Theoretical Background…………………………………………………… 10 10 1 Language and Culture
Culture
Culture has been defined in various ways by researchers from different perspectives The word "culture" originates from the Latin term "cultura," which initially meant agriculture, encompassing the activities of tilling soil, cultivating crops, and raising livestock In 1871, Edward Burnett Tylor, in his book "Primitive Culture," provided one of the earliest comprehensive definitions of culture.
“Culture…is that complex whole which includes knowledge, beliefs, arts, morals, laws, custom and any other capacities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”
Nguyen Quang in his book “Intercultural communication” also claimed that
Culture encompasses shared backgrounds such as national, ethnic, and religious identities, shaped by common language, communication styles, customs, beliefs, attitudes, and values It is often likened to an iceberg, with visible elements like literature, gestures, and food habits above the waterline, while the larger, hidden aspects—thoughts, feelings, and beliefs—lie beneath Most of culture's influence on individuals remains unseen, leading to potential cross-cultural misunderstandings The hidden dimensions of culture significantly impact behavior and interactions, highlighting that observable behaviors represent only a small fraction of a much larger cultural framework.
According to UNESCO, culture encompasses the complete range of unique spiritual, material, intellectual, and emotional attributes that define a society or social group This definition extends beyond just the arts and literature to include lifestyles, fundamental human rights, value systems, traditions, and beliefs.
Culture is analyzed from diverse perspectives, with some viewing it as a collection of tangible artifacts and social behaviors, while others approach it as a more abstract concept encompassing shared knowledge, worldviews, values, norms, customs, and preferred cognitive styles within social communities.
Language
Language is defined in numerous ways across linguistic literature and online resources At its core, language serves as a communication system that utilizes sounds, symbols, and words to convey meanings, ideas, and thoughts It manifests primarily through oral and written forms of communication.
From a linguistic standpoint, language encompasses the cognitive processes involved in both producing and comprehending communication Specifically, it serves as a unique system for encoding and decoding information effectively.
In the Random House Dictionary of the English Language, language is defined as
Language is a system of linguistic symbols used uniformly by a group of people, facilitating clear communication among them It is a complex and abstract phenomenon that encompasses various verbal and non-verbal codes Regardless of its definition, language exists within specific communities and serves as a crucial tool for effective communication.
The relation between Culture and Language
Between language and culture exists a close relationship In the definition of language itself, this relation has been shown by a number of linguists
Language, as defined by Sapir (1921), is a unique human method of expressing ideas, emotions, and desires through voluntarily created symbols It plays a crucial role in culture and human behavior, highlighting its significance in communication.
In his 1962 study, Kerch explored the functions of language and highlighted its connection to culture, identifying three key functions of language.
1 Language is the primary vehicle of communication
2 Language reflects both the personality of the individual and the culture of history
In turn, it helps shape both personality and culture
3 Language makes possible the growth and transmission of culture, the continuity of society, and the effective functioning and control of social group
Kerch's theory suggests that language is fundamentally a tool for communication, facilitating social interaction and cultural integration A shared language allows individuals to embed common experiences, wisdom, cultural values, and beliefs within a society.
Language is essential for the development, expression, and transmission of culture, allowing us to preserve meanings and experiences that enhance communication It is foundational to life, culture, and civilization (Arthur Yap, 1997) For instance, Arthur illustrates how language significantly influences a child's cultural development.
The mother tongue plays a crucial role in a child's understanding of their identity, family, and surroundings It introduces them to cultural elements such as songs, heroic tales, and the poetic beauty of their landscape, as well as the traditional wisdom and accomplishments of their community This connection fosters a deep appreciation for their heritage, instilling a sense of loyalty and a sense of duty to preserve and protect their cultural legacy.
Emmitt and Pollock (1997) highlight an intriguing concept: individuals raised in similar cultural environments can have vastly different worldviews if they communicate in different languages.
The speech act
When individuals express themselves, they engage in actions beyond merely using grammatical structures and words; their utterances serve specific purposes For instance, when someone asks, "Do you want some popcorn?" they are not just posing a question but also extending an invitation Similarly, saying "hello" or "How are you?" constitutes a greeting, while "please close the window" represents a request It is important to note that speech acts are influenced by cultural norms and social conventions, which can vary significantly between different speech communities.
According to George Yule (1996:48) “on any occasion, the action performed by producing an utterance will consist of three related acts.” They are:
1 Locutionary act defined as the basic act of utterance, or producing a meaningful linguistic expression (1996:48) For example, saying a sentence “throw a ball” is a locutionary act if hearers understand the words “throw”, “ the”, “ball” and can identify the particular ball referred to.(Richard, 1996:217)
2 Illocutionary act performed via a communicative force of an utterance For example, in “I‟m hungry” the proposition is what the utterance says about the speaker‟s physical state It may be intended as a request for something to eat (Richard, 1996:343) In all, the illocutionary force is the effect the speaker wants the utterance to have on the listener
3 Perlocutionary act is thought as the results or effects that are produced by means of saying something For example, throwing a ball would be a perlocutionary act Austin‟s theory also distinguishes three kinds of acts involved in saying: locutionary act, illocutionary force and perlocutionary Many utterances are the simultaneous of three acts Austin observes that it is the distinction between illocutionary and perlocutionary which seems likeliest to give trouble Basically, an illocutionary act is a non-linguistic act performed as a consequence of the locationary and illocutionary act Meanwhile, Yule assumes that, the most discussed of these three dimensions is illocutionary force He argues: “Indeed, the term “speech act” is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of an utterance The illocutionary force of an utterance is what it
Looking at the following example:
He argues that it can be interpreted into: a [ I predict that ] (A) b [ I promise you that ] (A) c [ I warn you that ] (A)
They can count as a prediction, a promise, a warning, respectively
In summary, speech acts enable listeners to understand the speaker's intentions behind their utterances The effectiveness of a conversation significantly relies on how participants utilize the social context surrounding the dialogue This context is essential for performing actions through speech to achieve a desired outcome.
Politeness
1.5.1 Different ideas of the concepts “politeness”
Politeness is a crucial aspect of human communication and culture, serving as a vital ritual in social interactions across all cultures It fulfills a communicative need by enabling individuals to express statements such as requests, thanks, and agreements while also ensuring respectful engagement According to the "Colin Cobuild English Language Dictionary," politeness encompasses actions or words that are socially appropriate rather than genuinely felt Lakoff (1990) describes politeness as a system of interpersonal relations that aims to facilitate interaction by reducing the potential for conflict and confrontation in human exchanges.
Yule suggests that politeness can be viewed as a fixed concept, akin to "polite social behavior" or cultural etiquette Key aspects of this include being tactful, generous, modest, and sympathetic toward others.
In language study, politeness is categorized into two main aspects: first, the way languages convey social distance and the varying role relationships between speakers; second, the concept of face work, which involves efforts to establish, maintain, and protect one's social standing during conversations within a speech community (Richards, J.C et al., 1985:281).
Politeness is deeply intertwined with culture, as each language has its unique methods of expressing it, with no language being inherently more polite than another For example, English utilizes phrases like "I wonder" or "if I could" to soften requests, while other languages achieve similar effects through specific words or particles In Vietnamese, honorifics such as vâng, dạ, thưa, xin, and ạ serve as politeness indicators that demonstrate respect from the speaker to the listener Additionally, English speakers often use a variety of politeness strategies beyond mere phrases to lessen the perceived imposition of their requests.
The concept of "face," defined by Brown and Levinson as the public self-image of an individual, is crucial for understanding politeness in social interactions This notion, established by Brown and Levinson, highlights that face is emotionally invested and can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, requiring constant attention during interactions Yule emphasizes that individuals typically expect their face wants, or public self-image, to be respected in everyday social exchanges.
Every speech act can potentially threaten someone's sense of Face, which refers to their desire for autonomy in life For example, when a man asks his neighbor to stop making noise by saying, “Please stop that awful noise right now It’s killing me!” he is committing a Face Threatening Act (FTA) This act can be seen as a threat to the neighbor's face To mitigate this threat, the speaker should employ a Face Saving Act (FSA) to soften the impact of the FTA, as illustrated by Yule (1996:61) In a scenario where a young neighbor is playing loud music late at night while an older couple is trying to sleep, one party may initiate an FTA, while the other might suggest an FSA to ease the situation.
Him: I’m going to tell him to stop that awful noise right now! (FTA)
Her: Perhaps you could just ask him if he is going to stop soon because it is getting a bit late and people need to get to sleep (FSA)
Because it is generally expected that each person will attempt to respect the face wants of others, there are many different ways of performing FTAs (1996:61)
To understand more about politeness principles to reduce FTA, to mitigate imposition of face, let us look at two kinds of politeness strategies: Positive and negative politeness
In regard with the notion, “Face”, there are two kinds of face, namely, positive and negative face
A person's desire for independence and freedom of action reflects a fundamental need to avoid external imposition This aspiration is inherent in every competent adult, who seeks to ensure that their actions remain unimpeded by others.
A person's positive face involves the desire for acceptance and likability, as well as the need to be recognized as part of a group where their wants and feelings are shared by others.
In Yule's (1996) framework, negative face refers to the need for independence, while positive face relates to the desire for connection Brown and Levinson (1990) highlight that individuals inherently wish to be viewed as desirable by others It's important to note that "negative" does not imply "bad"; rather, it represents the opposite of "positive." A Face-Saving Act (FSA) focused on negative face demonstrates deference, acknowledges the importance of the other person's time, and may include an apology for any disruption, known as negative politeness Conversely, an FSA that prioritizes positive face fosters solidarity, indicating shared goals and mutual interests, referred to as positive politeness.
For example: a How about letting me use your pen? (positive) b Could you lend me a pen? (negative)
In fact, there are many studies of such pragmatics, discourse analysts such as Lakoff
Research by Searl (1975), Brown and Levinson (1978), and Leech (1985) highlights the significance of politeness, directness, and indirectness in speech activities, which vary across cultural contexts Understanding the distinctions between positive and negative politeness is essential for students to navigate potential misunderstandings in cross-cultural communication Additionally, the concepts of directness and indirectness, along with the social and cultural factors influencing these choices, play a crucial role in effective communication strategies.
Directness and indirectness
“I love you Please marry me! (A direct way)
“I will buy a house but I would be very lonely when living there without you”
(An indirect way) –Sunflower –Dongnai Publishing House, 1997
In Vietnamese, indirect ways of proposing have been also found For example:
“Đến đây mận mới hỏi đào
Vườn hồng có lối ai vào hay chưa”
(Tuyển tập ca dao tục ngữ Việt Nam)
In everyday communication, expressions can often be ambiguous, utilizing both direct and indirect methods to convey meaning These two forms of expression are universal across languages, yet their usage varies significantly between cultures No single language relies solely on straightforward communication or exclusively on indirect expressions; rather, the choice of language reflects the cultural thought patterns that differ across societies.
Kaplan (1972) identifies four distinct discourse structures that differ from the linear style of English writing, focusing specifically on paragraph organization to uncover cultural thought patterns These structures include parallel constructions where the initial idea is expanded in the subsequent section, a multifaceted approach that examines the topic from various angles, and the flexibility to deviate from the main point by incorporating additional relevant information.
(3) but with different lengths, and parenthetical amplifications of subordinate elements (figure.e)
They are illustrated by the following diagrams:
Figure 1: Types of Kaplan’s diagrams
According to the diagram, English speakers typically favor direct communication styles, while Oriental cultures, particularly Vietnamese, often prefer more indirect approaches In Anglicist culture, effective communication emphasizes straightforwardness, as evidenced by expressions like "Don't beat about the bush," "Let's get down to business," and "Get to the point." These phrases highlight the value placed on addressing issues directly rather than evading them.
Let‟s look at the following example:
Host: Do you like spaghetti?
(Let’s go 2 –Third Edition-Oxford)
The host refrains from repeating the offer, and if guests are still hungry, they will directly express their desire for more by saying, "Yes, I’d like some more Thank you."
In Vietnamese culture, guests often decline food invitations initially to show politeness, regardless of their hunger, only accepting after being invited multiple times As a result, hosts typically insist on offering food several times to reduce the likelihood of a first-time refusal.
Nguyen Quang's research highlights the "by the way" phenomenon in both English and Vietnamese, revealing that it occurs less frequently with "safe" topics such as good news, congratulations, and weather In contrast, this phenomenon is significantly more prevalent in discussions of "unsafe" topics, including bad news, borrowing money, and religious matters.
In English conversations, the purpose is typically stated upfront, whereas in Vietnamese culture, this approach can be perceived as impolite In Vietnamese communication, directness is closely linked to politeness, and individuals often prefer to engage in small talk or other discussions if the relationship allows for it, as noted by Nguyen Quang (1998).
He proposes the following diagrams in English and Vietnamese:
By the way (tiện thể)
By the way (tiện thể)
Human interaction is influenced by various factors that can alter the dynamics of communication, both directly and indirectly This interplay affects the purpose of conversations, whether in Vietnamese or English, highlighting the complexities of how meaning and context can shift in different settings.
1.6.2 Factors affecting directness and indirectness
Nguyen Quang (1985:5) proposes 12 factors affecting the choice of using the directness and indirectness in communication
1 Age: the old tend to be more indirect than the young
2 Sex: The female prefer indirect expression
3 Residence: The rural population tends to to use more indirectness than the urban one
4 Mood: While angry, people tend to use more indirectness
5 Occupation: Those who do social sciences tend to use more indirectness than those who do natural sciences
6 Personality: The extroverted tend to use more directness than introverted
7 Topics: While referring to a subtle topic, a taboo…, people use to be opting for indirectness
8 Place: When at home, people tend to use more directness than when they are at another place
9 Communication environment/ setting: when in an informal climate, people tend to express in a direct way
10 Social distance: Those who have closer relation tend to talk a more direct way
11 Time pressure: When in a hurry, people are likely to use a direct expression
12 Position: When in a superior position, people tend to use more directness to their inferiors
(English version by Ngo Huu Hoang, 1998:14)
Later, Do Thi Mai Thanh (2001:81) adds two more factors that may affect the choice of directness and indirectness They are:
13 Distance: In a farther distance (with noise and interference), people tend to use indirectness more
14 Foreign language acquisition /Acculturation: People who know European language(s) tend to use more direct expression than those who do not or those who know only Oriental language(s).
Hedging in refusing a request in English and Vietnamese
The terms "hedge" and "hedging" refer to a barrier or means of protection, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary Originating in the 1970s, G Lakoff introduced the concept in his 1972 article "Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts," where he described hedges as words that make concepts either clearer or more ambiguous Lakoff's definition emphasizes the role of hedges in shaping meaning and perception.
The exploration of words that inherently possess fuzziness is fascinating, particularly those designed to either enhance or reduce ambiguity in meaning.
Hedges, such as "sort of" and "kind of," are linguistically indeterminate items that allow speakers to express uncertainty They are particularly useful for discussing natural phenomena that do not fit neatly into the core conceptual categories of language.
Despite being part of the linguistic vocabulary for over thirty years, the concepts of hedges and hedging lack a unified definition in the literature As noted by Hyland, clear definitions are scarce, and researchers continue to interpret these concepts in diverse ways Variations in terminology are also evident, with terms like stance marker, understatement, downtowner, and downgrader used interchangeably with hedge and hedging in different studies Additionally, phenomena labeled as hedging in some research are categorized under terms such as evidentiality and mitigation in other works.
Fanshel 1977), indirectness (Holmes 1983) and vagueness (Channell 1994)
Nguyen Quoc Sinh (2004:49) proposes some more ideas of hedges:
- Hedges are expressions which do not add any false or truth values to the content of utterance
- Hedges are attitude markers that can be taken as an indication of speaker‟s sensitivity towards the hearer
Hedges serve to soften the impact of a speaker's statements, allowing them to express their opinions and attitudes while minimizing potential negative effects on face-threatening acts (FTAs) By using hedges, speakers can protect the hearer's face and maintain a more respectful and considerate interaction.
1.7.2 Linguistic Realization of Hedging in Refusing a Request
Early research on hedging focused on a limited range of linguistic expressions, with G Lakoff identifying around 70 items Recent studies have expanded the understanding of hedging to encompass a broader array of linguistic phenomena, yet inconsistencies remain regarding what qualifies as hedging Literature suggests that hedges involve an element of fuzziness, allowing for commentary on group membership and the items deemed as hedges Some studies, like that of Prince et al., provide insufficient detail on the phenomena considered as hedges, while others concentrate on specific linguistic features rather than the wider options available Dubois (1987) identified various hedges used to approximate numerical data, such as "about" and "approximately." Zuck and Zuck, in their exploration of hedging in new writing, highlight numerous devices, noting that vagueness in sourcing news can also serve as hedging Their list includes verbal and adverbial expressions that convey varying degrees of probability or mitigate the sender's responsibility regarding propositional content, categorized into auxiliaries (e.g., may, might), semi-auxiliaries (e.g., appear, seem), full verbs (e.g., suggest), the passive voice, and various adverbs and indefinite nouns and pronouns.
Markkanen and Schoder identify various elements of hedging in English and German, including modal verbs, modal adverbs, specific pronouns, agentless passives, and certain vocabulary choices Skelton adds that English offers numerous hedging techniques, such as using impersonal phrases, modal expressions, verbs like "seem," "look," and "appear," as well as introductory phrases like "I think" and the suffix "-ish" with adjectives.
Hedging in English encompasses various linguistic expressions that convey uncertainty, vagueness, and hesitation George Lakoff's seminal work in 1973 identified a limited set of hedges, such as "roughly" and "sort of," but the understanding of hedging has since expanded It now includes a broader range of expressions reflecting nuanced feelings and thoughts Among the key hedging devices are modal auxiliaries, which include eight forms: can, could, may, might, must, should, will, and would These modals serve as essential tools for expressing epistemic uncertainty in communication.
1.7.3.1 Hedging as a negative politeness strategy
Hedging is a key aspect of negative politeness, as identified by Brown and Levinson They define a hedge as a particle, word, or phrase that alters the extent to which a predicate or noun phrase belongs to a particular set This linguistic tool plays a crucial role in softening statements and mitigating the impact of communication.
For example: You are quite right (Hình như bạn hơi đúng)
I rather think it‟s hopeless (Tôi thoáng nghĩ là không còn hi vọng nữa)
Brown and Levinson emphasize that conversational principles form essential background assumptions regarding cooperation, including formativeness, truthfulness, relevance, and clarity However, these principles often require softening to maintain face in interactions Hedges serve as the primary tool for this purpose, and the authors explore their application in relation to Grice's Maxims.
Grice (1975) proposes four maxims (rules or principles) which he says people follow for a successful conversation:
+ Make your contribution as informative as required
+ Don‟t make your contribution more informative than is required
+ Don‟t say what you believe to be false
+ Don‟t say what you lack adequate evidence for
- Grice‟s specific maxims of manner are:
+ be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).”
Flouting Grice's maxims in conversation can lead to misunderstandings and breakdowns in communication To ensure effective dialogue, speakers should aim to be genuine, concise, relevant, and clear However, speakers often use hedges to indicate potential deviations from these principles, helping to avoid face-threatening acts (FTAs) and preserving the listener's dignity Thus, the use of hedges is closely related to Grice's maxims.
1.7.3.3 Hedges addressed to Grice’s maxims a Quality hedges
- Quality hedges may suggest that the speaker is not taking full responsibility for the truth of his utterance
I may be mistaken but I think ………
I‟m not sure if it‟s right, but………
Theo như tôi biết thì………
Có thể tôi nhầm nhưng tôi nghĩ là…
- They disclaim the assumption that the point of the speaker‟s assertion is to inform hearer or to invite hearer to assert the truth of the utterance,
As you probably / may know………
As you and I both know………
Như các bạn đã biết………
Như mọi người biết đấy………
- They emphasize speaker‟s responsibility for what is uttered
Tôi tự tin rằng……… b Quantity hedges
Quantity hedges serve to inform the listener that the speaker's information may be less comprehensive than anticipated Essentially, these hedges signal that the details provided may not meet the expected level of specificity or quantity.
I can‟t tell you than that it is…
Tôi cũng không biết chắc…………
Kiểu như là……… c Relevance hedges
Relevance hedges are employed to establish preparatory conditions that prevent the speaker from making a face-threatening act (FTA) (Nguyen Quang, 2003) Additionally, these hedges serve to safeguard the speaker when there is uncertainty about the relevance of their propositional content Expressions that exemplify this type of hedging are commonly used in conversation.
This may sound like a dumb question, but,
I might mention at the point………
Không dám cảm phiền ông………
Nói bỏ ngoài tai cho………… d Manner hedges
I you see what I‟m getting at…………
If you see what I‟m driving at ….……
Not to beat about the bush…………
Tôi xin đi thẳng vào vấn đề……
Nói đơn giản là……… Not unrelated are these expressions that query whether is following speaker‟s discourse adequately
Maxim hedges are frequently employed in everyday conversation and serve various politeness functions, as noted by Brown and Levinson Quality hedges, which soften a speaker's commitment, can be used to mitigate advice or criticism, such as in the phrase, “I think perhaps you should.” Quantity hedges can help ease complaints or requests, exemplified by, “could you make this copy more or less final?” Relevance hedges offer a way to soften suggestions, as seen in, “this may be misplaced but would you consider…?” Meanwhile, manner hedges can address a range of face-threatening acts (FTAs), for instance, “You are not exactly thrifty, if you see what I mean.” Additionally, some hedges, while derived from maxim hedges, directly signal violations of face wants, such as in, “I hate to have to say this, but…” or “I am sorry but…”
1.7.4 Hedging as a positive politeness strategy
Hedging has often been regarded as a negative politeness strategy, yet it can also convey a positive politeness dimension that has been overlooked in literature Some authors, such as Aijmer (1986: 15), suggest that when the emphasis is on the relationship between the speaker and the listener, hedges can serve as a strategy to signal intimacy and rapport Thus, hedges can be effectively utilized to foster closer connections in communication.
(1) In a way, that picture is beautiful
The study
The survey questionnaires
The questionnaire has two versions, one in English for the English native speakers and the other in Vietnamese for the Vietnamese ones
The survey consisted of two main sections: the first section gathered personal information such as nationality, age, gender, and language proficiency, while the second section included targeted questions that respondents were required to answer.
The questionnaire contained three specific utterances when they have to use hedges to refuse a request in specific situations The situations are as follows:
Situation 1 : How would you use hedges in refusing the following person when s/he asks you to fill in this survey questionnaire for him/her?
Situation 2: How would you use hedges in refusing the following person when S/he asks you to make photocopy a book for him/her?
Situation 3: How would you use hedges in refusing the following person when S/he asks you to lend her/him some money?
The informants were asked to write a specific answer, but for some reasons, a few did not give hedges in refusing a request.
Description of the subjects
This study involved a total of 80 participants, comprising 40 Vietnamese individuals and 40 English individuals The Vietnamese informants are acquaintances and relatives residing in Nghe An and Ha Noi provinces, while the English participants include friends, colleagues, and travelers who visited Vietnam during the International Labor Day holiday on May 1, 2011, in Ha Noi.
Findings from the data
2.3.1 Comments on using hedges to refuse a request offered by the English subjects
2.3.1.1 Data on English subjects’ personal information
Table 1: English subjects’ information regarding gender, marital status and age
The study involves 40 British informants, comprising 25 males (62.5%) and 15 females In terms of marital status, 17 participants are married, representing 42.5% of the group, while the remaining informants are single.
The data indicates that only 5% of participants are over 60 years old, while 2.5% are under 20 The majority of English subjects fall within the 21-30 age group, comprising 32.5%, and the 31-60 age group, which makes up 60%.
The place they have been living
Countryside City Primary Secondary High school University Others
Table 2: English subject’s information regarding the place they have been living and education level
As seen from the table, concerning the place they have been living, there are 9 participants coming from countryside, which accounts for 22.5% and the rest comes come from city
Referring to education level, there are only 2.5% graduated from secondary school, whereas high school accounts for 10% And the majority of English subjects belong to university, which accounts for 87.5%
The English subjects engage in a variety of occupations, with students and teachers making up two-thirds of this group The remaining individuals include engineers, lawyers, retirees, and others in diverse professions.
2.3.1.2 Data on factors affecting the choice of hedges in refusing a request of English subjects
Factors Affecting on the choice of using hedges
People Percentage a Age 2 5% b Gender 1 2.5% c Social status 4 10% d Marital status 0 0% e Occupations 2 5% f Time of acquaintance 21 52.5% g Communication situation 11 27.5% h Others 0 0%
Table 3: The factors affecting on the choice of using hedges in refusing a request of the English subjects
The survey results indicate that 52.5% of respondents believe that the length of acquaintance influences the use of hedges when refusing a request Additionally, 2.5% attribute gender as a factor in this choice Other factors, such as social status and communication context, account for 10% and 27.5% respectively, while age and occupation both represent about 5%.
Figure 2: The most important factor having affect on the choice of using hedges in refusing a request of the English subjects
Informants ranked various factors influencing the use of hedges when refusing a request, with the goal of identifying the most significant element The results clearly indicate that the duration of acquaintance is the most crucial factor, as over half of the respondents believe it plays a vital role in their decision-making process.
2.3.1.3 Data on frequency of using hedges in refusing a request offered by the English subjects
For the following question of the survey, the author has explicated the frequency of using hedges when they must refuse a request in everyday communication
Frequency Frequency of using hedges in refusing a request
Table 4: The frequency of using hedges in refusing a request
The data reveals that only 5% of informants consistently use hedges when refusing a request, while a significant majority, 65%, indicate that they sometimes employ hedges in such situations Additionally, the responses regarding the frequency of using hedges, including categories like "usually" and "never," further illustrate the varying degrees of hedging in refusal contexts.
2.3.1.4 Data on need of hedges in refusing a request in communication
The aim of question in survey questionnaire is to find out the purposes of using hedges in refusing a request
Purpose Why use hedges in refusing a request
To lessen a shock to the hearer 10 25%
To make your utterance more acceptable to the hearer
Table 5: The main purposes of using hedges to refuse a request
The data reveals that 50% of respondents use hedges primarily to maintain politeness when refusing a request Additionally, only 7.5% of participants believe hedges are used to reduce indirectness Other motivations include lessening directness (15%), minimizing shock to the listener (25%), and making statements more acceptable (15%), with no respondents selecting the final option Some respondents indicated multiple reasons for their use of hedges.
2.3.1.5 The number of English subjects using hedges to refuse a request when they are angry
Number Using hedges to refuse a request when they are angry
Table 6: The number of English subjects using hedges to refuse a request when they are angry
The data indicates that a significant majority of English individuals, 50%, refrain from using hedges when expressing anger In contrast, only 35% occasionally employ hedges to decline requests during moments of anger, highlighting that their usage is contingent on specific communication contexts.
2.3.1.6The number of English subjects using hedges to refuse a request when they are in hurry
Number Using hedges to refuse a request when they are in hurry
Table 7: The number of English subjects using hedges to refuse a request when they are in hurry
Being asked about using hedges in refusing a request when they are in hurry, the English subjects explain many different ways There are 12 people (about 30%) choosing
A survey of 16 participants revealed that 40% still use hedges to maintain politeness when in a hurry, while the remainder indicated that their use of hedges varies depending on the specific situation.
2.3.2 Comments on using hedges to refuse a request offered by the Vietnamese subjects
2.3.2.1 Data on Vietnamese subjects’ personal information
Table 8: English subjects’ information regarding gender, marital status and age,
The study includes 40 Vietnamese informants, with a gender distribution of 11 males (27.5%) and 29 females (72.5%) Notably, a significant majority, 85%, of the participants are single.
Only 2.5% of participants are over 60 years old, while 5% fall within the 31-60 age range The majority, comprising 67.5%, are aged between 21 and 30 years, highlighting a youthful demographic among the Vietnamese subjects.
The place they have been living
Countryside City Primary Secondary High school University Others
Table 9: Vietnamese subject’s information regarding the place they have been living and education level
As seen from the table, concerning the place they have been living, there are 11 participants coming from countryside, which accounts or 22.5% and most of them come from city (77.5%)
In terms of education levels, 25% of individuals have graduated high school, while a significant 65% hold university degrees The occupations of the Vietnamese subjects are diverse, with students and teachers making up two-thirds of the workforce, while the remaining participants include workers, farmers, and other professions.
2.3.2.2 Data on factors affecting the choice of hedges in refusing a request of Vietnamese subjects
Factors Affecting on the choice of using hedges
People Percentage a Age 6 15% b Gender 2 5% c Social status 3 7.5% d Marital status 0 0% e Occupations 4 10% f Time of acquaintance 15 37.5% g Communication situation 11 27.5% h Others 1 2.5%
Table 10: The factors affecting on the choice of using hedges in refusing a request of the Vietnamese subjects
The survey results indicate that 37.5% of respondents believe that the length of acquaintance influences the use of hedges when refusing a request In contrast, only 2.5% attribute this choice to other factors Additional influences include age (15%), gender (5%), social status (7.5%), marital status (0%), and occupation (4%), highlighting the complexity of factors that affect the use of hedges in such contexts.
Figure 3: The most important factor having affect on the choice of using hedges in refusing a request of the Vietnamese subjects
In English, informants are requested to rank factors from most to least important, which aids in identifying the key influences on the use of hedges when declining a request This approach helps us understand the primary factors that affect decision-making in such contexts.
Series1 can see clearly from the chart, the most important factor is the time of acquaintance There were more than a half of informants think so
2.3.2.3 Data on frequency of using hedges in refusing a request offered by the Vietnamese subjects
Frequency Frequency of using hedges in refusing a request
Table 11: The frequency of using hedges in refusing a request
For the following question of the survey, the author has explicated the frequency of using hedges when they must refuse a request in everyday communication
The data reveals that only 2.5% of informants consistently use hedges when refusing a request, while a significant 82.5% indicate that they occasionally employ hedges Additionally, the frequency of using terms like "usually" and "never" in refusal contexts is minimal, accounting for 7.5% each, with no respondents reporting a consistent use of "never."
2.3.2.4 Data on need of hedges in refusing a request in communication
The aim of question in survey questionnaire is to find out the purposes of using hedges in refusing a request
Purpose Why use hedges in refusing a request
To lessen a shock to the hearer 6 15%
To make your utterance more acceptable to the hearer
Table 12: The main purposes of using hedges to refuse a request
