2. Limitations of the study and suggestions for further studies
2.2. Suggestions for Further Studies
Although similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese declining invitations in terms of cross-cultural perspective have been investigated so far in the thesis, it cannot cover all the aspects relating to such broad cultural and linguistic convention like declining and its related issues. As a result, further researches can further find out more about this topic. Here are some suggestions:
A comparative study on hedges in declining invitation in English and Vietnamese in terms of politeness strategies.
A comparative study on using hedges in English and Vietnamese before giving bad news.
A comparative study on hedges in refusing request in English and Vietnamese.
The thesis has been completed with greatest efforts. However, during the
making of the thesis, shortcomings and mistakes are inevitably unavoidable.
Therefore, sympathetic comments and suggestions are highly appreciated
REFERENCES
1. Austin, J.L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Back, K., and Harnish, R. (1979) Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
3. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B.S. (1991). Congruence in native and nonnative conversations: Status balance in the academic advising session. Language Learning, 40,467-501.
4. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B.S. (1991). Saying “No” in English:
Native and nonnative rejections. In L.Bouton, & Y. Kachru(Ed.),Pragmatics and languagelearning, 2, 41-57.
5. Bardovi-Harlig, K., & Hartford, B.S. (1993). Redefining the DCT:
Comparing openquestionnaires and dialogue completion tasks. In L.Bouton,
& Y. Kachru(Ed.), 143-65. Pragmatics and Language Learning,4,
6. Brow, P, & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.
7. Channell, J. (1994) (ed.) Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press
8. Crawford, A.C. (1966).Customs and culture of Vietnam. Hanoi: Charles E.
Tuttle Company
9. Crystal, D. and D. Davy (1975). Advanced Conversational English.
London: Longman
10. Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational Routine (pp. 259-271). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
11. Fraser, B., & Nolan, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93- 109
12. Giáp, Nguyễn Thiện. (2007). Dụng học Việt ngữ. Hà Nội: Nhà Xuất Bản Đại Học Quốc Gia Hà Nội.
13. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior.
New York: Pantheon Books
14. Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London:
Longman.
15. House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.).Politeness markers in English and German(pp.
157-85)
16. Holmes, Janet. (1995).Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman 17. House, J. (1989). Politeness in English and German: The function of please and bitte. In Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. &Kasper, G. (Ed.), Cross- cultural Pragmatics:
18. Hübler, A. (1983). Understatement and Hedges in English.
Pragmatics and Beyond IV(6). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
19. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
20. Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness; or minding your p’s and q’s.
Papers from the9th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Lingustic Society (pp.292-305). Chicago,IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
21. Lakoff, R. (1975).Language and woman’s place. New York. Harper and Row
22. Lakoff, R. (1972). Language in context. Language 48, No. 4: 907-927 23. Lakoff, R. (1972). Fraser, B. (1981). On apologizing. In F. Coulmas (Ed.),Conversational Routine(pp. 259-271). The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.
24. Labov, W & Fanshel, D (1977). Therapeutic discourse: psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Acadamic Press.
25. Loewenberg, I. (1982). Labels and Hedges: The Metalinguistic Turn.
Language and Style
26. Low, G. (1996). Intensifiers and hedges in Questionnaire items and the lexical invisibility hypothesis. Applied Linguistics. 17 (1): 1-37.XV(3): 193- 207.
27. Murphy, B. and Neu, J. (1996). My grade’s too low: The speech act set of complaining. In S. M. Gass and J. Neu (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures:
Challenges to
communication in a second language(pp. 191-216). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
28. Paltridge, B. (2000). Making Sense of Discourse Analysis. Australia: Gold Coast Mail Centre.
29. Phe, Hoang (chu bien). (2002). Tu dien tieng viet. Nxb KHXH, Ha Noi 30. Prince, E. F., Frader, J., & Bosk, C. (1982). On hedging in physician- physician discourse. In R. J. Di Pietro (Ed.), Linguistics and the professions (pp. 83-97). Hillsdale, NJ: Ablex.
31. Quang, Nguyen (2003). Các chiến lược lịch sự dương tính trong giao tiếp.
Ngôn ngữ, số 13.
32. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.
33. Richard J. C., Platt J., Webber H. (1992) Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Longman.
34. Rounds, P. (1982). Hedging in Academic Discourse: Precision and Flexibility. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
35. Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts- An essay in the philosophy of language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Searle, J.R. (1975). Indirect speech act. In P. Cole, & J. Morgan (Ed.) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech acts(pp.59-82). New York: Academic Press.
37. Stubbs, Michael (1983). Discourse analysis: the sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
38. Walters, J. (1979). Strategies for requesting in Spanish and English:
Structural similarities and pragmatic differences. Language Learning, 29,277-293
39. Wolfson (1988) Wolfson, N. (1988). The Bulge: A theory of speech behavior and social distance. In J.Fine (Ed.),Second language discourse: A textbook of current research.. Norwood: NJ: Ablex.
40. Wolfson, N. (1989). The social dynamics of native and non-native variation incomplimenting behaviour. In M. Eisenstein (Ed.),The dynamic interlanguage
(pp.219-236). New York: Plenum.
41. Wolfson, N., Marmor, T., & Jones, S. (1989). Problems in the comparison of speech actacross cultures. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Ed.), Cross- cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies(pp.174-196). Norwood:
Ablex
42. Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of Pragmatics, 9,145-178.
43. Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English speech act verbs: A semantic dictionary.
Sydney; Orlando, Fla.; London: Academic Press.
44. Yule, G. (1996).Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45.Yule, G. (1996). The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
46. Zadeh, L. A. (1972). A fuzzy-set-theoretical interpretation of linguistic hedges. Journal of Cybernetics 1972; 2: 4–3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ...i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... ii
LIST OF TABLES...iii
LIST OF FIGURES ...iii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...iv
PART A: INTRODUCTION... 1
1. Rationale of the study... 1
2. Aims and objectives of the study... 3
3. Research questions... 3
4. Scope of the study... 3
5. Design of the study ... 4
PART B: INTRODUCTION ... 5
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND... 5
1.1.Generalization of speech acts ... 5
1.1.1 Definitions of speech acts... 5
1.1.2 Classification of speech acts... 7
1.2. Politeness theory ... 9
1.2.1 Politeness strategies... 9
1.2.2 Politeness in Vietnamese language... 10
1.3. The notion of face and Face-threatening act ... 11
1.4.Hedge... 13
1.4.1 The notion of hedge... 13
1.4.2 Classification of Hedges... 17
1.4.3 Hedges in Invitation Declining... 20
1.5. Factors affecting directness and indirectness in human interaction .. 23
1.6. Social Distance and Social Status ... 24
1.6.1 Social distance: ... 24
1.6.2 Social status... 24
1.7. Pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics ... 25
CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY ... 27
2.1. Participants... 27
2.2. Research procedure ... 28
2.3. Data collection instruments ... 28
2.4. Research method ... 29
CHAPTER III: FINDING AND DISCUSSION ... 31
3.1 An overview of results ... 31
3.2. Results of data analysis ... 39
3.2.1. The choice of hedging strategy to decline invitation in high power settings... 39
3.2.2. The choice of hedging strategy to decline invitation in equal
power settings ... 43
3.2.3. The choice of hedging strategy to decline invitation in low power settings... 47
3.3. Discussion ... 51
3.3.1.: The similarities and differences between the ways English native
speakers and Vietnamese speakers using hedges to decline invitations. ... 51
3.3.2. The effect of social distance and relative power to the choice of
hedging strategy by native speakers of English and Vietnamese native speakers. ... 53
PART C: CONCLUSION ... 55
1. Summary, major findings and implications on teaching ... 55
1.1. Summary... 55
1.2. Major findings... 56
1.3. Implications on teaching... 57