Disagreeing in english and vietnamese

2.3. Concluding Remarks

This chapter deals with disagreeing as regards politeness, its perception and realization. Politeness is culturally colored in the sense that different societies have different cultural beliefs and values that determine and restrict its linguistic realization. Politeness is also personally manipulated as individuals are free to choose to behave in accordance with indigenous social conventions and norms. Thus, quite naturally and logically, politeness should be perceived and interpreted in its unity of volition and discernment in relation to the wider socio-cultural milieu. The empirical findings exhibit the differences in politeness level assessment by native speakers of English and Vietnamese. These differences are considered manifestations of deeper-level differences in socially institutionalized norms of the target cultures. Anglo-American culture in North America lays great emphasis on individualism and non-imposition while Vietnamese culture, like other Asian cultures, highly values collectivism and community-oriented solidarity.

The following chapter investigates linguistic manipulation of disagreeing within the framework of Brown & Levinson’s model of politeness strategies. Also, the choice of strategies to realize disagreeing by the respondents is empirically testified.

CHAPTER THREE

STRATEGIES OF POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING

3.1. Theoretical Preliminaries

Brown & Levinson’s 1987 model of politeness strategies for speech act realization is adopted for the examination of disagreeing in this chapter. The first part of the chapter discusses the main theoretical points of the model concerning such issues as individual strategies and the relationship between politeness and indirectness. The second part empirically investigates these issues as regards disagreeing tokens by native Ss of English and Vietnamese.

3.1.1. Brown & Levinson’s Model of Strategies

In communicative interaction Ss often deploy different kinds of strategies and devices to minimize face risk to their interlocutors and maintain the harmony of their interrelations. The possibility of threat to an act may be reduced via certain strategies. Below is a series of possible strategies for performing FTAs, numbering from greater to lesser risk of face losing (Ibid. 1987: 69).
Lesser

1. without redressive action, baldly

on record 2. positive politeness

Do the FTA with redressive action

4. off record 3. negative politeness

5. Don't do the FTA

Greater

Chart 3 12: Possible strategies for doing FTAs

In Brown & Levinson’s view, when facing an FTA, Ss can choose from five possibilities which constitute three sets of on-record strategies: producing the FTA without any redress (bald-on-record), producing the FTA using positive politeness, producing the FTA using negative politeness) and one set of off-record strategies. It is the Ss’ assessment of the size and weightiness of the FTA in relation to the three parameters P, D & R (mentioned in 2.1.2.3.) that forms the basis of their appropriate strategy choice. If the weightiness of the FTA is too great they may decide not to perform the FTA at all. However, as mentioned in Chapter 2, the notion of negative face raised in Brown & Levinson’s model is quite controversial and does not seem to fit into non-Anglophone socio-cultural contexts. Consequently, the series of strategies adopted and deployed in this study encompasses: (i) bald-on-record strategies, (ii) on-record (with redress) strategies, (iii) off-record strategies, and (iv) no FTAs. Each type of strategies is in turn explored on the basis of disagreeing tokens.

3.1.2. Manipulation of Strategies

3.1.2.1. Bald-on-record strategies

Bald-on-record strategies are reflected themselves in direct linguistic forms and clarified as strategies without redress. Ss are in full conformity to the Gricean maxims (mentioned in 2.1.2.1.) to explicitly express what they want to mean as in (Pomerantz 1978: 87):

1. 
   H: Gee, Hon, you look nice in that dress.
   

→ W: ….It’s just a rag my sister gave me.

This kind of strategy is preferred and used mostly in emergencies, military, in interaction between close friends/ family members or other intimate contexts where Ss seem to focus on the maximum efficiency of the message. In other cases, Ss are socially expected to hedge their disagreeing. There are, however, many striking examples of bald-on-record utterances falling into none of the categories mentioned by Brown & Levinson. The S then intentionally chooses to be maximally offensive, as in:

2. 
   Mr. Tam Dalyell, M. P., in the British House of Common (referring to the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher)
   

'I say that she is a bounder, a liar, a deceiver, a crook.'

(Cited in Thomas 1995: 171)

Vietnamese society is a solidarity-oriented society with strict hierarchy where emphasis is put on the social role of an individual, not his personality (Nguyen D. H. 1995 & Nguyen Q. 1998 among others). Bald-on-record strategies on the part of superiors are acceptable, but in upward speech from a social inferior to a superior they are conventionally accompanied with honorifics of some kind. The following excerpt is between a teacher and her former 12-grade student, who has just taken the college entrance exam:

V03.4.13

3. 
   C: …ViÖc thi rÊt khã … sÏ chän ®­­îc nh©n tµi thùc sù ®Ó vµo ®¹i häc
   

(…Difficult exams … will help select really gifted students for colleges)

 A: Kh«ng cã ®©u ¹. Tiªu cùc vÉn cùc nhiÒu lu«n ¹.

(No, they aren’t. There are still a great many secret deals.)

Although the disagreeing token is forthrightly disclosed in upward speech by A, C’s inferior, it gives no offence to her teacher C thanks to the repeated use of honorific ‘¹’. The absence of deference markers in similar contexts would be treated as an intentionally blatant break of socially determined norms which are supposed to be followed by every member of the community. An old-aged and/or high-status person has to be obeyed and respected, and social subordinates are expected to show deference and respect to superiors in accordance with the social constraints of polite language use. Particles like nµo, g×, ®©u, b¶o, cã, c¬, lµm, sao, chø... and so on, used to differentiate the speech acts (Nguyen D. D. 1998: 16), may combine with one another to express an opposite assessment or view to the prior.

Interestingly, disagreeing is not always seen as an act that threatens the H’s face (Levinson 1983, Pomerantz 1984, Sacks 1987, Nofsinger 1991). Conversely, it is considered a face saving act that takes care of the H. This happens when the first assessment contains a self-deprecation, and the speaker abases himself/herself, or underestimates his/her belonging. The bald-on-record disagreement on the part of the second S in (4), found in my tape-recorded data, is surely a FSA, whereas the agreement token given in (5), taken from Nofsinger (1991: 75), is assumed an FTA:

4. 
   L: ¤ng T h­ còng mét phÇn do m×nh.
   

(That Mr. T has been spoilt is partly my mistake.) (T is L’s husband)

→ B: Kh«ng ph¶i lµ t¹i bµ mµ vÊn ®Ò lµ t¹i ý thøc cña tõng ng­êi.

(It is not your mistake, and the problem is in each individual’s consciousness.)

5. 
   A: ... Do you know what I was all that time?
   

B: (No)

A: Pavlov's dog. (2.0)

→ B: (I suppose),

Pomerantz (1974, 1984a), Sacks (1987) and Nofsinger (1991), among other researchers, discover and discuss this interesting point of disagreeing. The case when the S humbles himself/herself on purpose to wait for the H's disagreement is known as a strategic self-deprecation. If he abases himself/herself without any intention we have a genuine self-deprecation (Nofsinger ibid.).

3.1.2.2. On-record strategies

Generally speaking, in face-to-face communication, disagreeing is often hedged and minimized via on-record and off-record strategies, especially in the Anglo-American context, where the primary concern is the individual. Some of the strategies suggested by Brown & Levinson can work well in disagreeing, namely:

1. 
   Intensifying interest to H:
   

S exaggerates his interest, approval, sympathy … toward H. This can be seen clearly in the case of self-deprecation as in the example by Pomerantz (1984a: 85) exhibited below, the disagreement token is combined with a complimentary evaluative attribute:

6. 
   A: … I feel like uh her and I play alike hehh
   

→ B: No. You play beautifully.

2. 
   Giving (or asking for) reasons:
   

S wants to include H in the activity, to test H and see if he is cooperative; in case S is, the context may be enough to perform another speech act, the speech act of arguing:

7. 
   A: A new educational system will work well.
   

→ B: Why do you think this way?

Aiming at maintaining the harmony Vietnamese Ss can make their disagreement less offensive by asking for reasons or source of information:

V03.9.56.

8. 
   B: C¸i kiÕm tiÒn cña th»ng N Êy (0.5) tí thÊy kh«ng ph¶i lµ tèt.
   

(I don’t think the way N makes his money is good.)

 H: õ. Sao l¹i kh«ng tèt.

(Yeah. Why isn’t it good.)

V03.8.45

9. 
   T: C¨n b¶n lµ khèi A n¨m nay khã h¬n.
   

(Essentially, group A is more difficult this year.)

 L: Ai b¶o thÕ?

(Who said that)

3. 
   Hedges:
   

In terms of illocutionary force, hedges can be understood as 'the most important linguistic means of satisfying the speaker's want' (Brown & Levinson 1987: 146). Here are some common hedges: I suppose/ believe/ assume/ guess/ think/ wonder/, I'm afraid/ sorry, I myself, a little bit, merely, kind of, only, well, actually, maybe, perhaps, sort of, rather, pretty, quite, technically, roughly, really, certainly, totally, completely, just, etc.

In general, hedges are divided into strengtheners (act as emphatic hedges) and weakeners (those that soften or mitigate what they modify). In English, disagreement is often hedged to minimize the threat to the H as in the excerpt by Pomerantz (1978: 93):

10. 
    J: T’s- tsuh beautiful day out isn’t it?
    

→ L: Yeh it’s just gorgeous.

4. 
   Apologizing:
   

S may describe his reluctance to impose on H's face by apologizing for performing an FTA as in Wierzbicka (1987: 127):

11. 
    'Before I disagree with our speaker', he said 'I should like to apologize to him...'
    

5. 
   Impersonalizing S and H:
   

S may avoid using 'I' and 'you' to indicate the distance between him and H:

12. 
    A: The shirt you're wearing is short.
    

→ B: Everyone wears shirts like this.

6. 
   Indicating deference:
   

Deferential markers (sir, madam...) are used to convey social hierarchy and rank. In utterances of this kind S often, in Brown & Levinson’s words, 'humbles and abases' himself, at the same time, the ' hearer's wants to be treated as superior' is raised and satisfied (Brown & Levinson 1987: 178). In a formal setting one may express one's disagreement, saying:

13. 
    There's a lot of truth in what you say, Sir, but ...
    

The use of deference markers, address terms and other particles also helps to lessen the threat to the H's face want. In Vietnamese this strategy seems to be employed very often to show that Ss try to take care of Hs. Ss may also abase or deprecate themselves and, therefore, raise or exalt their interlocutors before expressing their disagreements. A number of lexico-modal markers are used to soften Ss’ disagreeing. The most common hedges are: cã lÏ lµ, cã thÓ, ®¹i lo¹i lµ, kiÓu nh­ lµ, chót Ýt, chót xÝu, tÝ tÑo, h¬i (h¬i), gÇn nh­ lµ, t­¬ng ®èi, kha kh¸, kh¸ lµ, h×nh nh­, cã vÎ, hoµn toµn, tuyÖt ®èi, qu¶ thËt lµ, rÊt, v« cïng, v« vµn, l¾m, t«i cho lµ/nghÜ lµ/ c¶m gi¸c lµ etc.

Investigating some cultural and cross-cultural issues in English and Vietnamese Nguyen Q. (2003: 39) points out the most frequent expressions used in Vietnamese to avoid direct disagreements: õ, nh­ng mµ; V©ng, nh­ng mµ; Còng cã thÓ, nh­ng mµ; Còng ®­îc, nh­ng mµ etc.

3.1.2.3. Off-record strategies

At times the S may choose to perform an FTA but tries to avoid being responsible for it and leaves it up to the H to decide how to interpret it. The H can infer the force of the utterance by considering the context and other social constrains affecting the S's choice of particular linguistic forms. The term for the strategy allowing the S to implicitly and indirectly transform his/her intentions is off-record strategy. Technically, in conversations off-record strategies are considered on-record ones (Brown & Levinson 1987: 212):

...[M]any of the classic off-record strategies – metaphor, irony, understatement, rhetorical questions, etc. – are very often actually on-record when used.

Brown & Levinson suggest a set of off-record strategies that will be highlighted in relation with the speech act of disagreeing. S may invite conversational implicatures by violating the Gricean Maxims. He decides to do an FTA indirectly through hints.

1. 
   Violating Relevance Maxim:
   

Violating the Maxim Relevance S invites H to look for a suitable interpretation of the utterance by making explicitly irrelevant utterances and giving hints:

14. 
    A. Miss X is getting too fat.
    

→ B. Fashions change, you know.

2. 
   Violating Quantity Maxim:
   

1. 
   Understating:
   

The violation of the Quantity Maxim makes Ss inevitably say something less than or different from what they intend to convey. The disagreeing token thus seems to be soft and weak, as in an example by Pomerantz (1978: 97):

15. 
    E: That Pat. Isn’t she a doll::
    

→ M: Yeh isn’t she pretty, (Meaning: not very beautiful)

2. 
   Overstating:
   

Ss can violate the Quantity Maxim by saying more than is necessary. An act of disagreeing can be performed through an overstatement as in (Ibid. 1978: 93):

16. 
    B. She seems like a nice little lady.
    

[

→ A. Awfully nice little person.

3. 
   Using tautologies:
   

By using tautology S encourages H to seek for an informative interpretation of the non-informative utterance. Tautology may be understood as an act of disagreeing as in:

17. 
    A. Boys are getting too naughty these days.
    

→ B. Boys are boys.

3. 
   Violating Quality Maxim:
   

Violation of the Quality Maxim is made through giving contradictions, ironies, metaphors and rhetorical questions.

1. 
   Being ironic or using contradictions:
   

Ss express their intended meaning indirectly by saying the opposite of what they want to convey. By giving two contradictory statements Ss show that they cannot be telling the truth. It is Hs that have to look for a suitable interpretation which implies disagreement:

18. 
    A. The government is to blame.
    

→ B. Yes and no. /It is and it is not.

2. 
   Using metaphors:
   

Metaphors may be marked with hedges like real, regular, sort of/sorta, as it was, etc.

19. 
    A. So he- so then, at this- y’see, --I don’t like to brag but see he sorta like backed outta the argument then.
    

3. 
   Using rhetorical questions:
   

Ss may demonstrate their opposite stances to the indicated information by asking questions with no intention of getting answers as in:

20. 
    A. Miss X is getting too fat.
    

→ B. How fat is too fat?

4. 
   Violating Manner Maxim:
   

1. 
   Being vague or ambiguous:
   

Ss’ decision to be vague or ambiguous leads them to the violation of the Manner Maxim. Ss may achieve purposeful ambiguity through metaphors as in:

21. 
    A. John is a good boy.
    

→ B. He's pretty smooth/ He is a pretty sharp cookie.

The use of proverbs can be considered one way of over-generalization. Ss’ overgeneralization makes Hs decide if the general rule applies to them:

22. 
    A. That party both you and I went to was very boring.
    

→ B. Boring people get bored.

2. 
   Being incomplete:
   

S may leave the implicature hanging in the air by leaving an FTA half done. S can use one of the following structures to express his disagreement (Blundell et al. 1996):

a) I see what you mean, but ..., b) To a certain extent, yes, but ..., c) Yes, maybe/perhaps, but ..., d) I couldn't agree more, but ..., e) I see your point, but …, f) Agreed, but ..., g) Yes, up to that point, but ..., h) That's one way of looking at it, but ..., i) There's a lot in what you say, but ..., j) OK, but ..., k) Yes, but ..., l) Mm, but ..., m) Granted, but ..., etc.

No longer can these structures retain the force of vagueness or ambiguity if they are followed by argumentative utterances.

2. 
   Using backchannels:
   

In real life interactions, disagreeing is often softened or hedged so as to lessen the threat to H's positive face. It is observed that backchannels are used frequently to help with creating vagueness or ambiguity as in the following extract by Pomerantz (1978: 92):

23. 
    A: So, they’ll be nice to have in the house there,
    

→ B. Mm hm,

B's ‘Mm hm’ makes his interlocutor seek for a suitable interpretation which is either agreement or disagreement, and helps to maintain the harmony of their relation. Thus, the researcher would like to suggest this strategy an additional one.

In Vietnamese off-record strategy may be deployed when the S wants to tacitly disagree with his/her conversational partner as in:

24. 
    A: Nã ch¼ng th«ng minh g×. (He is not very intelligent.)
    

→ B: Chã chª mÌo l¾m l«ng. (The dog disparages the cat for being too hairy.)

B uses a proverb to express his/her disagreement, and frankly speaking, the utterance sounds more offensive than a direct expression of disagreement as it contains certain insinuation of irony or criticism. In some cases Ss are inclined to say the opposite to show that they are not in full agreement with their conversational participants (Nguyen D. D. 1996: 297):

25. 
    A: Líp bªn c¹nh häc rÊt giái. (The next door class is very good at studies.)
    

→ B: Cßn chóng em th× kÐm. (And we are very bad at studies.)

Obviously, in B’s reply above intentional self-deprecation is used to imply their good results in studies. At other time speakers may 'praise' their partners so as to show their disagreement with the first assessment via the implication of irony or reproach:

26. 
    (In a Vietnamese folk tale: a rat saying to a fox)
    

R: Chóng mµy h«i l¾m.

(You smell bad.)

→ F: Cßn c¶ hä nhµ mµy th× th¬m.

(And your whole clan smells good.)

Unlike English backchannels such as 'uh-uh', 'mmm', 'mm-hmm' etc. are rarely used in Vietnamese. In stead, particles like d¹, v©ng(¹), thÕ ¹/­/sao, thÕ c¬ ¹/µ, thËt (vËy) sao/­/µ/ h¶, (å) (thËt) thÕ (kia) µ/ ­/sao/h¶, ®óng thÕ ¹/­/ch¨ng etc. are widely used to show that the speech is being followed. At the same time they increase the haziness of the utterance and hide the S's disagreement.

27. 
    (Young boss talking to older employee)
    

B: B÷a tiÖc tèi qua ch¸n qu¸. (The party last night was very boring.)

→ E: ThËt thÕ sao? (Really?)

Theoretically, by making the utterance ambiguous the speaker avoids being responsible for what is said and still shows respect to social hierarchy and solidarity. The empirical study in Chapter 2, however, does not prove this to be true. Chart 2-7 and table 2-7 unveil a very low level of politeness rated by the Vietnamese Ss in comparison to their English counterparts: 16%, 53% and 31% of the Vietnamese respondents assess E’s reply polite, neutral and impolite, respectively vs. 47%, 43% and 10% of the English. Thus, it is proposed that off-record strategies do not always work well in the Vietnamese context where politeness is primarily performed by means of deference markers, appropriate deployment of address terms and clearness.

3.1.2.4. No FTA

In Brown & Levinson’s model of politeness strategies, the fifth strategic choice ‘Don’t do the FTA’ appears to be neglected, as it has ‘no interesting linguistic reflexes’ (1978:77). It might be as such in other speech acts like requesting, ordering, offering or complaining when the S is the initiator or trigger of the act. He/she may choose not to perform the act at all because of the seriousness of the act. Nevertheless, there are acts when the prior S’s utterance makes it relevant and necessary for the present S to voice a reply, i.e. to perform the act. It is the case of disagreeing. By proffering assessments or evaluations first Ss invite their interlocutors to respond. Second Ss have to verbally utilize socially determined norms and/or certain individual strategies to give their own assessments which may be the same or different from the priors’. In such non-Anglophone cultures as Vietnamese, second Ss would be alleged to be inexplicably impolite if they chose to abide by Brown & Levinson’s fifth strategy by being quiet (one way not to do the FTA). Silence in conversation (mentioned earlier in 1.1.2.3.) might imply unsaid disagreements, inability to hear or even scorn, and sometimes it may result in costly consequences of misunderstanding or relationship breakup. Realizing the possible implication of silence in communicative interaction, a number of researchers take it into consideration: Schegloff et al. (1977), Pomerantz (1978, 1984a-b), Schegloff (1979b, 1984, 1992), Levinson (1983), Nofsinger (1991), Yule (1996), Mey (2001), to name just a few. Mey (Ibid. 158) even calls it ‘the painful silence’ to underline its significance in talk-in-interaction.

Cultures and languages, however, perceive and interpret interactive silence in their own ways. The findings in part 2 of Chapter 1 can attest to this hypothesis. While 70% of the English informants would rather be silent than proffer evaluations opposite to the prior, only 24% of the Vietnamese decide to cancel performing the act altogether. It can be inferred that in comparison to the English, the Vietnamese on the whole, find it more important to voice something in return to first evaluative tokens. Possibly, saying something in reply in interactive communication is considered one way of keeping solidarity and rapport, and thus, expressing politeness in Vietnamese culture and society.

On the other hand, refusing not to do the FTA in disagreeing runs the risk of damaging alter and ego’s face. In the act of expressing anger, for instance, the fifth strategy appears an FTA that potentially damages S’s positive and negative face. When you are angry, it is natural that you want to somehow release your anger. If you cannot do it, you will fail to meet your self-image’s desire to be appreciated or to get ‘retribution’ (Lakoff 1987), and to be independent or free of action. It seems that if second Ss found themselves in disagreement with first Ss’ evaluative tokens, they would, at the same time, put themselves into a dilemma: verbalizing their opposite views would threaten prior Ss’ face, but not performing the act would damage their own face. Other acts like insulting or criticizing, in nature, threaten H’s face, and to some extent, S’s face, regardless of whatever strategies are at work. Thus, “interesting linguistic reflexes” do exist in certain speech acts with respect to Brown & Levinson’s fifth strategy.

3.1.3. Indirectness in Disagreeing

3.1.3.1. Notion of indirectness

Indirectness, or indirect speech acts, refers to cases when '... one illocutionary act is performed indirectly by way of performing another' (Searle 1979: 31), and the speaker means more than, other than or even different from what he/she actually says. Blum-Kulka (1987) assumes that indirectness is related to the length of the inferential path to arrive at an utterance's illocutionary point. In other words, the more indirect the way of realization, the higher will be the interpretive demands on the H.

The S does not always intentionally use indirect speech acts. He/she may have to resort to indirectness because of linguistic inadequacy or inability. Pragmatically, we focus only on intentional indirectness that generates some sort of implicature. We know that one word, one speech act can be used to accomplish different functions and vice visa, and different structures can perform one function. Disagreeing tokens can, for example, be expressed very directly in (28), but indirectly in the last two utterances.

28. 
    That's wrong surely.
    
29. 
    Do you really think so?
    
30. 
    To a certain extent, yes, but ...
    

Dascal (1983) assumes that indirectness is costly and risky. It is 'costly' as the S has to spend more time to produce an indirectness speech act, and it takes the H longer to process. It is 'risky' in the sense that the S's intended meaning may not be precisely interpreted. In the following situation, the first S's indirect strategy, obviously, does not work. His utterance is understood as an information-seeking question and he fails to convey what he really wants.

31. 
    A wants to turn off the TV program, asking B, who is watching it excitedly:
    

A: Would you like to watch something else?

B: No.

The communicative advantage of indirectness is made use of in many other cases. It is always embarrassing to have to ask someone for money, and in situations like this an indirect approach seems more successful than a direct request, as in:

32. 
    A. Oh, I've forgotten my wallet.
    

B. Don't worry. I'll lend you some.

It would be a mistake if one assumed that a language just employs direct strategies or only indirect strategies. The realization of language depends on the kind of cultural thought patterns that are different from culture to culture.

Kaplan (1972) posits four discourse structures to show the differences in cultural thought patterns. Native Ss of English, according to Kaplan, tend to use direct expression and thought patterns; conversely, Asian people, including the Vietnamese, are likely to adhere to indirect patterns.

The pattern of talk, according to Nguyen Q. (1998), seems to be different in English and Vietnamese. Vietnamese Ss might be considered rude, impolite or too practical if they mention the purpose of their talk at the very beginning of the conversation. Conversely, Americans are likely to put the purpose of their conversations at the initial stage.

Ss are presumably more direct when dealing with safe issues such as weather, and good news, and more indirect when tackling sensitive topics like gender, religion, money and bad news. Individuals and cultures widely vary in how, when, why, to whom and what they apply indirect strategies. Factors affecting the degree of indirectness exploitation will be discussed in the following section.

3.1.3.2. Factors governing indirectness

Socio-cultural factors governing the choice of indirectness have drawn attention of pragmaticians from different cultures. Thomas (1995: 124) mentions four main factors, namely: (i) The relative power of the S over the H, (ii) The social distance between the S and the H, (iii) The degree to which X is rated an imposition in culture Y, and (iv) The relative rights and obligations between the S and the H.

Indirectness, according to Brown & Levinson, is calculated on the basis of the three parameters: power differential between S and interlocutor (P), social distance between S and interlocutor (D), and the rating/ranking of imposition represented by the face-threatening act (R).

Nguyen D. H. (1995) realizes that the various structures of Vietnamese requests do not only reflect Ss’ strategic choice but also their observance of socially defined practices of the speech events and consideration of such factors as age and status of their interlocutors. Nguyen Q. (1998: 5) proposes 12 factors that may affect the choice of indirectness in conversations: age, gender, residence, mood, occupation, personality, topic, place, setting, time pressure, social distance and position.

There are some other factors that are believed to affect Ss’ choice of indirectness, viz.:

1. 
   Religion: people may be more or less indirect because of their religious beliefs.
   
2. 
   S/F language acquisition: those who acquire more than one language seem effected by values and norms of the culture/language other than those of their first culture/language in their choice of indirectness.
   
3. 
   Personal relation: Ss may be more or less direct in talk depending on their interpersonal relations.
   
4. 
   Education: those who are well-educated normally act differently in terms of indirectness.
   
5. 
   Intellectual abilities: people may be more or less direct in speaking as regards their intellectual abilities.
   

All these suggestive factors, however, need to be empirically tested across speech acts and cultures.

3.1.3.3. Indirectness and politeness

Some theoreticians of politeness assume that the notion of politeness and the notion of indirectness represent parallel dimensions. Indirectness is, according to Searle (1979: 36), '...the chief motivation for politeness'. Lakoff, Leech, and Brown & Levinson tend to follow Searle (1975) and Grice (1975), linking indirectness with politeness although they base themselves on different theoretical and methodological approaches. Brown & Levinson (1987:142) also claim that there is a strong link between politeness and indirectness and they believe that 'indirect speech acts have as their prime raison d'être the politeness functions they perform.'

Leech (1983: 108) suggests that with the same propositional content, we may:

...[I]ncrease the degree of politeness by using a more and more indirect kind of illocution. Indirect illocutions tend to be more polite (a) because they increase the degree of optionality, and (b) because the more indirect an illocution is, the more diminished and tentative its force tends to be.

In many circumstances, indirect speech acts are often used instead of their more direct counterparts as being indirect, according to Brown & Levinson, is one important way of being polite or tactful in conversation. Yule (1996: 56) shares the same, ‘Indirect speech acts are generally associated with greater politeness in English than direct speech acts.’ Brown & Levinson (1987: 142) even go so far as to state the universality of indirectness, ‘[I]ndirect speech acts are universal and for the most part are probably constructed in essentially similar ways in all languages.’

It might be the case of English, where indirectness is commonly accepted to correlate with politeness. In languages other than English indirectness does not necessarily imply politeness. Contrary to the idea that indirectness and politeness are correspondent, research into languages other than English shows that these two notions are not necessarily parallel. Tannen (1981) believes that Americans are more indirect in their speech behaviour than Greeks. But this does not mean that Americans are more polite than Greeks. When examining requests in Hebrew and English in terms of politeness and indirectness, Blum-Kulka (1987, 1992) states that the most indirect request strategies (hints) are not judged as the most polite. It is the conventional indirectness that receives the highest ratings for politeness. Wierzbicka (1985) argues that the association of politeness with indirectness is the reflection of an ethnocentric Anglophone cultural point of view, for the results of her research show that in Polish direct requests and offers are not considered impolite.

In an attempt to shed light on the notion of linguistic politeness, Upadhyay (2003: 1651-1677) revisits the link between indirectness and politeness by using naturally occurring conversational data in Nepali. The findings show that there is no definite evidence for the link between indirectness and politeness, and such socio-cultural determinants as status and age which set up a strong motivation for politeness, honorifics and person-referring terms are important linguistic devices to indicate politeness in Nepali. Gu (1990) and Lee-Wong (2000) assume that directness with a high degree of imposition can be used as a means to increase the level of politeness in intrinsically threatening acts of inviting and requesting made by speakers of Mandarin who prefer in-group solidarity and closeness in interpersonal relations and explicitness and clarity in language expressions.

The interrelationships between indirectness and politeness have also drawn attention of Vietnamese researchers. Nguyen D. H. (1995) finds out the contrast in politeness realization reflected in the low degree of form directness in requests by Vietnamese Ss and high degree of form indirectness in Australian requests. Although indirectness is seen to operate as one of the indicators of polite requests in communication in Vietnamese language and culture (Vu T. T. H. 1997, 2000) it does not always correlate with politeness. Nguyen Q. (1998) argues the universal value of Brown & Levinson’s model concerning politeness strategies due to their assignment of greater level of politeness to negative politeness commonly expressed via indirect strategies prevalent in Anglophone cultures. He also objects to the implication of lower degree of politeness attached to positive politeness quite popular in Asian cultures. Basing on the assumption that Vietnamese culture emphasizes community-oriented solidarity and hierarchy the researchers provide no clear evidence for positive correlation between indirectness and politeness put forth by Brown & Levinson and other Western politeness theorists.

In the empirical findings presented in Chapter 2 of this study, the Vietnamese Ss give more precedence to clearly articulated disagreements accompanied conventionalized politeness markers like deference items and address terms. On the contrary, the less direct utterances which contain some implication of irony, threat or reproach are not rated polite. The English informants in this study either abide by indirect disagreement tokens or opt out of verbal expressions of disagreeing by remaining silent. Therefore, the positive correlation between indirectness and politeness seems to be true in the case of Anglo-American culture, which stresses non-imposition and individualism.

Blundell et al. (1996: 190) collect many structures used in English to express one's disagreement. The structures are classified according to their formality. Some structures can be used at any time, i.e., it does not matter to whom you are talking, or when, or where. These structures are neutral. There are other expressions: they are either informal or formal. The S may, in a formal setting, express his/her disagreement as in:

33. 
    Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say that.
    

A literal translation of the utterance into Vietnamese (by Mai X. H. 1996: 197) would embarrass H as it sounds too formal, superfluous and strange to his/her ears:

34. 
    C¸ nh©n t«i ë chõng mùc nµo ®ã, t«i sÏ kh«ng d¸m nãi nh­ vËy.
    

It is suggested that English and Vietnamese may be different in the way they realize formality/ informality of language use. In his research into politeness, Nguyen V. D. (1996) points out that although modifications are exploited to make polite requests by both Vietnamese and English Ss, the degree to which they are deployed greatly varies. While modifiers make significant contribution to the elaboration and formality of requests in English, they are used with care by Vietnamese Ss, who hold dear intimacy and warm relations, for fear of creating too much distance in communicative contact.

All in all, indirectness and politeness are universal in the sense that they occur to some degree in all languages and cultures. However, the correlation between them needs to be empirically tested. Different cultures and languages may vary in the perception and realization of indirectness and politeness, and indirectness is not necessarily associated with politeness, i.e., the generally assumed link between indirectness and politeness should be reconsidered.

3.1.4. Summary

The study in this chapter, which adopts the model of politeness strategies suggested by Brown & Levinson, provides a thorough descriptive account of the speech act of disagreeing in light of politeness and indirectness. Some minor modification is done to better adjust the model to the size and scope of the study. Out of 5 sets of strategies 4 are chosen, namely, bald-on-record and on-record (direct strategies), off-record and no FTA (indirect strategies). Also, the distinction between negative politeness and positive politeness is not made due to their controversial issues.

Brown & Levinson’s model of politeness strategies, where indirect strategies are put at a greater level of politeness, insinuates that the more direct a strategy is the less polite it becomes, triggers off numerous arguments. Despite the existence of politeness and indirectness in cultures and languages the interrelationships between them are not simple by any means. To gain insight into the relationship between politeness and indirectness in disagreeing in English and Vietnamese, a survey has been distributed among speakers of English and Vietnamese. The issues concerning data analysis are presented in the following part.