INTRODUCTION
Rationale of the study
Language is fundamental to our lives, serving as a means to express emotions, desires, and perceptions of the world It facilitates communication, which is crucial for daily interactions and cultural exchange among nations As Durant (1997) states, possessing a culture entails having communication, which is inherently linked to language Language not only reflects cultural identity but also plays a vital role in shaping ethnic, regional, national, and international identities Brown (1994) emphasizes that language and culture are intricately intertwined, making it impossible to separate them without losing their significance.
Quang (1998:2) states that ―One can not master a language without profound awareness of its cultural background and in both verbal and non-verbal communication, culture makes itself strongly felt.‖
Many Vietnamese individuals aspire to learn foreign languages for effective communication but often focus excessively on grammar and vocabulary This emphasis can lead to culture shock during real cross-cultural interactions, as different languages and cultures have unique expressions and speech act realizations While research on communication across cultures has explored various aspects like complimenting, thanking, and requesting, there has been insufficient attention to the act of asking for permission, which is crucial for demonstrating politeness and increasing the likelihood of receiving consent.
Inspired by the desire to explore the similarities and differences in how native Vietnamese and American speakers request permission in the workplace, the researcher has developed a study titled “A Vietnamese-American Cross-Cultural Study of Asking for Permission.”
Aim and objectives of the study
The aim of this study is to find out major similarities and differences in the way the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace
* To analyze the ways the Vietnamese ask for permission in the workplace
* To analyze the ways the American ask for permission in the workplace
* To discuss major similarities and differences in the ways the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace.
Scope of the study
This study focuses specifically on the verbal-nonvocal aspects of the speech act of asking for permission, emphasizing the concepts of positive and negative politeness While paralinguistic factors, such as speed, loudness, and pitch, as well as extralinguistic factors like facial expressions, postures, gestures, and proximity, play a significant role in interpersonal communication, they are not within the scope of this research.
Significance of the study
This thesis aims to enhance understanding of requesting permission in the workplace across two distinct cultures, Vietnam and America By exploring these cultural differences, it seeks to minimize culture shock and prevent communication breakdowns, ultimately fostering successful intercultural communication.
Research Methodology
The main purpose of the study is to answer the following questions:
- What are the major similarities and differences in American and Vietnamese perception of asking for permission in the workplace?
- How do the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace?
- What are the major similarities and differences in the ways the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace in terms of politeness strategies?
A contrastive analysis was conducted to explore the strategies for asking for permission in the workplace across Vietnamese and American cultures Data was gathered through questionnaires to identify the distinct approaches utilized in both cultural contexts.
Secondly, the collected data are classified in the light of positive politeness and negative politeness
The third step is to comparatively and contrastively analyze the collected data
In order to reach the goal of this thesis, the research was conducted with combination of several methods as follows:
Descriptive method: this method is used to give a detailed explanation for the act of asking for permission in American and Vietnamese workplace through questionnaires
Analytic method: the analytic method points out some specific strategies of asking for permission in the workplace in two different cultures through the collected data
Contrastive method: this method is used in order to show the similarities and differences in the ways of asking for permission in the workplace in Vietnamese and American cultures
Inductive method: it helps researchers and readers to draw out the generalizations from the findings
Among them, the analytic and contrastive methods are the dominant ones which are most frequently used in the thesis
The collected data will be analyzed according to the informants‘ status parameters (age, gender) and participants‘ role relationships
The findings are compared and contrasted to find out major similarities and differences in the act of asking for permission in the workplace in Vietnamese and American cultures.
Key concepts defined and discussed
Communication, as defined by the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, is the process of expressing ideas, feelings, and sharing information Hybels and Weaver (2008) expand on this by describing communication as a multifaceted process that includes spoken and written words, body language, personal mannerisms, and contextual elements that enhance the message's meaning Levine and Adelman (1993) further generalize this by stating that communication involves sharing meaning through both verbal and nonverbal behaviors Additionally, Nguyen Quang elaborates on verbal communication through intralanguage, while nonverbal communication encompasses paralanguage and extralanguage In summary, effective communication involves various methods and factors that contribute to successfully conveying information and expressing emotions.
Cross-culture refers to the exchange of ideas and interactions between two or more distinct countries or cultures, as defined by the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary In Nguyen Quang's Lecture Note, it is further elaborated as the interaction occurring within various social groups, subcultures, ethnic cultures, and diverse cultural backgrounds.
Based on the above definition, some scholars expanded their concerns for cross- culture When two strangers from different countries communicate so as to let
6 others understand their culture, customs, religions, values, norms and beliefs, they are doing the cross-cultural communication According to Levine and Adelman
Cross-cultural communication, as defined in 1993, encompasses both verbal and non-verbal interactions between individuals from diverse cultural backgrounds, shaped by varying cultural values, attitudes, and behaviors For instance, Tina from Malaysia experienced cultural differences while working with Fijians, as her gesture of touching their curly hair was perceived as uncomfortable due to their cultural norm that only allows chiefs to touch people's heads This example underscores the importance of understanding non-verbal communication and social codes across cultures Misunderstandings often arise from these cultural differences, making it crucial to establish common ground and a deep understanding of various cultures to prevent unexpected miscommunications.
Individualism is characterized by a focus on oneself and immediate family, as noted by Hofstede and Bond (1984) Darwish and Huber (2003) further support this definition, emphasizing that individualistic cultures prioritize personal and familial concerns Varner and Beamer also highlight the significance of individual traits within cultural contexts.
Individualistic cultures, as highlighted by research in 2005, emphasize personal characteristics where individual desires and needs drive actions in various settings, including work, home, and school Individuals in these cultures take pride in receiving personal recognition for their successes while also accepting responsibility for failures Trampenaars (2011) further clarifies that individualism is characterized by the frequent use of "I" and the tendency for representatives to make decisions spontaneously.
7 people ideally achieve alone and assume personal responsibility, vacations taken in pairs or even alone vs group orientation
Collectivism emphasizes belonging to larger groups that provide care in exchange for loyalty, fostering a deep sense of community (Hofstede & Bond, 1984) A key aspect of collectivist cultures is the importance of "saving face," which relates to issues of identity, respect, and dignity (Varner & Beamer, 2005; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2002) In such cultures, delivering bad news or criticism is often avoided to prevent losing face, as mistakes are typically viewed as reflections of the group rather than the individual Collectivism is characterized by collective decision-making, shared responsibility, and group-oriented activities, such as family vacations (Trampanaars, 2011) Ultimately, the distinction between individualism and collectivism can be understood through the lens of social concern, which highlights the nature of interpersonal bonds (Hui & Triandis, 1986).
Confucianism is not a religion; instead it is a set of guidelines for proper behaviour, and an ideology that underlies, pervades, and guides Chinese culture (Hofstede, 1991; Tu, 1998a; Yan & Sorenson, 2006)
Confucian values are fundamental to Chinese culture, influencing various aspects of social life and establishing guidelines for family, community, and political conduct In this study, Confucianism is characterized as a philosophical framework that shapes these essential societal standards.
8 basic starting point for 53 every individual to arrive at the state of perfect morality and is a teaching based on a moral code for human relations
Confucianism is based on five essential virtues known as the "Five Constant Regulations": Ren (love and benevolence), Yi (righteousness), Li (propriety or rites), Zhi (wisdom), and Xin (sincerity or trustworthiness) These principles form the foundation of Confucian thought and ethics, guiding individuals in their moral conduct and interactions with others.
Speech acts
J Austin (1962) is considered to be a pioneer in confirming the theory of speech acts According to him, a speech act is an act that a speaker performs when making an utterance A speech act, then, is described as ―in saying something, we DO something.‖ For example, when someone says ―I am hungry‖, he or she can express his hunger or ask something to eat A speech act is part of a speech event The speech act performed by producing an utterance, consists of three related acts, namely locutionary act, illocutionary act and perlocutionary act
• Locutionary act is the basic act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression.The locutionary act is performed with some purposes or functions in mind
• Illocutionary act: is an act performed via the communicative force of an utterance
In engaging in locutionary acts we generally also perform illocutionary acts such as informing, advising, offer, promise, etc In uttering a sentence by virtue of conversational force associated with it
A perlocutionary act refers to the effect achieved through speech, such as convincing, persuading, or deterring an audience These acts rely on the assumption that the listener will understand and recognize the intended impact of the speaker's words.
Searle (1969) states that speaking a language is performing speech acts, acts such as making statements, giving commands, asking questions, making promises and so
According to Searle (1972), the fundamental unit of linguistic communication is the production of speech acts, rather than individual symbols, words, or sentences These speech acts encompass various functions, such as referring and predicting, which are governed by specific rules for using linguistic elements.
In agreement with Searle, Levelt (1989) defines that an utterance with this communicative intention is called a speech act; it is an intentional action performed by means of an utterance
Speech acts, as defined by American language philosophers, refer to the actions performed through utterances beyond merely conveying grammatical structures and words Yule (1996:47) emphasizes that when individuals express themselves, they engage in actions that include apologies, complaints, compliments, invitations, promises, and requests These specific labels categorize the various types of speech acts in English, highlighting their functional role in communication.
In a workplace scenario, when a powerful boss says, "You're fired," this statement goes beyond mere words; it serves as an act that terminates employment Similarly, as Yule illustrates, the utterance "This tea is really cold!" can convey different meanings based on context On a cold winter day, it likely expresses dissatisfaction after tasting what the speaker expected to be freshly made tea Conversely, on a hot summer day, if the speaker tastes iced tea and makes the same remark, it is likely interpreted as a compliment This demonstrates how the same utterance can function as distinct speech acts depending on the surrounding circumstances.
Some different classification of speech acts can be presented by some different linguistics and researchers
Based on Austin (1962), there are five types of speech acts as follows:
The five categories of speech acts include Verdictives, which involve delivering a verdict by an authority like a jury or arbitrator, such as terms like acquit and diagnose Exercitives refer to the execution of powers or rights, encompassing actions like appointing, ordering, or advising Commisives commit the speaker to a future action, including promises and declarations of intent Behabitives address social behaviors and attitudes, involving acts like apologizing, criticizing, or challenging Lastly, Expositives clarify the role of utterances within a conversation, with verbs like argue, affirm, and concede.
Searle's classification of speech acts, which has gained popularity among Austin's followers, recognizes "constatives" as a distinct category According to Nguyen Hoa (2004:32), the key aspect of Searle's system, established in 1979, is its identification of six types of speech acts One of these types is the commissive, which involves the speaker committing to a future action, exemplified by promises or threats.
If you don‘t stop fighting, I‘ll call the police
I‘ll take you to the movies tomorrow o Directive: a speech act that has the function of getting the listener to do something, such as a suggestion, a request, permission or a command
Why don‘t you close the window o Declarative: a speech act which changes the state of affairs in the world
The phrase "I now pronounce you man and wife" signifies a pivotal moment in a wedding ceremony, marking the official union of two individuals This expressive speech act conveys the speaker's feelings and attitudes, encapsulating emotions such as joy and celebration It serves not only as a declaration of marriage but also as a heartfelt acknowledgment of the couple's commitment to one another.
11 o Representative: a speech act which describes states or events in the word, such as an assertion, a claim, a report
This is a German car o Phatic act: a speech act whose function is to establish rapport between people:
2.3 Asking for permission as speech act
According to the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, "permission" refers to the act of allowing someone to do something, particularly when granted by someone in authority Consequently, "asking for permission" is defined as seeking approval from others to perform an action, typically expressed through verbal communication in interactions.
Based on Searle‘s classification of speech acts, asking for permission belongs to directive speech act whose direction of fit is to make the world fit the word (Yule,
In the book ―Meaning and Expression” (1979:22), Searle points out that permission has the syntax of directives In addition to the emphasis on the simple meaning of
Permission involves the act of encouraging someone to perform a task by lifting any prior restrictions that may prevent them from doing so As a result, permission can be viewed as the illocutionary negation of a directive that carries negative propositional content, which can be logically represented as ~(~p).
Edda Weigand supports Searle's assertion that the act of "permitting" implies an underlying prohibition that is understood within the community, even if not explicitly stated This means that the speech act of "permitting" is fundamentally linked to the existence of something that is forbidden, highlighting the relational dynamics of permission and prohibition in communication.
According to Brown and Levinson (1978), requesting permission is a face-threatening speech act that poses a risk to the speaker's self-image This means that such requests primarily focus on the speaker's vulnerability rather than the hearer's response, emphasizing the potential impact on the speaker's social standing.
Requests for permission are generally less direct than requests for action, as they occur between individuals of unequal status (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain) An ethnographic study on the language of requesting in Israel reveals that requests for action are the most direct, while requests for permission are the most indirect, with requests for goods and information falling in between these two extremes (Blum-Kulka, Danet & Gerson, 1983).
Politeness and politeness strategies
Politeness is defined as a fundamental aspect of human interaction that aims to consider others' feelings, establish mutual comfort, and foster rapport (Hill et al., 1986) Leech (1983) further interprets politeness as behaviors designed to create and maintain harmonious relationships in social exchanges.
Nguyen Quang (2005: 185), “Politeness refers to any communicative act (verbal and/ or non-verbal) which is intentionally and appropriately meant to make others feel better‖
According to Brown and Levinson's theory (1987), positive politeness focuses on enhancing the positive self-image of the hearer (H) by expressing solidarity and addressing their desire for a favorable social identity This approach reinforces friendly relationships and fosters a sense of group reciprocity As Yule suggests, positive politeness plays a crucial role in maintaining harmonious interactions.
In 1996, the concept of positive politeness was introduced as a face-saving act focused on enhancing an individual's positive self-image This form of communication fosters solidarity between speakers, emphasizing their shared goals and mutual desires Nguyen Quang (2003) further explores this idea by categorizing positive politeness into several sub-types through the lens of cross-cultural communication.
Strategy 1: Notice/attend to H (interest, wants, needs…)
Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)
Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers
Strategy 7: Presuppose, raise, assert common ground
Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose knowledge of and concern for H’s want
Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity
Strategy 13: Give or ask for reasons
Strategy 15: Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation) Strategy 16: Condole, encourage
Negative politeness, as described by Brown and Levinson (1987), focuses on partially satisfying the hearer's negative face, which reflects their desire for autonomy and respect for personal boundaries This approach emphasizes deference and acknowledges the hearer's time and concerns, often incorporating apologies for any imposition, as noted by Yule (1996) Supporting this view, Nguyen Quang (2003) highlights that speakers aim to respect the addressee's privacy and maintain a sense of distance through negative politeness He further elaborates on this concept by outlining 11 specific strategies related to negative politeness.
Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H Avoid the pronoun I and You
Strategy 8: State the FTA as an instance of a general rule
Strategy 9: Nominalize to distance the actor and add formality
Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt or as not indebting H
Strategy 11: Avoid asking personal questions
However, in a real utterance, some ovelaps and borderlines between positive politeness and negative politeness can happen Some people sometimes use both of them in a sentence as follows:
Kevin, could I possibly use your computer for a short while? (Kevin: in-group identity marker [Positive politeness] + for a short while: minimise the imposition [Negative politeness])
3.3 Politeness strategies in asking for permission
Modal verbs such as "can," "could," "may," and "might" are commonly used to ask for permission, alongside phrases like "please," "would you mind," and "could you mind." Each context requires specific markers for requesting permission, prompting a classification of politeness strategies in the workplace Drawing on Nguyen Quang's (2003) politeness theory, this section categorizes these strategies into positive politeness strategies (PPS).
Ex: Let me borow your pen for a while
Bạn cho tớ mượn cái bút nhé
- Give or ask for reasons
Ex: I forgot my pen Can I use yours for the day?
Tôi bỏ quên cái bút Ông/bà/anh/chị/bạn có thể cho tôi mượn bút được không? b Negative politeness strategies (NPS)
Ex: Can I have a couple weeks off for vacation?
Tôi có thể xin phép nghỉ 1 đôi tuần cho kì nghỉ?
Ex: Do you mind exchange our shift today?
Anh/chị/bạn vui lòng đổi ca cho mình hôm nay được không?
Ex: I just want to ask you if I can swap shifts with you
Anh ơi, cho em mượn cái bút một chút được không?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research questions
This thesis aims to explore the key similarities and differences in how Vietnamese and American individuals request permission in the workplace, seeking to answer specific research questions related to these cultural communication styles.
- What are the major similarities and differences in American and Vietnamese perception of asking for permission in the workplace?
- How do the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace?
- What are the major similarities and differences in the ways the Vietnamese and American ask for permission in the workplace in terms of politeness strategies?
Research participants
This study investigates the practice of seeking permission in the workplace within American and Vietnamese cultures by involving participants from diverse offices in both countries To ensure research reliability, participants included American-European native speakers from American offices and Vietnamese native speakers from both state and private enterprises in Vietnam Various factors influence the style of asking for permission, with a significant body of literature indicating that gender status beliefs can impact women's ability to exert influence and authority at work Ridgeway's social psychological research highlights how sex categorization and the gender labeling of jobs shape workplace expectations.
According to L Doering and S Thesbaud, individuals often categorize workers as either male or female, which leads to the infusion of gender stereotypes into occupational roles This categorization significantly impacts how jobs are performed, perceived, and communicated to others.
2015) Therefore, a range of choosing research participants will be quite wide as follows.
A total of 60 participants, aged between 22 and 59, were randomly selected for this survey, comprising an equal number of 30 American and 30 Vietnamese individuals Both male and female participants contributed to the study, ensuring a diverse representation of gender.
In addition, the researcher had a tendency towards a variety of given occupations, from businessmen, accountants to bank clerks with a view to enhancing the validity of the collected data.
Data collection instrument
The primary research instrument utilized in this study is a survey questionnaire, which is an effective and cost-efficient method for data collection, as noted by Leary (1995) Sending questionnaires via email not only reduces expenses but also allows participants to respond at their convenience, facilitating quicker data gathering However, this method may limit the capture of natural speech patterns, as respondents have time to consider their answers, potentially affecting the expression of tone, attitudes, and emotions Despite these limitations, survey questionnaires are valuable for conducting preliminary investigations, particularly when seeking permission in workplace settings.
The questionnaire is structured into three sections, each addressing specific situations that require responses The initial section gathers essential personal information from participants, including age and gender, which significantly influence their choices of politeness strategies.
The study explored attitudes towards asking for permission in workplace scenarios, focusing on 19 specific situations Participants evaluated eight different scenarios using a 5-point Likert Scale to determine the necessity of seeking permission These scenarios were divided into two categories: the first involved situations where participants were in a subordinate position, asking their boss for permission, while the second involved situations where they had equal status with their colleagues.
The third section of the questionnaire aimed to explore the linguistic expressions used for requesting permission in various workplace scenarios It presented four common situations, each described with specific contexts and the dynamics between the individuals involved Participants were then prompted to articulate their responses as they would naturally speak in those circumstances.
Data collection procedure
A pilot survey will be conducted with Americans and Vietnamese to assess their frequency of seeking permission in daily situations Based on the survey results, eight common scenarios will be selected to create alternative questions aimed at exploring the similarities and differences in the perception of permission-seeking in the workplace between the two cultures Once the questionnaire is completed, the researcher will reach out to the participants for further engagement.
To gather responses from American participants, the researcher enlisted the help of acquaintances in the U.S to distribute the questionnaire to their colleagues, neighbors, or friends If these individuals agreed to participate, a link to the questionnaire was sent to them via email or Facebook Once they completed the survey, participants submitted their responses by clicking the "submit" button In contrast, Vietnamese participants received the questionnaires either in person or through email.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
This chapter presents the research findings and discusses their implications, building on the methodology outlined in the previous chapter It emphasizes the analysis of collected data to provide comprehensive answers to the research questions.
To address the second research question, common scenarios in which Americans and Vietnamese seek permission are classified into two contexts: unimportant situations, such as requesting to borrow a pen from a colleague or asking a boss for holiday leave, and important situations, like seeking permission to swap shifts with a colleague or asking a boss to contribute to a formal meeting or discussion.
Findings and discussion
2.1 What are the major similarities and differences in American and
Vietnamese perception of asking for permission in the workplace?
The author explored eight scenarios involving both formal and informal workplace events where permission-seeking behavior may occur The findings are organized into five columns representing levels of necessity: (1) Very unnecessary, (2) Unnecessary, and three additional levels that further categorize the relevance of asking for permission in various contexts.
(3) Neutral, (4) Necessary, (5) Very necessary to find out similarities and differences in the neccesity of asking for permission in some certain situations in American and Vietnamese workplace cultures
Table IV.1: Americans‘ perception of asking boss for permission in the workplace
In 4 above stuations, the majority of American find it necessary to ask the boss for permission to do something As you can see, in situation 3, 40% of the informants think that it is necessay to seek permission when you want to have your say in the end-of-year meeting, 43.3% in situation 2 With situation 1 (have your say in a formal meeting or discussion) in and situation 4 (have a holiday/ an annual leave), the level of very necessary accounts for the highest percentage, 40% and 46.7% respectively This indicates that despite the equality between boss and employees, the employees still request their boss for permission to express the respect for their boss‘ s plan L Robert Kohls (1984) confirms that Americans routinely plan and schedule an extremely active day and any relaxation must be pre-planned Americans believe leisure activities should assume a relatively small portion of one‘s total life (Values Americans Live By)
Table IV.2: Vietnameses‘ perception of asking boss for permission in the workplace
In Vietnam, similar to the United States, seeking permission from superiors is deemed essential, with significant percentages—50%, 36.6%, 46.6%, and 50%—indicating this necessity across various situations Hofstede's 1980 study categorized Australia as a low power distance country, contrasting with Asian nations like Vietnam, which exhibit high power distance In low power distance societies, the relationship between bosses and subordinates is characterized by interdependence, whereas in high power distance cultures, it leans towards dependence Consequently, in Vietnam's hierarchical workplace, obtaining approval from superiors is a crucial practice.
A survey reveals that a significant number of Americans believe it's important to seek permission from colleagues in the workplace Specifically, 60% feel it's necessary to ask before swapping shifts, while 46.6% request permission to borrow a pen Additionally, 40% consult colleagues about their plans and also feel it's essential to ask before helping with printing tasks This tendency reflects the individualistic nature of American culture, where personal privacy is highly valued, making it common to seek permission for accessing others' belongings.
Table IV.4 Vietnameses‘ perception of asking colleagues for permission in the workplace
The data indicates that Vietnamese participants generally view seeking permission from colleagues as a neutral act, particularly in situations 5, 7, and 8, suggesting a lack of strong appreciation for this practice However, the necessity of asking for permission is acknowledged more frequently than its perceived unnecessity, indicating that Vietnamese individuals do not entirely dismiss the importance of seeking permission Notably, 33.3% of participants believe it is essential to ask for permission when consulting colleagues' plans, highlighting its significance due to potential impacts on the entire company.
2.2 How do the Vietnamese and Americans ask for permission in the workplace?
Negative strategies Positive strategies Giving deference
Table IV.5 Politeness strategies with colleagues in some unimportant events as seen from Vietnamese respondents
The data presented highlights the politeness strategies utilized by Vietnamese participants, revealing five distinct sub-categories: giving deference, being conventionally indirect, minimizing imposition, providing reasons, and maintaining an optimistic demeanor.
Among the five sub-strategies discussed, positive strategies, especially optimism, are favored for requesting permission in trivial matters with colleagues who hold less power, accounting for 51.3% of the total Common expressions reflecting this approach include:
- Anh cho em mượn cái bút này nhé
The second most noticable strategy to seeking permission in the workplace is giving deference, accounting for 23.3% in total For instance;
- Chị làm ơn cho em mượn cái bút được không ạ?
In addition, other strategies including ―being conventionally indirect‖ , ―minimizing imposition‖ are selected in some expressions such as:
- Cho mình mượn cây bút viết được không?
- Cho mình mượn cái bút một lát
Research indicates that Vietnamese culture is predominantly collectivistic, where community ties take precedence over individualism (Parks and Vu, 1994) In this cooperative society, Vietnamese people prioritize harmonious relationships and often strive to build friendly connections, particularly with colleagues of equal status.
The application of strategies varies significantly across five proposed cases of speakers Among Vietnamese respondents, the most favored strategy, particularly influenced by the speakers' age, is "being optimistic."
The choice of strategies and participant engagement varies significantly based on the age of the speakers Older speakers tend to favor the negative strategy of "giving deference," which emerges as the most prevalent option in their interactions.
"Being optimistic" is a common expression of positive politeness, particularly among younger speakers Interestingly, the use of this phrase tends to increase when the speaker's age aligns closely with that of the listener, highlighting its role in fostering a positive social interaction.
Vietnamese culture is characterized by a hierarchical structure influenced by Confucian beliefs, which significantly shapes workplace behavior In this context, showing respect to elders and superiors through deference is regarded as a polite approach, even in seemingly trivial situations Conversely, adopting an optimistic tone is more suitable when interacting with younger individuals or those of lower status, as it conveys friendliness while being less formal.
Interestingly, there are no differences in the use of politeness strategies based on the speaker's gender All participants consistently utilize a shared positive politeness strategy, specifically "being optimistic," to request permission.
Negative strategies Positive strategies Giving deference
Table IV.6 Politeness strategies with colleagues in some unimportant events as seen from American respondents
Data shows that Americans often use four sub-categories of politeness strategies in trivial situations: giving deference, being conventionally indirect, being optimistic, and providing reasons Among these, the strategy of being conventionally indirect is the most prevalent, comprising 71.3% of responses.
The strategy of "giving deference" ranks second, with 15.3% of respondents favoring it, while the positive politeness strategy of "being optimistic" is the least favored, garnering only 6%.
- You won’t mind if I borrow your pen
CONCLUSION
This research aims to explore the differences and similarities in how Vietnamese and American individuals request permission in the workplace, focusing on the use of politeness strategies The study highlights key findings that reveal the cultural nuances in communication styles between the two groups.
Vietnamese and American individuals often seek permission before assisting others or engaging in actions that may affect them, employing various politeness strategies in both significant and minor situations In Vietnam, businesspeople adjust their approach based on the age of the speaker, with "being optimistic" emerging as the most favored strategy, reflecting the collectivist nature of Vietnamese culture and its emphasis on saving face Conversely, Americans typically utilize a "being conventionally indirect" approach when requesting permission, prioritizing the preservation of self-image regardless of the speaker's age or gender, as directness is a valued trait in American society.
Unlike colleagues, with boss, Vietnamese participants choose ―giving deference‖ with the highest proportion in both contexts because of hierarchy in their culture
In America, the preferred politeness strategy tends to be conventionally indirect, while in Vietnam, factors such as gender and age significantly influence communication styles Older individuals in Vietnam are generally treated with more respect, while interactions among peers and younger individuals are characterized by a friendlier approach Conversely, in the United States, gender and age do not play a significant role in determining politeness strategies.
Despite the researcher's diligent efforts in data collection and analysis, several limitations must be acknowledged The reliance on Discourse Completion Tasks (DCT) excludes nonverbal cues present in actual workplace interactions Additionally, the study's conclusions may not be representative of the entire population due to an insufficient sample size Therefore, it is crucial for future research to consider these limitations.
Future research should address several key issues highlighted by this study's findings and limitations Conducting similar research with a larger participant pool would enhance the reliability of the results and improve the generalizability of the study Additionally, exploring non-verbal communication in the context of seeking permission is crucial, as both verbal and non-verbal language play significant roles in politeness Therefore, further investigations into non-linguistic politeness are encouraged.
Austin, J L (1962) How to Do Things with Words Oxford: Clarendon Press
Blum-Kulka, Danet and Gerson (1983) The language of requesting in Israeli Society Language and Social Psychology Conference, Bristol
Bobbie Kalman (2009) What is culture? Crabtree Publishing Company
Brown and Levinson (1978) Universals of language usage: Politeness Phenomena Cambridge University Press
Brown and Levinson (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage
Brown and Levinson (1994) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage
Claire Kramsch (2000) Language and Culture Oxford University Press
Chan, H L., Ko, A., & Yu, E (2000) Confucianism and management In O H M Yau & H C Steele (Eds.), China Business: Challenges in the 21st century (pp 179-
192) Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Darwish, Abdel-Fattah E., & Huber, Gunter L (2003) Individualism vs collectivism in different cultures: a cross cultural study Intercultural Education, 14 (1), 47-55
Durant (1997) Linguistic Anthropology UK: CUP
Edda Weigand (2010) Dialogue: The mixed game John Benjamins Publishing
F.Trompenaars & Charles Hampden-Turner, (2011), Riding waves of culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business, Business & Economics
Hoa Nguyen (2004) Understanding English Semantics Hanoi National University
Hill et al (1986) Universals of Linguistic Politeness: Quantitive Evidence from Japanese and American English Journal of Pragmatics
Hofstede (1980) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values Beverly Hills; London: Sage Publications
Hofstede, Geert, & Bond, Michael H (1984) Hofstede’s Culture Dimensions
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15 (4), 417-433
Hofstede, G (1984) Culture’s consequences: International differences in work- related values Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Hofstede, G (1997) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind London:
Hui,C.H & Triands,C.H (1986) Individualism-Collectivism A study of cross- cultural researchers Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Hybels and Weaver (2008) Communicating effectively Boston: McGraw-Hill Leary (1995) Self-presentation: impression management and interpersonal psychology Madison, Wisconsin: WCB Brown & Benchmark
Linda, K.Trevino & Katherine, A.N (2010) Managing Bussiness Ethics: Straight Talk about how to do it right John Wiley & Sons, Inc
Leech (1983) Principles of Pragmatics London: Longman
Levine and Adelman (1993) Beyond Language: cross- cultural communication
Prentice Hall Regents, Englewood Cliffs, NJ07632
Levine and Adelman (1982) Beyond Language: Intercultural Communication for English as a second language Prentice Hall Regents, Englewood Cliffs, NJ07632
Levelt W.J.M (1989) Speaking: From Intention to Articulation Cambridge, MA:MIT Press
L Robert Kohls (1984) Values Americans Live By, Meridian House International
Lu, M (1983) Confucianism: Its Relevance to Modern Society Singapore: Federal Publications
Mark R Leary (1995) Introduction to Behavioral Research Methods Brooks/
Cole, the University of California
Nguyen Quang (1998) Intercultural Communication Vietnam National University Hanoi
Nguyen Quang (2003) Intracultural and Cross-culture Communication VNU Press
Nguyen Quang (2006) Lecture note on Cross-Cultural Communication ULIS, VNU, Hanoi
Oberg, K (2006) Cultural Shock: Adjustment to New Cultural Environments
Technical Information Clearing House (Reprinted with the permission from the Technical Assistance Quarterly Bulletin)
Parks and Vu (1994) Social Dilemma Behavior of Individuals from Highly Individualist and Collectivist Cultures The Journal of Conflict Resolution
Shoshana Blum-Kulka & Elite Olshatain Requests and Apologies: A Cross- Cultural Study of Speech Act Realization patterns
Searle, John (1969) Speech acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language
Searle, John (1979) Meaning and Expression Cambridge University Press
Tamney, J B., & Chiang, L H.-L (2002) Modernisation, Globalisation, and
Confucianism in Chinese Societies Westport: Praeger Publishers
Tanveer Ahmed, Haralambos, David (2009) Website Design Guidelines: High Power Distance and High-Context Culture
Ting-Toomey, Stella, & Oetzel, John G (2002) Cross-Cultural face concerns and conflict styles: Current status and future directions In William B Gudykunst &
Bella Mody (Eds.), Handbook of International and Intercultural Communication (2nd ed.) London: Sage Pubications
Tu, W (1998) Confucius and Confucianism In W H Slote & G A DeVos (Eds.), Confucianism and the family (pp 3-36) New York: State University of New York Press
Varner, Iris, & Beamer, Linda (2005) Intercultural Communication in the Global
Workplace (3rd ed.) Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill
Valdes (1995) Culture Bound Cambridge CUP
Yan, J., & Sorenson, R (2006) The Effect of Confucian values on succession in family business Family Business Review, 19(3), 235-250
Yau, O H M (2000) Chinese Cultural Values: Their Dimensions and Marketing
Implications In O H M Yau & H C Steele (Eds.), China Business: Challenges in the 21st Century (pp 133-150) Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Yule, George (1996) Pragmatics Oxford: Oxford University Press
This questionnaire aims to gather your natural responses to various scenarios Your participation in completing the items is greatly valued Rest assured, the information collected is solely for research purposes, and your identity will remain confidential in any data discussions Thank you for your cooperation!
1 Do you think it is necessary to ask for permission in the following situations? Please tick (x) in the appropriate column
To have your say in a formal meeting or discussion
To leave the office early
To have a holiday/ an annual leave
To give advice on a schedule
To swap your shift for hers/ his
To help him/ her print a report
To borrow a pen from him/ her
2 Please put yourself in the following situations and write down what you would actually say in each situation:
Situation 1: You and your colleague are discussing a small project in the office
You need a pen to take note of some important points What would you say? a Your colleague is male?
……… c Your colleague is older than you
……… d Your colleague is your age
……… e Your colleague is younger than you
Situation 2: For some personal reason, you have to swap your shift for your colleague‘s shift What would you say? a Your colleague is male?
……… c Your colleague is older than you
III d Your colleague is your age
……… e Your colleague is younger than you
In the end-of-year meeting, as your boss concludes his speech, it's important to express your thoughts clearly and confidently You might say, "Thank you for your insightful remarks, I appreciate the direction our team is heading I believe we can build on our successes from this year and tackle the challenges ahead with renewed focus and collaboration I look forward to contributing to our goals in the upcoming year."
……… c Your boss is younger than you
……… d Your boss is your age
……… e Your boss is older than you
Situation 4: You want to travel overseas with some friends of yours You ask your boss for your annual leave What would you say? a Your boss is male
……… c Your boss is younger than you
……… d Your boss is your age
……… e Your boss is older than you
Thank you for your cooperation !!!
Bản câu hỏi khảo sát
Mục đích của bản khảo sát này là tìm hiểu cách diễn đạt tự nhiên trong các tình huống công sở Xin vui lòng cung cấp các câu trả lời ngắn gọn mà bạn thường sử dụng tại nơi làm việc Chúng tôi cam kết bảo mật thông tin và chỉ sử dụng cho mục đích nghiên cứu Mọi thông tin cá nhân sẽ không được tiết lộ Cảm ơn sự hợp tác và hỗ trợ của bạn.
Hãy đánh dấu (√) vào chỗ thích hợp
II Câu hỏi khảo sát
Bạn có nghĩ rằng việc xin phép trong các tình huống dưới đây là quan trọng không? Hãy đánh dấu (x) vào những cột phù hợp để thể hiện ý kiến của bạn.
1 = hoàn toàn không quan trọng 2 = không quan trọng
4 = quan trọng 5 = rất quan trọng
- Xin phép phát biểu trong cuộc họp hoặc buổi thảo luận
- Xin phép giám đốc tăng lương
- Xin phép giám đốc về sớm
- Xin phép giám đốc nghỉ phép (thường niên)
- Xin đồng nghiệp góp ý cho bản kế hoạch làm việc
- Xin đồng nghiệp đổi ca làm
- Xin được giúp đỡ bạn in 1 bản báo cáo
- Xin phép mượn đồng nghiệp 1 cái bút
Bạn sẽ xem xét những câu hỏi dưới đây và tưởng tượng mình trong các tình huống được mô tả, sau đó hãy ghi lại những điều bạn sẽ nói trong những hoàn cảnh đó.
Trong một cuộc thảo luận về dự án nhỏ tại văn phòng, khi cần một cái bút để ghi chú những ý quan trọng, bạn có thể hỏi đồng nghiệp nam của mình: "Bạn có thể cho tôi mượn một cái bút được không?" hoặc "Xin lỗi, bạn có bút nào không? Tôi cần ghi lại một số điểm quan trọng."
……… b Đồng nghiệp của bạn là nữ?
……… c Đồng nghiệp lớn tuổi hơn bạn?
……… d Đồng nghiệp bằng tuổi bạn?
……… e Đồng nghiệp trẻ hơn bạn?
Trong tình huống xin phép đồng nghiệp nam để đổi ca, bạn có thể nói: "Chào [tên đồng nghiệp], mình có một việc bận không thể làm ca này được Bạn có thể giúp mình đổi ca không? Mình rất cảm ơn nếu bạn có thể hỗ trợ."
……… b Đồng nghiệp của bạn là nữ?
……… c Đồng nghiệp lớn tuổi hơn bạn?