Indirect requests in conversations a contrastive analysis of english and vietnamse = lời thỉnh cầu gián tiếp trong hội thoại phân tích đối chiếu tiếng anh và tiếng việt

VINH UNIVERSITY FOREIGN LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT ------ PHAN THỊ THUỶ INDIRECT REQUESTS IN CONVERSATIONS- A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE LỜI THỈNH CẦU GIÁN TIẾP TRONG

VINH UNIVERSITY

FOREIGN LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT

- -

PHAN THỊ THUỶ

INDIRECT REQUESTS IN CONVERSATIONS- A CONTRASTIVE

ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

(LỜI THỈNH CẦU GIÁN TIẾP TRONG HỘI THOẠI- PHÂN TÍCH ĐỐI

CHIẾU TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

GRADUATION THESIS

Field: Contrastive Analysis

VINH-2008

VINH UNIVERSITY

FOREIGN LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT

- -

GRADUATION THESIS

INDIRECT REQUESTS IN CONVERSATIONS- A CONTRASTIVE

ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

(LỜI THỈNH CẦU GIÁN TIẾP TRONG HỘI THOẠI- PHÂN TÍCH ĐỐI

CHIẾU TIẾNG ANH VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT)

Field: Contrastive Analysis

Supervisor: Ph.D.Ngô Đình Phương Student : Phan Thị Thuỷ

Class : 45B1

VINH-2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 2- INDIRECT REQUESTS IN CONVERSATIONS- A

CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

14

2.5 Indirect requests’ strategies in conversations 22 2.6 Similarities and differences of indirect requests in English and Vietnamese

conversations

25

CHAPTER 3- SURVEY’S RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 34

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are several people who deserve a lot of credit for their various contributions

to the current shape of this thesis First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest

gratitude to Ph.D Ngô Đình Phương, my supervisor, who introduced me to this topic:

“Indirect requests in conversations- a contrastive analysis of English and Vietnamese” and helped me very much to do this study If not for his valuable and insightful guidance, comments, and criticism, my thesis would not have been completed

I am greatly indebted to my teachers in the Faculty of Foreign Languages,

especially M.A Trần Bá Tiến, M.A Phan Thị Vân Hương, M.A Lê Thị Thuý Hà, M.A Trần Ngọc Yến, Miss Anne Edmunds and Miss Sandy Gannon for their kind

advice and useful materials concerning my thesis

I also take this opportunity to express my special thanks to the students from Foreign Language Department and the teachers and students from Literature Department of Vinh University for their willingness to answer my questionnaires Finally, I am immensely grateful to my family and my friends who gave me a constant source of love, encouragement and understanding

Vinh, May 2008

Phan Thị Thuỷ

PART A- INTRODUCTION

1 Reasons for the study

Nowadays, in a developing society, contact and exchange information are the essential needs They play a crucial part in our daily life, in all aspects from economy, politics, and culture to education, science, technology, etc To accomplish these needs, people need to communicate with each other Communication, therefore, is considered a critical issue in all fields of human interaction However, there are many problems arisen during communication between people from different languages, different countries as well as different cultures, especially in relation to the level of directness and indirectness of a speech act As a result, it needs the awareness of the cultural participant’s background knowledge in order to understand and interpret another person’s actions, or in other words, to communicate successfully and appropriately Additionally, in daily conversations, people often use request as a useful means to reach what they desire via their co-participant’s action Request plays an important role

in social and business communication; it varies in types of expressing and in its implicatures Request, based on a cross- cultural study, is considered one of the most typical features of sensitive illocutionary acts in English and Vietnamese Therefore, how to make a request polite in order to preserve and maintain good social relationship between the speakers of one or more cultures, to keep the conversation going on and especially to have the interactants willingly done what the speaker wants is a big question This is a strategy that is different between languages, between cultures

For example: in English, to know the way to the post-office, you can give requests such as:

(1) Tell me the way to the post-office?

(2) Where is the post-office?

(3) I’d like to ask you the way to the post-office?

(4) I really need you tell me the way to the post-office, please!

(5) Would you mind telling me the way to the post-office?

(6) May I ask you the way to the post-office?

(7) I was wondering if you tell me how to get to the post-office

(8) Please tell me how to get to the post-office

(9) Well, I’m not sure how to get to the post-office I need to be there at 4p.m

In Vietnamese, with the same need, you can make requests like:

(1) Đường đến bưu điện đi như thế nào?

(2) Này có biết đường đến bưu điện không?

(3) Bạn có biết đến bưu điện đi đường nào không?

(4) Cậu có thể chỉ cho mình biết đường đến bưu điện không? Mình đang rất cần đến

đó

(5) Xin chị cho biết đường đến bưu điện?

(6) Bưu điện ở đâu em nhỉ?

(7) Làm ơn cho chị hỏi đi theo đường này có thể tới bưu điện không?

(8) Cháu xin phép hỏi bác có biết đường đến bưu điện không ạ?

(9) Tớ không biết đường đi tới bưu điện Tớ đang cần gửi điện hoa

It has been observed that many Vietnamese learners of English often tend to translate whatever ideas they want to express into the target language without awareness of cross-cultural differences, which lead to the communication breakdown

It is easy to understand this problem when we look at the fact that during the process of learning English, Vietnamese learners focus mainly on grammatical rules of the target language Therefore, as a result, they often find it hard to communicate with the English native speakers and the foreigners who speak English In the hope of understanding more about language, the culture in general and the strategies in giving indirect requests in particular as well as finding the similarities and differences between these strategies in English and Vietnamese, we would like to take this study to help Vietnamese learners to avoid, or at least, reduce cultural conflicts, to master these strategies in daily conversations in giving indirect requests in cross-cultural communication appropriately and effectively In this study, we also wish to suggest some practicing activities in requesting

2 Aims of the study

The aims of this study are:

 To understand more about the ways of giving indirect requests in English and Vietnamese

 To compare and contrast the range of indirect requests in the two languages in order to clarify the similarities and differences in the ways Vietnamese and English- speaking people give an indirect request in their own language and culture

 To contribute to the promotion of awareness of cross-cultural similarities and differences in cross-cultural communication in requesting in the two languages

3 Scopes of the study

 The study is confined to the strategies of giving indirect requests in conversations, only in written form

 The study tries to find the answer to the following research question: “What are the similarities and differences between the strategies of giving indirect requests

in English and Vietnamese conversations?”

4 Methods of the study

 The study refers to both home and foreign publications to set up the theoretical background

 The main method of the study is contrastive

 The considerations, remarks, comments as well as conclusions in the study are based largely on the analysis of the data with due reference to publication

5 Design of the study

The thesis includes three main parts:

Part A- Introduction

This part is divided into: the reasons, aims, scopes, methods and design of the study

Part B- Development: is the main and focused one of the study

This part refers to three chapters:

Chapter 1: Theoretical background

Chapter 2: Indirect requests in conversations- a contrastive analysis of English and Vietnamese

Chapter 3: Survey’s results and discussions

Part C- Conclusion: gives the brief summary the main results of the study as well as some suggestions for further research

PART B- DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1- THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

In this first chapter, our aim is to present the basic theory which the study uses, called the theoretical background It is divided into five sections: the first section introduces the notion of communication and communicative competence; next is language and its functions; following this, conversation along with the role of context are mentioned in sections 1.2 and 1.3 respectively Before ending this chapter, in section 1.4, speech act is viewed Finally, face, politeness and indirectness are presented in section 1.5

1.1 Communication

Everyday, people communicate with each other for many purposes: to transmit information, to share ideas, thoughts, opinions, etc It has become a fundamental and essential part of our lives, but how to define it satisfactorily is taken under the consideration

1.1.1 What is communication?

Many linguists and others have proposed their own concept of communication Phan Thị Vân Quyên (2001: 1) proposes: “communication is a transactional process

of creating and sharing meaning (through verbal and non-verbal behavior) between two

or more persons However, communication is not merely an exchange of information

An important function of communication is to keep a particular society going Individuals co-operate with one another to sustain reality and they use language as one

of the means to do so”

Fiske (1990: 2) suggests: “Communication is social interaction through messages”

In short, communication is a linguistic term for the social interaction between more than one person to form and maintain the relationship to each other as well as to exchange the information

1.1.2 Communicative competence

D.Hymes, Wardhaugh and other authors proposed their opinions on the term communicative competence (CC) Among them, D.Hymes was the first one who introduced the concept of CC “He argued that the ability to speak competently not only entails knowing the grammar of a language, but also knowing what to say to whom, when, and in what circumstances”

(Hymes, 1972, quoted in C.Scarcella & L.Oxford, 1992: 68)

It means that communication is not governed by fixed linguistic rules In other words, linguistic competence is not the only element responsible for communication Rather, an interaction is perceivable between linguistic knowledge and society

J.Richards et.al suggest: “the ability not only to apply the grammatical rule of a language in order to form grammatically correct sentences but also to know when and where to use these sentences and to whom”

(Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, 1985: 49)

In conclusion, there are different definitions of CC among linguists and others However, CC can be understood as the knowing language’s phonology, syntax, semantics, and lexis and the ability to make use of this knowledge appropriately in particular social settings In other words, CC is the skill of producing sentences with accurate grammar and the skill of using these utterances suitably with awareness of cultural and social knowledge Therefore, CC plays an important role in communication between people from different cultures, different languages

1.2 Language

1.2.1 What is language?

Language used everyday, is the means of human communication that helps to distinguish people and animals It is used in everyday life to get another person to understand the speaker’s thoughts and feelings, to define their relationship to each other, to identify themselves as part of a social group and to establish the kind of speech event they are in, etc “What is language?” This question is difficult to answer exactly and unifiably

In “The Oxford Companion to the English Language” (1996: 523), language is considered “a human system of communication and is in the shape of writing, print, and physical signs” It means language is a special way to serve the main purpose of communication

However, H.Jackson and P.Stockwell (1996: 1) have the different concept of language: Language refers to general faculty, which enables human beings to engage in the verbal exchange of information The exchange may take place by means of speech, writing, signing or Braille”

1.2.2 Language functions

Halliday (1970) discusses language with three basic functions: ideational (speaker’s

or writer’s experience of the real world), interpersonal (social relationship between

(1960) with referential and emotive; representative, expressive and descriptive, expressive according to Buhler (1934); and Lyons (1977) respectively However, Brown and Yule’s division of language functions into transactional and interpersonal seems to be the most suitable way Transactional language function is “The expression

social-of context” and interpersonal one is “The expression social-of social relationship and personal attitude” In other words, via the two functions we can know the reason and purpose that the conversation is performed and we also realize the participants’ relationship as well

as their thoughts and ideas

In transactional language, the speaker delivers the information to the hearer, i.e to offer goods/ services to others, called message- oriented such as the police’s directions

to a lost- way person, doctor’s directions to his patient, your mother’s guides to do housework, etc On the other hand, speaker also gets either goods or services Moreover, a prominent feature of transactional language is in written language For instance, business writing like letters, memos, reports to request and provide information to carry out business dealings, etc Transactional language is also realized

by “turns”, “moves”, and “acts” In different language, there are different principles of

“turns”, you may have to wait for a long time to have chance to talk, or you may have

no right to interrupt

In some cases, language is used neither to express or receive thoughts and ideas nor

to inform, but to establish and maintain social relationship that is interactional or interpersonal language, i.e relationship –oriented

For example, we meet our friends in the morning and greet them: “Good morning”

or “How are you?” or “It is a fine day, isn’t it?” It is considered a safe way to open a conversation in British culture by topic like weather However, in Vietnamese, they often open a conversation with the questions related to the personal life such as: “Where are you going?” “How about your family?” or “Are you losing weight?” These examples show the fact that the participants should share the same knowledge background or common point of view to achieve a successful conversation Obviously, interactional language associates with conversation where language is used to open, close, and maintain by the attempt to make a good impression on the interactant

The comparing table between transactional language and interactional language below is based on the above features

Transactional language Interactional language

- Associated with conversation

- Formed by common background knowledge between the speaker and hearer

1.3 Conversation

1.3.1 Conversation

In Vietnamese Dictionary (1995: 444) conversation is the using one language to

communicate with each other

According to Đỗ Thị Kim Liên (1999: 18) “conversation is one of verbal speech activities between two or more direct participants, in a particular context in which they interact in speech act or awareness act to achieve a specific goal”

Dictionary of English Language and Culture of Longman (1992: 279) conversation

is defined in a different way: “an informal talk in which people exchange news, feelings, and thoughts”

Through these concepts we can realize the important role of conversation in our daily lives, in the development of our society It is “the basis of social life” (Shotter, 1993)

Although the ways to define a conversation are various, all of them share the common idea that a conversation is a verbal speech act that involves more than one person in a particular context to exchange information and establish relationship between them

1.3.2 Context

Let us take an example: “How are you?” If this question is to ask a patient in a hospital, it is a request for information about the present state of health; whereas, if this question is to ask a friend whom you meet by chance in the street, it is a form of greeting

This example has shown us the important role of context in interpreting utterances

in conversation Therefore, the functions of language should be performed within a context As such, it seems crucially important to define the term context here

Context, as Lancaster (1975: 56-57) proposes as a term “includes a network of social relations”, or “sets the scene and shapes the meanings that will be attributed to what is said” as Neil Thompson (2003: 83) states

Context is divided into two types:

- The linguistic context: “is the language that surrounds or accompanies the piece of

discourse under the analysis.” It means that when we analyze the piece of discourse, we pay attention to the surrounding words, phrases, expression or sentences

However, linguistic context is not enough to identify meaning of a word; it only helps to narrow down its meaning Therefore, to understand it exactly in particular utterance, we should consider both linguistic context and its situational context For instance, “Where are you going?” normally refers to a greeting in Vietnamese when people meet each other However, it can be interpreted as a question for the place where the other person intended to go

- The non-linguistic or experiential context: within which the discourse takes place, the

topic, the purpose of event, the participants, their relationships, and the background knowledge and assumptions underlying the communicative event

In conclusion, context is the general frame, including the interlocutors, topic, time, and place in which the conversation is carried out Therefore, to achieve a successful communication we need pay attention to context in which the language is used

1.4 Speech Acts

The study of speech act has been a central concern of pragmatics and attention of many linguists Notably, John.L.Austin with “How to Do Things with Words” (1962), Grice’s theory of conversational implicature (1975), John Searle’s theory of indirect speech acts, etc

They all mentioned to speech acts under their own views The theory of speech acts aims to justice to the fact that even through words, phrases, sentences encode information, people do more things with words than convey information, and that when people do convey information, they often convey more than their words encode Therefore, in saying something one generally intends more than just to communicate- getting oneself understood is intended to produce some effects on the listener In other words, when producing utterances, people do not simply talk with correct grammar and appropriate lexis, but they want to convey more than that They are assumed to perform some actions via those utterances Whenever actions performed via utterances for the purpose of communicating are called speech acts For example, when we say “Ladies

and Gentlemen, may I have your attention, please?” we do not only produce those words but we also want the audience to do the action in that utterance, that is the act of requesting the audience to be quiet

In general, speech acts are acts of communication To communicate is to express a certain attitude, and the type of speech act being performed corresponds to the type of attitude being expressed For example, a statement expresses belief (E.g.: I will try my best to be at home for dinner), a request expresses a desire (E.g.: I left my wallet in the classroom, sir.), and an apology expresses regret (E.g.: I’m sorry I didn’t call back) As

an act of communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience identifies, in accordance with the speaker’s intention, the attitude being expressed

1.5 Face, Politeness and Indirectness

1.5.1 Face

In everyday social interactions, the participants attempt to maintain and express the

respect to others It is the effort to show the positive image or impression of one to other participant that is called “face” Therefore, “face” is a technical term to denote the public “self- image” that every member of society wants to claim for it Ritual constraints on communication include not only ways of presenting “self” but also the

ways in which we give “face” to others

According to Brown and Levinson (1978: 66) “Face” is “something that is

emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced and must be

constantly attended to in interaction”

Goffman (1967: 5) defines “face” as a self- delineated image in terms of self- approved social attributes According to Goffman, individuals in interaction use a pattern of verbal and non- verbal acts through which they express their views of the situation and the actors involved He added that the pattern might be conscious or unconscious The social value of that individual’s interactive practices is defined by the pattern others assume that the person has taken during a particular contact

In general, people cooperate in maintaining “face” in interaction Basically, for Brown and Levinson, “face” is the individual’s public self- image and they assume that each speaker comes into any conversation with two kinds of “face”:

- Negative face: This construct represents the desire of people not to have their actions impeded by others and it allows distance and a preservation of status

- Positive face: This concept represents the expression of solidarity and the desire to have one’s values approved by others

While positive and negative face wants exist in every individual and are presented in most societies, different cultures tend to place different emphasis on one of the two aspects of face

Brown and Levinson contend that any speech act has the potential of threatening either the face of the speaker or that of the hearer They believe that conversation is much more concerned with observing politeness expectations designed to ensure the

“redress of face than with the exchange of information.” They have proposed a direct relationship between social distance and politeness in such a way as to indicate that an increase in social distance will bring about an increase in the degree of politeness and vice versa The notion of politeness finds meaning when it is studied in the context of face-threatening acts (or FTA’s) that include positive and negative ones In other words, some FTA’s threaten negative face and some others threaten positive face The former includes directives such as commands, requests, advice, invitations, etc The latter, on the other hand, includes criticisms, insults, disagreements, and corrections

When contemplating performance of an FTA, speakers may select from among the following five general strategies:

1 A speaker may perform the FTA "baldly," without making any attempt to acknowledge the hearer's face wants;

E.g.: - Give that note to me

- Give me a pen

2 A speaker may perform the FTA while attending to the hearer's positive face wants, using what Brown and Levinson (1987) label a positive politeness strategy; E.g.: - "So, is it O.K if I use one of those pens?"

- I know you hate parties, John, but come anyway We’ll be there Come

on – get a life!

- How about letting me use your pen?

3 A speaker may go off record in performing the FTA The speaker performs the act in such a vague manner that could be interpreted by the hearer as some other act; E.g.: - "Hmm, I sure could use a blue pen right now."

- I forgot my pen

4 A speaker may perform the FTA with negative politeness, acknowledging the hearer's negative face wants, the desire to be unimpeded and not imposed on;

E.g.: - "I'm sorry to bother you but I just wanted to ask you if I could use one of those pens?"

- Sorry I’m bothering you I couldn’t borrow $30, could I, if you don’t need it right now?

- Could you lend me a pen?

5 A speaker may avoid doing the FTA altogether The speaker does not perform the FTA at all

E.g.: Action of searching in bag

(Cited from Brown and Levinson, 1987: 103-210)

1.5.2 Politeness

Reflected in language because of their very nature, politeness phenomena are generally considered to have the status of universal principles of human interaction Therefore, being polite is a complicated business in any language It is indeed very difficult to learn because it involves understanding not just the language, but also the social and cultural values of the community In fact, several linguists attempt to characterize aspects of politeness and to account for the rules that govern the use of language in context Such linguists as Goffman (1967), Lakoff (1973), Grice (1975), Leech (1983), and Brown & Levinson (1987) have deal with various aspects of politeness and proposed some principles for this concept

But of all of the above researchers, Brown & Levinson (1987) produce the deepest and most comprehensive account of perspectives of politeness in conversation analysis what they seek are linguistic universals that explain politeness phenomenon across languages, cultures, and domains Once such universals are identified and associated with their conversational implications, they will have enormous value for applied linguists Brown & Levinson also point out that much of the differences between the nominal meaning and implications of an expression can be explained in the light of the politeness theory

It has also been stressed that politeness strategies may have different orientations in different cultures (Brown and Levinson 1987, Hickey 1991) distinguishing between positive politeness strategies (those which show closeness and intimacy between

speaker and hearer) and negative politeness strategies (those which stress imposition upon the hearer and express deference)

The common factor in Lakoff’s (1975), Leech’s (1983), and Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) approaches is that they all claim, explicitly or implicitly, the universality

of their principles for linguistic politeness The general idea is to understand various strategies for interactive behaviors based on the fact that people engage in rational behaviors to achieve the satisfaction of certain wants

1.5.3 Indirectness

In communication, people do not often say directly what they intend In other words, they often say indirectly Some researchers think that the interactants do so because they want to be polite and that indirectness and politeness to be closely related, while others propose the contrastive result in their studies Notably, in the journal of pragmatics (1987), “Indirectness and Politeness in Requests: Same or Different?” Blum-Kulka approved for the later idea

The relationship between politeness and indirectness, therefore, is considered from two different points of view On one hand, it suggests that the reason for being indirect

is to be polite: if rational conversational principles, such as Grice’s, are abandoned it is for the sake of politeness On the other hand, it implies that the best way to be polite is

to be indirect: Brown & Levinson’s (1987) most indirect strategy (off- record strategy)

is the one to be used when the need for politeness is extreme As for the nature of indirectness, it is assumed that the content of an indirect speech act crucially depends on

an implicature, and is obtained by inference

When there is an indirect relationship between form and function, we have an indirect speech act A declarative may be used to make a request or a question, not a typical statement; or an interrogative function as a request or an exclamation not it’s typical

For examples:

You bought this book? (Declarative  Question)

Could you help me? (Interrogative  Request)

Give me your money! (Imperative  Request)

In order to understand the intended or pragmatic meaning of the speaker’s indirectness, the hearer must use background knowledge and the context of utterance For instance, a common greeting in the North of England is “Are you all right?” It is similar to “Hi, how are you?” in American English However, the learner of English

may mistake those utterances as a sincere question about the state of health, mental or physical

In human interaction, “indirectness is believed to be a motivated strategy used with all languages” (LoCastro, 2003: 120) The interlocutors use indirectness for the following purposes:

- First, to avoid hurting the feeling of the hearer, speaker wishes to use indirectness

- Second, in an individual’s conversational style or a preferred style of interaction in a particular culture, to achieve communicative goals, indirectness may be used at an unexamined level

- Third, when the hearer challenges the speaker, indirectness will serve as a mean to deny perceived intentions, avoid conflict, and escape from responsibility for an utterance

- Fourth, indirectness is considered equivalent to polite in communication, although researchers differ on this topic Thomas (1995: 119- 22) regards indirectness as a mean

to achieve communicative goals, face- saving being one Brown & Levinson (1987) propose, “The degree of indirectness is inversely proportional to the degree of face threat” It means that the greater the face threat, the greater the need to use linguistic politeness, and the more indirectness is used However, Blum- Kulka (1987), in her study points out that indirectness is different from politeness If a speaker is too indirect, there will be a lack of clarity; therefore, it is considered a marker of impoliteness

In fact, it is easy to see that highly indirect strategies, such as hints, are not intrinsically polite It is true that an utterance like: “It is hot in here, isn’t it?” can induce the hearer to open the window, or turn the fan on, without the speaker being responsible for having asked; but it is clear as well that this is not a polite form of requesting It could be understood more as an overt criticism than as a polite request

- Finally, to achieve or maintain power over others, indirectness is used

In summary, indirectness appears often in human interactions under the different purposes It is utilized, as a form is generally associated with greater politeness, notably

to help the speaker to avoid conflict, show the respect of one to others

CHAPTER 2- INDIRECT REQUESTS IN CONVERSATIONS- A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

Six sections will be introduced in this chapter: section 2.1 presents request as a speech act Next, indirectness- politeness in requesting and degrees of indirect requests are analyzed in sections 2.2 and 2.3 respectively Then section 2.4 points out factors affecting indirectness; section 2.5 considers indirect requests’ strategies in conversations Last but not least, section 2.6 presents some similarities and differences

of indirect requests in English and Vietnamese conversations

2.1 Request as a speech act

Request is defined in Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (1992: 768) as “an act

of asking for something in speech or writing, especially politely.”

Requesting behavior, according to Searle’s (1979) classification system of speech acts, falls into the directives, the function of which is that the speaker attempts to get the hearer to do something by means of what he says It is also regarded as a face- threatening act (FTA), in Brown & Levinson’s terms (1987), which involves risk to either the speaker’s or the hearer’s face

In other words, request: a pre-event act that expresses the speaker’s expectation toward some prospective action on the part of the hearer; by its very nature, calls for mitigation and compensation for their impositive effect on the hearer by means of a polite and tactful behavior Thereby, the study of requests has attracted more and more attention in the study of speech acts

In performing a request, the speaker should always adhere to the principles of politeness; no mater what the object of his/ her request is because requesting occurs in a situation of inequality The requester always wants to get an object, which is lacking and the requestee may provide

For example: This room would look a lot better if you dusted it

You have time enough to dust before you go

Didn’t you ask me to remind you to dust this place?

Or in Vietnamese: Anh có thể cho tôi nhờ máy gọi về nhà một chút được không? Lan ơi, có bật lửa không?

Chỉ cho em cách làm bài tập này với được không anh?

The speaker wishes the hearer recognize his/ her intention, he/ she may utilize different kinds of request forms which their usage is motivated by different factors, such

as desire to be understood, desire to be polite, the relationship between speaker- hearer, context, imposition and the culture of each community

In request, it is always the requester who directly or indirectly benefits from the act

at the cost of the requestee and threats his “face.” In day- to- day interactions between the members of a community, each action is performed to maintain someone’s “face” and to avoid losing “face.” Since a requester appeals to the requestee’s assistance, he/ she is potentially threatening the requestee’s “negative face.” The intensity of this threat varies with the level of imposition of the requested act and the conditions under which the request is made For instance, when someone asks another the way to the hospital, the requested “matter” is not likely to threaten the requestee’s face very much Of course, this cannot be the case when a request involves greater imposition or restriction

on the requestee’s freedom, such as lending money or giving a lift Therefore, on one hand, to maximize the chance that a listener will catch the speaker’s intention in requesting, the speaker should use directives that are clear and emphatic On the other hand, to maximize the chance that a listener will comply with the request, the speaker should use directives that are polite or indirect

However, the use of such strategies is different in different cultures A formula like

“Can you pass the salt?” would be understood as a polite request in English but in other cultures, the same example would receive a more straightforward interpretation For example, if you use it while speaking to a Thai partner, you would obtain the opposite effect: he/ she will immediately understand that you are overtly casting some doubts on his/ her ability to do something, and will become very angry

In the production of requests, there are internal modifications, such as downgraders

or softeners They are used to mitigate the force of the request, and upgraders are used

to increase the force Similarly, external modification devices that appear before or after the head act can also be downgrading and softening or upgrading and thus increasing the force In addition speakers’ perspectives are analyzed from the hearer’s perspective (E.g.: Can you), the speakers’ perspective (E.g.: Can I), inclusive perspectives (E.g.: Can we), or impersonal (E.g.: Would it)

In conclusion, requesting is one kind of speech acts used variously and widely in human interactions Different requests are made to accomplish different purposes, so it seems likely that requests for different purposes might be made using a different style

2.2 Indirectness- Politeness in requesting

According to researchers, requests can be divided into direct and indirect ones Overall, more direct requests were used than indirect and vice versa; they depend very much on each culture For example: in English, people tend to make requests indirectly Generally, they avoid direct requests However, in Vietnamese, they prefer to use requests in imperative form Direct requests were defined as imperative (E.g.: You can put it away) and questions (E.g.: So where does the yellow one go then?), and since these two types of requests were the most frequent, it makes sense that together they would appear the most Directness is appreciated in culture that value clarity and individuality, where indirectness can be viewed as “slippery” or “weak” On the other hand, indirectness is appreciated in culture that value relationships and context, where directness is seen as intrusive and impolite We may be more direct when we are uncertain about how the other person will interpret an indirect message, and we are probably going to be more indirect with people who know us well and can “read” our subtle cues

The notion of politeness is often associated with indirectness It has been claimed that the degree of indirectness in requests is closely related to politeness Indirectness, according to Searle (1975), is manifested when locutionary sense and illocutionary force

of an utterance do not match; that is, there is a discrepancy between the speaker’s intention and the literal sentence meaning in his/her utterances Therefore, using indirect requests helps to diminish the illocutionary force of requesting and thus minimize the threat to the hearer’s face Moreover, as Brown & Levinson claims, the choice of indirectness is influenced by the seriousness of an FTA, which is determined by the three sociological variables –relative power, social distance, and imposition ranking The more serious an FTA is, the more indirect the FTA needs to be As a general rule, the more indirectly a request is realized, the more polite it is The empirical studies on politeness and indirectness, however, found that the order of politeness level is not exactly the same as the order of indirectness level in some languages For example, Blum-Kulka (1987) points out that in English politeness and indirectness are associated with each other only in the case of conventional indirectness (query preparatory), but not in the case of non-conventional indirectness (hints) Internal modification features (lexical or syntactical downgraders) are often used in native English speakers’ requests

to minimize the impositive force of the requestive act Therefore, the original rule

indicating the one-to-one relationship between politeness and indirectness needs to be reconsidered

For example: “Give me the time” is not being impolite in those communities at all Different communities use politeness differently, they are characterized by different views on politeness This does, however, not mean that Brown & Levinson were wrong

in their judgment about the universality of the politeness mechanism Later researchers made clear that each culture does have its own application of the same universal mechanism, its own conventions Even between cultures that seem to be closer related, conventions can differ

In Vietnamese, according to Nguyễn Quang (2001: 23), indirectness is not fully accompanied with politeness

E.g.: “Em quét nhà cho anh nhé”- a direct request

(You sweep the floor)

is more polite than:

“Nhà với cửa gì mà bẩn như chuồng lợn thế này”- an indirect request

(The house is like a pigpen)

In short, the researchers have different points of view on the relationship between indirectness and politeness The nature of this relationship varies according to the different cultures

2.3 Degrees of indirect requests

A request strategy is the obligatory choice of the level of directness by which the request is realized Different options in terms of the level of “directness” can be chosen for the realization of the request There have been several attempts in theoretical, as well

as empirical work on the speech act of request (House&Kasper, 1981; Blum-Kulka, 1984) to set up a classification of request strategies that would form a cross linguistically valid scale of directness According to Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper (1989: 18) indirect request can be divided into two degrees: conventionally indirect (suggestory formulae and query preparatory) and non- conventionally indirect (strong hints and mild hints)

2.3.1 Conventionally indirect requests

2.3.1.1 Suggestory formulae

Suggestory formulae: utterances that contain a suggestion to do X We can make requests in the suggestory formulae by using one of the forms like: How about doing…?

/ What about doing…? / How about assisting me with…? / Are you planning to do…? / Why don’t you…? / Shall we ? / Let’s do…/ Etc

For example:

1 (…) Ground steward: No, I’m sorry, Madam It’s… the limit is 20 kilos But,

look, why don’t you take something out of your baggage and put it in your hand

luggage? And then you’ll be OK

Marisol: Oh! OK, thank you very much (…)

(Think first certificate- Jon Naunton, Longman, 1994: 176)

2 “Will you tell me if they do?”

“Certainly.”

(The Runaway Jury- John Grisham, 1996: 96)

3 Brenda: You’re drunk! Shall I drive?

George: No, I’m OK I’ll drive

(Streamline English Departures- B Hartley & P Viney, 1994:

342-344)

4 Clerk: … Will you sign the cheques please?

Koji: Yes, of course…

(BBC beginners’ English- J Garton et.al., 1997: 110)

2.3.1.2 Query preparatory

They are utterances containing reference to preparatory conditions as conventionalized in any specific language They contain reference to “ability” (E.g.,

“Can/ Could you exchange it, please?”); “possibility” (E.g., “Is it/ Would it be possible

to refund my money?”); “willingness” (E.g., “Would you mind moving your car?”);

“knowledge” (E.g., “Do you know where my red bandanna is?”); and “permission” (E.g., “May I/ Can I/ Could I exchange it?”)

For example:

1 (…) Waiter: Er… Ah! Er… I’m afraid all the tables there are… are taken

Would you mind sitting near… near the bar?

Bob: Oh, yes, all right (…)

Bob: … Um… oh, there isn’t a menu… er… er; do you think you could ask the

people at the next table if we could look at their menu?

Brenda: Yes, of course Um… Excuse me, could you possibly let us see your

menu? Oh, they haven’t got one either

Bob: Er, oh, I’ll… I’ll ask these people at this table Um, I wonder if you could

possibly let us have a look at your menu…Thank you! ( )

Bob: Oh, could you possibly catch his eye?

Brenda: Yeah Um, waiter!

Waiter: Yes, madam

Bob: Ah, waiter… Um, I wonder if you could tell me what “soup of the Day” is,

please

Waiter: Certainly, yes (…)

(Functions of English- Leo Jones, 1981: 14- 15)

2 (…) Paul: …Hey, do you think I could borrow your car for a few hours?

Andy: I’m sorry, but I really need it this afternoon

Paul: Well, could you drive me home? I have spare keys there (…)

(New person to person: Communicative speaking and listening skills- Richards et.al.,

thus reducing your life span each time you smoke.”; “I’m trying to find out about

refunds for delayed flight.”; “The game is boring.”.)

For example:

1 A: Is there a post office near here? - As a request to tell the way to the post

office

(Streamline English Departures- B Hartley & P Viney- 1994: 53)

2 C: Excuse me, is this seat free? - As a request for a seat

(…) C: Er, … is that your newspaper? - As a request to borrow the newspaper (Streamline English Departures- B Hartley & P Viney- 1994: 131-

3 Brenda: Oh, thank you darling… and I’m thirsty - As a request for something to

drink

George: All right I’ll make you a cup of tea

(Streamline English Departures- B Hartley & P Viney- 1994: 342-

344)

4 Arthur: Certainly Er… I can’t find my pen and there isn’t one on the desk.- as a

request to borrow a pen

(Kernel lessons- intermediate- R O’neill et.al -Longman Press- 1997:

60)

2.3.2.1 Mild hints

Utterances that make no reference to the request proper (or any of its elements) but are interpretable as requests by context are mild hints The mild hint requests and strong hint ones share the similarity in the form of question and statement (E.g., “I am a nun”

in response to a persistent hassle; “We’ve been playing this game for over an hour now.”; “Grandad Look at the signs I'm sure on your pension the last thing you need is

a 50 pound fine.”; “Look, I'm sorry but I've got to go, I'm in a rush, taraa.”; “I'm sorry, I've got to go and wash my hair.”; “Be like the pope.” (The pope doesn’t smoke.);

“We don’t like finding the room in a mess.”; “You’ve been busy here, haven’t you?”; “I need to go to the cash point because I’m broke!”- As a request for lesson payment;

“Don't you think it's cool in here”- as a request to close the window; “I'll be back next Thursday”- as a request to meet him at the station, cook them a nice dinner etc of a

husband to his wife; “We don’t want any crowding”- as a request to move the car) However, people involve in daily conversations do not utilize much mild hints when they make requests One of the possible reasons for this is that non-conventionally indirect strategies require the hearer to deduce the speaker’s intention, which can be a burden to the hearer

For example:

1 Brenda: Oh, darling, I feel terribly tired!

George: Well, sit down I’ll do the washing- up

(Streamline English Departures- B Hartley & P Viney- 1994: 342-

344)

2.4 Factors affecting indirectness

When making requests, there are several factors affecting the choice of indirect degrees However, different researchers have different views on this aspect

Brown and Levinson (1987) identify three independent and culturally sensitive variables that subsume all the others Absolute ranking (R) of impositions in the culture refers to the potential expenditure of goods and services by the hearer Social distance (D) refers to the distance between the speaker and the hearer This represents the degree

of familiarity and solidarity they share Relative power (P) refers to the power of the speaker with respect to the hearer This reflects the degree to which the speaker can impose his/her will on the hearer Thus R varies depending on the particular speech act while P and D are constant across all speech acts for any two interlocutors In other words, power relationships constrain communicative action universally, but actors’ assessment of the weight and values of these universal context factors varies substantively cross-culturally

According to Blum-Kulka (1987), the degree to which a request is regarded as socially appropriate in a given culture lies in several factors Among them, the interlocutor’s relative social status- requests directed to superiors, in a given culture, might be phrased in less direct terms than requests addressed to social juniors, or vice-versa- leads to variations in the actualizations of the requestive speech acts More importantly, the relative weight placed on each type of request strategy varies from culture to culture due to cross-cultural variations For instance, within the same set of social obligations, members of one culture might express a request more or less directly than their counterparts in another culture Finally, members in the same society might differ in their speech act realization patterns, depending on personal variables such as sex, age, or even level of education and status She also adds that the level of directness

of a request has strong correlations with the expectations of rights and obligations between hearers and speakers: the greater the right of the speaker to ask and the greater the obligation of the hearer to comply, the less the motivation for the use of indirectness

Levinson (1987) has developed an explicit model of politeness that they claim to have validity across cultures The basic idea is to understand various strategies for interaction between the individuals of a certain community People are engaged in rational behavior to realize certain wants Wants related to politeness are wants of face, something that involves an emotional dimension that can be lost, maintained or enhanced, but must be constantly adhered to in communication House and Kasper (1981) claim that when the relative facethreat increases, a speaker will select a more

over positive politeness when the relative face-threat is high since negative politeness strategies are more redressive than positive politeness strategies It is also proposed that

a speaker must determine the seriousness or the weightiness of a face threatening act in terms of three independent and culturally – sensitive variables:

1- The power differences between the speaker and the addressee (Asking a favor from a friend, for example, is more easily done than asking the same favor of a superior) 2- The social distance between the speaker and the addressee (It is easier to perform a face-threatening act with an acquaintance than with a stranger)

3- The rate of imposition of a specific face-threatening act (Showing the way to the hospital is not as difficult as giving a lift to the hospital)

To sump up, requests are face threatening acts (Brown and Levinson 1987), since a speaker is imposing his will on the hearer; thus the choice of requestive strategies depends on the three factors: the social distance between a speaker and a hearer, the power that a hearer has over a speaker, and culture

2.5 Indirect requests’ strategies in conversations

In daily conversations, we can find the four indirect requests’ strategies: downgraders internal modifications, upgraders internal modifications, supportive moves, and perspectives

2.5.1 Internal modifications- Downgraders

1 Negation of preparatory conditions: E.g., “Can’t we get them over here?”

(The Runaway Jury- John Grisham, 1996: 144)

2 Subjunctive: Could/Would you ? If it was possible…

E.g., Arthur: … Could you lend me yours?

Receptionist: Of course…

Receptionist: … Would you tell us as soon as you know?

(Kernel lessons- intermediate- R O’neill et.al.-Longman Press- 1997:

60)

3 Aspect: E.g., “… I was wondering if you could lend me the book.”

(Một số vấn đề giao tiếp nội văn hoá và giao văn hoá, Nguyễn Quang-

Syntactic downgraders

5 Conditional clause: E.g., If you could lend me ₤1, I’d be very grateful

(Functions of English- Leo Jones, 1981: 16)

6 Politeness marker: An optional element added to a request to elicit cooperative

behavior

E.g., Q: Could you bring us some more tea, please?

R: Of course, sir

(Streamline English Departures- B Hartley & P Viney- 1994: 114)

7 Understater: An adverbial modifier that under-represents the state of affairs denoted

in the proposition (a little bit; just All )

E.g1 C: May I borrow it for a minute, please?

D: Yes, certainly

(Streamline English Departures- B Hartley & P Viney- 1994: 131-

132)

E.g2 Paul: … Hey, do you think I could borrow your car for a few hours?

Andy: I’m sorry, but I really need it this afternoon

(New person to person: Communicative speaking and listening skills- Richards et.al.,

1995: 65)

8 Subjectivizer: An element that explicitly expresses the speaker’s subjective opinion

about the situation

E.g., A: I wonder if you could lend me your dictionary…

B: I’d like to say yes, but I’m using it myself Perhaps later

(Functions of English- Leo Jones, 1981: 18)

9 Downtoner: A sentential or propositional modifier that is used to modulate the

impact of the request (Possibly/ perhaps)

E.g., Waiter: … I wonder if I could possibly ask you to move to a table near the

window after all?

(Functions of English- Leo Jones, 1981: 14-15)

Lexical & phrasal downgraders

10 Appealer: An element that is used to elicit a signal of understanding from the

hearer

E.g., Brenda: Well, will you do it today?

George: Yes, I’ll do it now…

(Streamline English Departures- B Hartley & P Viney- 1994: 342-

344)

2.5.2 Internal modifications- Upgraders

1 Commitment indicator: A sentence modifier that indicates the speaker’s heightened

degree of commitment to the situation

E.g., I’m sure/certain you can exchange this shirt for me

2 Expletive: An adjectival modifier that indicates the speaker’s anxiety

E.g., Why don’t you exchange that damn shirt?

3 Time intensifier: An adverbial modifier that emphasizes the urgency of the situation

E.g., Can you exchange this shirt now/ immediately?

4 Pejorative determiner: A determiner that emphasizes certain objects denoted in the

E.g., “Could you do me a favor?”

(The Runaway Jury- John Grisham, 1996: 55)

2 Grounder: A reason, explanation, or justification for making a request

E.g1 Bob: Now let’s have a… er… oh, I… I don’t seem to have any cigarettes on

me Have you got a cigarette, by any chance?

Brenda: I’m awfully sorry, but you see I’ve given up

Bob: … Um… oh, there is’t a menu… er… er, do you think you could ask the

people at the next table if we could look at their menu?

(Functions of English- Leo Jones, 1981: 14-15)

3 Disarmer: An utterance that attempts to eliminate any potential objections

Apology: An utterance that takes the form of an apology

E.g., Sorry to trouble you But I wonder if you could possibly…

(Functions of English- Leo Jones, 1981: 15)

2.5.4 Perspectives

In day- to- day interactions, people use indirect requests usually with the respect of

four perspectives: you (hearer) - perspective, we (speaker/ hearer) - perspective, I

(speaker) - perspective and impersonal perspective Each strategy is utilized to suit with

the different cultures, situations as well as purposes

1 You (hearer)-perspective: is inclined to the hearers, therefore, to give them more

options or to call their willingness

E.g., - “Can you show me some cameras, please?”

- “… Could you bring me the bill, please?”

- “… Can you get it for me? It’s over there.”

(Streamline English Departures- B Hartley & P Viney- 1994: 114-

115)

- “… Would you mind sitting near… near the bar?”

(Functions of English- Leo Jones, 1981: 14- 15)

2 We (speaker/hearer)-perspective: including both the speaker and the hearer in the

request utterances From this, people can create the common ground for the need of the action

E.g., Can we please meet to go over …?

3 I (speaker)-perspective: if you – perspective refers to the hearer, I – perspective is in

favour of the speaker aspect It often used when we would like to have the permission from our interactant

E.g., - “… Can I see your passport?”

(Streamline English Departures- B Hartley & P Viney- 1994: 105-

106)

- “I wonder what “Mexican Dressing” is.”

(Functions of English- Leo Jones, 1981: 14- 15)

4 Impersonal perspective: used when the speaker does not want to mention or

emphasize to the hearer or both of them’ obligation to do or not to do things i.e the speaker avoids hurting anyone involve in conversation

E.g., Is it possible to meet tomorrow afternoon?

Would it be possible to get this paper to you by Monday?

2.6 Similarities and differences of indirect requests in English and Vietnamese conversations

In the previous sections, indirect requests are mentioned specifically Although request is seen as a face-threatening act, in real life its power cannot deny We can use indirect requests to achieve effectively what we want in all most situations However, how to use it appropriately is still under the consideration of many researchers in the line with the speech act It is suggested that to have a successful conversation, when

making indirect requests we have to pay much attention to the factors affecting their usage In different cultures, different contexts indirect requests’ strategies are utilized differently Therefore, we would like to compare them to see some similarities as well

as differences of indirect requests in English and Vietnamese conversations From this,

we can understand and apply them effectively in daily life as well as in teaching and learning English and Vietnamese

2.6.1 Similarities

Obviously, both English and Vietnamese share some similarities when making indirect requests They all use this type to ask another to do or not to do something they want In other words, people have the same purpose or communicative goal when requesting indirectly

When a request is made, the listener must recognize two different intended effects First is the intended illocutionary effect, and understanding this means that the listener understands what the speaker is trying to say in context Second is the intended perlocutionary effect in which the listener understands what the speaker intends the listener to do

One of the most common types of indirect request in both the two languages has the form of an interrogative, but is not typically used to ask a question (i.e people do not expect only an answer, they expect an action: to do X or not to do X)

For example:

- W: I’m not sure Can you measure me?

X: Yes, certainly… You’re thirty- six This one’s the right size

is a request to measure

(Streamline English Departures- B Hartley & P Viney- 1994: 216)

- Mày đứng đấy à?

(Are you standing there?)

is a request to sweep the floor

(Quoted in Bài học quét nhà, Nam Cao, NXBVHTT, 2005: 341)

Or - Điếc hay sao thế?

(Are you deaf?)

is a request to reply

(Quoted in Cười, Nam Cao, NXBVHTT, 2005: 252)

In English, a person making indirect requests by asking a question about the hearer’s assumed ability (“Can you…?”; “Could you…?); suggesting (“Why don’t

you…?) or future likelihood with regard to doing something (“Will you…?”; “Would you…?”) It is similar to: “Anh/ Chị có thể… chứ/ được không?”; “Sao không…?” or

“Anh/ Chị sẽ (giúp)… chứ/ được không (ạ)?” They are utterances in which the action is stated overtly in an interrogative form It is not a question however, since the action is expected rather than a reply to a question Those ways give the hearers more option to

do or not to do something; therefore, they can decide to decline or to comply the requests

For example:

- Anh có thể nhắc lại một lần nữa không?

(Can you repeat?)

is a request to repeat

(Quoted in Vòng tròn bội bạc, Chu Lai, NXB Văn Học, 1999: 33)

- Ốm quá thế thì nằm nhà đắp chiếu mà nghỉ có hơn không?

(You’re so ill Isn’t it better to stay home, covered in a mat to rest?)

is a request to stay at home

(Quoted in Điếu văn, Nam Cao, NXBVHTT, 2005: 161)

- Anh có thể cho tôi xem cái công văn ấy được không?

(Can you let me read that announcement?)

is a request to let him read the announcement

(Quoted in Vòng tròn bội bạc, Chu Lai, NXB Văn Học, 1999: 316)

- Kìa sao anh không ngồi xuống?

(Hey, why don’t you sit down?)

is a request to sit down

(Quoted in Nửa đ êm, Nam Cao, NXBVHTT, 2005: 433)

In addition, both in English and in Vietnamese, in order to understand the speaker’s intention in an indirect request, the listener must utilize both linguistic and non-linguistic information, knowledge of the principles of conversation, and inferences when necessary Not all indirect requests require the same amount of effort of inference however Some indirect speech acts are routine and conventional, presumably types such as embedded imperatives, need or want statements, and suggestions, so understanding is guided by stable interpretation methods Other request types are less conventional and utilize a speech frame that is not routine and may have an intended illocutionary effect that is not always directive Question directives and hints fall into

this category For these requests, the difficulty of making the inference is impacted by the indirectness of the request

For example:

- Bu ơi con đ ói…

(Mum, I’m hungry…)

is a request to feed

(Quoted in Nghèo, Nam Cao, NXBVHTT, 2005: 69)

Or the utterance can be less obvious to interpret the speaker’s meaning, therefore, a hint request like:

- Mày có câm không nào?

(Are you going to shut up?)

is a request to shut up

(Quoted in Giăng sáng, Nam Cao, NXBVHTT, 2005: 224)

- Có dậy không? Ông lại xách cổ lên bây giờ!

(Are you going to get up? Or now I’ll carry your neck!)

(Quoted in Số đỏ, Vũ Trọng Phụng, was downloaded from

http://www.google.com on December 27, 2007)

- Ai khiến nhà bác chõ mồm vào đây thế?

(Who urges you to interfere?)

is a request to the listener not to interfere in the speaker’s business

(Quoted in Dì Hảo, Nam Cao, NXBVHTT, 2005: 20)

In the line with “Please” in English, politeness markers such as: “dạ, ạ, làm ơn…” in Vietnamese are used to show the politeness and to soften the imposition of the requests:

- Chị cho hỏi nhà anh Vận ở đâu ạ?

(Can you tell me where Van’s house is, please?)

(Quoted in Vòng tròn bội bạc, Chu Lai, NXB Văn Học, 1999: 78)

- Bác làm ơn cho tôi dọn đồ đạc để cho người ta dỡ…

(Can I move your furnitures out for others to strike, please?)

(Quoted in Mua nhà, Nam Cao, NXBVHTT, 2005: 246)

Interestingly, the lexical modal markers are also used in Vietnamese indirect requests like: “nhé, nhỉ, phiền, một chút, ít phút, tranh thủ, chút xíu, một ít, một tý…” In some cases, Vietnamese use it often to soften the utterance, but in some others, they use

it to show the distance between the interlocutors However, in general, lexical modal

markers are utilized to express the respect i.e to safe the hearer’s face and to confirm that they are the polite ones

- Khuya rồi, về nhà mình đi, ăn một chút gì cho ấm bụng…

(It’s too late at night Let’s go to my house and eat just a little bit…)

(Quoted in Vòng tròn bội bạc, Chu Lai, NXB Văn Học, 1999: 233)

- Dạ! Thưa đồng chí bí thư, đồng chí tranh thủ cho chúng tôi được làm việc với đồng

chí ít phút…

(Secretary, let’s take advance of an opportunity to work with you for a few minutes…)

(Quoted in Vòng tròn bội bạc, Chu Lai, NXB Văn Học, 1999: 190)

However, there are several differences existing between the two languages in indirect requests’s strategies using in everyday conversations It is because of the very natural features of each culture

2.6.2 Differences

In daily conversations, we can find some unsimilarities between English and Vietnamese’ indirect requests like: usage of address forms; and usage of folk poetry, proverb and idiom Generally, the English tend to use negative politeness while the Vietnamese are more in favour of positive politeness It can be easy to explain this orientation: English people respect their own equality and individualism; the Vietnamese affected very much by the age, social status However, we cannot say that which culture is more polite than the other in using request’s strategies or indirect ones

in particular As mentioned above, politenesses as well as indirectness are determined

by many factors First of all, let’s look at the difference between the two languages in indirect requests at the level of the address forms

2.6.2.1 Usage of address forms

Commonly, “I- You” are mainly used in English conversations For example, a waiter to a customer, a vicar to a Christian believer, a boss to an inferior, a mother to a child, two lovers, etc regardless of the age, social status, gender factors However, in Vietnamese, interactors pay much attention to those factors Therefore, they can easily express the emotion, the relationship, the respect i.e the attitude to their interlorcutors

- People employ title to show the respect and the distance in the regard of the social status:

For example: Dạ! Thưa đồng chí bí thư, đồng chí tranh thủ cho chúng tôi được làm

việc với đồng chí ít phút…

(Secretary, let’s take advance of an opportunity to work with you for a few minutes…)

(Quoted in Vòng tròn bội bạc, Chu Lai, NXB Văn Học, 1999: 190)

- More interestingly enough, the kinship terms such as: cụ, ông, bà, cô, chú, bác,

mợ, thím, dì, etc are not only used for family members but also for social ones as well: For example:

+, Bác làm ơn cho tôi dọn đồ đạc để cho người ta dỡ…

(Can I move your furnitures out for others to strike, please?)

Bác- Tôi: house buyer and house seller

(Quoted in Mua nhà, Nam Cao, NXBVHTT, 2005: 246)

+, Chúng cháu không dám chắc lép nhưng quả là ít vốn

(We are not haft trustful haft suspicious, but we have really little capital.)

is the seller’s request to ask Chí Phèo to pay money immediately

(Quoted in Chí Phèo, Nam Cao, NXBVHTT, 2005: 40)

- In contrary, the basic personal pronouns such as: mày, tao, tớ…that often used between the social members, but also used in family Therefore, when interpreting the indirect requests exactly, we are advised to consider the context where the conversations happening

For example: Những thằng này hỗn! Chỗ chúng mày ngồi đấy à?

(You naughty boys! Are these your seats?)

Thằng, chúng mày: father talk to his sons

(Quoted in Trẻ con không được ăn thịt chó, Nam Cao, NXBVHTT, 2005:

85)

- Obviously, proper names like: Nam, Minh, Lan… also appear frequently in indirect requests in day- to- day interactions For instance:

Nghỉ hè này Lưu ở đây cho vui nhé!

(Luu, how about staying here this summer holiday?)

(Quoted in Truyện tình, Nam Cao, NXBVHTT, 2005:170)

- Interestingly enough, to show the social hierarchy, Vietnamese often employ

“Thưa”, Bẩm” such as: thưa bà, thưa ông, bẩm bà, bẩm ông…Indirect requests, therefore, can be more polite i.e the speaker can achieve the successful communicative goal through the hearer who has the higher social status and higher age as well by using that way For example: