came up with the idea that

if you hypnotized someone, they might be able to go back in time and tell you abouttheir previous lives And one of…

Malcolm: What a load of old rubbish! Do you believe this?

(THINK first certificate - John Nauton, Longman, 1994: 184)

- Biết rồi! Biết rồi!…”, “…chẳng phải…”, “…đâu (có) phải…”, “có phải là…đâu…”, “…có Câm đi! Thối cha!

(I see! I see!…Shut up! Disgraceful!)

- Tôi không câm có đợc không?

(Is it OK that I don’t shut up?)

(Số đỏ - Vũ Trọng Phụng, quoted by Nguyễn Đăng Mạnh, 1996: 312)

7 Overgeneralizing

In real life, there are different rules which are applied to everyone such asstop driving when the red light is on, or drive on the right in Vietnam and on the left

in England, etc These are general rules Using the general rule to expressdisagreement can help the speaker express his/her opinion without fearing to threatthe hearer’s face Moreover, the hearer can realize the effort to save his/her facemade by the speaker and he/she will take the speaker’s opinion into consideration Ingeneral, this strategy is often used for those who we do not know well For instance:

A: She is a wonderful girlfriend

B: Wonderful girlfriends should know how to cook but she can’t

(From my data)

Mù quáng – (BEING BLIND) (BEING BLIND)

Một Girl hớn hở tới khoe với một Boy ngồi cùng bàn

(A Girl happily boasts with the Boy sitting at the same table.)

Girl: Ngời yêu tôi lúc nào cũng bảo là tôi xinh đấy!

(My darling always says that I’m pretty!)

Boy: Thế nên ngời ta mới bảo tình yêu là mù quáng mà!

(So it is said that being in love is being blind!)

(1001 truyện vui cời - NXB Văn hoá thông tin, 2005: 175)

From the conventional thought that is “being in love is being blind”, the Boywants to negate what the Girl says

8 Using hedges

The speaker can use different hedges in his or her disagreement This willhelp him/her avoid the responsibility for what he/she says We can consider this as away the speaker use to prepare for the change of his/her opinion if the interlocutorcan give logical reasons to prove what he/she thinks is wrong

For example:

‘Of course it is,’said Mrs Bantry ‘That’s all we can do – guess We haven’tgot any clues Go on, dear, have a guess yourself.’

‘Upon my word, I don’t know what to say But I think there’s something in

Miss Helier’s suggestion that they fell out about a man.’ (…)

(The Companion - quoted in Crime never pays, Oxford University Press, 2000: 25)

9 Repetition of the content mentioned by the speaker

The hearer repeats the mentioned content often with a raising voice toexpress his or her disagreement and surprise This is likely a natural response but insome cases it is considered to be impolite to repeat others’ utterances in such a

manner Therefore, normally, the hearer will give reasons for his/her disagreement toexplain his/her “impolite” response For instance:

Customer: It does clash a bit but I think it’ll be right with some of myblouses The only thing is it’s a bit loose

Carol: A bit loose! It could hardly be much tighter.

(THINK first certificate - John Nauton, Longman, 1994: 182)

- ChÞ mua c¸i g× thÕ? (…”, “…ch¼ng ph¶i…”, “…®©u (cã) ph¶i…”, “cã ph¶i lµ…®©u…”, “…cã)

(What did you buy?)

- Cã nãi em còng ch¼ng biÕt!

(If I tell you, you still can’t know!)

- Em mµ kh«ng biÕt! T«i c·i l¹i ThÕ chÞ cã ¸o míi cha?

(I don’t know! I argue Have you got a new blouse?)

(TruyÖn ng¾n hay 1998, Phiªn chî TÕt - §ç ThÞ Kim Liªn, 2005: 126)

10 Using contradictions

The speaker gives the contradictory statements which convey the implicitdisagreement The hearer, therefore, has to base on the context of the conversation torecognize this implicit disagreement On the other hand, these statements can becontradictionary on their own, or in comparison with the interlocutor’s statements.For instance:

Interviewer: We were talking about food I know you’ve become avegetarian Is this part of being ‘green’, or something totally different?

John Baines: Erm…yes and no Looking after animals, I think, is as

important as looking after the environment I mean, they’re part of it So I prefer not

to kill animals to eat them Animals eat food that people could eat But if peoplewant to eat meat, that’s their decision

(HEADWAY pre-intermediate, Oxford University Press, 2001: 151)

Or in a Vietnamese folk story, “chuét chï” or a rat (a kind of mice havingterrible odour) tells “khØ” (monkey) that “you smell bad” The monkey replys that:

“Your family smell good!” Using the contradictory statement, the monkey expressesthe implicit disagreement to the rat

Chuét chï chª khØ r»ng h«iKhØ míi tr¶ lêi : “C¶ hä mµy th¬m!”

11 Being ironic

In this case, the speaker uses the ironic ways to express his/her disagreement.Normally, this way is used among friends and people of close relationship This way

lessens the degree of disagreement and as a result, it is easier for the hearer to acceptthe opposite idea For example:

To the given situation: “Your close friend thinks that Miss A is a wonderfulgirlfriend for Mr B But you think a good girlfriend must be a good cook and youknow Miss A can’t cook well What would you say to express your disagreement?”,one says:

“Well, if they get married, they’ll go to restaurants everyday”

(Hay đấy, bọn họ lấy nhau thì họ đợc đi ăn nhà hàng suốt.)

(From my data)

12 Being optimistic

The speaker tries to talk about good sides of the mentioned matter This issimilar to the strategy of giving gifts, sympathy to the hearer; however, in thisstrategy, the hearer is the person who thinks of good sides, not bad sides as inStrategy 4

A: You look like Natasa

B: Thanks, there is still someone who is like me

a Vietnamese as well as an English

2.6.1 Similarities

It is clear that both the English and the Vietnamese can express theirdisagreement directly or indirectly In other words, they can use either bald-on orbald-off strategies of disagreeing Whether they use direct or indirect ways, they

have the same purpose or communicative goal - They all want to express their

opposite opinions and persuade their interlocutor to accept theirs

While indirectness is preferred, in some certain cases like in somenegotiations of businessmen or politicians, etc the speaker needs to use direct ways

to express his/her disagreement Besides, both the two people tend to use the directway to those who are of close relationship It seems that people of close relationshipcan sympathize with each other more easily than the outsiders! Therefore, in theclose relationship, they seem not to care much about protecting the hearer’s face, but

to tell what they think is right As a result, they would like to express theirdisagreemnet directly to their spouses or their siblings while use indirect ways fortheir new friends or their colleagues

And one of popular direct ways of disagreeing is to use particles of negation

such as “no” and “not” in English, and “không”, “chẳng”, “cha” in Vietnamese In

some cases, the position of these particles of negation in the sentence is the same For example, they can stand alone like in the following cases:

Have I ever told you the story of my career as a lorry driver?

No When was this?

(HEADWAY Upper-intermediate - Oxford University Press, 1987: 135)

or they can be rightly before the parts which need negating in ellipsis in English and

in sentences without subject in Vietnamese For example:

‘Never too late to begin,’ said the latter pacifically

‘Not me! Retorted Mr Gooch.

( The fountain plays, quoted in Crime never pays, Oxford

University Press, 1980: 73)

- Nếu con nói thật mẹ sẽ tha cho Ai đã ăn lọ đờng của mẹ? (…”, “…chẳng phải…”, “…đâu (có) phải…”, “có phải là…đâu…”, “…có)

(If you tell the truth, I will forgive you Who ate my pot of sugar?)

- Không phải con đâu – 2007 Gã biện bộ.

(Not me – He defended.)

(Gã khổng lồ - quoted in Hoa học trò, số 365, 7/12/2000: 30) Interestingly, polite people, whether the English or the Vietnamese, seldom

point out directly that the opinion of their interlocutor is wrong They would like toexpress their opinion for the interlocutor to consider, then if possibly, to accept it In