View
560
Download
3
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HO CHI MINH CITY
UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY: POLITENESS IN
ISSUING ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE SPOKEN
INVITATIONS
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts (TESOL)
Supervisor ÑAËNG THÒ HÖÔÛNG, EdD
Submitted by LEÂ BÍCH THUÛY
Ho Chi Minh City, August 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificate of originality………………………………………………………………………………………………… i
Retention and use of the thesis…………………………………………………………………………………. ii
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………………………… iii
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. iv
Abbreviations and symbols.……………………………………………………………………………..…… v
List of charts………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… vi
List of figures……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… vii
List of tables………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the study ………………………………………………………………………………………….…..1
1.2 The aims of the study……………………………………………………………………………………………………..5
1.3 The organization of the study………………………………………………………………………………………5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Written and spoken language……………………………………………………………………………………..7
2.1.1 Distinction between spoken and written language…………………………..….………..….7
2.1.2. English and Vietnamese spoken language…………………………………………………………….9
2.2. Communicative competence………………………………………………………………….….………………10
2.2.1. Definitions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………….10
2.2.2. Sociolinguistics and the learning of English as a foreign language……………12
2.3. Speech acts………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………13
2.3.1. Direct and indirect speech acts ………………………………………………………………………..…..14
2.3.2. Indirectness in requests………………………………………………………………….………………………....16
2.3.2.1. The most direct strategies (Bald-on-record strategies)…………………… ……. 16
2.3.2.2. Conventionally indirect strategies ………………………………………………………………....17
2.3.2.3. Non-conventionally indirect strategies ……………………………………………………….. 17
2.4. Politeness ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………..18
2.4.1. Theories of politeness………………………………………………………………………………………………...18
2.4.2. Politeness and indirectness………………………………………………………………………….…………...21
2.4.3. Social variables affecting politeness……………………………………………………………….…...23
2.4.3.1. Power……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………...23
2.4.3.2. Social distance………………………………………………………...………………………………………………24
2.4.3.3. Gender……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
27
2.4.3.4. Age………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………..
28
2.5. Invitations …………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………….30
2.5.1. The nature of invitations……………………………………………………………………..…………………… 30
2.5.2. Written and spoken invitations……………………………………………………..……………….…………32
2.5.3. Reasons for making invitations ………………………………………………..…………….………………32
2.5.4. Problems with invitations………………………………………………………………………..……………… 34
2.5.5. The structure of English and Vietnamese spoken invitations……………….….. 35
2.5.5.1. The structure of English spoken invitations………………………………….…………… 36
2.5.5.2. The structure of Vietnamese spoken invitations………………………………………. 37
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research questions……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 40
3.2. Research design………………………………………………………………….……………………………….…….. 40
3.3. The characteristics of the subjects…………………………………………………………….…..……..42
3.3.1. The first group of subjects……………………………………………………….……………………………….42
3.3.2. The second group of subjects……………………………………………………….………………………….43
3.4. Instruments……………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………….44
3.4.1. Description of the questionnaires………………………………………………………………….……….44
3.4.2. Data collection procedure………………………………………………..……………………………………… 46
3.5. Assumptions ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………47
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE
FINDINGS
4.1. Data analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………48
4.1.1. The preference of strategy use between groups: Overall results……………….48
4.1.2. Preference for and use of politeness strategies in relation to social status,
age and gender …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 50
4.1.2.1. Social status and age……………………………………………………………………………………..…… 51
4.1.2.2. Social status and gender……………………………………………………………………………………… 59
4.1.2.3. Age and gender……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 66
4.2. Discussion of the findings………………………………………………………………………………………… 74
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………… 81
5.2. Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………………………………83
References…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………….. 86
Appendix 1 Questionnaire to English native speakers………………………….…………………….97
Appendix 2 Questionnaire to Vietnamese native speakers……………………………………..100
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
I certify my authorship of the Masters’ Thesis submitted today entitled:
A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY: POLITENESS IN ISSUING ENGLISH
AND VIETNAMESE SPOKEN INVITATIONS
In terms of the statement of requirements for Theses in Masters’ Programs
issued by the Higher Degree Committee of Department of English Linguistics
and Literature, University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National
University- Ho Chi Minh City.
Ho Chi Minh City, August 2007
LE BICH THUY
RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS
I hereby state that I, LE BICH THUY, being a candidate for the degree of
Master of Arts (TESOL) accepted the requirements of the University relating to
the retention and use of Master’ Thesis deposited in the Library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my Masters’ Thesis
deposited in the Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research,
in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Librarian for the
care, loan and reproduction for theses.
Ho Chi Minh City, August, 2007
Signature ………………………………………
LE BICH THUY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my thesis supervisor, Ms.
Dang Thi Huong, EdD, for her enthusiastic guidance, her thoughtful comments,
her valuable support as well as her precious encouragement. Without Ms Dang
Thi Huong, my whole-hearted thesis supervisor, I would not have finished my
thesis.
I am also grateful to Professor Nguyen Van Luan, PhD, Dean of The Faculty of
Economics, Vietnam National University- HCM City, who has created favorable
conditions and eased my workload so that I am able to attend the master program
and finish my thesis. I am greatly indebted to the lecturers, teaching staff and
students at The Faculty of Economics and The National Institution of Politics,
HCM City for completing the survey questionnaires.
I also wish to thank Jack Bayfield, Sandra Jaye Smale, Charle Harmouy and
their families who gave me great assistance in distributing and collecting the
questionnaires for English native speakers.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my mother for her love and
support, without which I would hardly have been able to overcome difficulties to
complete it.
ABSTRACT
The awareness of the interactional similarities and differences in issuing or
declining invitations in cross-cultural contexts can contribute significantly to
better competence of performing this speech act. This study has tried to
investigate politeness in issuing English and Vietnamese spoken invitations
under the effect of social status, age and gender.
Two questionnaires were delivered to both English native speakers and
Vietnamese native speakers as an instrument for the research. Forty English
native speakers and forty Vietnamese native speakes participated in answering
the questionnaires.
The results of the study showed that there were both similarities and differences
in the selection of politeness strategies employed by English native speakers and
Vietnamese native speakers in issuing spoken invitations. Social status, age and
gender also affected differently to the choice of strategies used by both groups of
subjects.
Some pedagogical implications were suggested for the teachers of English on
teaching spoken invitations to Vietnamese learners of English.
ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS
CID Conventional indirectness
ENS English native speakers
F-T-F Female-to-female
F-T-M Female-to-male
HCMC Ho Chi Minh City
NCID Non-conventional indirectness
M-T-F Male-to-female
M-T-M Male-to-male
VNS Vietnamese native speakers
VNU Vietnam National University
LISTS OF CHARTS
4.1 The proportion of total politeness strategies used to the invited of
lower social status in situation 5…………………………………………………….………….52
4.2 The proportion of total politeness strategies used to the invited of
equal social status in situation 5…………………………………….……………….………….54
4.3 The proportion of total politeness strategies used to the invited of
higher social status in situation 5………………………………………………..….………… 56
4.4 The proportion of total politeness strategies used by ENS in
comparing to those by VNS in situations 1 and 3…………………………………60
4.5 The proportion of total politeness strategies made by ENS in
comparing to those by VNS in situation 1 and 3……………..…………………..63
4.6 The proportion of total politeness strategies made by ENS in
comparing to those by VNS to the invited of the same gender in
situations 2 and 4……………………………………………………………………………….…………….68
4.7 The proportion of total politeness strategies made by ENS in
comparing to those by VNS to the invited of the different gender in
situations 2 and 4 ………………………………………………………………………..……………………71
LISTS OF FIGURES
2.1 Components of communicative language ability in communicative
language use…………………………………………………………………………………………………….11
2.2 Possible strategies for doing FTAs………………………………………………………….20
2.3 Wolfson’s “bulge” model……………………………………………………………………………25
LIST OF TABLES
3.1 The first group of subjects………………………………….………………………….…………….43
3.2. The second group of subjects………………………………….……….………………………….44
4.1 The frequency of politeness strategies used by two groups of
subjects ……………………………………………………………………….…………..………………………49
4.2 Participants’ preference for and use of politeness strategies to the
invited of lower social status in situation 5…………….……..………………………53
4.3 Participants’ preference for and use of politeness strategies to the
invited of equal social status in situation 5………………..…………..………………55
4.4 Participants’ preference for and use of politeness strategies to the
invited of higher social status in situation 5……………………………………………57
4.5 Participants’ preference for and use of politeness strategies to the
invited of the same gender in situation 1 and 3……………………………………61
4.6 Participants’ preference for and use of politeness strategies to the
invited of different gender in situation 1 and 3…………………………………….65
4.7 Participants’ preference for and use of politeness strategies to the
invited of the same gender in situations 2 and 4………………………………….69
4.8 Participants’ preference for and use of politeness strategies to the
invited of different gender in situations 2 and 4…………………………….……72
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background to the study
At present, English is the main language of the world communication. It is used
as a means to acquire access to the world’s intellectual and technical resources.
It is also used as a medium of politics, science, technology and international
trade and chiefly as an international language among nations. In Vietnam, since
the “open-door policy” was implemented in 1986 and the international
relationship between Vietnam and other countries was developed, English has
become increasingly important.
Nowadays, more and more Vietnamese people want to study English so that they
can use it not only to access information and knowledge but also to communicate
effectively in social interations. However, many Vietnamese learners of English,
in spite of having developed good linguistic competence, still face
communication difficulties arising from the lack of sociolinguistic and
communicative competence. They are not well aware of the fact that different
languages express feelings, construct messages in different ways and each
community has its own rules constraining speech behavior. Therefore, they
usually let their native language transfer inappropriately into the target
language. One of the typical examples is the act of greeting. Due to the
influence of the culture, a Vietnamese learner tends to say “Where are you
going?” or “What are you doing here?’ as a sign of greeting in stead of
saying”How are you?”, “How have you been?” or just ”Hello”, “Hi” “Good
morning”, etc. Furthermore, the hospitality and friendliness of the Vietnamese
sometimes influence them to issue utterances: “You must go to our party. We
really want you to come” or the like as invitations which are quite inappropriate
in English speaking cultures.
As a matter of fact, the lack of knowledge on how to say, what to say and when
to say can result in misunderstanding in cross-cultural communication or lead to
wrong judgment such as: Vietnamese are curious and impolite people who just
want to know other’s personal matter and to impose their minds on others.
Therefore, obviously the ability of using a foreign language fluently, effectively
and socially requires more than knowing its grammatical, semantic rules or
getting native-like pronunciation but also requires the learners’ certain
knowledge of socio-cultural factors in the use of language.
It is undeniable that whether the learners of English can gain communicative
proficiency or not depends not only on their own efforts but also largely on their
teachers. According to Thomas (1983, cited in Wolfson, 1989: 31), it is the
language teachers who should take the responsibility of facilitating, guiding
language learners to interpret values and patterns which they would have
difficulty in interpreting as well as help them to “express themselves in exactly
the way they choose to do – rudely, tactfully or in an elaborately polite manner”.
It is also the teachers who should endeavor to make their students aware of and
sensitive to the sociolinguistic variables that play a role in different types of
situational frames (Yorio, 1980, cited in Wolfson, 1989: 31).
In Vietnam, the teaching of English has shifted from the focus on vocabulary,
grammatical rules and pronunciation to the emphasis on communicative
competence lately. More and more course books which pay attention to the
impact of socio-cultural factors on the issuing of English have been used in many
educational institutions. In addition, the number of foreign language centres
which claim to apply the communicative approach with the focus on social and
communicative competence together with the provision of good teaching
conditions has also mushroomed these days. Moreover, there is a positive
growing awareness of the need for socio-cultural knowledge in teaching and
learning English from Vietnamese teachers of English. However, in order to help
the Vietnamese learners of English gain communicative proficiency, further
investigations on why, when, what, how and where to use various patterns of
speech behavior is still in need and should receive more concern from the
teachers. Hopefully with the help of qualified Vietnamese teachers of English
who can provide feedback to learners concerning the appropriate or
inappropriate use of English, the Vietnamese learners will be in a position to
communicate effectively with people of English speaking community.
In social communication, politeness is one of the aspects of culture which clearly
influences the use of language. It is of great value to not only scholars with
particular interests but also to foreign language teachers who aim at enabling
their non-native learners to use target language in the most appropriate way.
Politeness in its relation to speech acts in general and to directive speech acts in
particular has long been a great concern of many linguistics and educators all
over the world. Invitation, which is a kind of directive speech act, has also been
taken into consideration recently.
Edmondson and House (1881: 132) state that an invitation is a social activity and
has a particular significance in social life. It may happen daily in all
communities, all cultures. Nowadays, as communication among people across
cultures is increasing, invitation has become a more essential and effective
means of establishing, maintaining social relationships with other people than
ever before. As a matter of fact, there have been some studies that took this field
as a main subject. Wolfson (1989) pointed out the need to have knowledge of
how to give, interpret and response to invitations as one of the aspects to interact
socially. Ñaëng (1992) investigated how speakers of Vietnamese and speakers of
English issue, accept and decline spoken invitation. J. Ceùsar (2003) presented a
cross-cultural study of how American English and Latin American Spanish
decline invitations.
Frankly speaking, making people well aware of the interactional similarities and
differences in issuing or declining invitations in cross-cultural contexts can
contribute significantly to better competence of performing this speech act.
However, with the purpose of the improvement of communication and the
elimination of misunderstandings relating to this speech behavior among
cultures, the investigation of the impact of politeness on the production of spoken
invitations across cultures is extremely necessary. Because of the great
significance of polite invitations in social interaction among nations where
English is currently the major language and at the time when Vietnam is opening
its door widely to the world for international integration, there is a need to
investigate the politeness phenomenon in its relation to English spoken
invitations in comparison to Vietnamese spoken invitations.
As a teacher of English whose learners are majored in business, I totally
acknowledge the importance of politeness in business communication.
Moreover, issuing invitations can also become one of the learners’ social
activities once they graduate and access the world of bunisess people. Therefore,
in order to help them avoid inappropriate transfer of Vietnamese cultural belief
to English culture, I would like to focus my thesis on politeness in direct and
indirect spoken invitations in Vietnamese and in English.
1.2. The aims of the study
This cross-cultural study will focus on politeness in issuing direct and indirect
Vietnamese and English spoken invitations to see if there are any similarities
and differences between them. The aims of the study are:
1. To investigate the preference for and use of politeness strategies (indirect
and direct) by English native speakers when issuing spoken invitations in
relation to social status, age and gender;
2. To investigate the preference for and use of politeness strategies (indirect
and direct) by Vietnamese native speakers when issuing spoken invitations
in relation to social status, age and gender; and
3. To suggest some implications for teaching English spoken invitations to
Vietnamese learners of English with a close attention to the effect of
politeness.
1.3. The organization of the study
The study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One has introduced the
background, the aims and organization of this study. Chapter Two presents the
relevant literature review of the study. Chapter Three deals with methodology
employed in the study. Chapter Four consists of data analysis and discussion of
the findings. Chapter Five presents the conclusions and offers some
recommendations for English teaching in Vietnam.
This chapter has provided the background, the aims and structure of the study.
Relevant literature reviews will be presented in the next chapter.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Written and spoken language
Conversation is a social activity in which language plays a decisive role. It is
thanks to language that differentiates human beings from animals. This part will
distinguish spoken language and written language but the main focus of the study
lies on spoken language in general and spoken invitations in particular.
2.1.1. Distinction between spoken and written language
Spoken language and written language are both forms of language but they
exploit different features of the same system. There are some major points that
differentiate the two.
According to Cameron (2001), scholars have mentioned the following
characteristics of speech as distinguished from writing:
a. Speech is transient rather than permanent. The speakers often take turns in
speaking and also have no permanent record of what they have said earlier.
By contrast, written language can be stored, retrieved and recollected.
b. Speech is additive. The speakers may stick together elements from previous
turns-at-talk, add languages as they go along (and…and, then…and then…).
Meanwhile, the information conveyed in writing is hierarchically ordered
within the clause structure.
c. Speech is loosely structured grammatically and is lexically sparse. Writing, by
contrast, is grammatically compact and lexically dense.
d. Speech is redundant. The speakers tend to make frequent use of repetition,
paraphrase and statement to help listeners comprehend and remember what
they are saying. On the contrary, since written language does not have to
make such demands on short term memory, it tends to avoid redundancy.
e. Speech tends to be people-centered and writing tends to be topic-centered.
Because of the presence of an audience and the need to keep the conversation
going, speakers not only focus on their topic but also try to engage their
listeners. Meanwhile, the written message should be as clear, unambiguous,
and coherent as possible because the writers will not be there to explain and
defend it.
No matter what differences may exist between speech and writing; they should
not be regarded as two separate systems but as “a continuum with conversation
at one end and formal writing at the other end with an overlap in the middle”
(Ñaëng, 1992: 27).
Nowadays as the face to face communication across cultures is increasing, the
need of effectively orally interaction becomes more urgent than ever before. In
addition, because of the transient characteristic of speech, in oral
communication, people would have to be very careful in selecting what to say
and how to say, etc. in order not to offend others by unintentional mistakes. As a
matter of fact, the knowledge of what to say, how to say, when to say, etc. should
become a habit or else they would have no time to think and choose the
appropriate ones in conversation. Those are partly the reasons why this study
focuses on the spoken language.
2.1.2. English and Vietnamese spoken language
Halliday (1985) finds that there are certain prosodic features which are
accidental properties of a particular language.
In spoken English, the changes in intonation, rhythm do affect to express
utterance meanings. Besides, different structures in the form of speech can
convey different attitude, social relation, formality, etc. Thus, the imperative
structure “Open the door” can express the higher imposition, less formality and
politeness than the question structure “Can you open the door?”
In spoken Vietnamese, the manner of speech is highly influenced by the use of
particles which can help much to express politeness (a, ñi aï, daï, thöa, kính, etc.)
or solidarity (nha, nhe, nheù, nhæ, ha, etc.) or interest (ñi maø, naøo, etc.). Besides,
“different terms of address such as: oâng, baø, chuù , baùc, coâ ,dì, con, etc. are
frequently used to express politeness as well as to show different relationships
and always appear in spoken situation” (Ñaëng, 1992: 30)
In addition, speech behavior in both Vietnamese culture and English speaking
societies is also greatly affected by social variables such as: gender, age, social
status, educational background, etc. of participants.
Generally speaking, when investigating any spoken language, we need to take
these properties into account to have a better understanding about it.
2.2. Communicative competence
Everyday experience supports the view that communicative competence is one
of the main factors determining how successful one can be in society. So, what’s
communicative competence?
2.2.1. Definitions
Wofson (1989) points out that there is a need to acquire what Dell Hymes has
called “communicative competence” to become an effective speaker of a new
language. According to Hymes (1972), communicative competence involves not
only the knowledge “about” language form but also the knowledge “of” what to
say to whom and how to say it appropriately in any given situation. In his
opinion, communicative competence is the one that enables us to convey and
interpret messages and to negotiate meanings interpersonally within specific
contexts.
Extending this definition, Canale and Swain (1980: 112) identifies the construct
of communicative competence made up from four subcategories: Grammatical
Competence, Discourse Competence, Sociolinguistic Competence and Strategic
Competence. Then, Bachman (1990: 79) modifies the model and builds
“language competence” model in which he places grammatical and discourse
competence under the term “organizational competence”. In addition, Bachman
breaks Canale and Swain’s Sociolinguistic Competence into separate pragmatic
categories: Illocutionary Competence (pertaining to sending and receiving
intended meanings) and Sociolinguistic Competence (dealing with such
considerations ad politeness, formality, metaphor, register and culturally related
aspects of language). Moreover, Bachman (1990: 85) considers Strategic
Competence as an entirely separate element of communicative language ability
which serves as an “executive” function of making the final “decision” among
many possible options on wording, phrasing and other production and receptive
means for negotiating meaning.
The components of communicative language ability suggested by Bachman
(1990: 85) were presented in Figure 2.1 below.
Strategic Competence
Psycho physiological Mechanisms
Context of Situation
Knowledge Structures (Knowledge of the world)
Language Competence (Knowledge of language)
Figure 2.1: Components of communicative language ability in communicative
language use (Bachman, 1990: 85) Whatever definitions scholars may provide, they all seem to agree on the need
of social cultural knowledge of participants towards their own communication
success. In other words, they accept the influence of sociolinguistics on the study
of language in general and of speech in particular.
2.2.2. Sociolinguistics and the learning of English as a foreign language
Language allows human beings to communicate with each other in a particular
social cultural context. However, languages are different from one another not
only in areas as phonology, syntax and lexicon but also in “the norms and values
which inform speakers’ knowledge as to what is appropriate to say, to whom and
under which conditions” (Wolfson, 1989: 14). As a result, sociolinguistic rules
are far from universal across cultural groups. “When people coming from
different social cultural interact, they tend to judge each other’s behavior
according to their own value systems” (Wolfson, 1989: 14). Thus, common
questions from Asians on first encounters such as “How old are you?” or “Are
you married?” or “How much do you earn each month” and the like are
considered too personal and impolite by Westerners. Meanwhile, some of the
questions asked by Americans “Have you ever kissed your boyfriend?” or “Why
don’t you drink?” or “Why don’t we share hands?” to Malaysians are regarded as
absolutely inappropriate or taboo (Wolfson, 1989: 26) because they normally do
not drink or touch hands of people of opposite sex except when they are wearing
gloves. Besides, any questions regarding sex are absolutely taboo on the eyes of
the Islamic religion.
In fact, intercultural misunderstanding is more likely to occur and cause more
negative effect on communication than the one caused by mispronunciation or
grammatical errors. Native speakers seem to be more tolerant to foreigners who
pronounce “man” into ”men”, “want” into ”one” or “What do he do?” and the
like. They tend to judge those errors as natural to the process of language
learning and even find their own pleasure with those silly things. However, an
inappropriate question or the failure to utter the customary apology, compliment
or congratulation would receive less sympathy and tend to be interpreted as an
intentional rudeness and hence be reacted negatively.
It is obvious that to communicate effectively in the target language, the learners
of English also need sociocultural information on how to interpret and respond to
different sociolinguistic behaviors of English native speakers such as: greeting,
requesting, inviting, etc.
2.3. Speech acts
Speech act theories originated in Austin’s observation (1962: 58) which states
that in “saying something that has a certain sense and reference, one is normally
doing something”. According to Austin’s theory (1962), an utterance may
perform three related kinds of acts: the locutionary acts of which the meaning
can be totally taken from that of individual linguistic elements forming the
utterance; the illocutionary acts through which the speakers express their
intention to do something in such a way that the listener can recognize them as
well and the perlocutionary acts through which the utterance can produce certain
consequential effects upon the feelings, thoughts or actions of the audience.
Searle (1969: 96) contributed to speech act theory by considering the purpose of
an act from the speaker’s perspective and classifying speech acts (the term he
preferred for Austin’s illocutionary acts) to five categories:
1. Declaratives: bring out changes in the world (e.g. announce, name, etc).
2. Representatives: state what the speaker believes to be the case or not
(e.g. assert, report, describe, etc.).
3. Directives: try to get Hearer to do something (e.g. order, request, etc.).
4. Commissives: commit the speaker to do something(e.g. promise, threat,
etc.).
5. Expressives: express feelings and attitudes (e.g. apologize, thank, etc.).
While Searle classifies speech acts (illocutionary acts, in fact) into five
categories, Bach and Harnish (1979) consider illocutionary acts as
communicative actions and hence divide them into four classes (constatives,
directives, commisives and acknowledgements) according to distinctions
between the expression of beliefs, of attitudes, of intentions or desires to act or
to cause others to act and of feelings.
Similarly, Geis (1995) introduces his Dynamic Speech Act Theory in which he
argues that it is necessary to play emphasis on the social interaction nature of
utterances and treat them as communications rather than merely focus on their
linguistic nature. Then, he strongly recommends that the study of speech acts
should carefully take account of the affect of social features of context such as
social relationships between participants, psychological states, and attitudes of
participants, etc. in which utterances happen.
2.3.1. Direct and Indirect Speech Acts
The distinction between direct and indirect speech acts plays an important part in
speech act theory. Austin (1962) argues that certain acts can be performed
directly by using explicit performative verbs like: invite, request, order, etc. or
by using sentences of a type with which those acts are conventionally associated.
Thus, we can directly use a declarative sentence to make an assertion or an
imperative one to make a request.
Likewise, Yule (1996: 54) claims that “types of speech acts can be made on the
basis of structures” and that in English, there are generally three structural forms
(declarative, interrogative and imperative) with three general communicative
functions (statement, question and command/request). Then, in his opinion
(Yule, 1996: 54-55), “whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure
and a function, we have a direct speech act. Whenever there is an indirect
relationship between a structure and a function, we have an indirect speech act”.
Similarly, Searle (1975) states that speakers can perform one illocutionary act
implicitly by way of performing another illocutionary act explicitly. Therefore,
the utterance “Could you turn on the lights?” which contains the illocutionary
force of an assertion can be used to make a request.
Normally people do not unintentionally deliver indirect speech acts. In general,
people have some reasons for being indirect.
Concerning why indirectness is used, Thomas (1995: 143) suggests a variety of
reasons for the universal of indirectness including: the desire to make one’s
language more/less interesting; the increase the force of one’s message; the
principle of expressibility; and politeness.
First of all, according to Thomas, people construct indirect utterances for the
pleasure of playing with language for the fact that indirectness can colour
utterances, sentences or even whole texts with more or less interest. Secondly,
Thomas explicates that indirectness can be used in order to strengthen our
message. This effect is accomplished through the greater “investment” that a
hearer of an indirect uttered pronouncement has to afford concerning time and
energy in order to understand what has been saying. The third reason for being
indirect is the principle of expressibility in which people would use indirect
speech acts when some ideas are too difficult to express. As another important
reason for being indirect, Thomas delineates politeness. Her article shows us that
there are some circumstances in which we have to use indirectness in order to
prevent hurting someone by directly stating something unpleasant or directly
threatening his/her freedom of action.
2.3.2. Indirectness in requests
There are generally three major levels of indirectness which are normally used
in many cross-cultural interlingua studies of speech acts and had previously been
empirically tested and successfully used by a number of researchers (Blum-
Kulka et al,1989; Trosborg, 1995; Blum-Kulka and Olshtain, 1986; Van Mulken,
1996; Hassall, 1999; Fukushima, 2000; Billmyer and Varghese, 2000). They are
as follows:
2.3.2.1. The most direct strategies (Bald-on-record strategies)
This most direct level is realized by requests syntactically marked (Imperatives)
or by others verbal means that name the act as a request (Tell me...). According
to Blum-Kulka et al (1989: 18) and Economidou-Kogetsidis (2002: 23), there are
eight sub strategies in this level.
a. Mood derivable/ Imperative: “Please look after the kids for a few hours”
b. Direct questions: “Where is the post office?”
c. Explicit performative: “I ask/order you to leave"
d. Hedged performative: “I would like/ want to ask you to leave”
e. Obligation statement: “You should/ ought to leave now”
f. Want statement: ”I’d like / want /wish you to clean up the floor”
g. Need statement: “You need to do that”
h. Pre-decided statement: “I’m helping myself to your cigarettes, OK?’
i. Expectation statement/ Question: “Are you/aren’t you going to tell me
what happened between you and Peter?”
j. Reminded requests: “Mike, you haven’t paid me”
2.3.2.2. Conventionally indirect strategies
This conventionally indirect level covers strategies that realize the act by
reference to contextual preconditions necessary for its performance, as
conventionalized in a given language. There are two sub strategies in this level
(Blum-Kulka et al: 1989: 18; Economidou-Kogetsidis: 2002: 23)
a. Suggestory formulae: “How about going out for dinner tonight?”, “Why not
have lunch with us?”
b. Query preparatory:
• Ability: “Can/could you pass the salt please?”
• Possibility: “Would it be possible to lend me some money?”
• Willingness: “Would you mind if I use your computer?”
• Knowledge: “Do you know where Pizza Hut is?”
2.3.2.3. Non-conventionally indirect strategies
This category includes strategies which are not conventionalized in the language
and hence require more inferencing activity for the hearer to derive the
speaker’s requestive intent. The sub strategies of this level suggested by Ervin-
Trip(1976: 28) and Economidou-Kogetsidis(2002: 23) are as follows:
a. Non-explicit question directives: “We’re having a party tonight. Are you
free to come?’; “Are you able to come to my party?’
b. Strong hints: “The kitchen is in a mess”
c. Mild hints: “Whose duty is it today?”
This scale of indirectness is based on the transparency of the requestive force.
As a result, the most direct requests are the ones in which requestive force is
either marked syntactically or indicated explicitly due to the realization of
performative verbs. The issue of relationship between the scale of indirectness
and the degree of politeness will be discussed later in part 2.4.2 of this study.
2.4. Politeness
2.4.1. Theories of politeness
Expanding Grice’s “Co-operative Principle” (1975), Lakoff (1977) attempts to
account for politeness phenomenon. She suggests that “politeness is developed
by society in order to reduce friction in personal interaction” (1975: 64) and
comprises three rules of politeness: 1. Don’t impose; 2. Give options and 3.
Make the receiver feel good.
The first rule, “Don’t impose”, is associated with distance and formality. The
speaker shows his/her politeness by asking for permission or apologizing in
advance to lessen the imposition on the hearer when requiring the hearer to do
something. The second rule, “Give options”, is associated with deference and
accounts for cases in which the linguistic manifestations of politeness appear to
leave the choice of confirming or not to the addressee. Her third rule, “Make the
receiver feel good”, accounts for the case in which the speaker employs devices
which will make the addressee feel liked and wanted.
Similarly, Leech (1980: 19) defines politeness as “strategic conflict avoidance”,
adding that it “can be measured in terms of the degree of effort put into the
avoidance of a conflict situation”. Then, he presents a detailed analysis of
politeness in terms of six maxims: Maxim of Tact; Maxim of Generosity; Maxim
of Approbation; Maxim of Modesty; Maxim of Agreement; and Maxim of
Sympathy. Leech’s concepts of politeness were based on the three scales: the
cost/benefit scale, the “optional” scale and the “indirectness” scale. The first
scale which specifies how much the proposed action is judged by the speaker to
be of cost or benefit to the speaker. The second that specifies to what extent the
proposed action is at the choice of the addressee. The last scale which specifies
how much inference is involved in the proposed action.
Meanwhile, the central to Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness is the
concept of “Face” which is defined as “the public self-image that every member
wants to claim for himself” (Brown and Levinson, 1978: 66). According to
Brown and Levinson (1978: 66), “face is something that emotionally invested,
and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to
in interaction”. They distinguish two components of face, “positive face” and
“negative face”, which are two related aspects of the same entity and refer to
two basic desires or wants of any individual in any interaction. “Negative face”
refers to “The want of every competent adult member that his actions be
unimpeded by others”. “Positive face” refers to “The want of every member that
his wants be desirable to at least some others”.
Following their theories, in communication, there is possibility of appearing
some Face Threatening Acts (FTA) which are “by their nature run contrary to
the face wants of the addressee and/ or of the speaker” (Brown and Levinson,
1978: 70). To deal with those acts, they identify a set of strategies which can
help either to avoid or minimize them.
With redressive action On record
Off record Do the FTA
Positive politeness
Don’t do the FTA
Negative politeness
Without redressive action, baldly
Figure 2.2: Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown and Levinson, 1978:
In their opinion, positive face threatening acts should be adjusted by positive
politeness strategies in which the speakers should “claim common ground”,
“convey that speaker and hearer are cooperators” and “fulfill hearer’s want for
some X” (Brown and Levinson, 1978: 107). Meanwhile, negative face
threatening acts should be solved by applying negative politeness strategies,
some of which are: Be conventionally indirect; questions, hedge; minimize the
imposition, etc.
In general, Lakoff, Leech, Brown and Levinson share two things in common
when concerning politeness phenomenon in speech: first, politeness is thought to
be personal strategies in communication; second, they assume that politeness
closely relates to the limitation of imposition, to the use of giving options as well
as to indirectness.
2.4.2. Politeness and Indirectness
According to Sifianou (1992), most scholars, basing on the investigation of
English, have argued that the degree of indirectness determines the degree of
politeness to a great extent. The main reason for this argument reasonably
originates from the concept of Western individualism. It is widely accepted that
most English speaking societies place a higher value on privacy and individuality
(i.e., the negative aspect of face), so individual’s freedom and independence is
highly respected. In other words, to Western societies in general and to most
English speaking societies in particular, the principal of distance and non-
imposition plays a crucial role in social interactions.
Although there are some ideas that indirectness and politeness are not the same
(Kasper, 1998; Holtgraves, 1986), most scholars have argued that overall, in
English, indirectness and politeness are closely related, especially in request- a
kind of directive speech acts.
While the scale of indirectness seems to be universal, the assertion between
indirectness and politeness differ across cultures.
Contrary to most English societies where the display of non-imposition and
concerns for distancing in speech acts are believed to help avoid face
threatening acts and hence to be more polite, a number of cultures prefer a show
of solidarity and sincerity by directly deliver them. Sifianou (1992) has proved
that Greeks request, advise and suggest structurally more directly than English
because they see those acts as their duty to help and support each other without
any idea about imposition or non-imposition. In another study which examines
the politeness perceptions of speakers of Israeli Hebrew, Blum-Kulka (1987)
finds that speakers of Hebrew favor directness rather than indirectness.
Wierzbicka (1985) comes to a similar result with the speakers of Polish.
Generally speaking, speakers from those mentioned cultures either seem to pay
much attention to involvement and solidarity relation, i.e. the positive aspect of
face, or belong to a kind of societies where people depend on each other more
and therefore individuals are less emphasized than interdependent social
relations. In other words, most of them probably correspond to positive
politeness societies where indirectness will not necessarily be related to
politeness.
Indirect speech acts in relation to politeness phenomenon in Vietnamese have
just received some attention lately with Vuõ’s article (1999) on “Indirectness and
Politeness in Vietnamese requests”. Vuõ argues that indirectness with the concept
of non-imposition is not necessarily politeness in Vietnamese culture. However,
though her arguments are rather reasonable, her data mainly taken from some
pieces of conversations of nine families in Hanoi are not convincing enough.
Besides, the purpose of the article which is to investigate the relationship
between politeness and indirectness in Vietnamese requests is, in my opinion,
too large and beyond the keen of so small an article. Therefore, the association
of politeness and indirectness in Vietnamese culture should be investigated in
concerning to a specific kind of speech acts and with a larger number of
informants.
2.4.3. Social variables affecting politeness
This section discusses two factors affecting the choice of politeness strategies in
delivering speech acts as suggested by Brown and Levinson which are Power
and Social distance. Then, Age and Gender which are also believed to cause
more or less significant impact on language use in spoken interactions are also
pointed out.
2.4.3.1. Power
J.Ceùsar-Feùlix-Brasdefer (2003) in his study has proved that the social status
(power) of participants did play a role in the selection of strategies employed in
declining an invitation. Similarly, Hussein (1995) discusses making refusals in
Arabic and maintains that in three levels of social status (equal and unequal),
speakers use different refusal strategies. Likewise, the findings of Beebe at all
(1990) reveal the interaction of power with the directness of refusals.
As Robin Lakoff (1989) argued, politeness and power are closely related.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 77), power or social status is “an
asymmetric social dimension of relative power involving the degree to which
hearer can impose his/her own plans and self-evaluation (face) at the expense of
the speaker’s plans and self-evaluation”. Similarly, Scollon and Scollon (1995)
states that power refers to the vertical disparity between the participants in a
hierarchical structure. Brown and Levinson predict that the greater the power
hierarchy distance, the more redressive strategies will be used by the less
powerful interactant. As a result, in situation where there is explicit hierarchical
difference between participants like the relationship between a boss and an
employee, a professor and a student or between people of higher and lower
social status in general, the politeness strategies used is relatively predictable.
The more powerful the hearer is in relation to the speaker, the more polite the
speaker would be. Then, in situation where that difference is not clear like the
relationship between close friends or between people of equal social status,
participants are expected to adopt various politeness strategies in particular
circumstances and to people at particular social distance.
2.4.3.2. Social distance
Janet Holmes (1996: 12) points out that “the relative social distance between the
speaker and the addressee(s) is one of the most basic factors determining
appropriate levels of politeness behavior in most, if not all, societies”. Brown
and Levinson (1987: 76) identify social distance as “a symmetric social
dimension of similarity or difference… based on assessment of the frequency of
interaction and the kind of material or non-material goods (including face)
between speaker and hearer”. Likewise, Leech (1983: 126) defines social
distance as “a crucial factor determining politeness behavior which involves
considering the roles people are taking in relation to one another in a particular
situation”.
Concerning social distance as a factor in accounting for differences in politeness
behavior, Wolfson’s ‘bulge’ model (1988: 32) suggests that:
Generally we behave similarly with less explicit linguistic politeness to
those at the two extremes of social distance that is to people we do not
know at all and to intimates. Meanwhile, people who are neither in the
category of complete strangers nor close and intimate friends receive a
great deal of attention in the form of linguistically polite interactions.
Strangers Friends Intimates
Figure 2.3: Wolfson’s “bulge” model (1988, cited in Holmes, 1996: 14)
Linguistic politeness
According to Janet Holmes (1996), because positive politeness generally
involves emphasizing what people share, it minimizes the distance between
them. On the other hand, negative politeness emphasizes the social distance
among people. As a result, she says, “negative politeness strategies tend both to
express distance and to emphasize power distinctions…Positive politeness
strategies express solidarity and also emphasize equality between participants”
(1996: 19).
Power and social distance affect differently to different cultures in determining
appropriate linguistic behavior. In most Western societies nowadays, as Holmes
(1996: 19) points out, “solidarity has largely won out over power”. The manager
of a company and his/her staff are obviously quite different in power (social
status). However, because they work together daily and know each other well,
they may have relatively close distance and hence often use positive politeness
strategies. They may call each other by their first names only and may more
frequently use direct speech in interactions. Same situation happens between a
professor and her/his students at university. In those cases, politeness usage will
be determined by factors like the formality of context, gender of participants
other than power and distance.
In Vietnamese culture, the terms of solidarity and power are mutually integrated.
Because of the influence of Confucianism, most Vietnamese are well aware of
who is in higher position and who is in lower one. The power differences may
arise from age, institutional position, gender and education, etc, in which age
factor plays a rather crucial role. No matter how well participants know each
other and whether they are in formal or informal context, the power of the
superior is always respected. In no cases can the lower person call the higher by
his/her first name. In no circumstances can the status of the participants be
challenged. However, solidarity factor is also taken into account in Vietnamese
spoken interactions. Since the use of softeners and hierarchical kinship terms of
address which make people sound to be all members in the same big family,
Vietnamese people balance the need of power realization and the need of
solidarity. In fact, appropriate terms of address together with suitable softeners
or particles at the end of the utterances can shorten the social distance between
participants but help maintain their power (social status) at the same time.
Generally, it seems that distance does not influence as much on the choice of
appropriate polite linguistic behaviors in Vietnamese culture as power, age and
gender of participants. Moreover, because of the fact that people usually just
issue spoken invitations to whom they somehow know well and not in too formal
context, I would like to focus on power, age and gender of participants in this
study.
2.4.3.3. Gender
Nowadays it is widely accepted that women and men talk differently (Thorne
and Henley, 1975; Thorne, Kramarea and Henley, 1983; Coates, 1986; Graddol
and Swann, 1989; Mills, 1995; Lakoff, 1975). Deborah Tannen (1990) claims
that women and men have different linguistic styles and communication goals.
Women’s speech tends to be cooperative in character in that women
acknowledge one another’s contributions and engage in more active listening.
What women value is connection, intimacy and solidarity, so they are likely to
insist on the commonality of their experience, not its uniqueness in talking. They
seek involvement and focus on interdependencies between people. Meanwhile,
men’s conversations are less social and more individualistic and aim at
controlling the flow of talk. They “see the world as a hierarchy in which any
individual may be one-up or one-down” and the interactive task they set
themselves is to gain, assert or maintain status. As a result, their speech shows a
tendency to seek independencies and focus on hierarchical relationship
(Chodorou, 1974; Gilligan, 1982).
Concerning the differences of gender politeness in speech, Holmes (1996: 115)
states that because they are more sensitive to the positive face needs of
intimates and friends, women are much more likely than men to express positive
politeness or friendliness in private interactions. Women’s utterances show
evidence of concern for the feelings of the people they are talking to more
explicitly than men’s do. However, in public, being well aware of the fact that
what they say may threaten face of other people, women tend to use the
extremes of negative politeness more frequently than men do.
Similarly, McKay and Hornberger (1996: 251) suggest that men are more likely
to be polite in a way that honors the wishes of others not to be imposed upon
(negative politeness) rather than polite in a way that recognizes the desire of
others to be liked, admired and ratified (positive politeness).
In Vietnamese culture, it is believed that straightforwardness is one of the most
typical qualities for men while women usually prefer “beating about the bush”,
which is a sign of the stylistic variation in language use between females and
males. Besides, like in most English speaking societies, under the influence of
social, cultural and historical factors which govern the reciprocal social status
between women and men as well as different social expectations on them and so
on, there are obviously many empirical evidences for gender differences in other
aspects of Vietnamese language use such as lexical variation, intonation
contours, voice quality, etc. Gender differences in language use seem to be
universal. The difference, if there is any between males and females in English
and Vietnamese cultures, will partly reflect their opinions on politeness in
issuing spoken invitations. In other words, the question of how gender as a social
variable affects the choice of making indirect or direct spoken invitations in
English and Vietnamese is still under the need of investigation for the purpose of
the study and will be discussed later in chapter 4.
2.4.3.4. Age
Apart from gender and social status, age is also a social variable which
influences significantly and differently to human behavior in different cultures.
Asian cultures in general emphasize the importance of age related to respect and
the amount of wisdom a person has. When a person gets older, (s)he is believed
to become wiser. So, elderly people are often given the right to decide important
things within the family. Besides, the older a person is the more respect (s)he
would receive from the young people. As a result, when talking to older
addressees, speech behavior of Asian people is considered to be highly
deference.
As a matter of fact, age obviously has a significant impact on speech behavior in
social communication. Vietnamese people always try to know the age of
interlocutors to choose the appropriate terms of address for polite purpose. That
explains the reason why Vietnamese often have the habit of asking the age of
any people they communicate, which normally irritates many Westerners.
Conversational style and politeness strategy of Vietnamese people to people of
various age levels is quite different. Meanwhile, it seems that English native
speakers do not take age factor into great consideration. Though they do respect
elderly people, the age of addressees is not considered to be the factor that
automatically decides the amount of respect. Westerners tend to demand more
information and interaction before showing their respect to someone. To them,
age is just as important as other social factors. A person would be respected for
his own values not because of his age. Therefore, less deference and control is
given to elderly people in the majority of those cultures in comparison to most
Asian cultures.
The differences between Western and Asian ideas about age will surely trouble
Vietnamese learners of English. The choice of politeness strategies in issuing
spoken invitations is differently affected by age factor in English speaking
cultures and in Vietnamese culture. Therefore, we cannot help taking the age of
participants into account so that the topic investigated would be fully understood.
2.5. Invitations
2.5.1. The nature of invitations
An invitation is an ask for another’s time and action and very often for a closer
social relationship. It is the inviter’s effort to get the invited to joint with her/him
in a specific event. Therefore, the act of inviting is a kind of directives, as
Coulthard(1995: 24) says:
Directives are all attempts by the speaker to get hearer to do something-
in this class the speaker is wanting to achieve a future situation in which
the world will match his words and thus this class includes not simply
’order’, ‘request’ but, more subtly, ‘invite’, ‘dare’ and ‘challenge’.
Similarly, Searle(1990a: 359-360) in his explanation of directives also claims
that directives “may be very modest attempts as when I invite you to do it or
suggest that you do it” and that “the verbs denoting memebers of this class are
“ask, command, request, beg, plead, pray, entreat and also invite, permit,
advise”.
Not only do invitations belong to the category of directives but more specifically,
they are also much similar to requests in the way that the speaker acts out of a
desire/ wish to cause the hearer perform an action and the hearer is indeed able
to perform that action. It is argued by Geis (1995) that invitations constitute face
respecting acts rather than face threatening acts. He reasons that because the
hearer commonly expresses appreciation for invitations no matter how
personally they feel about the prospects of spending time with the speaker,
invitations pay respect to the hearer’s positive face. However, in my opinion, as
the nature of issuing an invitation is, more or less, the imposition of the speaker’s
desire on the hearer to perform the suggested action, like requests, invitations
“imply intrusion on the hearer’s territory and limit his freedom of action”
(Brown and Levinson, 1978: 70). In other words, they are both “intrinsically face
threatening activities” (Brown and Levinson, 1978: 70) even though the act of
inviting involves benefits to the hearer and costs the speaker in some ways. They
threaten the negative face of the addressee and therefore “comprise a category
of inherently impolite acts in which negative politeness is essential” (Leech,
1983: 106).
According to Geis (1995), invitations and requests are not totally alike. They
differ from each other in at least two specific ways. First, in an invitation, the
speaker proposes that the hearer do something with him/her rather than for
him/her. Second, besides threatening the negative face of the hearer, invitations
are more likely to threat the hearer’s positive face than requests. It is possible to
reject a request because one is unwilling to perform the action without
necessarily threatening the addressee’s positive face. For example, if one wants
to reject a request to take care of someone’s cats, he may say that he hates cats.
This may be an insult to the requester’s cats, not the requester himself. However,
Geis (1995) argues, it is very difficult to turn down an invitation because one is
unwilling to accept it without threatening the addressee’s positive face for the
action he’s rejecting involves being with the inviter.
As a result, in order to have better understanding about the preference for using
indirect or direct politeness strategies in issuing spoken invitations, it is
impossible for us to totally apply the results of similar investigations on requests.
However, invitations and requests belong to the same category of speech act
(directives) and share somehow similar characteristics. Therefore, some
significant achievements gained from researches on requests which have largely
been accepted by most scholars such as the scale of indirectness-directness in
requests can be used as one of the foundations for our investigations.
In addition, Edmondson and House (1981: 132) when considering the
characteristics of the invitation suggested that:
The invite…has therefore the following characteristics: A wishes B to
know that he is in favor of a future action to be performed by B, which he
believes may involve costs to himself and benefits to B. He also believes
however that the cost involved will be outweighed for himself by the
social benefits consequent to B’s doing that future action.
Therefore, invitations also include promises. Besides, according to Bach and
Harnish (ibid: 51), an invite can be defined as “S requests (directive) H’s
presence and promises acceptance of his presence”. As a result, invitations can
also be classified as a kind of commisives.
To sum up, invitations can be considered as both a kind of directives and
commisives.
2.5.2. Written and spoken invitations
A social arrangement of some sort or another needs to be made somehow to
express solidarity, to maintain existing relationship or to build new relationship
and the extending of invitations is a principal means of accomplishing this.
Invitations may be issued in written or spoken forms. Written invitations are
usually sent in special events like weddings, workshops or the anniversary of an
organization, etc., which are normally formally organized. Obviously, due to the
characteristics of those cases, the language written is always well-chosen and
follows some fixed conventional styles. It is not flexible and usually very formal.
Besides, it would take the sender some sort of time before getting the exact
feedback from the receiver. In Western societies, written invitations are more
usually sent by mails or email than by directly face-to face delivery. Meanwhile,
a Vietnamese written invitation is more frequently delivered directly from the
sender to the receiver accompanying with a spoken one, especially in personal
cases such as invitations to a house warming party or to a wedding party. In those
events, if the inviter truly wants the invited to join with her/him, (s)he will give
the written invitation directly to the hand of the invited together with a spoken
invitation. Otherwise, (s)he can send it by post but has to invite orally by
telephone in advance. Without a word from the sender, the invitation would be
more likely to be considered insincere or not important.
Normally spoken invitations are made face-to-face or by telephone. Nowadays,
in most daily occasions, spoken invitations have outgrown written ones for the
fact that they are more direct, more immediate in getting feedback and they can
be issued more flexibly thanks to the combination with more or less friendly,
solidarity attitude from the speakers according to different contexts. In the scope
of this study, I would like to focus on spoken invitations issued by native English
speakers in comparison to those made by native Vietnamese speakers.
2.5.3. Reasons for making invitations
Concerning the reasons why invitations are made, there are some similarities
between English speaking cultures and Vietnamese culture as the following:
1/ To socialize : To enjoy the company of one’s friends, to introduce
strangers to each other, to go out for fun, etc.;
2/ To show hospitality and kindness at great events: public holidays, long
weekends, New Year, etc;
3/ To share happiness: promotion, house-warming, birthday party, arrival
of new baby, etc.;
4/ To show respect to elders and teachers;
5/ To mark anniversaris: wedding, traditional death anniversaries; and
6/ To repay favors and show gratidtude. Ñaëng (1992: 59, 69)
2.5.4. Problems with invitations
According to Ñaëng (1992), in dealing with invitations as a social activity, people
may have to face some possible problems of: self-invitation, pseudo-invitation,
non-invitation and “who pays”. She points out that self- invitations such as
“Could I drop by to see you tonight?” or “Do you mind if I come…?” do occur in
English but very rarely and only in a very informal situation between familiars
for the purpose of expressing intimacy. Meanwhile, pseudo-invitations are very
common both in English and in Vietnamese. However, though they can skillfully
deal with pseudo-invitations in their native language, Vietnamese learners of
English sometimes do confuse between a real English invitation and a pseudo
one like in the case of “Let’s get together for lunch sometimes “.They tend not to
realize that the speaker just intends to express his interest in continuing the
relationship without making any definite commitment for a future meeting.
Consequently, their effort in negotiation for the exact time and place for lunch
usually would make the English native speakers confused and uncomfortable. In
addition, Ñaëng’s study (1992) shows that in Vietnamese culture there is the
existence of non-invitations which merely act as a greeting or a show of interest
but have nothing to do with inviting whereas there is none of this kind in English.
Besides, “who pays” can possibly be a real problem to language learners in
cross-cultural communication.
In general, further investigations on problems with spoken invitations would be
very exciting and useful for both language teachers and language learners.
However, considering all of these problems in this study would be beyond my
keen. Therefore, in order to have a better and clearer look at the topic, I would
like to focus on analyzing the real unambiguous invitations without paying any
attention to problems of self invitations, pseudo-invitations, non-invitations and
of “who pays”.
2.5.5. The structure of English and Vietnamese spoken invitations
Normally, the exchange structure of an unambiguous spoken invitation consists
of various moves: the lead (pre-invites), the invitation (the head act), the
response including positive response (satisfy) or negative response (contra)
(Edmondson & House, 1981; Wolfson, 1989; Ñaëng, 1992)
2.5.5.1. The structure of English spoken invitations
English people usually preface the head act of an invitation by the lead (pre-
invite). It is the question or comment which signals the adressee that an
invitation will follow if (s)he makes the appropriate responses. According to
Wolfson (1989), leads are functionally classified into three types. The first type
functions to establish the availability of the addressee by questions which is
meant to elicit the desired information such as “Are you doing anything on
Saturday night?”, “What’s your schedule tomorrow?” or” Do you have any plans
for the weekend?”. The second type of lead is intended to convey the feelings of
speakers without any specific commitment. They are utterances such as “I’d
really love/like to make a date with you to have lunch and talk things over” or “It’s
really horrible that we never see each other” or “You know, X, we’re gonna have
to get together for lunch one of these days”. The final type is related to some
shared knowledge of a past attempt to negotiate a social arrangement by the
participants in the interaction or by someone closely associated who is not
present at the moment of speaking:”Did we decide on anything specific?” or “Are
we going to have lunch still?”. Then, normally the invitation itself will follow the
lead though the invitations may occur without leads.
The head acts (the invitations themselves) can be tentative expressions as
follows:
- Would you be free to go to a play with me this weekend?
- I was wondering if you would like to come round for a meal next Friday? …
(Ñaëng, 1992: 38)
They can be less tentative like in the case of:
- I would like to invite you to join our dinner this Saturday evening?
- Why don’t you go with us for a movie this afternoon?
- How about dinner tonight? (Ñaëng, 1992: 38)
If the invitation is accepted (the satisfy), the addressee will be likely to use a
number of different expressions such as :
- That’s very kind of you . thank you./ Thank you.
- I’d love to/ That would be great/ Yes, thank you. What time?/ O.K./ …
(Ñaëng, 1992: 40)
In the case when the declining (contra) happens, expresions such as the
following seem common:
- How kind of you to think of me, but…
- I’d love to/delighted to, but…
- I’m terribly sorry, but… (Ñaëng, 1992: 45)
2.5.5.2. The structure of Vietnamese spoken invitations
The conclusions from Ñaëng’s study (1992) show that it is uncommon for
Vietnamese to clear the ground move as “Are you free next Sunday morning
(Saùng Chuû nhaät tôùi baïn coù raûnh khoâng?)” and the like before isuing the real
invitation. Frequently they would indicate the reason for the invite by
expressions as “Toái mai nhaø mình coù lieân hoan, tôùi cho vui nheù (tomorrow we will
have a party at home, please come and join us)” or “Chuû nhaät tôùi laø sinh nhaät
mình, môøi baïn tôùi chôi (Next Sunday will be my birthday. I would like to invite you
to come and join us)” and the like.
Then, according to Taï (2004), the structure of the Vietnamese head act in
invitations may be one of the following types:
Type 1: Xin môøi / Môøi+ oâng/anh/ chò/ baø…
(Polite marker)+ Performative verb “invite” + Speaker 2
This type is used in very common context when the action to be invited is stated
in advance.
For example: Speaker 1: (gives a packet of cigarettes to speaker 2 ) : Môøi anh.
Type 2: Xin môøi / Kính môøi/ Môøi+ oâng/anh/ chò/ baø…+ noäi dung môøi
(Polite marker)+ Performative verb “invite”+ Speaker 2+ the action to be
invited
For example: “Xin môøi / Kính môøi/ Môøi baùc ñeán döï tieäc vôùi gia ñình toâi” (I would
like to invite you to come and join our party)
Type 2: Speaker 1+ Xin môøi / Kính môøi/ Môøi+ oâng/anh/ chò/ baø…+ noäi dung môøi
Speaker 1 +(Polite marker)+ Performative verb “invite”+ Speaker 2+ the action
to be invited
For example: “ Em xin môøi anh duøng theâm côm “ (I + polite marker+ invite you
to have more rice)
Similarly to that in English, as Ñaëng (1992) points out, Vietnamese responses to
spoken invitations can be accepting or declining. The most common accepting
expressions are as follows:
- Daï/ vaâng aï, con seõ tôùi (Yes, I’ll come )
- Theá naøo mình cuõng tôùi (I’ll certainly come) (Ñaëng, 1992: 57)
Meanwhile, because it is uneasy at all to refuse an invitation without hurting the
inviter’s feeling, the act of declining an invitation in Vietnamese also takes time
and energy with expressions like:
Oâi…(hesitation)…tieác quaù! Phaûi chi em bieát sôùm. Em coù heïn vôùi coâ em vaøo ngaøy ñoù
maát roài (Oh!…Sorry!...If I’d known a bit earlier…I’ve an appointment with my
teacher that day) … (Ñaëng, 1992: 62-65)
Frankly speaking, there have been so far many researches which took the leads
of invitations and responses to them in relation to politeness strategies as their
major subjects (J.Cesaùr Feùlix-Brasderfer, 2003; Hironi Kinjo, 1987). Therefore,
in this study, I would like to merely focus on the head moves of invitations in
relation to politeness concept under the influence of age, gender and social
status of participants.
This chapter has provided the theoretical framework to the study. The
description of method of data collection, selection of subjects as well as
instruments will be discussed in the next chapter.
CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the methodology employed in the study. It consists of the
presentation of the research questions, the research design, the description of the
subjects and the data collection procedure.
3.1. Research questions
This cross-cultural study focuses on the similarities and differences between
Vietnamese and English spoken invitations under the impact of politeness. The
implications for better teaching English spoken invitations to Vietnamese
learners of English are the objectives of the study. Therefore, in order to
successfully gain those aims, the following research questions were designed:
1/ Which politeness strategies (direct or indirect) do English native
speakers prefer to apply when issuing English spoken invitations?
2/ How is the choice of direct and indirect English spoken invitations
influenced by the three essential factors: social status, age and gender?
3/ Which politeness strategies (direct or indirect) do Vietnamese native
speakers prefer to apply when issuing Vietnamese spoken invitations?
4/ How is the choice of direct and indirect Vietnamese spoken invitations
influenced by social status, age and gender ?
3.2. Research design
Because the nature of the study is to describe and investigate the influence of
politeness on the issue of spoken invitations in order to suggest pedagogical
techniques, the qualitative methodology is the main focus of the research. Data
was collected through two similar sets of questionnaires. They were used as the
main source of data collection in this study for four reasons:
First, the use of questionnaires allows investigators to collect a considerable
amount of data about the speech forms considered appropriate by social
members within a relatively short time. Second, this type of data collection
permits the researchers to control for “specific variables of the situation, thus
giving coherence to the findings which may be difficult to achieve otherwise”
(Wolfson: 1989: 70). Third, by using the same situations for both English native
speakers and Vietnamese native speakers as respondents, I could directly
compare the strategies used by both groups of subjects to determine similarities
and differences. Furthermore, according to Ñaëng (1992: 46), with questionnaires,
“fear and embarrassment of direct contact with the researcher can be avoided
and guaranteed confidentiality may elicit more truthful responses than in a
personal interview”.
Obviously, the use of questionnaires as method of data collection is sometimes a
problem. Wolfson (1989: 70) points out that “writing an answer permits more
time to plan and evaluate it than one normally has while participating in an
outgoing interaction”. Therefore, what people claim they say in a given situation
may not be necessarily what they actually say in a real situation.
I acknowledge that this type of data collection cannot elicit data that provide the
full range of insights into the speech phenomenon under investigation. However,
comparing to naturalistic data collection such as role plays, interviews,
observations, etc. suggested by Wolfson (1981; 1982) and others (Hymes: 1962;
Wolfson et al: 1989), this type has the advantages of less time consuming, of
controlling social variables and can help avoid the problems of note-taking that
relies on the researchers’ memory as well as avoid matters of legal and ethical
issues recording in naturalistic situations (Hinkel: 1997). Moreover, as Rose and
Ono (1995: 207) says “we should not expect a single source to provide all the
necessary insights into speech act usage”, I perceive that though this method of
eliciting data underlies limitations, it does provide appropriate responses which
can help answer the research questions of the study. In addition, I do believe that
my informal talks to some foreigners whom I met and to my colleagues would
more or less contribute to the findings and give reliable answers to the research
questions.
The data was, then, coded and analyzed with the help of quantitative techniques
which aimed at a full analysis of the descriptive data related to the answers to
the research questions. They are analyzed according to the scale of indirectness
and directness to investigate the preference for and use of politeness strategies
(indirect and direct) by English native speakers (ENS) and Vietnamese native
speakers (VNS) when issuing spoken invitations under the influence of social
status, age and gender of subjects. To sum up, the study would be the
combination of both the qualitative and the quantitative method.
3.3. The characteristics of the subjects
Two groups of subjects took part in the study. The first group consisted of 40
ENS. The second group included 40 VNS. All of the subjects were selected
intentionally with the purpose of investigating the following factors: social status,
age and gender which may have some influence on their speech behaviour.
3.3.1. The first group of subjects
The age range of the ENS was from 18 to 60 years old. 20 were female and 20
were male. Among this group of subjects, 9 were students at the University of
New South Wales, Kensington, Sydney, Australia; 6 were staffs and professors
at the same university; 9 worked in business, medical treatment, business, etc. in
Sydney and London; 1 were foreign teachers of English at Duong Minh foreign
language centre, HCM City; 7 were tourists from English speaking countries who
stayed in Pham Nguõ Laõo Street, HCM City for a short time; and 8 participants
just graduated from high school and worked as volunteer teachers of GAP
program from February 2005 to December 2006 at The University of
Transportation, Ho Chi Minh Branch (located in District 9, HCM City). The
nationality of the subjects also varied: 17 of them were English; 8 were
Canadians; 3 were New Zealanders; 1 was American; and the rest was
Australians.
Concerning educational background of the subjects, all of them graduated from
high school; 15 had bachelors’ degree; 6 had master’s degree and 1 had PhD’s
degree.
The information about the ENS subjects was presented in Table 3.1.
Characteristics of the subjects Number Percentage
18-29 19 47.5% 30-39 10 25% 40-49 7 17.5%
Age range Over 50 4 10% Female 20 50% Gender Male 20 50% High school completion 18 45% Bachelor 15 37.5% Master 6 15%
Education
PhD 1 2.5%
Table 3.1: The first group of subjects
3.3.2. The second group of subjects
Meanwhile, Vietnamese subjects’ age range was from 20 to 60. 20 of them were
female and the rest was male. 10 participants were third year students at the
Faculty of Economics, VNU; 15 had bachelors’ degree and worked as staffs at
the Faculty of Economics, VNU or at the National Political Institution, HCM
Branch; 13 had masters’ degree ; 2 had PhD‘s degree. They were lecturers at the
same two educational institutions.
The information about the VNS subjects was presented in Table 3.2.
Characteristics of the subjects Number Percentage 18-29 23 57.5% 30-39 9 22.5% 40-49 6 15%
Age range
Over 50 2 5% Female 20 50% Gender Male 20 50% High school completion 10 25% Bachelor 15 37.5% Master 13 32.5%
Education
PhD 2 45%
Table 3. 2: The second group of subjects
3.4. Instruments
3.4.1. Description of the questionnaires
Two similar questionnaires containing five situations that ask for spoken
invitations were organized into two parts. The first part of the questionnaire was
conducted to obtain the subjects’ personal information such as their educational
background, age, gender and status which all have significant impact on their
choice of politeness strategies when issuing spoken invitations in given
situations. The second part of the questionnaire consisted of five situations
together with a number of discourse completion questions to collect data for the
study. The five situations were formulated as follows:
Situation 1: inviting someone to a party made to celebrate the completion
of the inviter’ master degree.
Situation 2: inviting someone to have more food during the meal.
Situation 3: inviting someone to join the inviter’s house warming party.
Situation 4: inviting someone to dine out.
Situation 5: inviting someone to join the inviter’s promotion party.
Concerning the appropriateness of situations, I could say that: firstly, because all
subjects are intentionally chosen for their relatively high educational
background, the five given situations can be considered to be much likely to
happen and familiar to them; secondly, following the result of the investigation
on invitations done by Ñaëng (1992: 52), both ENS and VNS often issue spoken
invitations for showing hospitality, celebrating special events or of socializing
themselves. In general, five given situations are appropriate for the purpose of
the study, which is to investigate common spoken invitations (See Appendix 1
and 2 for more detail).
Each situation of the questionnaire was designed to serve a certain purpose.
Situations 1 and 3 are to investigate the effect of gender and social status of
participants when issuing spoken invitations. There are six discourse completion
questions in each situation. Similarly, to consider the impact of gender and age
of participants on the inviter’s decision whether to choose this or that politeness
strategies in making spoken invitations, two situations (Situation 2 and 4) were
given with six discourse completion questions in each. However, when taking
the effect of Age and Social status into consideration, I just look at one situation
(situation 5). The combination of three levels of age and three levels of social
status would form 9 discourse completion questions for the subjects to answer. If
there were two situations for this case, the number of questions would be 18,
which would trouble subjects a lot and may lead to inaccurate data. Therefore, I
would consider it one of the limitations of the study. Moreover, according to the
theory of statistics, a sample of 30 subjects involved to investigate a
phenomenon is large and idealistic enough to come to a conclusion about that
phenomenon. As a result, I do believe that the sample of 40 subjects may
provide significant data.
3.4.2. Data collection procedure
It is not difficult for me to collect data from Vietnamese subjects because all of
them are willing to help. Besides, because most of them are working for
educational institutions, their answers were very clear and reliable. I had to
spend time and effort to explain how to complete the questionnaires to my third
year students. Although they were very eager to help their teacher, some of them
got confused. The result is that six of them let some questions unanswered.
Therefore, I had to ask for help from another group of students to get all the
needed data. In general, because these subjects are my colleagues, neighbors,
students, close friends who are willing to help with the data collection, the
collected data are therefore reliable and appropriate to serve for the purpose of
the study.
The process of getting data from English native speaker subjects had some
difficulties. It took me more than two months to get only 14 questionnaires
answered. I spent my time in Phaïm Nguõ Laõo Street (it is named “Foreign Town”
in many guide books for foreign tourists) in Ho Chi Minh City, making friends
with foreigners and asked them for help. Some of them did refuse for some
reasons. Fortunately, most foreigners whom I met were very friendly and willing
to help me. Obviously, I could not do this quickly without the accompany of an
Australian female student who was the English volunteer teacher of the
University of Transportation near my house. The rest of the questionnaires that I
got were from Sydney and London by both email and post. Three other
Australians and one Londoner who used to work as volunteer English teacher at
the same university delivered them to their classmates, university professors and
staff as well as to the members of their family and even to their neighbors when
they came back home after spending their time in Vietnam. Then, they sent them
to me by post and email. Without this precious help, I could not get the essential
data for the study.
3.5. Assumptions
The study was based on the following assumptions:
The major sample population involved to investigate politeness phenomenon in
Englsih spoken invitations is my foreign friends – Australian and English
students- who are volunteer teachers at Ho Chi Minh Branch of The University
of Transportation, Ha Noi (located in District 9, HCM City) with the assistance of
their family members, friends, colleagues, neighbours, professors at university,
etc. who are all English native speakers and are willing to help.
The teachers and staff who have at least B.A. degrees and are teaching or
working at the Faculty of Economics, VNU, or at National Politic Institution, Ho
Chi Minh City (located in District 9) as well as my third year students who are
studying at the Faculty of Economics, VNU, constitute another crucial sample
population.
All informants are my teachers, my colleagues, neighbors, students, close friends
as well as their family members, close friends, classmates and professors at the
university of my foreign friends. Those people are willing to help and have
educational background. Therefore, the collected data are reliable and
appropriate.
This chapter has presented the methodology employed in the study. The next
chapter will report the results of data analysis and the discussion of the findings.
CHAPTER 4. CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND
FINDINGS
This chapter presents the results of the study regarding the preference for and
the use of politeness strategies (direct or indirect) by both ENS and VNS on
issuing spoken invitations; and the influence of interlocutors’ status, age and
gender on strategies used across cultures. The findings are analyzed and
discussed to find out answers to the research questions raised in the previous
chapter.
4.1. Data analysis
In order to answer the research questions, I examined the overall use and
preference for politeness strategies between two groups of subjects including
status, age and gender. I also used the scale of directness-indirectness described
in chapter Three as the model for cross-linguistic analysis of inviting strategies.
Each head act of invitations made by subjects in given situations was coded and
analyzed to compare the average frequencies of direct and indirect strategies
across cultures. Then, to account for the effect of interlocutors’ status, age and
gender on strategies used, the preference for these strategies in each situation
was analyzed.
4.1.1. The preference of strategy use between groups: Overall results
As mentioned in the preceding chapter, 40 questionnaire responses by 40 ENS
and 40 VNS were collected. 33 discourse completion questions of 5 given
situations answered by 40 subjects per group totaled 1320 strategies.
As Table 4.1 shows, direct inviting strategies constitute 21.364% in English and
84.09% in Vietnamese. The proportion of conventional indirectness in English is
61.667% in comparison to only 12.94% in Vietnamese. Besides, ENS gave more
hints (16.364%) than VNS did (only 3.61%) in given situations of issuing spoken
invitations. Furthermore, the number of participants who chose not to issue FTA
in English also outnumbered in Vietnamese. Generally, these results indicate
that the Vietnamese respondents are more direct in making spoken invitations
than their English counterparts.
VNS ENS Strategies
n % n %
Direct 1110 84.09 282 21.364
Conventional Indirect 162 12.94 814 61.667
Non- conventional Indirect 47 3.61 216 16.364
No invitation 1 0.076 8 0.606
Total 1320 100 1320 100
Table 4.1: The frequency of politeness strategies used by two groups of subjects
Typical examples of the three levels of directness- indirectness in English
spoken invitations are:
• Direct:
- Come to a party of mine on Saturday (Sit 1.3.)
- Have some more (Sit 2.1)
- I would like to invite you to my party (Sit 1,3, 5)
- I’m having a party. You have to be there (Sit 1.1, Sit 3)…
• Conventional indirect:
- Would you like some more?(Sit 2)
- Can I offer you some more? (Sit 2)
- Let’s go out for dinner. (Sit 5)
- Would you like to come over…? (Sit 1, 3, and 4)
- You should come over for my housewarming party. (Sit 4)
• Non-conventional indirect:
- Party at mine! Won’t be fun without you (Sit 1, 3, 5)
- Everybody would come to my party (Sit 1, 3, 5)…
- That boy would join my party. (Sit 1, 3, 5)…
The following examples are typical for the three levels of directness-
indirectness in Vietnamese:
• Direct
- Môøi Hoaøng ñeán nhaø döï tieäc cuøng mình (Sit 1.1)
- Môøi baùc duøng theâm (Sit 2, 5,6)
- Nhôù ñeán döï tieäc taân gia ñaáy (Sit 3,4)
• Conventional indirect
- Em coù theå môøi anh ñeán döï tieäc ñöôïc khoâng aï?( (Sit 1.5)
- Loan aên theâm nöõa khoâng? (Sit 2.3)
- Anh Cöôøng toái nay ñi duøng côm vôùi em ñöôïc khoâng anh? (Sit 5)
• Non-conventional indirect:
- Ñöøng khaùch saùo nheù (Sit 2)
- Sao baùc duøng ít theá aï? Meï chaùu seõ buoàn ñaáy aï (Sit 2)
4.1.2. Preference for and use of politeness strategies in relation to social
status, age and gender
Social status, gender and age of both the inviter and the invited may affect
significantly to the choice of politeness strategies employed by ENS and VNS
when issuing spoken invitations. They not only influence strategy used but also
affect each other in speech. To be polite in speech, participants always take
account for these factors before making any utterances. Therefore, in this part,
the three social variables were analyzed in pairs (social status and age; social
status and gender; gender and age) to find out the impact of each pair on the
selection of strategies employed by both groups of subjects.
4.1.2.1. Social status and age
The effect of social status and age on spoken invitations issued was investigated
with situation 5 in the questionnaire. The combination of age and social status
would form 9 discourse completion questions. If there were two situations for
this case, the number of questions would be 18, which would be too many for
subjects to answer and hence may lead to inaccurate data.
Each question in the situation was designed to serve a certain purpose. It was to
investigate what kind of politeness strategies was employed if
1. The inviter were in lower status and older than the invited.
2. The inviter were in lower status than and at the same age as the invited.
3. The inviter were in lower status and younger than the invited.
4. The inviter were in the same social status as and older than the invited.
5. The inviter were in the same social status and at the same age as the
invited.
6. The inviter were in the same social status as and younger than the
invited.
7. The inviter were in higher social status and younger than the invited.
8. The inviter were in higher social status than and at the same age as the
invited.
9. The inviter were in higher social status and older than the invited.
The preference for politeness strategies used by ENS and VNS was analyzed in
three separate cases.
a. Participants making spoken invitations to the invited of lower status in
relation to age
0
20
40
60
80
100
direct CID NCID
ENSVNS
Chart 4.1: The proportion of total politeness strategies employed to the
invited of lower social status in situation 5
As Chart 4.1 indicates, the majority of spoken invitations used by ENS was in
conventional indirect forms when the invited was in lower status. Besides, the
number of direct and non-conventional politeness strategies were relatively
equal. Meanwhile, direct strategies were mostly employed by VNS and the
proportion of non-conventional ones were pretty few in the same case.
As the data in Table 4.2 showed, different from VNS who tended to totally gave
direct invitations to the invited of younger age (92.5%), 70% of head acts by
ENS was in conventional indirect forms. ENS also employed more hints (10%) in
comparision to only 2.5% by VNS. It is rather clear from the figures that the
younger age of the invited influenced ENS differently from VNS.
Similarly, when the invited was older than or as young as the inviter, the
proportion of direct head acts used by VNS was always much higher (87.5% and
80%) than by ENS (25% and 17.5%). The highest proportion of politeness
strategies used by ENS in the two cases was in conventional forms, mostly in the
suggest formulae like “ Why don’t we…? / How about ….?” Or “Would you like
to….?”. In addition, there is an undeniable tendency of ENS to give more hints to
the invited of older age (25.5%) than of same age (15%). Meanwhile, though
VNS did give more conventional indirect invitations to people of older age
(15%) than to people of the same age (7.5%), the number of hints they used for
both groups of invited was few and completely equal (5%)
VNS ENS The invited Politeness Strategies
n % n %
Direct 37 92.5 8 20
Conventional indirect 2 5 28 70
Nonconventional indirect 1 2.5 4 10
Younger age
Total 40 100 40 100
Direct 35 87.5 10 25
Conventional indirect 3 7.5 24 60
Nonconventional indirect 2 5 6 15
Same age
Total 40 100 40 100
Older age Direct 32 80 7 17.5
Conventional indirect 6 15 24 60
Nonconventional indirect 2 5 9 25.5
Total 40 100 40 100
Table 4.2: Participants’ preference for and use of politeness strategies to the
invited of lower social status in situation 5
b. Participants making spoken invitations to the invited of equal status in
relation to age
0102030405060708090
direct CID NCID
ENSVNS
Chart 4.2: The proportion of total politeness strategies used to the invited of
equal social status in situation 5
The columns in Chart 4.2 provided an overall look at the strategies issued by
both ENS and VNS when they invited people of equal social status under the
impact of age. In this case, the majority of politeness strategies used by ENS was
conventional indirect (76.67%). The number of direct and non-conventional
indirect ones was rather equal (13.3% and 10%). On the contrary, VNS mostly
employed direct invitations to this group of counterparts (89%) in comparison to
only few conventional indirect strategies (approximetely 8% ) and only 1% hints
issued
As Table 4.3 showed, when the invited was younger, ENS rarely issued hints to
invite orally (only 1%). They used this strategy more frequently (7.5%) when
they were as young as the invited and most regularly (12.5%) when they were
younger. Besides, though they were at equal social status, the older age of the
invited still made them deliver spoken invitations less directly (7.5%) than when
inviting people of the same age (15%) or of younger age (17.5%).
Quite different from ENS, VNS tended to employ almost all spoken invitations
indirectly to the invited of younger age( 97.5%). 85% was to people of same age
and 82.5% to those of older age. They only used hints when inviting people of
older age but with a very small proportion (5%). Besides, the conventional
indirect politeness strategies were also employed in this case though more rarely
(2.5% to younger people; 15% to same age people and 12.5% to people of older
age).
VNS ENS The invited Politeness Stategies
n % n %
Direct 39 97.5 7 17.5
Conventional indirect 1 2.5 29 72.5
Nonconventional indirect 0 0 4 1
Younger age
Total 40 100 40 100
Direct 34 85 6 15
Conventional indirect 6 15 31 77.5
Nonconventional indirect 0 0 3 7.5
Same age
Total 40 100 40 100
Direct 33 82.5 3 7.5
Conventional indirect 5 12.5 32 80
Older age
Nonconventional indirect 2 5 5 12.5
Total 40 100 40 100
Table 4.3: Participants’ preference for and use of politeness strategies to the
invited of equal social status in situation 5
c. Participants making spoken invitations to the invited of higher social status
in relation to age
The overall results from Chart 4.3 showed that VNS and ENS differed
significantly in the choice of strategy for spoken invitations in the settings where
the addressee was in higher social status under the influence of age. While most
ENS employed indirect politeness strategies, the majority of VNS chose to use
direct ones. To ENS, between the explicit and non-explicit indirect strategies,
the use of explicit ones was more faroured in this case. As appeared in the chart,
VNS did issue both kinds of indirect strategies but few. However, in comparison
to the previous two cases when the invited was of lower or equal social status, it
seems that the higher status of the addressee did influence VNS to employ more
indirect politeness strategies such as questions or hints.
0
20
40
60
80
100
direct CID NCID
ENSVNS
Chart 4.3: The proportion of total politeness strategies used to the invited of
higher social status in situation 5
In Table 4.4 below, the results indicated that there seemed to be no difference in
the kind of politeness strategies VNS employed to orally invite the people who
were younger, older than or as young as they were. 82.5 % invitations were
direct, 10% was conventional indirect and 7.5 % was non-conventional indirect.
Age factor tended not to affect much to the choice of politeness strategy used by
VNS to the invited of higher status. However, this factor did influence
significantly the terms of address they used. Because in Vietnamese culture, the
use of kinship terms is closely related to age and politeness, the appropriate and
extended use of kinship terms according to age is taken as a way of expressing a
good manner. As a result, in stead of employing different politess strategies,
VNS used different terms of address to the invited of different age ranges as a
way to express their politeness.
One noticeable point is that ENS did take the age of the invited into account in
this situation. ENS offered more direct spoken invitations (20%) to people of the
same age, less (15%) to those of younger age and least (12.5%) to those who are
older. Concerning the amount of conventional indirect politeness strategies used
by ENS, the majority of them was for older people (70%), second position is for
younger and the third was for people who are as young as they were (57.5%).
The number of hints given in this case was highest to the invited of the same
age(22.5%) and equal to the rest of addressees (17.5%).
VNS ENS The invited Politeness Stategies
n % n %
Direct 33 82.5 6 15
Conventional indirect 4 10 27 67.5
Nonconventional indirect 3 7.5 7 17.5
Younger age
Total 40 100 40 100
Direct 33 82.5 8 20
Conventional indirect 4 10 23 57.5
Nonconventional indirect 3 7.5 9 22.5
Same age
Total 40 40 40 100
Direct 32 80 5 12.5
Conventional indirect 5 12.5 28 70
Nonconventional indirect 3 7.5 7 17.5
Older age
Total 40 40 40 100
Table 4.4: Participants’ preference for and use of politeness strategies to the
invited of higher social status in situation 5.
In summary, age and social status affected differently to the choice of politeness
strategies employed by ENS and VNS: the majority of choices from ENS was for
conventional indirectness while that of VNS was for directness. However, in
ENS’ data, when the invited was in lower status, subjects tended to employ most
direct invitations to the invited of the same age, most hints to the one who was
older and most conventional indirect to the younger person. Meanwhile, the
answers from VNS show that the top proportion of indirectness would be for the
older invited while the largest amount of directness would be for younger
partners. Therefore, the major difference is that ENS saw the necessity to invite
younger people indirectly whereas VNS considered direct spoken invitations
suitable.
Differently, in the setting where the invited was of equal position, ENS issued
more direct spoken invitations to younger people, more nonconventional indirect
ones to older partners while the majority of conventional indirectness was for the
same age people. VNS, though, used more conventional indirect politeness
strategies to the same age people together with more hints to older ones while
they kept issuing the largest amount of directness for the younger.
In addition, though VNS were still loyal to the use of directness, the higher status
and age of the addressee also made VNS invite more conventional indirectly to
the invited of older age. Meanwhile they affected ENS to deliver more direct
and hints spoken invitations to the same age people.
The preference for politeness strategies used by both ENS and VNS when
issuing spoken invitations under the impact of social status and gender was
analyzed in the following section.
4.1.2.2. Social status and gender
The impact of social status and gender on the kind of spoken invitations issued
was investigated with situation 1 and 3 in the questionnaire. The content of the
two situations was totally similar. The combination of gender and social status
created 6 discourse completion questions in each situation. Therefore, in total,
12 discourse completion questions would help to investigate the frequency
distribution of politeness strategy used by both groups of subjects when issuing
spoken invitations under the influence of social status and gender.
Each question in the situation was designed to serve a certain purpose. It was to
investigate what kind of politeness strategies the inviter would employ if
1. The invited were a male and in equal social status.
2. The invited were a female and in equal social status.
3. The invited were a male and in lower social status.
4. The invited were a female and in lower social status.
5. The invited were a male and in higher social status.
6. The invited were a female and in higher social status.
The preference for politeness strategies used by ENS and VNS was analyzed in
two separate cases:
a. Participants making spoken invitations to the invited of the same gender in
relation to status
Both Chart 4.4 and Table 4.5 below illustrate the spoken invitations used by ENS
and VNS to their partners of the same gender in relation to status.
The results revealed that both male and female ENS prefered conventional
indirect politeness strategies to the other two strategies when they orally invited
the same gender addressees. Besides, Chart 4.4 also indicates that females
issued a few more direct spoken invitations (26.67%) to their females
counterparts than males did to their male partners (25%). In addition, one crucial
point to notice is that the number of males who refused to do this kind of face
threatening act in the case tribled that of females (3 male subjects answered they
would not invite the people who were of the same gender and in higher social
status; meanwhile, there was only one female who gave the same response).
Compared with ENS, VNS mostly employed direct strategies to the partners of
the same gender. Moreover, as appeared in the chart, there were pretty few
subiects in the group who chose to deliver hints in this setting. Remarkably,
Vietnamese males tended to invite their male partners more directly (94.47% in
comparing to 91.67%) and less indirectly (4.7% in comparing to 6.67%) than the
ways females did to the invited of the same gender. This point seems to be
different from what the ENS males and females did in the same case.
0
20
40
60
80
100
D CID NCID No FTA
ENS(M-T-M_)VNS(M-T-M)ENS(F-T-F)VNS(F-T-F)
Chart 4.4: The proportion of total politeness strategies used by ENS in
comparing to those by VNS in situations 1 and 3
The results in Table 4.5 indicated the difference in the frequency distribution of
strategies used by both groups of subjects in relation to status.
VNS ENS
Male to
Male
Female to
Female
Male to
Male
Female to
Female
The invited Politeness
Stategies
% n % n % n %
D 38 95 37 92.5 14 35 13 32.5
CID 1 2.5 1 2.5 20 50 19 47.5
NCID 1 2.5 2 5 6 15 8 20
Lower status
Total 40 100 40 100 40 100 40 100
D 38 95 37 92.5 11 27.5 11 27.5
CID 2 5 3 7.5 18 45 23 57.5
NCID 0 0 0 0 11 27.5 6 15
Equal status
Total 40 100 40 100 40 100 40 40
D 37 92.5 36 90 5 12.5 8 20
CID 2 5 4 10 25 62.5 21 52.5
NCID 1 2.5 0 0 7 17.5 10 25
Higher status
Total 40 100 40 100 37 92.5 39 97.5
Table 4.5: Participants’ preference for and use of politeness strategies to the
invited of the same gender in situation 1 and 3
In ENS’ data, when the invited group was males and in lower social status than
the inviters, the direct strategy presents 35%, the conventional strategy shows
50% and the nonconventional takes 15%. When they were females, the data
shows 32.5% for direct, 47.5% for conventional indirect and 20% for hints.
Similarly, in VNS data, the percentage of subjects who chose to invite directly is
95% (males) and 92.5% (females); to invite indirectly by using suggest formulae
is 2.5 % (same for both males and females); to deliver hints is 2.5% for males
and 5% for females. It is clear that ENS and VNS shared one thing in common:
males employed more direct politeness strategy and provided less hints than
females did. Another noticeable point is that ENS men invited more
conventional indirectly than women in the case.
Quite contrary to the previous situation, there were not as many ENS males who
employed the conventional indirect to the invited of equal status as female did
(45 % for males and 57.5% for females). In addition, in this case, men also
issued more hints than women (27.5% and 15%). Meanwhile, in VNS’ data, men
continued to invite more directly and less indirectly than women. One crucial
question is that neither men nor women delivered any hints.
As presented in Table 4.5, the results also revealed that there were significant
differences in the strategy selection employed by ENS and VNS when the
invited were of higher social status. While men in ENS group became less direct
(12.5%) than women (20%), Vietnamese male native speakers kept issuing more
direct politeness strategy (92.5%) than women (90%). Besides, in contrast to
women of ENS group who employed fewer conventional indirect invitations than
men (52.5% and 62.5%), in VNS’ data, the number of women who chose the
same strategy doubled that of men (10% in comparing to 5%). Moreover, unlike
the case of female ENS who issued many hints (25%) to invite people of the
same gender and higher status, none of female VNS chose this strategy. Also,
although men of both groups did deliver hints, ENS outnumbered VNS in this
situation.
In summary, the fact that the invited and the inviter were of the same gender and
under the impact of social status affected differently to ENS and VNS. In higher
status than their male partners, both ENS and VNS males issued more direct
strategies than females. However, when they were at equal and lower status, the
choice of strategies by ENS males shifted to indirectness while both VNS and
ENS females continued issuing a high degree of indirectness to their female
parners. Meanwhile, VNS males kept unchanged in their selection.
b. Participants making spoken invitations to the invited of different gender
and in relation to status
The results presented in Chart 4.5 show that there were significant differences in
the frequency distribution of politeness strategies between ENS and VNS males
and females when they were asked to orally invite people of different gender.
0
20
40
60
80
100
D CID NCID No FTA
ENS(F-T-M)VNS(F-T-M)ENS(M-T-F)VNS(M-T-F)
Chart 4.5: The proportion of total politeness strategies made by ENS in
comparing to those by VNS in situation 1 and 3
As appeared in the chart, in general, ENS females tended to employ much more
direct spoken invitations(31.67%) than ENS males (20.83%). However, they
issued fewer both conventional and nonconventional indirect politeness
strategies in the case. Besides, there was only one ENS female who refused to
do this face threatening act in comparing to three males who chose the same
solution. Meanwhile, the data of VNS group showed no similarities between the
two groups. The results showed that the number of VNS who invited directly
nearly tribled that of ENS. Unlike ENS females, there were fewer VNS females
who used direct politeness strategies to invite males than VNS males did to
invite females. Moreover, different from ENS group, the number of conventional
and nonconventional indirect strategies employed by VNS females was also
more than by VNS males. The biggest difference between the two groups was
that none of VNS refused to do FTA in this situation while there were four ENS
who did the act.
In Table 4.6 below, the results indicated that there were more differences than
similarities in the frequency distribution of politeness strategies between ENS
and VNS when the invited was in lower status than and different gender from the
inviter, In this setting, though the proportion of conventional strategies employed
by both ENS, VNS females and males was totally equal (55%:55 % = 2.5%:2.5%
= 1:1), the percentage of those strategies used by ENS males and females was
much higher than that of VNS (55% and 2.5%). Under the impact of status, quite
contrary to ENS males who employed 27.5% direct strategies and hence fewer
than ENS females (32.5%), VNS males were more direct( 97.5%) than VNS
females( 92.5%). Besides, while VNS males delivered no hints in the case, the
percentage of ENS males who employed hints was even more (17.5%) than that
of females in the group(12.5%). In short, it seems that VNS females were more
indirect and ENS females were more direct than males in the same
circumstances.
In contrast to the previous case, the results indicated that in the situation where
the invited was of equal status, both VNS and ENS female inviters were more
direct than males in their groups. As appeared in the data, the politeness
strategies used by VNS females constituted 90% for direct ones, 7.5% for
conventional indirect and 2.5 % for hints. Meanwhile, the frequency distribution
of direct spoken invitations by VNS males was 87.5%; of conventional indirects
was 10% and of hints was 2.5%. Similarly, though the preference for strategies
of ENS group presented different percentages, the results in ENS data also
showed that ENS men tended to give fewer direct spoken invitations than ENS
women. Only 27.5% ENS males answered that they would directly invite equal-
status females while there was 42.5% ENS females who chose the same solution
to orally invite male partners. The number of conventional indirect invitations
given by ENS men was 60 % ( 45% in women choice) and for the use of hints
was 12.5% (same as women).
VNS ENS
Female to
Male
Male to
Female
Female to
Male
Male to
Female
The invited Politeness
Stategies
n % n % n % n %
D 37 92.5 39 97.5 13 32.5 11 27.5
CID 1 2.5 1 2.5 22 55 22 55
NCID 2 5 0 0 5 12.5 7 17.5
Lower status
Total 40 100 40 100 40 100 40 100
D 36 90 35 87.5 17 42.5 11 27.5
CID 3 7.5 4 10 18 45 24 60
NCID 1 2.5 1 2.5 5 12.5 5 12.5
Equal status
Total 40 100 40 100 40 100 40 40
D 34 85 38 95 8 20 3 7.5
CID 6 15 2 5 23 57.5 27 67.5
NCID 0 0 0 0 8 20 7 17.5
Higher status
Total 40 100 40 100 39 97.5 37 92.5
Table 4.6: Participants’ preference for and use of politeness strategies to the
invited of different gender in situation 1 and 3
Another noticeable point is that the higher status of the invited affected
differently the choice of politeness strategies employed by both ENS and VNS of
different gender when they were asked to orally invite the people of opposite
gender in situations 1 and 3. To ENS, though the use of conventional indirect
politeness strategies was still prefered, ENS women kept being more direct than
men. The proportion of direct strategies used by females over males which was
2.6 (20%: 7.5%) was still higher than the sum of both proportions of conventional
and nonconventional indirect strategies used by females over males which was
0.85 (57.5%: 67.5% + 20%:17.5%). The data also showed that there were more
males than females in the group who refused to do this FTA (3 for men and 1 for
women). Meanwhile, the data in VNS group showed an opposite result. To
VNS, even though direct spoken invitations were mostly favored by the majority
of participants, more VNS females tended to employ indirect politeness
strategies when inviting males than VNS males in the same situation. The
number of females issuing indirect politeness strategies tribbled (15%:5%) that
of males while the proportion of direct invitations by men over by women was
only 1.1 (95%:85%).
To sum up, in the setting where the invited was of opposite gender, VNS
females seemed to be more indirect than males when the invited was in lower
and higher status and more direct to the people of equal status. Meanwhile, ENS
females always use more direct invitations than ENS males do in all three
situations.
The impact of gender and age would be investigated in the following section of
this chapter.
4.1.2.3. Age and gender
The impact of age and gender on politeness strategies employed was
investigated with situations 2 and 4 in the questionnaire. The content of the two
situations was totally alike. Similarly to the previous case, the combination of
age and gender formed 6 discourse completion questions in each situation.
Therefore, in total, 12 discourse completion questions would help to investigate
the frequency distribution of politeness strategies used by both groups of subjects
when issuing spoken invitations under the influence of age and gender.
Each question in the situation was designed to serve a certain purpose. It was to
investigate what kind of politeness strategies the inviter would employ if
1. The invited were a female and at younger age.
2. The invited were a male and at younger age.
3. The invited were a female and at the same age.
4. The invited were a male and at the same age.
5. The invited were a female and at older age.
6. The invited were a male and at older age.
The preference for politeness strategies used by ENS and VNS was analyzed in
two separate situations:
a. Making spoken invitations to the invited of the same gender
The overall results presented in Chart 4.5 indicates that, like other cases, ENS
mostly favored the conventional indirect politeness strategies when they orally
invited someone under the influence of age and gender. In addition, though
females employed fewer numbers of conventional indirectness (61.67%)
comparing to males (65%), they showed a high tendency of using more hints
(23.33%) and fewer direct invitations(15%). It can be inferred that ENS females
were more indirect than males in this setting. VNS’ data revealed a different
result. Though the majority of subjects kept issuing direct spoken invitations, in
comparing to the previous settings, they tended to deliver much more indirect
politeness strategies. Besides, the data also indicated that, unlike ENS females,
VNS females were more direct than males because they employed more direct
strategies (80% and 76.67%), fewer conventional ones (15.82% and 18.33%) and
fewer nonconventional indirect strategies ( 4.17% and 5%) than men did in the
same situation.
a.
01020304050607080
D CID NCID
ENS(F-T-F)VNS(F-T-F)ENS(M-T-M)VNS(M-T-M)
Chart 4.6: The proportion of total politeness strategies made by ENS in
comparing to those by VNS to the invited of the same gender in
situations 2 and 4
The detailed analysis of the data in Table 4.7 presented the responses from both
subjects when taking the age of the invited into account.
Firstly, in the situation where the subjects were asked to orally invite people of
younger age, the number of ENS subjects who chose suggestory formulae or
query preparatory strategies still took 50% of the total strategies used. However,
ENS females issued much more hints (32.5%) and fewer direct strategies
(17.5%) than ENS males did (10% and 40%). They tended to be more indirect
than men. Meanwhile, VNS women delivered more direct invitations (85%) than
males (77.5%) and also issued fewer conventional indirect ones (10% and
17.5%). Moreover, VNS females and males shared one thing in common: they
employed the equal number of hints (5%). Therefore, VNS females somehow
employed more direct politeness strategies than males.
VNS ENS
Female to
Female
Male to
Male
Female to
Female
Male to
Male
The invited Politeness
Strategies
n % n % n % n %
D 34 85 31 77.5 7 17.5 16 40
CID 4 10 7 17.5 20 50 20 50
NCID 2 5 2 5 13 32.5 4 10
Younger age
Total 40 100 40 100 40 100 40 100
D 30 75 30 75 10 25 11 27.5
CID 7 17.5 8 20 23 57.5 24 60
NCID 3 2.5 2 5 7 17.5 5 12.5
Same age
Total 40 100 40 100 40 100 40 40
D 32 80 31 77.5 1 2.5 2 5
CID 8 20 7 17.5 31 77.5 34 85
NCID 0 0 2 5 8 20 4 10
Older age
Total 40 100 40 100 40 100 40 100
Table 4.7: Participants’ preference for and use of politeness strategies to the
invited of the same gender in situations 2 and 4
Secondly, to the invited of the same age, the results showed that there were
almost no differences between ENS females and males in their preference for
the politeness strategies employed. From 25% to 27.5% of both ENS males and
by each group of gender was
somehow equal. The only noticeable point is that, unlike ENS group, VNS males
tended to be more indirect when inviting the people of different gender who
were of their age. They issued a few more suggestory formulae or query
preparatory strategies (20% and 17.5% by women) as well as more hints (5% and
2.5% by females).
Finally, the trend of using politeness strategies of ENS and VNS to the people
who were older proved to have somehow similar result. In ENS’ data, the
number of females who employed hints doubled that of males (20% and 10%)
while the percentage of direct invitations issued by males doubled that of
females (5% and 2.5%). However, ENS men seemed to prefer conventional
indirect strategies more than women. 85% of them responsed that they would
invite by saying “Would you like to…” or the like to the invited of different
gender who were older. Therefore, ENS males were thought to be more indirect
than females. Similarly, VNS’ data showed that VNS males also favored
indirect politeness strategies than females. They not only issued fewer direct
spoken invitations (77.5% and 80%) but also used more hints (5% and 0%).
In summary, the results showed that the age of the interlocutors would cause an
impact on the preference for politeness strategies used by both ENS and VNS
males and make them invite a person of the same gender more directly than
females. The age factor influenced both VNS and ENS females.
The frequency distribution of politeness strategies employed by ENS and VNS
when the interlocutors are of different gender under the influence of age would
be investigated in the following section.
b. Making spoken invitations to the invited of different gender
0102030405060708090
D CID NCID
ENS(F-T-M)VNS(F-T-M)ENS(M-T-F)VNS(M-T-F)
Chart 4.7: The proportion of total politeness strategies made by ENS in
comparing to those by VNS to the invited of different gender in
situations 2 and 4
The results in Chart 4.7 indicated that there were significant differences in the
strategy selection done by ENS and VNS. ENS continued to be loyal to the use
of conventional indirect strategies while the majority of VNS prefered the direct
politeness strategies. Specifically, the results showed that though the percentage
of direct spoken invitations made by ENS females and males were totally equal,
females issued more hints and males used more conventional indirect ones.
Meanwhile, the gap between the selection of strategies of VNS females and
males seemed to be bigger. Many VNS females chose to use direct spoken
invitations to male partners in comparing to a much fewer number of males who
did the same act to female partners. Besides, VNS females also deliver much
more conventional indirect strategies than males in the same setting. The only
similar point between VNS females and males was that they issued relatively
equal number of hints.
Table 4.7 below presents the frequency distribution of politeness strategies used
by both ENS and VNS when taking age and gender of the invited into
consideration.
VNS ENS
Female to
male
Male to
female
Female to
male
Male to
female
The invited Politeness
Strategies
n % n % n % n %
D 31 77.5 24 60 10 25 15 37.5
CID 6 15 12 30 20 50 21 52.5
NCID 3 7.5 4 10 10 25 4 10
Younger age
Total 40 100 40 100 40 100 40 100
D 32 80 26 65 13 32.5 8 20
CID 5 12.5 12 30 22 55 27 67.5
NCID 3 7.5 2 5 5 12.5 5 12.5
Same age
Total 40 100 40 100 40 100 40 40
D 34 85 25 62.5 2 5 2 5
CID 6 15 12 30 30 75 34 85
NCID 0 0 3 7.5 8 20 4 10
Older age
Total 40 100 40 100 40 100 40 100
Table 4.8: Participants’ preference for and use of politeness strategies to the
invited of different gender in situations 2 and 4
As what we could see in the data, it was hard to reach a conclusion whether VNS
females were more direct or indirect than males when inviting people of
different gender who were younger. First, VNS females favored further direct
strategies than males because the frequency distribution of direct invitations by
them was 77.5% compared to 60% of males. In addition, the percentage of
suggestory formulae or query preparatory strategies they employed was only
half of that by VNS men. Besides, they also issued fewer hints. Nevertheless,
VNS females tended to be more direct than males. Compared with VNS females,
ENS women were less direct than men. Only 25% of their answers were in direct
form while 37.5% men chose the direct strategies. Besides, they also issued
much more hints than men did. The proportion of hints distributed was 25% for
females and only 10% for males while the percentage of conventional strategies
was nearly equal. Therefore, ENS females tended to be more indirect than ENS
males when inviting younger people of different gender.
Secondly, the results presented in Table 4.7 showed that there were some
similarities in the frequency distribution of inviting strategies used by ENS and
VNS in the setting where the invited was as young as the inviter. Both ENS’ and
VNS’ data indicated that females issued more direct invitations than males. 80%
of the responses from VNS and 32.5% ENS females were in direct form in
comparison to 65% VNS and 20% ENS males. Females of both groups were
found to employ much fewer conventional indirect politeness strategies than
males. There were 55% of females and 67.5% of males who used conventional
strategies.
Finally, when the invited was older than the inviter, the results were different. In
ENS’ data, both females and males employed fewer direct spoken invitations
comparing to the cases when the invited was younger than or as young as the
inviter (only 5%). Unlike in the previous settings, the proportion of indirect
politeness strategies used here was the majority (75% for females and 85% for
males). Although ENS females issued fewer suggestory formulae or query
preparatory strategies than males, they issued more hints (20%). Meanwhile,
VNS’ data indicated that VNS females were more direct than men when inviting
older people of different gender. Unlike ENS females, VNS females issued most
of their spoken invitations in direct form (85%) and the other 15% was for
conventional indirect. In comparison to females, males in the group used fewer
direct strategies and more indirect ones.
To sum up, age and gender of the invited affected not only to different groups of
subjects but also to subjects of different gender. In the setting where the
addressee was younger or older than the inviter, VNS females were more direct
than males. Meanwhile, ENS females seemed to be more indirect in the first
situation and employ fewer conventional indirect politeness strategies and more
hints than males in the second. Besides, to males who were of the same age,
ENS and VNS females shared one thing in common, i.e., they issued fewer
suggestory formulae or query preparatory strategies and used more direct spoken
invitations than men did to females who were of the same age.
4.2. Discussion of the findings
In this section, the findings were discussed to find out the answers to the four
research questions.
As mentioned above, the data analysis revealed some significant differences
between the ENS’ and VNS‘productions of spoken invitations under the impact
of politeness. Even though this finding concerns the results from the context-
specific situation, it still offers evidence that there are distinct cross-cultural
differences between VNS and ENS in making spoken invitations.
First, concerning the answers for the first and third research questions, the VNS
were found to employ a higher degree of directness as far as the head acts of
their spoken invitations were concerned while ENS showed a pretty high
frequency of employing indirectness. The results also showed how direct spoken
invitations are the most favored strategies for VNS while conventional indirect
ones are the most preferred strategies for ENS. Besides, they showed how
important it is in the English language to acknowledge the use of conventional
indirectness (normally in interrogative form) even with the inviting act which
brings benefits to the addressee. On the other hand, direct politeness strategies,
normally with the use of imperatives and the performative verb “invite”, were
extensively employed by VNS subjects and perceived as socially accepted by
the majority of VNS participants.
However, this finding does not mean VNS are less polite than ENS or ENS are
more polite than VNS in delivering spoken invitations. It only reflects different
language habits which originate from different cultures. Because inviting is a
kind of negative face threatening acts, in English speaking cultures, ENS would
consider the limitation of imposition, the use of giving options together with the
indirectness as ways of performing face saving acts. Therefore, the preference
for indirect spoken invitations by ENS could be explained by their cultural values
where individual’s freedom and independence is highly respected. Meanwhile, it
could be argued that the tendency for higher directness on the part of the VNS is
consistent with the characteristics of a solidarity-oriented society. Therefore, the
direct spoken invitations employed by VNS in the research served to emphasize
the intimacy, closeness and solidarity. Moreover, the use of particles and address
terms in Vietnamese culture somehow achieves to soften the imperative spoken
invitations and make them more polite and widely acceptable.
As a result, considering the relationship between directness/indirectness in
spoken invitations and politeness, it is evident from the above findings that
politeness is not always determined by indirectness. It is against Brown and
Levinson’s hierarchy which assumes that the more indirect an utterance, the
more polite it comes (Brown and Levinson, 1987: 17-21). In Vietnamese culture
and particularly with spoken inviting behavior, indirectness with the concept of
non-imposition or giving options is not necessarily politeness. It can be even
misunderstood as insincerity and hence may lead to the breaking of a further
social relationship.
The effect of social status, age and gender on the preference for and use of
inviting politeness strategies by both ENS and VNS was examined to answer the
second and fourth research questions. The findings revealed that these factors
did have a different impact on the choice of both groups.
Regarding the influence of social status and age of participants to the choice of
politeness strategies employed by both groups, the data in Table 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4
showed different results.
It is undeniable that both groups of subjects saw the need of being indirect to the
people who were older no matter what levels of social status those people were
in. However, almost VNS invited people of younger age directly though that
person was a boss, an employee or a colleague. Meanwhile, ENS considered
younger people as distant and hence applied negative politeness strategies to
reduce the imposition of the inviting, especially in the setting when those people
were at lower position. In addition, while ENS reacted differently to people of
the same age accordingly to status (direct to lower status, conventional indirect
to equal and most hints to higher status), VNS only realized the necessity of
employing indirectness to people of the same age when they were in equal
status.
That is to say, to ENS, it is true that the power of the addressee is very important
to the politeness strategies employed by the speaker. According to Brown and
Levinson, the more powerful the hearer is, the more polite the speaker would be,
from which they mean the more indirect people would be in the speech act of
requesting. The majority of strategies employed by ENS has proved to follow
this belief. However, under the effect of age, the results show that it is not
correct to the invited of lower status because ENS employed even more indirect
invitations than to the one of higher or equal status. Moreover, what Brown and
Levinson believe is also not totally suitable in the case of VNS. Unlike ENS who
considered age factor was not important but significant as social status, VNS took
the age of the addressee in greater consideration than his/her social status in
invitations. They used the same degree of directness to younger people
regardless of their status, and to same-age partners except when they were of
equal status. Therefore, social status of the participants did not affect as much to
the selection of politeness strategies by VNS as their age did.
Concerning the effect of both social status and gender on the choice of politeness
strategies by ENS and VNS, gender relationships were examined together with
social status.
Firstly, with male partners of higher status, both ENS and VNS males issued
more direct strategies than females. However, being of equal or lower status, the
choice of strategies by ENS males shifted to indirectness while VNS males kept
unchanged in their selection. As Chodorou (1974) and Gilligan (1982) said,
because men see the world as a hierarchy in which any individual may be one-up
or one-down, their speech shows a tendency to seek independencies and focus
on hierarchical relationship. This can explain the reason why more ENS chose to
use directness to people of lower position and negative politeness to the ones of
higher or equal positions. Nevertheless, if the choice of strategies by VNS were
explained in such a way, VNS males would be very impolite people who always
think themselves as superior, which is not true. VNS males tended to prefer
more direct patterns to their male partners as a sign of closeness and
friendliness. It seems that, to VNS males, the necessity of realizing the status of
the same gender addressees is not as important as the need to show solidarity
between themselves, especially in the act of inviting.
Meanwhile, the strategy selection of both ENS and VNS females when inviting
the people of the same gender shows the suitability between the reality and the
theory suggested by Holmes (1996), which states that being well aware of the
fact that what they say may threaten face of other people, women tend to use the
extremes of negative politeness more frequently than men do. Besides, in this
case, there were more women than men who saw the need of inviting indirectly,
no matter what social status they were in.
Surprisingly enough, in the setting where the invited was of opposite gender,
ENS females always invited more directly than ENS males did in all three levels
of social status. On the contrary, VNS females seemed to be more indirect than
males when the invited was in lower and higher status, and more direct to the
people of equal status. This result indicates that there are not only differences in
the way women and men orally invite someone but there are also differences in
the selection of strategies among women and men themselves. While the
majority of ENS women employed indirect politeness strategies to the invited of
the same gender to save face, they saw another need to show intimacy and
solidarity to the people of different gender by inviting directly. Here, it seems
that ENS females are less aware of the values of a more negative politeness
society where the limitation of imposition, the giving options and the indirectness
are more preferred. Meanwhile, the fact that VNS females were always more
indirect to both people of same and different gender than men except for the
case of equal social status proved the perception that VNS females prefer
“beating about the bush” rather than being straightforward.
Finally, with the respect to the impact of both the invited’s and the inviter’s age
and gender on the selection of politeness strategies used for spoken invitations,
the results in Table 4.6 showed that, different from the effect of status, the age of
the interlocutors would somehow make both ENS and VNS males invite a person
of the same gender more directly than females do. To ENS males, the idea that
they ususally do not pay as much attention to the age of the adressee as other
factors such as social status or gender again proved to be correct. It is obvious
that they did not change their politeness strategy together with the change of
their male partners’ age while they did employ different types of strategies when
the status was different. To VNS males, the reason why the majority of them
issued directness may be explained by the need to show closeness and solidarity
among Vietnamese peers of the same gender.
To sum up, gender and age of counterparts obviously had a different impact on
females of both groups. Firstly, the number of those who chose to be indirect to
their same gender partners outnumbered that of males. The results showed that
there are more females than males (both ENS and VNS) who tried to avoid
threatening the face of the adressees and their own face also by giving options to
the adressees of different ranges of age. Secondly, when the invited was of
different gender, his/her age influenced the choice of politeness strategies by
ENS and VNS in another way. The results in Table 4.7 indicated that in the
setting where the addressee was younger or older than subjects, VNS females
were more direct than males in their group. Meanwhile, ENS females seemed to
be more indirect in the first situation and employ fewer conventional indirect
politeness strategies and more hints than males in the second. Besides, to the
male invited who was as young as they were, both ENS and VNS women shared
one thing in common: they issued fewer suggestory formulae or query
preparatory strategies and employed more direct spoken invitations than men in
their groups. As a result, the age of the counterparts had a stronger impact on the
selection of strategies employed by both ENS and VNS females than by males.
Females of both groups seem to be more sensitive to age and gender of the
adressees and always take those factors into consideration. They employed
various different strategies for different groups of the invited than males in their
groups.
This chapter has provided the results of data analysis and discussion of the
findings. While ENS prefered the selection of indirect politeness strategies in
issuing spoken invitations, VNS favored direct ones.
From the results of data analysis and discussion of the findings, some conclusions
will be reached and some pedagogical implications for teaching English spoken
invitations to Vietnamese learners of English will be suggested in the next
chapter.
CHAPTER 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter draws out the conclusion of the research and suggests some
pedagogical implications for the teachers of English when teaching English
spoken invitations to Vietnamese learners.
5.1. Conclusion
Different cultures may lead to different communication styles, which can be
easily seen in communication problems in social interaction. As a result, the
acquisition of sociolinguistic competence would be of considerable value to any
learners who want to communicate successfully in another language. Since
politeness is an integral part of the socio-cultural system, the awareness of the
differences in politeness expression between the mother language and the target
language (Vietnamese and English in this study) can contribute a lot to the
development of communicative competence of Vietnamese learners of English.
Spoken invitations are one of the very frequent speech acts which can take place
in daily activities, both in English and Vietnamese cultures. The investigation of
the choice of direct or indirect spoken invitations by ENS and VNS under the
influence of social status, age and gender has shown both similarities and
differences between the two groups of subjects.
The biggest difference between these two groups is the preference for politeness
strategies employed when they invited someone orally. Coming from a society
where the principles of non-imposition are widely accepted as being polite, the
majority of ENS used indirect politeness strategies to deliver the speech act of
inviting. They possibly preferred structural indirectness to indicate their distance,
give options and through this they soften the impositions. Meanwhile, VNS come
from a society where greater importance is attached to solidarity relations and
dependence rather than distance and independence, so most of them tended to
employ structurally directness when issuing spoken invitations. Moreover,
because inviting is an act that brings benefits to the hearer, in Vietnamese
culture, it seems to be more convenient for the hearer of a spoken invitation to
accept if s(he) is clearly forced to do so. Therefore, in this case, the imposition is
to save the face of the hearer than to threaten her/his face.
Some other differences and similarities between the two groups of subjects were
found during the process of investigating the impact of social status, age and
gender on the selection of politeness strategies employed.
Concerning the effect of social status and age, the results show that ENS took the
first factor into greater consideration than the second while VNS had quite
opposite selection. Besides, the examination of social status and gender also
indicate that men and women had different tendency in the choice of politeness
strategies to invite people of different status. In general, ENS males employed
more strategies to invite people of same gender together with the change of
addressee’s status than ENS females. VNS females also employed similar
strategies to the people of opposite gender in comparison to VNS males.
Moreover, when both gender and age of the addressees were taken into
consideration, the results indicate that they had a stronger effect on both ENS
and VNS females’ selection of politeness strategies.
The results of this study show that issuing English spoken invitations is not an
easy and simple task for Vietnamese learners of English for the fact that there
are both similarities and differences. As a result, communicative failure can
possibly happen regardless of their good will of delivering any spoken invitation
to an English native speaker.
5.2. Implications
Being polite is becoming more and more significant nowadays while the
expression of politeness clearly falls within the speaker’s communicative rather
than linguistic competence. Therefore, foreign language teachers are expected
to provide language learners not only with linguistic competence but also with
communicative competence which will enable them to select grammatically
correct expressions which are also appropriate in the specific situation. (Sifiano,
1992: 203)
Basing on the findings of the study, I would like to suggest some implications for
teaching English spoken invitations to Vietnamese learners of English with a
close attention to the effect of politeness.
1. First of all, Vietnamese learners of English should be well aware of the
cultural differences in the preference for the choice of politeness strategies
between ENS and VNS. They should be informed that generally ENS often
use conventional indirect structures to perform the speech act of inviting
while VNS have the habit of performing it directly.
2. Besides, as the findings showed, it is necessary for the teacher to notice the
learners about the different impacts of social status, age and gender on the
invitation strategies used by ENS and VNS. The increase of learners’
awareness will not only help them improve their communicative performance
in English but also prevent them from unintentionally appearing impolite and
rude.
3. The lecture of cultural differences and the long lists of alternatives for drills
and memorization as to what is appropriate and polite when inviting in
English may possibly bore the learners and thus defeat the original purpose.
Therefore, some following ways are suggested to avoid such problems.
a. First, Vietnamese teachers of English should consciously and
conscientiously try to present an appropriate model for students to
imitate. However, because there is not just one way of behaving
appropriately, teachers should let their learners as creative as possible. If
the learners employ a rather inappropriate construction for the inviting in
a specific context, teachers can invite the class to give alternative
possibilities.
b. Second, the use of real life situations in role play activities is extremely
important in practicing the use of inviting strategies. Besides, if those
situations are carefully chosen to depict everyday life, they can lead to
interesting class discussions about how to be more appropriate or more
polite in English culture and why. Therefore, the supporting role of
teachers during the discussion can help to demonstrate the expected
structures implicitly through which learners acquire them unconsciously
in a more exciting way than listening to the lecture.
c. Third, suitable teaching materials play a significant role to develop
learners’ sociocultural knowledge and hence may contribute importantly
to the development of communicative competence. As a result, it is
necessary for the teachers to exploit as many authentic materials as
possible so that the practice of the speech act would be more natural and
enjoyable. Moreover, accordingly to the level of the learners, they can
make groups, create situations themselves and challenge each other to
make suitable spoken invitations in a close attention to politeness
factors.
d. Finally, because classroom interaction is rather different from what
happens in society, teacher should encourage learners to put theory into
practice by making friends with foreigners who may be tourists or
teachers at foreign language centers... and try inviting them out for a
drink. Although this kind of practice may cost, the experience is
invaluable and can make really fast progress in learning.
This chapter has given the conclusion of the study and made some
recommendations about how to teach English spoken invitations effectively to
their Vietnamese learners of English. Hopefully, the study may contribute to
avoid the communicative problems of Vietnamese learners of English in social
interaction.
REFERENCES
1. Austin, J.L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
2. Bach, K. and Harnish, R. 1979. Linguistic Communication and Specch Acts.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
3. Bachman, L.F. 1990. Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. New York:
Oxford University Press.
4. Bardovi- Harlig, K. and Hardford, B.S. 1991. Saying' no' in English: Native and
nonnative rejections. Pragmatics and Language learning 2. 41-57
5. Beebe, L. and Cummings, M.C. 1996. Natural speech acts data versus written
questionnaire data: How data collection method affects speech act performance. In
Grass, Susan M. and Joyce Neu (eds.). Speech acts Across Cultures. Challenges to
Communication in a second language. Mouton de Gruyter. New York. 65-86.
6. Beebe, L. et al. 1990. Pragmatic transfer in ESL refusals. In Scarcella, Robin, C.,
Andersen, E.S. and Krashen, S.D. (eds.). Developing Communicative Competence in
Second Language. 55-73. Newburry Houese: New York.
7. Billmyer, K and Varghese, M. 2000. Investigating instrument-based pragmatic
variability: Effects of enhancing discourse completion tests. Applied Linguistics 21(4).
517-552.
8. Blum-Kulka, S. and Olshtain, E. 1986. Too many words: length of utterance and
pragmatic failure. Studies in L2 Acquisition 8. 165-179.
9. Blum-Kulka, S. et al. 1989. Cross-cultural Pragmatics. Worwood New York: Ablex.
10. Blum-Kulka, S., 1987. Indirectness and Politeness in request: Same or
Different? Journal of Pragmatics 11. 131-146.
11. Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. and Kasper, G. (eds). 1989. Cross cultural
pragmatics: Requests and apologies. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
12. Boxer,D. 1993. Complaints as Positive Strategies: What the Learners Needs to
Know. TESOL Quarterly 27(2).
13. Brown, D.H. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Fourth
Edition. Longman.
14. Brown, G. 1978. Understanding Spoken Language. TESOL Quarterley 12(3).
15. Brown, G. and Yule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge.
16. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1978. Universals of Language usage.: Politeness
Phenomenon. In Goody, E. (ed.). Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social
Interaction. 56-311. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
17. Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language
usage. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
18. Brown, R. and Gilman, A. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In
Giglooli, P.P. (ed.). Language and social context. 1772. 252-282.
Harmondsworth: Penguimn Books.
19. Cameron, D. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. SAGE Publishcations.
Longman.
20. Canale, M and Swain, M.1980. Theoretical Bases of Communicative
Approaches to Second Language Teaching and Testing. Applied Linguistics, 1.
1-47.
21. Canale, M, 1983. In Richards and Schmidt. 1983. From communicative
competence to communicative language pedagogy.
22. Coates, J, 1986. Women, Men and Language. Longman.
23. Cohen, A.D. and Olshtain, E. 1981. Developing a measure of sociocultural
competence: the case of apology. Language Learning 31(1). 113-114.
24. Cohen, A.D. and Olshtain, E. 1993. The production of speech acts by EFL
learners. TESOL Quarterly 27(1). 33-56.
25. Coulhard, M. 1977. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. Longman.
26. Dascal, M. 1983. Pragmatics and the philosophy of mind I: thought in language.
Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
27. Davinson, A. 1975. Indirect speech acts and what to do with them. In Cole, P.
and Morgan, J.L. (eds.). Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts. 143-185. New
York: Academic Press.
28. Davinson, J. 1984. Subsequent versions of invitations, offers, requets and
proposals dealing with potential or actual rejection. In Atkinson, J.M. and
Heritage, J. (eds.). Structures of social action: Studies in conversational
analysis. 102-128. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
29. Ñaëng Thò Höôûng, A Cross-Cultural Study On the Way in Which Speakers of
Vietnamese and Speakers of English Issue, Accept and Decline Spoken
Invitations, University of Canberra, Australia, 1992.
30. Economidou- Kogetsidies, M. 2002. Requesting Strategies in English and
Greek: Observations from an Airline's Call Centre. Nottingham Linguistic
Circular 17.
31. Edmonson, W. 1981. Spoken Discourse: A model for analysis. Longman.
32. Edmonson, W. and House, J. 1981. Let's talk and talk about it. Munich Urban
and Scharzenberg.
33. Ervin-Tripp, s.1976. Is Sybil there? The structure of some American English
Directives. Language in Society. 5(1). 25-66.
34. Frescura, M.A. 1993. A sociolinguistic Comparison of 'reactions to complaints':
Italian L1 vs. English L1, Italian L2 and Italian as a Community Language.
Unpublished dissertation. University of Toronto: Canada.
35. Fukushima, S. 2000. Requests and culture: Politeness in British English and
Japanese. Peter Lang: Berne
36. Garcia, C. 1989. Disagreeing and requesting by Americans and Venezuelans. In
Linguatics and Education 1. 299-322.
37. Garcia,C. 1993. Making a request and responding to it: A case study of Peruvian
Spanish speakers. Journal of Pragmatics 19. 127-152.
38. Geis, M. 1995. Speech acts and Conversational Interation. Cambridge
University Press.
39. Grice, H.P. 1975. In Cherry, R.D. 1988. Politeness in Written Persuation.
Journal of Pragmatics 12. 63-81.
40. Harris, S. 1995. Pragmatics and power. Journal of Pragmatics 23. 27-52.
41. Harris, S. 2003. Politeness and power: Making and responding to 'requests' in
institutional settings. Text 23(1). 27-52. Walter de Gruyter.
42. Hassal, T. 1999. Request strategies in Indonesian. Pragmatics 9(4). 585-606.
43. Hill et at. 1986. Universals of linguistic politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 10.
47-71.
44. Hironi, K. 1987. Oral refusals of invitations and requests in English and
Japanese. Journal of Asian Culture 11. 83-106.
45. Holmes, J. 1996. Sex, politeness and language. Longman: New York, London.
46. Holtgraves, T. 1986. Language Structure in Social interaction: perceptions of
direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 51. 305-314.
47. House, J. and Kasper, G. 1981. Politeness markers in English and German. In
Coulmas, F. (ed.). Conversational Routine. 157-186. The Hague: Mouton.
48. Hurford, J. and Heasley Brendan. 2001. Semantics: A course book. Cambridge
University Press.
49. Hussein, A. A. 1995. The sociolinguistic patterns of native Arabic speakers:
Implications for teaching Arabic as a foreign language. Applied Language
Learning 6. 65-87.
50. Hymes, D. 1972. On communication competence. In Sociolinguistics, Price, J.
and Holmes, J. (eds.). 269-293. Penguin: London.
51. Ide, S. 1989. Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals
of linguistics politeness. In Multilingua. Vol. 8 no. 2/3.223-248.
52. J. Ceùsar Feùlix- Brasdefer. 2003. Declining and invitation: A Cross-cultural
study of pragmatics strategies in American English and Latin American Spanish.
In Multilingua 22. 225-255. Walter de Gruyter.
53. Kasper, G. 1998. Interlanguage pragmatics. In Byrnes, Heidi (ed.). Learning
Foreign and Second languages. Modern Language Association. 183-208. Data
collection in pragmatics research. University of Hawaii Working papers in ESL
18(1). 71-107
54. Kramsch, C. 1993. Context and Culture in Language Learning. Oxford
University Press.
55. Lakoff, R. 1977. In Cherry, R.D. 1988. Politeness in written persuasion. Journal
of Pragmatics 12. 63-81.
56. Lakoff, R. 1989. The limits of politeness: Therapeutic and courtroom discourse.
In Multilingua 8(2/3).101-129.
57. Leech, G. 1983. In Cherry, R.D. 1988. Politeness in Written Persuation. Journal
of Pragmatics 12. 63-81.
58. Leech, G.N. 1980. Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
59. Löông Vaên Hy (chuû bieân). 2000. Ngoân Ngöõ, Giôùi vaø Nhoùm xaõ hoäi töø thöïc tieãn
tieáng Vieät. NXB KHXH: Haø Noäi.
60. Macaulay, M. 2001. Indirectness and gender in request for information. Journal
of Pragmatics 33. 293-316.
61. Manes, J. and Wolson, N. 1881. The compliment formula. In Coulmas Florian
(ed.). Conversational Routine, Explorations in Standardized Communication:
Situations and Pre-patterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton. 259-271.
62. Mao, L.R. 1994. Beyond politeness theory: 'Face' revisited and renewed. Journal
of Pragmatics 21.451-468.
63. McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge
University Press.
64. McKay, S.L. and Hornberger, N.H. 1996. Sociolonguistics and Language
Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
65. McKay, S.L. and Hornberger, N.H. 1997. Sociolonguistics and Language
Teaching. Cambridge University Press.
66. Mills, S. 1995. Language and Gender: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Longman.
67. Nelson, G.L. and Hall,C. 1999. Complimenting in Mexican Spanish: Developing
grammatical and pragmatic competence. Spanish Applied Linguistics 3. 91-121.
68. Nguyeãn Vaên Khang (chuû bieân). 1996. ÖÙng xöû Ngoân ngöõ Trong Giao Tieáp Gia
Ñình Ngöôøi Vieät. NXB Vaên Hoaù- Thoâng Tin.
69. Nguyeãn Vaên Khang. 1999. Ngoân Ngöõ Hoïc Xaõ Hoäi: Nhöõng Vaán Ñeà Cô Baûn. NXB
KHXH.
70. Pyle, C. 1975. The function of indirectness. Paper read at www.hrc.ntu.edu.tw
71. Reinard, J. 2001. Introduction to Communication Research. McGraw- Hill
Higher Education: Singapore.
72. Savignon, S.J. 1983. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom
Practice. Reading, MA.: Addison- Wesley.
73. Scarcella, R. 1979. On speaking ability in a second language. In Yorio, Carlos,
A., Kyle Perkins and Jaqueline Schachter (eds.). On TESOL 79: The learner in
Focus. Washington DC: TESOL. 275-287.
74. Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.W. 1995. Intercultural Communication. A Discourse
Approach. Blacwell Publishers, Inc: Cambridge.
75. Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
76. Sifianou, M. 1992. Politeness phenomena in England and Greece, A Cross-
cultural perspective. Clarendou Press: Oxford.
77. Spencer- Oatey, H. 1992. Cross-cultural politeness: British and Chinese
conceptions of the tutor-student relationship. Lancaster: unpublished thesis.
78. Stubbs, M. 1984. Discourse analysis. Basil, Blackwell: Oxford.
79. Takahashi, S. 1996. Pragmatic transferability. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 18. 189-223.
80. Takahashi, T. and Beebe, L. 1987. The development of Pragmatic competence
by Japanese learners of English. JALT Journal 8. 131-155.
81. Tannen, D. 1990. You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation.
Ballantine Books, New York.
82. Tariq,R. 1999. Language Education and Culture. Oxford University Press.
83. Taï Thò Thanh Taâm. 2001. Lòch söï ngoân ngöõ trong moät soá nghi thöùc giao tieáp
Tieáng Vieät. Luaän vaên thaïc syõ. ÑH KHXH$& NV TP HCM.
84. Thomas, J. 1983.Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics 4(2). 91-
112.
85. Thomas, J. 1995. Meaning in interaction. London: Longman.
86. Thorn, B. and Henley, N. (ed.). 1975. Language and Sex: Difference and
Dominance. Newburry House.
87. Ting-Tomey, S. 1999. Communicating Across Cultures. The Guilford Press:
New York, London.
88. Trudgill, P. 1972. In Zimin, S. 1981. Sex and Politeness: Factors in first and
second language use. Mouton, The Hague.
89. Trudgill, P. 1983. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society.
Penguin Books.
90. Van Mulken, M. 1996. Politeness markers in French and Dutch Requests.
Language Sciences 8(3-4). 689-702.
91. Vuõ Thò Thanh Höông. 1999. Giaùn tieáp vaø Lòch söï Trong Lôøi Thænh Caàu Tieáng
Vieät. Taïp Chí Ngoân Ngöõ, soá 1.
92. Vuõ Thò Thanh Höông. 1999. Giôùi tính vaø Lòch söï. Taïp Chí Ngoân Ngöõ, soá 8.
93. Walter, J. 1979a. The perception of politeness in English and Spanish. On
TESOL 79. 289-296.
94. Walters, J. 1979. Strategies in requesting in Spanish and English: Structural
similarities and pragmatics differences. Language Learning 29(2). 277-293.
95. Wierzbicka, a. 1985. Different cultures, Different Languages, Different Speech
Acts: Polish vs. English. Journal of Pragmatics 9. 145-178.
96. Wolfson, N. 1981. Invitations, compliments and the competence of the native
speakers. International Journal of Psycholinguistics 25. 7-22.
97. Wolfson, N. 1986. Research Methodology and the Question of Validity. TESOL
Quarterly 20(4).
98. Wolfson, N. 1989. Perspectives: Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Heinle and Heinle
Publishers.
99. Wolfson, N., Thomas, M. and Jones, S. 1989. Problems in the comparision of
speech acts across cultures. In Blum- Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane House and
Gabriele Kasper (eds.). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies.
Norwood: Ablex Publishing. 174-196.
100. Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
101. Zhang, Q. 2001. Symbols of status and respect. Shanghai Star (02-08-2001).
102. Zhang, Y. 1995. Indirectness in Chiness Requesting. In Kasper (ed.).
Pragmatics of Chinese as native and target language. Honolulu: University of
Hawaii's Press.
APPENDIX 1 (Questionnaire to ENS)
QUESTIONNAIRE
I would very much appreciate your help with my research. Could you please fill in
the blanks or put an X in the appropriate box in the following:
I. PERSONAL INFORMATION:
Nationality: …………………………………. First Language: ………………………………….
Age range: Under 20 20-30 30-40 40-50 Over
50
Gender: Female Male
Profession: ……………………………………………………………………………………………..
Education: ……………………………………………………………………………………………..
QUESTIONNAIRE:
Would you please read the following questions, put yourself in given
situations and then write down what you actually say in each situation:
Situation 1:
You are a candidate for the MA degree and have just finished your thesis.
You open a celebration party at home on Saturday night at 6 p.m. You
would like A to come. What would you say if A were:
1. Richard, a male colleague of equal position to you?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Melanie, a female colleague of equal position to you?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. Patrick, a male colleague of lower position than you?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. Nancy, a female colleague of lower position than you?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5. Mr Edward, a colleague of higher position than you?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
6. Mrs. Sidsel, a colleague of higher position than you?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Situation 2:
During the dinner at your house, as the host, you want B to have some more
food. What would you say if B were:
1. Linda, a female classmate of your younger brother or sister?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Thomas, a male classmate of your younger brother or sister?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. Janet, your female friend who is at your age?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. Harry, your male friend who is at your age?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5. Mrs. Lisa, a friend of your parents who is much older than you are?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
6. Mr. Hampton, a friend of your parents who is much older than you are?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Situation 3:
You have just finished moving into a new house and want to invite C over
to celebrate. What would you say if C were:
1. Harrison, your male colleague?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Cathy, your female colleague?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. Robert, your male employee?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. Lessie, your female employee?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5. Mr. Peterson, your boss?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
6. Mrs. Laura, your boss?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Situation 4:
You and D are business partners. You would like D to have dinner with you
to discuss more about the terms of your contract. What would you say if D
were:
1. Mr. Wright, who is younger than you are?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Mrs. Thatcher, who is younger than you are?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. Mr. Gordon, who is just about your age?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. Mrs. Julian, who is just about your age?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5. Mr. Miller, who is older than you are?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
6. Mrs. Michel, who is older than you are?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Situation 5:
You’ve just been promoted, so you throw a party to celebrate at X restaurant, 18
p.m. on Saturday. You want to invite E (male or female) to join with you. What
would you say if E were:
1. Your boss who is younger than you?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
2. Your boss who is at your age?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3. Your boss who is older than you?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
4. Your colleague of equal position to you and is younger than you?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5. Your colleague of equal position to you and is at your age?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
6. Your colleague of equal position to you and is older than you?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
7. Your employee who is younger than you?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
8. Your employee who is at your age?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
9. Your employee who is older than you?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE!
APPENDIX 2 (Questionnaire to VNS)
PHIEÁU KHAÛO SAÙT
Baûn caâu hoûi döôùi ñaây cuûa toâi nhaèm thu thaäp döõ lieäu cho ñeà taøi nghieân cöùu. Mong
ban vui loøng daønh chuùt thôøi gian quyù baùu traû lôøi caùc caâu hoûi sau. Caâu traû lôøi cuûa
baïn raát quan troïng ñoái vôùi söï thaønh coâng cuûa ñeà taøi, vaø chæ ñöôïc söû duïng vaøo muïc
ñích nghieân cöùu chöù khoâng nhaèm muïc ñích naøo khaùc.
I. THOÂNG TIN CAÙ NHAÂN:
Tuoåi: < 20 20 -30 30-40 40-50 > 50
Giôùi tính: Nöõ Nam
Ngheà nghieäp: …………………………………………………………………
Trình ñoä hoïc vaán: …………………………………………………………
II. CAÂU HOÛI NGHIEÂN CÖÙU Xin Baïn vui loøng ñoïc caùc tình huoáng sau ñaây vaø traû lôøi theo caùch baïn thöïc
söï duøng trong cuoäc soáng
Tình huoáng 1:
Baïn vöøa baûo veä xong luaän vaên thaïc só vaø toå chöùc tieäc chuùc möøng vaøo toái thöù
baûy, luùc saùu giôø taïi nhaø. Baïn muoán môøi ngöôøi A ñeán döï. Baïn seõ noùi theá naøo
neáu A laø:
1. Hoaøng, moät ñoàng nghieäp nam coù vò trí xaõ hoäi ngang baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
2. Lan, moät ñoàng nghieäp nöõ coù vò trí xaõ hoäi ngang baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
3. Thu, moät ñoàng nghieäp nöõ coù vò trí xaõ hoäi thaáp hôn baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
4. Tuaán, moät ñoàng nghieäp nam coù vò trí xaõ hoäi thaáp hôn baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
5. Quang, moät ñoàng nghieäp nam coù vò trí xaõ hoäi cao hôn baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
6. Truùc, moät ñoàng nghieäp nöõ coù vò trí xaõ hoäi cao hôn baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Tình huoáng 2:
Trong böõa aên toái taïi nhaø baïn, vôùi cöông vò laø chuû nhaø, baïn muoán môøi ngöôøi
B duøng theâm moùn. Baïn seõ noùi theá naøo neáu ngöôøi B laø:
1. Trí, moät caäu baïn cuøng lôùp cuûa em trai hoaëc em gaùi baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
2. Hoàng, moät coâ baïn cuøng lôùp cuûa em trai hoaëc em gaùi baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
3. Mai, moät ngöôøi baïn nöõ cuøng tuoåi vôùi baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
4. Huøng, moät ngöôøi baïn nam cuøng tuoåi vôùi baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
5. Loan, (nöõ) moät ngöôøi lôùn tuoåi laø baïn cuûa cha meï baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
6. Vieät, (nam) moät ngöôøi lôùn tuoåi laø baïn cuûa cha meï baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Tình huoáng 3:
Baïn vöøa chuyeån sang nhaø môùi xong vaø toå chöùc tieäc taân gia. Baïn muoán môøi
C ñeán döï. Baïn seõ noùi theá naøo neáu C laø:
1. Sôn, (nam) ñoàng nghieäp cuûa baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
2. Thuyù, (nöõ) ñoàng nghieäp cuûa baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
3. Trang, (nöõ) caáp döôùi cuûa baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
4. Hoaøn, (nam) caáp döôùi cuûa baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
5. Tuù, (nam) caáp treân cuûa baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
6. Thuïc, (nöõ) caáp treân cuûa baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Tình huoáng 4:
Baïn vaø D laø ñoái taùc laøm aên. Baïn muoán môøi D ñi aên toái vôùi baïn ñeå hai ngöôøi
tieáp tuïc baøn luaän veà caùc ñieàu khoaûn trong hôïp ñoàng. Baïn seõ noùi theá naøo neáu
D laø?
1. Döông, moät ngöôøi nam nhoû tuoåi hôn baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
2. Mai, moät ngöôøi nöõ nhoû tuoåi hôn baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
3. Cuùc, moät ngöôøi nöõ cuøng tuoåi vôùi baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
4. Quaân, moät ngöôøi nam cuøng tuoåi vôùi baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
5. Cöôøng, moät ngöôøi nam lôùn tuoåi hôn baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
6. Ngaân, moät ngöôøi nöõ lôùn tuoåi hôn baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Tình huoáng 5:
Baïn môùi ñöôïc thaêng chöùc vaø môû tieäc chia vui taïi nhaø haøng X luùc 18 giôø ngaøy thöù
baûy. Baïn muoán môøi E (nam hoaëc nöõ) ñeán döï. Baïn seõ môøi nhö theá naøo neáu E laø:
1. Ngöôøi nhoû tuoåi hôn baïn nhöng laø caáp treân cuûa baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
2. Ngöôøi nhoû tuoåi hôn baïn vaø laø ñoàng nghieäp cuøng caáp vôùi baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
3. Ngöôøi nhoû tuoåi hôn baïn vaø laø caáp döôùi cuûa baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
4. Ngöôøi cuøng tuoåi vôùi baïn nhöng laø caáp treân cuûa baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
5. Ngöôøi cuøng tuoåi vôùi baïn vaø laø ñoàng nghieäp cuøng caáp vôùi baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
6. Ngöôøi cuøng tuoåi vôùi baïn nhöng laø caáp döôùi cuûa baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
7. Ngöôøi lôùn tuoåi hôn baïn nhöng laø caáp döôùi cuûa baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
8. Ngöôøi lôùn tuoåi hôn baïn nhöng laø ñoàng nghieäp cuøng caáp vôùi baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
9. Ngöôøi lôùn tuoåi hôn baïn nhöng laø caáp döôùi cuûa baïn?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
XIN CHAÂN THAØNH CAÛM ÔN SÖÏ GIUÙP ÑÔÕ CUÛA BAÏN!
Recommended