VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS AND LITERATURE - EMPLOYING FACE THEORY IN UNDERSTANDING THE LINGUISTIC DIFFERENCES IN THE CONCEPT OF POLITENESS BETWEEN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE NGUYỄN XUÂN TRIỀU A thesis submitted to the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature in partial fulfilment of the Master’s degree in TESOL Supervised by LÊ HOÀNG DŨNG, Ph.D HO CHI MINH CITY, FEBRUARY 12, 2015 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people deserve my thanks for helping me at various stages of this work, either at the professional or emotional level Firstly, I would like to thank my parents for their enduring of my long sedentariness during the writing of this thesis I want to send my deepest gratitude to Professor Phuong Thien for her great help with finding the subjects for the research I also want to express my gratitude to Dr Dennis F Berg, Emeritus Professor from California State University – Fullerton (CSUF) for his insightful comments on my questionnaire He helped me correcting both the wording and the layout of the instrument to make it more appropriate for eliciting data I want to express my deep gratitude to statistician Nguyen Hoang Vinh for his several weeks of sorting data and running the tests and also for his great help in instructing me how to interpret the results I still own him a big meal at an expensive restaurant as promised! Finally, this thesis would not be possible without the encouragement and meticulous guidance of Dr Le Hoang Dung I initially aimed for a lower target but Mr Hoang Dung was the one who encouraged me to pursue higher goal in expanding and renewing my thesis He literally took my research to a whole new level I am indebted to him not only professionally but also in life lessons I still remembered his skilful demonstration in splitting the fish on the dinner table one night of the field trip and his many pieces of advice for me He is not only my thesis supervisor but also my mentor THANK YOU! CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY This is to certify that the thesis entitled Employing Face Theory In Understanding The Linguistic Differences In The Concept Of Politeness Between English and Vietnamese submitted by Nguyễn Xuân Triều is a record of bona fide work carried out under the guidance of Lê Hoàng Dũng, Ph.D and the supervision at the Faculty of English Linguistics and Literature, University of Social Sciences and Humanities The thesis contains no materials previously published or written by others except where due acknowledgment All contributions made to the thesis are also explicitly acknowledged Ho Chi Minh City, 2015 NGUYỄN XUÂN TRIỀU TABLE OF CONTENTS Title page Acknowledgements Certificate of originality Table of contents List of tables and figures Abstract CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Thesis Statements 1.2.1 Rationale of the study -2 1.2.2 Research objectives 1.2.3 Research questions 1.3 Methodology -7 1.4 Theoretical and practical significance -7 1.5 Thesis structure CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW 10 2.1 Preparation for a newborn: foundational theory of Austin -10 2.2 Grice’s cooperative principles -12 2.3 Lakoff ’s pragmatic competence -14 2.4 Leech’s general pragmatics -18 2.5 Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness -24 2.5.1 Assumptions -24 2.5.1.1 Assumptions -24 2.5.1.2 Assumptions -26 2.5.1.3 Assumptions -27 2.5.1.4 Assumptions -27 2.5.1.5 Assumptions -28 2.5.1.5.1 Kinds of face threatened 28 2.5.1.5.2 Threats to H’s face versus threats to S’s -30 2.5.2 Strategies for doing FTAs -31 2.5.3 Factors influencing the choice of strategies 35 2.5.4 Politeness strategies -36 2.5.4.1 Positive politeness -36 2.5.4.1.1 Claim common ground -36 2.5.4.1.2 Convey that S and H are cooperators 38 2.5.4.1.3 Fulfill H’s wants for some X 38 2.5.4.2 Negative politeness 38 2.5.4.2.1 Be indirect -38 2.5.4.2.2 Don’t presume/assume 38 2.5.4.2.3 Don’t coerce H 38 2.5.4.2.4 Communicate S’s want not to impinge on H 39 2.5.4.2.5 Redress other wants of H’s 40 2.5.5 Criticism of Brown and Levinson’s face-saving theory -40 2.5.5.1 Rationality -40 2.5.5.2 The individualistic and Eurocentric nature of the theory 42 2.6 Literature review of instrument: Discourse Completion Test (DCT) -46 2.6.1 Discourse Completion Test (DCT) 46 2.6.2 Arguments for DCT 46 2.6.2.1 Weaknesses 46 2.6.2.2 Strengths -48 2.6.2.2.1 The observer’s paradox 48 2.6.2.2.2 Advantages of Discourse Completion test -50 2.7 Conclusion -54 CHAPTER METHODOLOGY -55 3.1 Informant community -55 3.2 Instrument 58 3.2.1 Structure of the instrument -58 3.2.2 Sample of actual instrument (English version) 63 3.3 Pilot test 63 3.3.1 Purposes -63 3.3.2 Instrument and participants of pilot test 64 3.3.3 Modifications 66 3.4 Procedure of data collection -67 3.4.1 Procedure of instrument application 67 3.4.1.1 Vietnamese group -67 3.4.1.2 American group -69 3.5 Coding 69 3.6 Procedure of data analysis -71 3.7 Conclusion -72 CHAPTER DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 73 4.1 Data analysis 73 4.1.1 General inter-group differences 73 4.1.2 Strategy-based inter-group differences 78 4.1.3 Correlation between three parameters and the use of linguistic strategies 84 4.2 Answers to research questions 88 4.2.1 Research question -88 4.2.2 Research question -89 4.3 Summary -90 CHAPTER CONCLUSION 94 5.1 Research précis -94 5.2 Some pedagogical implications -97 5.3 Limitations and recommendations for further study 97 REFERENCES 98 APPENDIX 104 Appx Questionnaire Pilot American 104 Appx Questionnaire Pilot Vietnamese -111 Appx Questionnaire American -117 Appx Questionnaire Vietnamese -122 Appx List of variable for coding -127 Appx Sample answers 130 Appx The case of hedging 152 Appx The case of salutations 155 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES CHAPTER Table 1.1 Summary of research’s rationales Table 1.2 Summary of research’s objectives and research questions CHAPTER Table 2.1 Lakoff ’s Politeness types .18 Table 2.2 Summary of literature review 23 Table 2.3 Summary of Brown and Levinson’s face theory 45 Table 2.4 Weaknesses and Strengths of DCT and the Research Focus 53 Figure 2.1 Lakoff ’s Pragmatic Competence 16 Figure 2.2 Leech’s General Pragmatics 19 Figure 2.3 Leech’s Scheme of Rhetoric 20 Figure 2.4 Negative and Positive Politeness 26 Figure 2.5 Strategies for doing FTAs 32 CHAPTER Table 3.1 Foreign Group respondents 54 Table 3.2 Vietnamese Group respondents 55 Table 3.3 Combinations of explanatory variables 60 Table 3.4 Inventory of situations according to contextual and sociological variables 61 Table 3.5 Stage of Pilot Test 63 Table 3.6 Stage of Pilot Test 65 Table 3.7 Questionnaire Delivery .67 Table 3.8 Process of Coding 69 Table 3.9 Summary of Data Analysis 70 CHAPTER Table 4.1 Chi-square test for general inter-group differences 71 Table 4.2 Mean differences in the use of politeness strategies between American and Vietnamese group 76 Table 4.3 ANOVA test for Mean differences in the use of politeness strategies between American and Vietnamese group 78 Table 4.4 Pearson Correlation test between Socio-parameters and choices of politeness strategies- American Group 82 Table 4.5 Pearson Correlation test between Socio-parameters and choices of politeness strategies- Vietnamese Group 84 Table 4.6 Summary of research questions and answers 88 Table 4.7 Summary of conclusions from statistical tests 91 CHAPTER Table 5.1 Comparison between Vietnamese and American hedges 94 ... politeness from a linguistic viewpoint is anticipated to bring back the vital balance between understanding of formal grammar and mastery of pragmatic skills to the syllabi of language teaching institutions... Maxims has restored the balance of roles between the speaker and the hearer and offered an insight into the duality of purpose in human communication: clarity/effectiveness and creating/maintaining... (a) Minimize disagreement between self and other [(b) Maximize agreement between self and other] VI SYMPATHY MAXIM (assertives) (a) minimize antipathy between self and other [(b) Maximize sympathy