Sự phản ánh giá trị cá nhân và giá trị cộng đồng trong giao tiếp nói tiếng anh mỹ và tiếng việt

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES THE FALCULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION GRADUATION PAPER THE REFLECTIONS OF INDIVIDUALI

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

THE FALCULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

GRADUATION PAPER

THE REFLECTIONS OF INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM ON VERBAL COMMUNICATION

STYLES IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND

VIETNAMESE

Supervisor: Do Thi Mai Thanh (M.A.)

Student: Nguyen Thi Ngoc Diep QH2008.F1.E1

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS (TEFL)

Hanoi - 2012

i

ACCEPTANCE

I hereby state that I: Nguyen Thi Ngoc Diep, 081.E1, being a candidate for the degree

of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited in the library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the paper

Signature

May 2nd, 2012

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, on the completion of the study, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Ms Do Thi Mai Thanh for her immeasurable help, constant guidance and support during all stages of the study and beyond, from whom I have received valuable suggestions and careful critical comments

Second, I would like to send my heartfelt thanks to my two special friends Ashley Parker and Hoang Minh Trang, who have enthusiastically helped me in the data collection process – a decisive factor for the success of this study

I also owe a great debt of gratitude to my parents, my sister and my friends, particularly the whole 08.1.E1, who have constantly encouraged me and supported me wholeheartedly during the time of conducting the research

Last but not least, I would like to thank the readers who share their interest and feedback on the study

iii

ABSTRACT

The values of individualism and collectivism have been proved to exert profound effects on many aspects of life respectively in America and Vietnam, among which is the two groups of people’s verbal communication styles However, it seems that this interesting topic has yet to be widely explored

By employing the questionnaires to collect data from 40 European American and Vietnamese informants, the study demonstrates their understandings of the dominant value in their society, as well as how it is reflected in their language use in terms of directness or indirectness, formality or informality The result confirms the exploitation of directness in American conversations as a manifestation of individualism Nevertheless, it also re-questions the popular remark that indirectness and formality – signs of collectivism are preferred by Vietnamese interlocutors and the same as European American ones with informality – sign of individualism, as the dependence is on specific situations Finally, some cross-cultural recommendations are given with the hope to enhance mutual understandings between two groups of people when they communicate with one another

iv

TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i

ABSTRACT………ii

TABLE OF CONTENT……… iii

LIST OF FIGURES……… vi

LIST OF TABLES……… …vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS……… ….viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION……….1

1 Statement of the research problem and rationale……… 1

2 Research questions……… 2

3 Scope of the study……… 2

4 Significance of the study……….……… 3

5 Research methodology……… …….4

5.1 Data collection method and procedures……….……4

5.2 Data analysis methods and procedures……….….4

6 Organization of the paper……….………4

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND……….6

1 Language and culture……….…….6

2 The concepts of individualism and collectivism………6

2.1 Individualism and collectivism in history….……….6

2.2 Individualism and collectivism in the paper……….……….8

2.3 Interpretations of individualism and collectivism from the perspectives of American and Vietnamese cultures and languages………10

2.3.1 Individualism in American culture and language……….……… 10

2.3.2 Collectivism in Vietnamese culture and language………….………… 13

2.3.3 Some reasons to explain the values of individualism and collectivism in American and Vietnamese cultures and languages……….……15

v

3 Some manifestations of the reflections of individualism and collectivism in

American and Vietnamese verbal communication styles……… ……….…… 16

3.1 Direct and indirect verbal communication styles……… …….….16

3.1.1 Low context and high context communication………16

3.1.2 Directness and indirectness……….….17

3.2 Informal and formal communication styles……… …… 19

4 Speech acts of request, complement and complaint……….………… 21

4.1 Requesting………21

4.2 Complementing……… … 21

4.3 Complaining……….……22

5 Summary of previous studies……….22

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY…….……….23

1 Research design……… 23

2 Data collection method……….… 23

3 Discussion of the survey questionnaire content……….24

4 Informants and data collection procedures……….…… 25

5 Data analysis methods and procedures……….…….…26

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION……… ……….27

1 The concepts of individualism and collectivism……….… 27

2 Manifestation of individualism and collectivism in verbal communication styles……… …31

2.1 Directness and indirectness……… ………… 31

2.1.1 In the English survey questionnaire……… ……… 31

2.1.1.1 In requesting……….……31

2.1.1.2 In complimenting……… …… 32

2.1.1.3 In complaining……… ……… 32

2.1.2 In the Vietnamese questionnaire……….……….33

2.1.2.1 In requesting……… ……….……….….33

vi

2.1.2.2 In complimenting……….……… ….….33

2.1.2.3 In complaining……….……… ….….33

2.1.3 Similarities and differences……….…….34

2.2 Informality and formality……… 35

2.2.1 In the English survey questionnaire………… ……….… 35

2.2.1.1 In requesting……… …….….35

2.2.1.2 In complimenting……….… ……….….36

2.2.1.3 In complaining……….…… ………… 36

2.2.2 In the Vietnamese survey questionnaire……… ……….….36

2.2.2.1 In requesting……….……… …….……36

2.2.2.2 In complimenting……….……….…….….….37

2.2.2.3 In complaining……….……….…….….….37

2.2.3 Similarities and differences……… ……….…….38

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION……… ….…39

1 Summary of the findings and concluding remarks……….……… ….39

2 Recommendations for cross-cultural communication……….……… 39

2.1 Directness and indirectness in American English and Vietnamese….…….… 39

2.2 Formality and informality in American English and Vietnamese…….……….40

3 Limitations of the study……….40

4 Suggestions for further study……….41

REFERENCE LIST……….… 42

APPENDICE………46

Questionnaire (English version)……….……….… ….46

Questionnaire (Vietnamese version)……….……….……48

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Percentage of dominant value in America……….… … 27

Figure 2: Defined characteristics of individualism in American culture……….….…28

Figure 3: Percentage of dominant value in Vietnam……….29

Figure 4: Defined characteristics of collectivism in Vietnamese culture………….…30

Table 2: Summary of directness/indirectness in American English and Vietnamese 34

Table 3: Summary of formality/informality in American English and Vietnamese….38

ix

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS C: Collectivism

D: Directness

DCT: Discourse completion task

EFL: English as a foreign language

F: Formality

I: Individualism

ID: Indirectness

IF: Informality

x

1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This initial chapter outlines the research problem and rationale for the study together with its methodology, the scope and the significance of the paper Particularly, it is in this chapter that two research questions are identified to serve as guidelines for the whole study Finally, the chapter concludes with a sketch of the organization of the paper to orientate the readers throughout the paper

1 Statement of the research problem and rationale

It is well established that Hofstede’s (1983) pioneering research which mapped

53 countries on four cultural dimensions (power distance, individualism-collectivism, masculinity-femininity and uncertainty avoidance) has “inspired a great deal of research on related fields” (Singer & Voronov 2002, p 461) The dimension of individualism-collectivism has become, as some scholars fear, a “catchall default explanation for cultural differences in human behavior” (Kagitcibasi 1997, p 3) Indeed, the constructs of individualism and collectivism were largely responsible for the explosion of cross-cultural psychology over the past three decades and continued to

be theoretically and empirically the most prominent constructs in cross-cultural psychology in the 1990s (Kashima et al 1995, p 925) Triandis (1988, p 60) even regarded individualism-collectivism as “the most important dimension of cultural differences in social behavior” What is more, Vandello and Cohen (1999, p 279) concurred that “one of the most useful and actively researched constructs to emerge from cultural social psychology has been the dimension of individualism-collectivism”

In Vietnam, the economic open-door policy pursued by the Government has increased the demand for English-speaking people who are expected to acquire both linguistic competence and sociocultural one to access the outside world, as it is acknowledgeable about the significant interrelation between language and culture that

“to know another’s language and not his culture is a very good way to make a fluent

2

fool of one’s self” (cited in Nguyen n.d, p 38) Nonetheless, no matter how growing and special the need for cross-cultural/ intercultural communication is, the sad fact is there are only a small number of Vietnamese EFL (English as a foreign language) speakers who have a good command of cultural awareness and understandings, accompanied by the target language With the hope of contributing to a better understanding of American culture whose individualistic index ranks the first (Hofstede 1980) and Vietnam – a prominently collectivistic society, as well as their deep reflections on verbal communication styles in the two languages, the researcher

attempted to investigate into the topic “The reflections of individualism and

collectivism on verbal communication styles in American English and Vietnamese”

2 Research questions

The study was done with an aim to answering the two following questions: (1) To what extent are the values of individualism and collectivism understood by American and Vietnamese people?

(2) How are the values of individualism and collectivism reflected in verbal communication styles in American and Vietnamese cultures?

3 Scope of the study

Firstly, the values of individualism and collectivism have wide effects on many aspects of life In this study, however, the focuses are just on their influences on verbal language use in the light of directness and indirectness, informality and formality in American English and Vietnamese

Secondly, language carries with it a broad realm of reflection, thus in this paper, the author attempts to investigate the manifestation of the dimension individualism-collectivism via three communicative acts, which happen popularly in the people’s daily lives They are requesting, complaining and complimenting In other words, the

to ensure the nativeness and representativeness of the findings

Lastly, due to the limited time and resources, the samples of the study were restricted to 20 European Americans in selected city areas in the United States and 20 Vietnamese people living in the city of Hanoi, all of whom are students from the age of

20 to 24 This choice of samples helps ensure the homogeneity in their contexts of living and mature thoughts in the answers, thus, generates comparable findings

4 Significance of the study

This research would be of benefits for a number of European Americans in America and EFL speakers in Vietnam, as well as the researchers who are interested in the same field

In detail, the researcher hopes that by understanding the natures of direct – indirect and informal – formal communication styles as seen from the values of individualism and collectivism, Vietnamese EFL speakers will better their performance when communicating with European Americans and vice versa Cross-cultural/ intercultural communication breakdowns, therefore, would be reduced to the least

Besides, with regards to researchers who share the same interest in the topic, they could rely on this paper to find reliable and helpful information to develop their related studies in the future

4

5 Research methodology

5.1 Data collection methods and procedures

Questionnaires in form of Discourse Completion Tasks (DCT) were employed during the process of data collection Specifically, there were two language versions of the questionnaires, one in English and the other in Vietnamese The English questionnaires were delivered to the informants in selected city areas including Boston, San Francisco, Stockton in California and Maryville, Kansas in Missouri, USA whereas the Vietnamese questionnaires were for the ones living in the city of Hanoi, all

of whom are students from the age of 20 to 24 Twenty questionnaires with answers from each country were then chosen to the data analysis process

5.2 Data analysis methods and procedures

The information collected from two language versions of questionnaires, was transcribed as the primary source of data for the research Relevant sections were identified or underlined during the evaluation of each piece of data The contents were

to be sorted into categories based on the two research questions

6 Organization of the paper

The rest of the paper includes the following chapters:

Chapter 2 (Theoretical background) provides the theoretical background of the study, including discussions of the key concepts and summary of previous studies

Chapter 3 (Methodology) describes the research setting, participants, the instrument of data collection as well as the procedure employed to carry out data analysis

5

Chapter 4 (Findings and discussion) presents, analyzes and discusses the results that the researcher found out from the collected data according to the two research questions

Chapter 5 (Conclusion) summarizes the answers to the two research questions, several cross-cultural communication recommendations concerning the research topic, the limitations of the research as well as some suggestions for further studies Following this chapter are the References and Appendices

6

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This second chapter sheds light on key concepts in the study Afterwards, a brief review of the related studies will reveal the research gaps and hence lays the concrete foundation for this research paper

1 Language and culture

According to Longman learner’s dictionary (2005), language is “a system of sounds, words, patterns, etc used by humans to communicate thoughts and feelings” Indeed, it is “used to give factual information, supply the information about the speaker’s feelings or serve to establish and maintain social relations between people” (Dao & Do 2005, p 7) From those views, it can be seen that language and culture are interwoven in such a way that culture affects expressions of language and language is filled with cultural factors

2 The concepts of individualism and collectivism

2.1 Individualism and collectivism in history

In the Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol 3 Social behavior and applications, p 6, Kagitcibasi et al exhibited a collection of definitions on individualism and collectivism over the years, which was adapted and chronologically rearranged as follows:

Low emotionality; seeking

interested in competition; low

in creativity

pressures toward conformity

Emphasis on (a) the views, needs, and goals of the (in)group; (b) social norms and duty defined by the group rather than pleasure seeking; (c) beliefs shared with the groups rather than beliefs that separate self from group; and (d) readiness to cooperate with the group

fundamental “building block”

of society “dignity,” of the individual; individual as the primary source of value (ethical individualism);

collective goals subsumed

boundaries; “equality” of individuals (at least in principle); and “liberty” from interference of others

Emphasis on the group or community; the group as the source of value; the interests

precedence over those of the

“commitment” as the moral aspect of ideology; individual not separate from others, but inextricably linked with them

8

achievement; self-reliance (individual interests; security

Table 1: Individualism and collectivism over the years (adapted and rearranged

from Kagitcibasi et al 1997)

From the above synthesis, it could be seen that there existed some developments

in terms of the understandings of the two concepts in history First was Hsu’s which showed some negative ideas about individualism and collectivism such as “prejudice toward different racial and religious groups” for the former or “low emotionality” for the latter This researcher, however, also shared some similarities with the others about the self in individualistic cultures and the spirit of groups in collectivistic ones Later, Triandis (1990), Ho & Chiu (1994) seemed to support relatively the same descriptions

of the two values, mostly about individuals standing on their own (individualism) and responsibilities towards the groups (collectivism) Prominently, Janzx (1991) gave some additions to what are termed individualism and collectivism, respectively were

“building block of society dignity, equality, liberty” and group “commitment as the moral aspect of ideology, individual freedom restricted by the group”

2.2 Individualism and collectivism in the paper

In this paper, the definitions of individualism and collectivism given by Hofstede (1991) were employed According to him, “Individualism stands for a society

in which the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediate family only,” and “collectivism stands for a society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive ingroups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for

9

unquestioning loyalty” (p 260-261) These characterizations involve both interpersonal and normative aspects of individualism and collectivism

In an individualistic society, emphasis is put on the goals and accomplishments

of the individual When conflicts arise over the benefits, one tends to set priority to his/her own purposes instead of other members’ in the community (Singelis et al 1995) In addition, independence from family as well as social and religious organizations is commonly recognized; thus, privacy and the “self” are emphasized (Triandis 1995) As a matter of fact, all the decisions are made from personal perspectives and for individual sake without any concern about the groups Personal values include personal time, freedom, and challenge (Würtz 2005)

On the contrary, collectivistic cultures where solidarity, responsibility and mutual help among members are always highly recommended prioritize group welfare over the goals of the individual The family's history often has an influence on the way people see an individual whereas personal accomplishments play a minor role When the “we” outweigh the “I”, individuals in collectivistic cultures tend to be interdependent with others and will usually have built a network of deep-rooted relationships and personal, loyal ties (Triandis 1995) Lustig and Koetes (2010) also shared the same opinion that in collectivistic cultures, groups are considered people’s extended families and require them absolute loyalty Besides, people appear to have

“in-group egoism” (Hofstede 1994) that they try to protect the benefits of their own group’s members rather than those of other groups Values in collectivistic cultures include training, physical condition, and the use of skills (Würtz 2005)

According to Singelis et al (1995), Western modern industrial societies such as America or Canada encourage individualism whereas Asian countries, Latin America and Africa with tradition agricultural cultures prefer collectivism

10

2.3 Interpretations of individualism and collectivism from the

perspectives of American and Vietnamese cultures and languages

In this part, the researcher attempts to give evidences and explanations about the manifestation of individualism and collectivism in American and Vietnamese cultures, together with their corresponding language uses As reported by Hofstede (1983), America with 91 scores is classified into a group of the most individualistic countries

in the world Meanwhile, Vietnam (-97) belongs to a group with the lowest individualism index value scores, ranking only above Indonesia and Pakistan (-122) in the South (East) Asia

2.3.1 Individualism in American culture and language

The word “individualism” is often used by scholars and outside observers but many Americans prefer to call it “individual freedom”, meaning “a climate of freedom where the emphasis is on the individual” Individual freedom is probably the most basic of all the American values and the word “freedom” is perhaps one of the most respected popular words in the United States today (Hoang et al 2005, p 73)

American individualism takes its special place right in the country’s Declaration

of Independence (Jefferson 1776):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Bellah et al (1985, cited in Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol 3) wrote about American individualism:

self-reliance, independence and separation from family, religion and community; hedonism, utilitarianism, and emphasis on exchange; competition; equity and fairness

in the distribution of rewards; trust in others; emphasis on competence; involvement in community life (getting something in return); equality of people and the rejection of arbitrary authority; the self as the only source of reality

11

In his book American ways (1988, p 8), Gary Althen emphasized Bellah’s very last description and considered “devotion to individualism” as “the most important thing to understand about Americans” He also added that “they are not trained to see themselves as members of a close-knit, interdependent family, religious group, tribe, nation or any other collectivity” In fact, people are effectively taught about their self values, the responsibility for their own situations in life and their own destinies from childhood Dr Benjamin Spock stated in his book which most of the American parents refer to when raising their children that “We are raising them to be rugged individualists” (1968, p 7, cited in American ways by Gary Althen 1988) To Americans, any social factor outside themselves that makes them just like everyone else in important ways can offend their “sense of dignity” (Althen 1988, p.10) As a matter of fact, every individual is equal in terms of biological and social aspects Therefore, each one deserves the opportunity to prove their abilities for others to recognize Interestingly, with his profound knowledge and keen sense of observation, Gary Althen (1988) further compares “a Walkman dance” at a major university with

“epitomized American individualism” (p 11), meaning that students assemble in a large room where they all dance alone to whatever music they are playing on their own Walkman

It is an undeniable fact that American individual freedom is what no authority can interfere In the classroom, students are strongly recommended to give their own opinions and ask questions In public, freedom of speech is widely welcome However, there is a price for this: individuals must learn to rely on themselves or risk losing freedom De Tocqueville observed the Americans’ belief in self-reliance nearly 200 years ago in the 1930s:

They owe nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man; they acquire the habit of always considering themselves as standing alone, and they are apt to imagine that their whole destiny is in their own hands

12

(cited in Introduction to American Studies, Hoang et al 2005, p 74) The illustration of individual freedom and self-reliance in American English can

be “free to make up your own mind”; “you made your bed, now lie in it”

Also closely associated with the value they place on individualism is the

importance Americans assign to privacy and equality “What are you doing?/ Where

are you going? – None of your business” or “One man, one vote” are some of their

manifestations in language In reality, personal possessions are highly protected from invasion and most Americans have great difficulty understanding people who always want to be with another person, who dislike being alone since it shows weakness and dependence Additionally, the equality can be seen from the way Americans address each other informally that they tend to use first name even with an elder person or their professor/ boss except for some special formal situations An example can be as follows:

“Good morning, professor Jeff Mayor! My name is Katherine Boyle

Hi Katherine! Just call me Jeff!”

Such way of addressing suggests that every individual is expected to be treated equally no matter how old they are and what position they are in at work or in a family

Another evidence of individualism in American culture is directness With their acknowledgement of personal identity, as well as respecting others’, Americans believe that they should be direct, frank and open in their dealings with other people This is considered the standard social norms in citizens’ behaviors and those who possess the qualities are highly respected They usually assume that conflicts or disagreements are best settled by means of forthright discussions among the people involved, or else, the act of speaking indirectly is somewhat cowardly Examples of sayings to illustrate this

13

fact are: “Let’s lay our cards on the table”; “Let’s stop playing games and get to the

point” However, further elaboration on this point is delayed to another part of the

paper

2.3.2 Collectivism in Vietnamese culture and language

In Vietnamese culture where humanism, community and an agriculturally based economy are the main features, collectivism is popular People usually make great efforts to create and maintain harmonious relationships even though this may cost them

to take some steps backwards:

Một con ngựa đau cả tàu bỏ cỏ

(When a horse is sick, its whole pack will not eat)

Huu Dat (2000) added that in an agricultural-originated culture with strong family bonds like Vietnam, social relations and their tight rules formulate personal behaviors Indeed, the Vietnamese consider the ties with family, relatives and neighbors the closest and most direct interrelationship Hence, community value requiring them to sacrifice their private interests for the sake of the entire community and group harmony is far more preferable than individualism in American culture It is the national community sense that creates a special, original and intimate cultural identity which surprises any foreign visitor to the country

A Vietnamese culture researcher – Tran Ngoc Them (2008) interpreted collectivism in Vietnamese culture as the manifestation of hierarchy and order, as well

as the interlocutor sense of honor and tactfulness Firstly, Vietnamese people are aware

of their surrounding relations Consequently, everything said should be suitable to the specific situations and to whom they are talking; whether there is consistency in behaving and the communicator is in a higher position or lower Some proverbs that illustrate this fact are:

14

Có trên có dưới (Before doing anything, consider your position in comparison with others)

Kính trên nhường dưới (Show respect with the elderly, show tenderness with the young)

Ăn trông nồi ngồi trông hướng

(Sometimes take a look into the rice pot when you are eating and choose the right direction for your sitting)

The way Vietnamese people address also reflects the characteristic There is a system of titles that shows the hierarchical reflection that everyone should strictly adapt in each situation, for example, to whom he/she is talking, the senior or junior in terms of age, social or physical power and relationship

Collectivism in Vietnamese culture also has its mark in the way that the Vietnamese people are frequently not as direct as the European Americans The tradition of showing concerns and saving the communicative partners’ face keeps them being indirect as a sign of politeness Historically, as living in communities, the Vietnamese people valued the mutual help and concerns among the member in their own and later expanded them to the bigger society Thus, small talks, for example, about the communicative partners’ family, work, health, age and marital status seem to

be regarded as the standard ways of starting the conversation and developing further purposes

15

2.3.3 Some reasons to explain the values of individualism and collectivism

in American and Vietnamese cultures and languages

Pham (2006) explained the existence of individualism in American society that the salad bowl culture with the exodus of immigrants from all walks of life and of different races brings about unquenchable desire for Americans to express oneself On one hand, to live in harmony with the others, each person needs to conform to community regulations On the other hand, he/she cherishes his/her identity, shows respects for others’ cultures or individual interests and aspirations Hence, American individualism is considered as the suitable way to sustain a heterogeneous society In addition, the years of long-standing struggles for national success in overthrowing British monarchical rule and gaining independence have taught people of the USA that

in order to make the USA flourish, there is no better way than to be self-reliant Liberty and above all, individualism enables them to exploit their potentials to the fullest

About collectivism in Vietnam, it can be explained by the influence of an agricultural society and Confucianism In the past, the country’s economy largely depended on agriculture, which in fact needed people to cooperate well to earn their living (Tran 2008) They had to work with each other on the fields, share their experiences about weather forecast and rice growing These fostered close relations among people in the community and nowadays, the closeness has been remained and created what is termed as collectivism Next, Kim (1995) suggested that a country greatly influenced by Confucianism like Vietnam appears to favor group prosperity and harmony, which again, lead to collectivism

Nonetheless, it is noted that American individualism and Vietnamese collectivism being discussed in this paper have relative meanings only because there is

no absolute individualism in America, nor absolute collectivism in Vietnam As a matter of fact, the values of individualism and collectivism exist in both societies, ranging from situations to situations, regions to regions However, it is widely

3.1 Direct and indirect verbal communication styles

3.1.1 Low context and high context communication

First and foremost, the reflections of individualism and collectivism on directness and indirectness communication styles are related to Hall’s concepts (1970) including “high context” and “low context” communication “High-context” refers to a culture where internal meaning is usually embedded deep in the information and the listener is expected to be able to read between the lines to understand the unsaid, thanks to his/her background knowledge Therefore, communication is, according to Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988, p 35), indirect, ambiguous, harmonious, reserved and understated The authors also added that the primary purpose of communication in high context is to form and develop relationships

On the contrary, a “low context” culture is where the messages are delivered explicitly through the language; thus, communication is direct, precise, dramatic, open and based on feelings or true intentions (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey 1988, p 36) The primary purpose of communication here is the exchange of information, facts and opinions In fact, as said by Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey (1988, p 40) low-context communication is popular in individualistic societies, whereas high-context communication is preferred in collectivistic societies

Hall (1970) also claims that high and low context are not a dichotomy, but rather two poles of a continuum and on this continuum, America is placed towards the

“low” end Communication in the country is defined as the low-context one in which the speaker expresses his/her intention in explicit ways, the listener is able to interpret

17

the verbal message quite directly and clearly and “in which mass of the information is vested in the explicit code” (Hofstede 1991, p 79) American interlocutors are supposed to get the point straightforward without taking pains to figure out the context They respond to others more on the basis of personal characteristics and situational need, less on the basis of group affiliation This typical American low-context communication is partly assigned to its own individualism and that emphasizes the idea

to speak one’s mind along with the personal goal: “low context people expect themselves and others to be self-reliant, low context cultures are ego-oriented or individualist” (Cornelius & Willa 1999, p 2)

On the other hand, Vietnam is among the collective cultures “where most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message” (Hofstede 1991, p 79) Speaker and listener are involved in a specific context and this is the clue to understand their conversation

3.1.2 Directness and indirectness

Indeed, individualism and collectivism are clearly reflected in the way people express themselves directly or indirectly With the purpose of asserting personal identity, those from individualistic countries prefer directness in communication while those from collectivistic nations are in favor of the opposite tendency Mentioning about the American in particular, Levine and Adelman concluded that “compared with other languages, American English strongly emphasize directness in verbal interaction”

(1982, p 20) Many expressions in English reinforce this argument including: “Let’s

get down to the business”, “Out with it”, etc To European American, directness

implies honesty and being honest is usually “more important than preserving harmony

in interpersonal relationships” (Althen 1988, p.30) The belief that “honesty is the best policy” is commonly found and reflected in the way they communicate A typical

18

example of directness in verbal communication is given by Levine and Adelman (1982,

p 21):

Host: Would you like some dessert?

Guest: No, thank It’s delicious but I’ve really had enough

Host: Ok, why don’t we leave the table and sit in the living room?

In this situation, the host takes it for granted that the guest is honest and does not repeat his offer If the guest is still hungry, he is expected to say directly “Yes, I’d like some more Thank you!” In Vietnam, on the contrary, the guest tends to refuse when invited to eat something for several times even though he may still be hungry Only when being insisted may the guest accept the invitation to eat more

Another example of the Vietnamese indirect way is:

“Xin các ông bác bà thương mẹ con cháu với Cháu quê tận Nghệ An đưa con ra đây chữa bệnh Ra đến bến xe Giáp Bát, cháu bị kẻ gian móc hết tiền bạc Hai mẹ con cháu không có ai thân thích ở đây, từ hôm qua đến nay chưa được ăn gì Các ông bà thương tình đỡ cháu ít tiền về quê, cháu xin đội ơn ông bà suốt đời.” (Beg you, please feel compassion for me and my child We come from Nghe An province I bring my child here to cure his disease On my arrival at Giap Bat station, all my money was stolen I and my child have no relatives here and have had nothing to eat from yesterday It would be very kind of you to give us some money to come back home

I would be deeply grateful all my life)

(Phuong, p 33)

19

A way of asking for money in Vietnamese culture, following Kaplan’s diagram

It can be seen that the speaker employs a lot of lead-in structures before extending the main purpose because in the Vietnamese communication style, using lead-in explanation before stating a request rather than not, sounds more moving and persuasive By that small talk, much affection and sympathy from listeners can be provoked; thus, the request sounds reasonable and easier to be accepted By that way, they can still remain good relationships – the essence in a collectivistic community, and get their ideas across Conversely, for the European American people, who are well known for being direct and self-assertive “judge members of cultural groups that value indirectness as not being assertive enough” (Levine & Adelman 1993, p 70), such roundabout can be regarded as lengthy and irritating, especially when the time is limited and listeners are in bad mood

3.2 Informal and formal communication styles

Formality and informality are the signs of individualism and collectivism in language use These can be observed through the use of address forms, formal words and structures, honorifics and more lead-in expressions to express deference for the seniors

Her home town