Rationale
In the era of globalization, English has become essential in diverse areas including science, business, education, and particularly in cross-cultural communication This significance has led to numerous global studies on cross-cultural pragmatics, notably highlighted in the work of Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989).
Cross-cultural pragmatics: request and apologies, (2) Wierzbicka’s (1991) Cross- cultural pragmatics – the semantics of human interaction, (3) Kasper & Blum-
Kulka’s (1993) Interlanguage pragmatics, (4) Trosborg’s (1995) Interlanguage pragmatics – requests, complaints and apologies, and (5) Gass & Neu’s (1996) Speech acts across cultures – challenges to communication in a second language
Contrastive pragmatics (CCP) is a specialized area focused on the differences in communication styles across various cultural communities (Trosborg, 1995) As Wierzbicka (1991) highlights, these differences arise from the unique cultural values and societal norms that influence how people express themselves Understanding these variations is essential for effective cross-cultural communication.
The studies aim to compare the similarities and differences between various languages and English in specific speech acts, contributing to the field of contrastive pragmatics Additionally, they seek to identify features of pragmatic transfer (PT) from other languages to English, which aligns with the growing trend of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) research Ultimately, the goal of contrastive and comparative pragmatics (CCP) studies is to enhance awareness among learners and non-native English speakers regarding the cultural and linguistic distinctions and similarities between their native languages and English.
2 negative PT or pragmatic failures, which may affect their study or use of English to communicate with English native speakers and possibly cause culture shock or communication breakdowns
As regards the contrastive pragmatics trend, there have been a great number of studies conducted by researchers all over the world, as reviewed by Trosborg
Studies on speech acts, particularly focusing on requests, apologies, compliments, and expressions of gratitude, have been conducted since 1995 (Trosborg, 1995: 46-47) In Vietnam, several contrastive pragmatics studies have emerged, stemming from researchers' unpublished PhD projects, which compare and contrast the use of specific speech acts, such as complimenting, in both Vietnamese and English (Nguyen Van Quang).
1998), requesting (Nguyen Van Do, 1999), disagreeing (Kieu Thi Thu Huong,
Numerous studies have explored various speech acts, with significant contributions from researchers such as Nguyen Quang Ngoan and Nguyen Tien Phung (2007), who reviewed a wide array of smaller-scale MA theses These studies cover key speech acts, including greetings (Nguyen Phuong Suu, 1990; Huynh Thi Ai Nguyen, 1997) and requests (Nguyen Van Do, 1996; Do Thi Mai Thanh).
2000), apologizing (Dang Thanh Phuong, 1999), refusing a request (Pham Thi Van Quyen, 2001), among others (cf Nguyen Quang Ngoan and Nguyen Tien Phung, 2007: 26-29)
Kasper & Dahl (1991) provide a comprehensive literature review of 39 studies on Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP), while Trosborg (1995) effectively examines various ILP pragmatics, including requests, thanks, complaints, and apologies In Vietnam, the author notes a limited number of ILP studies, primarily focusing on requests (Ha Cam Tam, 1998, 2005) and criticism (Nguyen Thuy Minh).
2006), and general cultural linguistic features, (Pham Dang Binh, 2002)
Thus, in the last fifteen years in Vietnam, there have been a great number of contrastive pragmatics studies comparing and contrasting Vietnamese and English
This dissertation aims to advance the field of Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) by investigating the act of disagreement in English, specifically comparing the performances of Vietnamese learners and native speakers The research focuses on how relative power dynamics influence this speech act in various contexts, addressing a gap in existing ILP studies.
The focus of the study is on pragmatic transfer (i.e “transfer of some culturally specific politeness strategies from one’s native language to the target language”
A comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) significantly enhances language teaching and learning However, research on this topic in Vietnam is currently scarce Therefore, it is crucial to conduct more in-depth studies on ILP trends across various speech acts to establish a stronger foundation for teaching English and cross-cultural communication in the country.
It is for this reason that disagreeing has become the speech act under investigation in this study Disagreeing was chosen also because of some additional reasons
Research by Kieu Thi Thu Huong (2001, 2006) and Nguyen Quang Ngoan (2004) has explored the similarities and differences in disagreeing politeness strategies between Vietnamese and Americans, focusing on contrastive pragmatics and conversational analysis However, there is a notable gap in studies examining the speech act of disagreeing from the Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) perspective in Vietnam The only relevant research identified is by Beebe and Takahashi (1989), which contrasted English usage between Japanese learners and native speakers Therefore, a comprehensive investigation into disagreeing from the ILP perspective is anticipated to enhance the understanding of this speech act in the broader context of pragmatic studies.
The present study examines the impact of power (P) on verbal interactions, particularly in the context of disagreement strategies, as highlighted by researchers such as Beebe & Takahashi (1989), Rees-Miller (2000), and Locher (2004) Disagreeing is identified as a significant speech act influenced by P However, the author notes a lack of studies that treat P as a distinct social variable within speech acts Therefore, this dissertation aims to explore this under-researched area.
There are also some other reasons for his choice of P as the focused social variable operating in this study of disagreeing as an example of verbal interaction
Despite extensive discussions and studies on the relationship between power and language in English-speaking cultures, there is a notable lack of empirical research on the influence of power on verbal interaction in Vietnam This gap in the literature presents an opportunity for this study to contribute valuable insights to the understanding of language dynamics in the Vietnamese context.
Hofstede's research indicates that high-power-distance values are prevalent in Asian countries, while lower-power-distance values are favored in the USA, Great Britain, and Australia Although Vietnam is an Asian nation, it was not included in Hofstede's studies, leading to the hypothesis that it shares similar high-power-distance values with other Asian cultures This assumption requires further investigation to determine the extent of power distance perception in Vietnamese culture, particularly in comparison to English-speaking Australia.
The influence of power dynamics on language has been extensively explored by various authors, including Leech (1983) and Brown & Levinson (1987) This raises critical questions about how relative power affects the use of disagreeing strategies among Vietnamese native speakers, Vietnamese learners of English, and Australian native speakers Specifically, it remains unclear whether these power dynamics lead to negative pragmatic transfer in the context of disagreeing strategies when transitioning from Vietnamese to English These unanswered questions are central to the focus of the current study.
Aims of the study
Overall purpose
This dissertation aims to comprehensively examine the negative pragmatic transfer (PT) from Vietnamese to Australian language and culture, while also highlighting significant cultural and communicative differences between Vietnamese and Australian contexts These differences serve as essential insights for interpreting and discussing the pragmatic transfer observed in the speech act of disagreement influenced by the specific contexts under investigation.
Specific aims
To achieve the overall purpose, the study is aimed:
- to find out the major features of Vietnamese-English PT caused by the VLE and
CC differences between the VNS and ANS in their use of disagreeing politeness strategies with the more powerful as well as with the less powerful in the investigated situations
This study explores how the perception of P influences individuals' use of politeness strategies when expressing disagreement It highlights the variations in these strategies based on the participants' understanding of their relative roles within specific contexts.
Research questions
Negative politeness strategies employed by the VLE exhibit distinct features, particularly in their approach to mitigating disagreement In contrast, the VNS and ANS demonstrate notable differences in their use of politeness strategies when faced with disagreement in various contexts These differences highlight the unique characteristics of each system in managing interpersonal communication Understanding these variations can provide insights into the effectiveness of disagreement strategies within different frameworks.
- Which features of negative PT and CC differences in the use of disagreeing politeness strategies are significant?
- Which CC differences between the VNS and ANS lead to negative PT and which CC differences do not?
The article explores the preferred and utilized disagreeing politeness strategies among the VLE, ANS, and VNS groups, highlighting the distinctions in their application across powerful versus powerless contexts It examines how these groups navigate disagreement while maintaining politeness, revealing varying approaches influenced by their social dynamics The analysis underscores the significance of context in shaping their communicative strategies, ultimately illustrating the complexities of politeness in disagreement across different social standings.
- Which politeness strategies in B&L’s (1987) framework are realized, either as single strategies or strategy combinations for disagreeing in the investigated situations? Is there a high possibility for strategy combinations?
The subject's perception of P in various situations significantly influences their application of disagreeing politeness strategies Variations in how subjects perceive P lead to notable differences in negative politeness tactics and conversational cooperation Understanding these dynamics reveals the complexities of interpersonal communication and the role of perception in shaping disagreement strategies.
- How is P described in the relative roles in the investigated situations perceived by the VNS, ANS, and VLE?
- To what extent is the VNS’s perception of P different from the ANS’s? Is it true that Vietnam is a higher-power-distance culture than Australia?
- Is there the phenomenon of inverse PT in P perception caused by the VLE in the investigated situations?
- How do the similarities and differences in the subject’s perception of P in the investigated situations affect their use of disagreeing politeness strategies?
Scope of the study
- The study focuses on intralinguistic factors Paralinguistic and extralinguistic aspects are, therefore, out of the scope of the study The verbal interaction is restricted to the act of disagreeing
This article examines how disagreement is expressed through various politeness strategies employed by VLE, ANS, and VNS in specific contexts, utilizing the politeness framework established by Brown and Levinson in 1987.
- The particular situations are restricted to thirty situations in the Meta-pragmatic Assessment Questionnaires (henceforth MAQ) and six situations in the Discourse Completion Task (henceforth DCT)
The term "among power-unequals" encompasses the dynamics of interactions between individuals of varying power levels, including both the powerful and the less powerful This concept applies across four key contexts: at home, in the workplace, within educational settings, and throughout society.
The dynamics of relationships can be observed in various contexts, such as the interactions between parents and children at home, university lecturers and students in educational settings, bosses and employees in the workplace, and older individuals and younger generations in society Each of these roles highlights the distinct responsibilities and expectations inherent in these relationships, shaping the way individuals communicate and engage with one another.
The primary social variable, P, represents the temporary relative power of each speaker within a specific context Additionally, the concepts of social distance (D) and speaking context (Se) are crucial for a comprehensive interpretation and analysis of each unique situation.
This study investigates the disagreement strategies employed by Vietnamese-Australian individuals in contexts of power inequality, focusing on the comparisons between Vietnamese learners of English (VLE) and Australian native speakers (ANS) To ensure objectivity and validity, the research also examines the power perceptions and disagreement strategies of Vietnamese native speakers (VNS) and ANS, providing a foundational background for the interpretation, discussion, and conclusions regarding the disagreement tactics of the participants.
Contributions of the study
The study is expected to bring out some following contributions:
- Theoretically, it contributes an investigation to some research areas in Vietnam:
This article explores the socio-cultural effects on verbal interactions, emphasizing the power dynamics involved It examines pragmatic transfer between Vietnamese and English, particularly in the context of speech act theory, with a focus on the act of disagreement As the first comprehensive empirical research conducted in Vietnam on this topic, it investigates how power influences language use in disagreements and specifically addresses Vietnamese-Australian pragmatic transfer The findings aim to either support or challenge existing hypotheses in these fields, ultimately providing deeper insights into the complexities of linguistic politeness and interaction.
The findings on Vietnamese-Australian pragmatic transfer, particularly regarding negative pragmatic transfer, reveal significant insights into the frequency and application of disagreement strategies in various contexts These detailed observations, supported by numerous specific examples from a diverse data set, can be effectively utilized to enhance English language teaching and cross-cultural communication.
This study effectively explores individuals' perceptions of socio-situational factors and their language strategies in verbal interactions by employing a robust research methodology that combines the MAQ and DCT Additionally, it introduces a novel application of Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness model for analyzing data in empirical research focused on linguistic politeness.
Methodology
This is primarily a quantitative CCP study in combination with some qualitative methods The data collection is conducted with a combination of MAQ and DCT
Data analysis is conducted using T-Test and Chi-square statistics within the SPSS package, employing techniques such as statistical, descriptive, contrastive, and inferential analysis A detailed explanation of this methodology can be found in chapter two.
Organization of the study
The present study is divided into three parts: Part A – Introduction, Part B – Development, and Part C – Conclusion
The introduction of the study outlines the motivations behind its conduct, detailing the aims, scope, research questions, methodology, and contributions Additionally, it provides a comprehensive summary of the various parts and chapters, offering readers a clear overview of the study's objectives and structure.
Part B is the major part which is divided into four chapters, discussing the relevant theoretical concepts, literature review, methodology and results of the empirical research of the study
Chapter one provides a theoretical background and literature review on the concepts of Cross-Cultural Pragmatics (CCP) and Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) It starts with an introduction to key terminologies, followed by an exploration of speech act theory, including critical evaluations The discussion highlights disagreeing as a potential face-threatening act and revisits politeness theory, contrasting Western and Asian approaches, particularly through the lens of Vietnamese researchers The chapter concludes with a comprehensive overview of recent studies on disagreeing as a speech act, addressing both domestic and international research to identify achievements and gaps in the existing literature.
Chapter two outlines the methodology of the study, presenting various research methods used in ILP studies along with their strengths and weaknesses, as highlighted by prominent authors It provides critical insights before detailing the specific methods chosen for the current study, along with the rationale behind these selections The chapter also covers the research design, including data-gathering instruments, subject selection, and procedures for data collection Lastly, it clarifies the data analysis methods, offering a comprehensive overview of T-test analysis, Chi-square analysis, and the analytical framework employed.
Chapter three explores the impact of relative power as a socio-cultural factor in verbal interactions, particularly in the context of disagreement It aims to reveal how the VNS, VLE, and ANS interpret the dynamics of power between the speaker and listener in the situations examined This analysis is crucial for establishing the validity and reliability of the discussion on the effects of power in disagreement, which will be further elaborated in chapter four.
This article presents relevant studies that explore the perception of P by the VNS and ANS, highlighting cross-cultural similarities and differences Additionally, it compares the perception of P by the VLE with that of the VNS to investigate potential inverse socio-pragmatic transfer The findings culminate in concluding remarks on cultural contrasts and the implications of inverse transfer.
PT are given at the end of the chapter
Chapter four examines the differences in Vietnamese-English politeness theory (PT) and communication competence (CC) regarding the use of disagreeing politeness strategies among three subject groups It introduces various disagreeing strategies identified in the study, showcasing both single strategies and combinations with examples from the collected data The chapter presents and interprets statistical results that highlight the similarities and differences in the use of these strategies between Vietnamese learners of English (VLE) and advanced native speakers (ANS), as well as between Vietnamese native speakers (VNS) and ANS It concludes by emphasizing the key distinctions in PT and CC.
In the conclusion of the study, the author summarizes key findings regarding the inverse politeness theory (PT) influenced by variations in the Vietnamese language (VLE) and cultural context (CC) between Vietnamese native speakers (VNS) and non-native speakers (ANS) in their perception of politeness in specific scenarios The research also emphasizes significant differences in negative PT and CC usage among Vietnamese-English speakers, particularly in their application of disagreeing politeness strategies These findings offer valuable implications for enhancing English language teaching methodologies.
CC communication are suggested before suggestions for further studies of the field are put forward
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW
Cross-Cultural pragmatics (CCP) and interlanguage pragmatics (ILP)
In his discussion of approaches to inter-cultural communication, Clyne (1996: 3) states,
There are three main ways in which the role of culture can be, and has been, studied – by comparing native discourse across cultures (the Contrastive
This article explores the Interlanguage Approach by analyzing the discourse of non-native speakers in a second language It also examines and compares the interactions of individuals from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, whether they communicate in a lingua franca or in one of the participants' native languages.
He (1996: 4) notes that the three approaches often lack clear differentiation, with the third approach being the least explored Clyne’s classification and observations are relevant and insightful when viewed through the lens of CCP.
According to Kasper & Blum-Kula (1995: 3), pragmatics is considered as “the study of people’s comprehension and production of linguistic action in context”
CCP, or Contrastive Cross-Cultural Pragmatics, examines the linguistic action patterns of language users from diverse cultural backgrounds According to Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989), the field of CCP can be categorized into two main trends: contrastive pragmatics and Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP).
Contrastive pragmatics examines the similarities and differences in pragmatic elements, such as politeness and speech act performance, across various cultural communities This field of study operates on the premise that diverse cultural backgrounds influence how individuals communicate, revealing profound and systematic variations that reflect distinct cultural values and communication styles.
12 styles, which can be explained and made sense of (Wierzbicka, 991: 69)
ILP studies examine the linguistic actions of language learners and non-native speakers compared to native speakers, aiming to reveal insights into learners' comprehension and production of various pragmatic aspects Additionally, ILP is positioned as a subset of Second Language Acquisition Research, distinct from interlanguage morphology, syntax, and semantics According to Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993: 3), ILP is described as “a second-generation hybrid,” highlighting its unique role in the field.
“belongs to two different disciplines, both of which are interdisciplinary”
In summary, contrastive pragmatics, as a branch of cross-cultural pragmatics, effectively explores the differences and similarities in pragmatic usage across cultures and languages, while Interlanguage Pragmatics (ILP) concentrates on learner-specific pragmatic behaviors and their connections to both first and second languages To enhance research quality, it is essential to integrate methodologies from both fields, as emphasized by Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993: 13).
A comprehensive research program will effectively explore the interplay between cross-cultural differences and IL-specific pragmatic features, including transfer and communicative effects, by integrating methodologies from all three areas of study.
This research project integrates methods from contrastive pragmatics and interlanguage pragmatics (ILP), focusing primarily on how Vietnamese learners comprehend and produce pragmatic aspects in English The subtitle "a cross-cultural pragmatics study" was selected to reflect this emphasis, distinguishing it from a traditional interlanguage pragmatics study.
“ILP has derived its theoretical and empirical foundation from general and especially cross-cultural pragmatics” (Kasper and Blum-Kulka, 1993: 4)
1.1.2 Pragmatic transfer and relevant issues
Pragmatic transfer, as defined by Beebe & Takahashi (1989: 200), is “transfer of some culturally specific politeness strategies from one’s native language to the
13 target language” It is resulted from the “influence from learners' native language and culture on their IL pragmatic knowledge and performance” (Kasper & Blum-
Pragmatic transfer (PT) can be categorized into negative and positive types Negative PT occurs when a speaker's first language pragmatic competence negatively influences their interlanguage pragmatic knowledge, leading to potential communication breakdowns In contrast, positive PT involves consistent pragmatic behaviors across the first language, interlanguage, and target language, resulting in successful communication The primary focus of interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) is on negative PT due to its implications for effective communication, while positive PT receives less attention as it typically leads to communicative success, making it less intriguing for research.
In literature, pragmatic failure (PT) is categorized into two types: sociopragmatic failure and pragmalinguistic failure, as identified by Thomas (1983) Sociopragmatic failure occurs when learners evaluate situational factors based on their native sociopragmatic norms, while pragmalinguistic failure involves the transfer of native procedures and linguistic means of speech act performance to interlanguage communication, according to Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper (1989) Both types of failure highlight the challenges in effective communication, often referred to as negative pragmatic transfer.
Research indicates that negative transfer occurs at both the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic levels At the sociopragmatic level, learners often misinterpret status relationships, appropriateness of speech acts, and politeness styles Meanwhile, at the pragmalinguistic level, negative transfer primarily affects learners' strategic choices and the forms they use, which can alter the politeness value of their linguistic expressions (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993: 10-11).
Inverse pragmatic transfer refers to the impact that a learner's proficiency in a second or foreign language has on their understanding and use of pragmatic elements in their first language This phenomenon highlights how the pragmatic skills acquired in a new language can shape the way individuals perceive and express various communicative nuances in their native tongue.
The study explores how Vietnamese learners of English experience sociopragmatic transfer, leading to differences in their perceptions compared to native English speakers It focuses on how Vietnamese cultural influences shape their understanding of politeness in specific situations.
Speech act theory and disagreeing as a speech act
Speech act theory, introduced by philosopher John Austin in his seminal work "How to Do Things with Words" (1962), is a pivotal concept in understanding language use According to Levinson (1983: 226), this theory has generated significant interest among scholars, highlighting its importance in the broader context of language usage.
Actually, since its initiation, it has been inherited, refined, and developed by a number of philosophers and linguists, including Searle (1969, 1975, 1976), Bach and Harnish (1979), and Wierzbicka (1987), among others
The concept of speech acts, introduced by John Austin in 1962, has been further explored by various pragmatists They share the understanding that when a speaker conveys a message with specific meaning and reference, they simultaneously perform an action, such as making a promise, request, or apology.
1995) For example, in saying, “I’ll come and pick you up.”, a speaker not only produces a meaningful utterance but also constitutes the act of promising
Understanding speech act theory requires a thorough grasp of Austin's (1962) important distinction among three types of acts: locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts.
According to Searle (1969) and further clarified by Richards et al (1992), communication involves three types of acts: a locutionary act, which is the act of saying something meaningful; an illocutionary act, where the sentence serves a specific function; and a perlocutionary act, which refers to the effects or results generated by the utterance.
11) puts it simply that locution is the actual form of an utterance, illocution is the
15 communicative force of the utterance, and perlocution is the communicative effect of the utterance
The three acts of communication are interconnected, as a meaningful utterance involves a speaker (S) conveying a message to a hearer (H), while simultaneously performing an action that influences H For instance, when S states, "I’ve just made some coffee" (the locutionary act), this can serve as an offer (illocutionary act) that encourages H to drink the coffee (perlocutionary act).
According to Yule (1997: 52), the illocutionary force is the most crucial aspect of communication, as the same utterance can convey different meanings depending on the context For example, the phrase "I'll see you later" may serve as a prediction, promise, or warning in various situations This variability highlights why Yule asserts that the term "speech act" is often understood specifically to refer to the illocutionary force of an utterance.
Speech acts are a universal phenomenon, but they might vary greatly across cultures under the effects of socio-cultural norms This explains why Wierzbicka (1991:
Every culture possesses its own unique set of speech acts and genres, as noted by Blum-Kulka et al This highlights the importance of conducting cross-cultural studies on speech acts with a focus on both universal principles and cultural specificity.
Research in this field posits that speech communities exhibit identifiable speech patterns, with 'cultural ways of speaking' serving as a crucial avenue for understanding speech as a cultural phenomenon Studies focused on speech acts reveal that differing interaction styles can result in intercultural miscommunication.
Blum-Kulka argues that insufficient understanding of the differences in speech acts across cultures can lead to cultural conflicts and communication breakdowns Therefore, enhancing awareness of these differences is crucial for effective intercultural communication.
Conducting studies on speech acts across different cultures is essential for understanding their similarities and differences However, these studies face challenges due to cultural and contextual specificity, making comparative analysis complex.
Speech acts can be categorized based on their functions, as outlined by Austin (1962), who identified five types: verdictives (assessments), exercitives (commands), commissives (promises), behabitives (apologies), and expositives (agreements) Searle (1976) further developed this classification, emphasizing the intentional responses of listeners to utterances, which contrasts with Austin's approach.
In 1962, the focus shifted to how speakers convey their intentions during communication (Wardhaugh, 1986: 287) Searle's classification categorizes speech acts into five main types: commissives, which include promises and threats; declarations, such as court pronouncements; directives, encompassing suggestions and requests; expressives, involving apologies and complaints; and representatives, which consist of assertions and reports.
According to Yule (1997), Searle's (1976) framework identifies five types of speech acts: declarations, where the speaker causes a situation; representatives, where the speaker believes something; expressives, where the speaker feels an emotion; directives, where the speaker wants something; and commissives, where the speaker intends to do something Bach and Harnish (1979) refine this classification by categorizing illocutionary acts into six types, distinguishing between conventional acts (effectives and verdictives) and communicative acts (constatives, directives, commissives, and acknowledgements) While these communicative categories align with Austin's and Searle's classifications, there are notable differences, such as the classification of suggestions as constatives by Bach and Harnish, in contrast to Searle's designation of them as directives.
Figure 1.1: Classification of communicative illocutionary acts (Bach and Harnish, 1979: 41)
Linguists categorize speech acts into direct and indirect types, with direct speech acts conveying the speaker's exact meaning and indirect speech acts implying additional meanings beyond the literal words Saville-Troike (1982: 36) supports this distinction, highlighting the complexity of communication.
In speech act theory, direct acts occur when the surface form aligns with the intended interactional function, exemplified by a command like "Be quiet!" In contrast, indirect acts involve statements that imply a request, such as "It's getting noisy here" or "I can't hear myself think."
Politeness theory and its application to the present study
Politeness is so popular a notion in studying pragmatics and CCP that Thomas (1995: 149) argues that “it could almost be seen as a -discipline of pragmatics”
In the introduction to "Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage" by B&L (1987), Grumper highlights that politeness is a fundamental concept that underpins social order and is essential for fostering human cooperation.
Politeness is a multifaceted concept explored by various researchers across cultures It can be understood as the effort to establish, maintain, and protect one's social standing during interactions, as highlighted by Richard (1985) Yule (1997) emphasizes that politeness involves recognizing and respecting another individual's social identity Furthermore, Brown and Levinson (1987) describe it as a complex set of strategies aimed at reducing the potential threat to someone's face when engaging in face-threatening acts (FTAs).
Positive concern for others is characterized by behaviors that demonstrate care and non-imposing distance (Holmes, 1995) Normatively, this behavior serves as a constraint on human interaction, aiming to acknowledge others' feelings, establish mutual comfort, and foster rapport (Hill et al., 1986) It embodies a set of social values that guide individuals to consider one another by meeting shared expectations (Sifianou).
In 2004, Nguyen Quang defined politeness from a communication perspective as any communicative act, whether verbal or nonverbal, that is intentionally designed to enhance the feelings of others or mitigate negative emotions This definition offers a comprehensive understanding of politeness, incorporating both strategic and integrative elements.
25 normative approach since it captures both the individual intention (i.e., strategic) and socially institutionalized appropriateness (i.e., normative)
This study centers on linguistic politeness, examining how individuals represented by VNS, VLE, and ANS convey (im)politeness through their language use in both Vietnamese and English To establish a solid theoretical foundation for the chosen approach, the author revisits various politeness frameworks found in existing literature, demonstrating how these theories are applied in the current research.
There exist different politeness views and approaches that have been put into several broader categories by different researchers
Fraser (1990) categorized politeness into four distinct views: social-norm, conversational-maxim, face-saving, and conversational-contract Kasper (1990) highlighted two primary conceptualizations: strategic politeness and politeness as social indexing Watts (2003) further classified politeness into prepragmatic and postpragmatic approaches Additionally, Kieu Thi Thu Huong (2006) and Duong Bach Nhat identified three main approaches to politeness: volitional/strategic, normative/social-norm, and normative-volitional/integrated.
This research examines the cultural dynamics between Australia, an Anglophone nation, and Vietnam, a non-Anglophone country, emphasizing both strategic and normative approaches The author references pertinent studies and perspectives to provide a comprehensive analysis of these cultural interactions.
Vietnamese researchers Then, he argues for an appropriate politeness approach for his study
This politeness view, also referred to as the instrumental (Kasper, 1992) or volitional approach (Hill et al., 1986; Ide, 1989), is argued to work well in
Western scholars often favor Anglophone cultures, resulting in various prepragmatic approaches as categorized by Watts (2003) These approaches include models proposed by prominent linguists such as Lakoff (1973), Leech (1983), and Brown & Levinson (B&L).
(1987), which rely on, or are more or less related to, Grice’s (1975) cooperative principle They are discussed in two subcategories: the maxim-based approach and the face-centered approach
Grice's cooperative principle, introduced in the early 1970s and published in "Logic and Conversation" in 1975, significantly influences communication This principle is based on four conversational maxims: quantity (be informative), quality (be true), relation (be relevant), and manner (be clear), each encompassing sub-maxims Additionally, Grice noted that other maxims, like the politeness maxim, could enhance the cooperative principle, a concept further explored by Lakoff in her politeness rules.
Grice’s cooperative principle significantly impacts pragmatics, serving as a foundational element in the prominent politeness models developed by Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983) It plays a vital role in understanding the implementation of hedges and various off-record strategies in communication.
According to Grice's cooperative principle, Lakoff (1973, in Watt, 2003: 60) proposes two sets of politeness rules: (1) Be clear and (2) Be polite The first set mirrors Grice's principles, encompassing four rules: quantity, quality, relevance, and manner In contrast, Lakoff's second set introduces three unique rules aimed at enhancing politeness: (1) Don’t impose, (2) Give options, and (3) Make A feel good.
– be friendly These rules are schematically presented by Watts (2003: 60) in figure
Lakoff's model reveals a significant contradiction: she claims that clarity rules fall under politeness rules However, when a speaker opts for politeness—by avoiding imposition, providing options, or ensuring the other person feels good—they inevitably risk violating conversational rules at some point during the interaction.
Figure 1.2: Lakoff’s rules of pragmatic competence
Lakoff's politeness rules, as outlined in Green (1989), emphasize the importance of social dynamics in communication Rule 1, "Don’t impose," is relevant in contexts where there is an imbalance of power, prompting speakers to avoid coercive language and instead seek permission or apologize to prevent imposing on others In contrast, Rule 2, "Offer options," applies when participants share similar status and power but lack social closeness, encouraging speakers to frame their requests in a way that allows the listener to feel free from the obligation to comply.
R3: Make A feel good – be friendly
Be as informative as require Be no more informative than required
Only say what you believe to be true
Be perspicuous Don’t be ambiguous Don’t be obscure
Rule 3 emphasizes the importance of making close friends feel good, as it is assumed that intimate relationships allow for open discussions on various topics However, it's important to recognize that there are certain truths or suggestions that even your best friend might hesitate to share.
The initial two rules of B&L's politeness theory emphasize negative politeness by avoiding imposition, while the third rule fosters positive politeness through the enhancement of solidarity.
Disagreeing in previous studies and in the present study
1.4.1 Previous studies of disagreeing in English and Vietnamese
Sornig’s (1977) pioneering research on disagreement as a communicative act has sparked extensive discussions and studies, particularly through the lens of politeness theory These investigations can be categorized into two primary groups: those that develop the theoretical framework surrounding disagreement and its implications in communication.
42 framework of politeness strategies (Leech, 1983; Brown & Levinson, 1987) and (2) those focusing on the realizations of the politeness strategies in specific situations The latter includes studies on intra-cultural communication (Holtgraves, 1997;
Rees-Miller, 2000; Locher, 2004; Nguyen Quang Ngoan, 2007a), inter-language pragmatics (Beebe & Takahashi, 1989), and contrastive pragmatics (Kieu Thi Thu
Brown and Levinson's (1987) politeness theory significantly influences speech act studies, particularly in the context of disagreement To maintain social harmony, speakers can employ various strategies: (1) using partial agreement, colloquial language, and first-person plural pronouns to mitigate threats to the addressee’s positive face; (2) incorporating questions, hedges, and impersonal forms to soften threats to the addressee’s negative face; or (3) utilizing indirect strategies that mask disagreement as a different speech act These strategies include realizing partial agreement through avoiding outright disagreement, employing colloquial language with in-group identity markers, and using first-person plural pronouns to include both the speaker and the hearer in the conversation.
Questions and hedges are typically expressed through two negative politeness strategies: being conventionally indirect and employing questions and hedges Indirect strategies can be implemented using various sub-strategies within the off-record group; however, B&L do not specify which off-record strategies are frequently utilized when disagreeing.
Leech (1983) considers disagreement to be dispreferred if face consideration is concerned Minimizing disagreement is even one of his main politeness sub maxims (p 132)
(a) Minimize disagreement between self and other
(b) Maximize agreement between self and other
Leech (p 138) suggests that individuals often exaggerate their agreement with others while downplaying disagreements through expressions of regret or partial agreement In B&L’s model, expressing regret aligns with the negative aspect of apologizing, while partial agreement fits within the positive strategy of avoiding disagreement Additionally, Leech’s Tact Maxim emphasizes minimizing the cost to others in communication (Leech, ibid.: 132).
Approbation Maxim (i.e., maximizing praise of other) are of relevance here as well
The second group of studies examines the realizations of disagreement within the framework of politeness theory, focusing primarily on intra-cultural communication This research highlights the strategies used by Vietnamese native speakers when expressing disagreement, as well as those employed by English native speakers and proficient nonnative speakers who have lived in English-speaking countries long enough to communicate fluently.
Holtgraves (1997) explores the application of positive politeness strategies in verbal disagreements, utilizing the politeness theory framework established by B&L (1987) The study focuses on actual disagreement behaviors rather than hypothetical scenarios, analyzing the verbal strategies employed by thirty-two unacquainted student participants (twenty-four women and eight men) across eight experimental sessions Key strategies identified include token agreement, hedging opinions, personalizing opinions, expressing distaste for one's own position, displacing agreement, self-deprecation, and seeking common ground.
Among them, token agreement, hedge opinion, personalize opinion are the most frequently-used (Holtgraves, 1997: 231-234)
Rees-Miller (2000) explores disagreement from an intra-cultural perspective, focusing on its manifestation in university environments The study analyzes the linguistic markers employed to either soften or intensify expressions of disagreement, drawing on a corpus of natural data that encompasses over [insert data specifics].
In a study involving 36 students and 14 professors in the eastern United States, a total of 450 instances of disagreement were identified during university courses and academic discussions Utilizing B&L’s (1987) factors of power and imposition, the research aimed to analyze the various ways disagreement manifested in natural interactions Disagreement strategies emerged through the interactions among professors, students, and between peers, with these strategies illustrated in figure 1.4.
Type of disagreement Type of linguistic marker
Positive comment Positive politeness Humor
(21% of turns) Inclusive 1 st person
I think/ I don’t know Negative Politeness Downtoners (may be, sort of) (41% of turns) Verb of uncertainty (seem)
Disagreement not softened Contradictory statement or strengthened Verbal shadowing
(8% of turns) Personal, accusatory you
Figure 1.4: Taxonomy of disagreement (Adapted from Miller, 2000: 1095)
Locher (2004) conducted a comprehensive study on intra-cultural communication, examining three distinct speech contexts: a family dinner argument, a controversial business meeting, and a political radio interview This investigation focused on the interplay of power and politeness in expressing disagreement within naturalistic language data Notably, the most explicit verbal strategies for disagreement were presented and analyzed in the context of the family dinner The data for this study was collected by the researcher in the late 1990s in Philadelphia, America.
During a dinner conversation among seven friends and relatives, including a researcher, various disagreeing strategies were observed The group comprised four native English speakers and three individuals with diverse backgrounds, including one who grew up in Istanbul and lived in Philadelphia for fifteen years, another who also grew up in Turkey but worked in Philadelphia, and the researcher, who spent most of her life in Switzerland with time in Scotland and the USA The conversation was recorded for two hours and fifty-five minutes, capturing the dynamics of their interactions.
Disagreement can be expressed through various strategies, including the use of hedges, personal or emotional justifications, shifting responsibility, and framing objections as questions Additionally, the conjunction "but," repetition of statements, and outright disagreement are effective methods These strategies can be combined for more nuanced communication (Locher, 2004: 149).
According to the author (2004: 147), the most common strategy for softening disagreement is the use of hedges, accounting for 25% of instances This is followed by providing personal reasons for disagreement at 23% The use of modals ranks third at 16%, while shifting responsibility and formulating questions account for 13% and 12%, respectively Mitigation represents 7%, and the repetition of a speaker's own mitigated disagreement is the least utilized strategy at only 3%.
Nguyen Quang Ngoan (2007a) identifies and analyzes 25 strategies for disagreement in Vietnamese, drawing partially from Brown and Levinson’s framework He illustrates these strategies with examples from five collections of short stories published between 2001 and 2006 Ngoan emphasizes the importance of recognizing potential combinations of these strategies when examining speech acts.
The second major type of group 2 includes ILP studies, which examine the similarities and differences in disagreement strategies between native English speakers and nonnative learners The primary goal of these studies is to analyze how learners' language and cultural backgrounds influence their use of English A notable example is the research by Beebe and Takahashi (1989), which explores how American and Japanese speakers perform face-threatening speech acts in English, focusing particularly on disagreement and chastisement.
The study investigates face-threatening acts between individuals of differing statuses, focusing on interactions where a lower-status person addresses a higher-status individual and vice versa Data was collected through natural speech observations and a discourse completion test, involving two scenarios In the first scenario, 13 Japanese and 14 American participants engaged in discussions where the speaker held a higher status than the hearer, while in the second scenario, 15 participants from each culture were involved where the speaker had a lower status The American participants employed various disagreeing strategies, with the most common being suggestion, positive remark, criticism, and gratitude in the first scenario, and positive remark, suggestion, criticism, and token agreement in the second scenario.