Disagreeing in english and vietnamese

5.3. Concluding Remarks

Responses to prior evaluative assessments in English and Vietnamese appear to share the same set of strategies judging from the viewpoint of the constraint systems. English Ss who resort to mid-positions tend to either deploy ‘agreement + disagreement’ format, or weaken the stated compliments by using qualifiers, referent-shift, or compliment-return strategies. Quite similarly, Vietnamese Ss are seen to make use of ‘agreement + disagreement’ format or downgrading the level of compliments. However, while the ‘acceptance + appreciation’ model can be observed in the English corpus it is uncommon in the Vietnamese corpus, and this is consistent with Nguyen Q’s findings (1998: 217) of the English tendency to compliment acceptance and Vietnamese preference for compliment obviation.

The negotiation of disagreements conducted by native Ss of English and Vietnamese is similar in terms of strategies. Encountering potential or explicit disagreements from second Ss, prior Ss may elaborate or modify their evaluative terms, adopt new stances or keep the same viewpoints by upgrading their first assessments, which therefore, prolongs the organization of turns and sequences.

Intensifiers are found to be exploited in both English and Vietnamese disagreement tokens whereas person referring terms are inclined to be used most frequently by Vietnamese interlocutors. Words of person reference and particles are utilized by the Vietnamese to express hierarchy and community-based solidarity. The prevalence of person referring terms and particles in the Vietnamese corpus does exhibit their paramount significance in Vietnamese culture and society.

CONCLUSION

1. Major Findings

1.1. Politeness strategies in disagreeing

So far, we have had a close analysis of the elicited written questionnaires and recorded disagreements by native Ss of English in North America and Vietnamese Ss in Hanoi within the frameworks of pragmatics and CA. The findings have proved the hypotheses of differences between Ss of English and Vietnamese in choosing strategies to realize the act of disagreeing, which have resulted from the differences in the Ss’ assessment of socio-cultural parameters and social situations. The English Ss are observed to frequently deploy direct strategies while the Vietnamese tend to sound indirect, especially in contexts of asymmetrical role relationships, and this has statistically proved Leech (1986) and Brown & Levinson’s assumption (1987[1978]) that cultures may differ in terms of priorities and values given to each strategy even though they may share the same sets of strategies. The findings have also provided sufficient proof for Blum-Kulka and House's hypothesis (1989: 137) that differences in the understanding of social situations and in the relative significance attached to any socio-cultural parameter may lead to differences in linguistic behavior.

In most situations, the assessment of social situations by English and Vietnamese Ss appears to go to opposing directions. The Vietnamese focus on Age and Status reflects their hierarchical social structure, while the English emphasis on Manner and Setting is a manifestation of the less hierarchical society, where Age and Status are recognized but deemphasized. While knowing the (relative) age of interlocutors is useful to the Vietnamese in making the right choice of address terms, asking about age ‘may rapidly bring conversation to a halt’ in Anglo-American culture (Wanning 2000: 155). Calling it ‘the no-status society’, Wanning (Ibid.) goes on explaining about American society:

In a status society, people learn their places and gain some dignity and security from having a place in the social order. Americans, however, are taught not to recognize their places and to constantly assert themselves.

1.2. Normative-volitional politeness and indirectness

Politeness has been testified to be both normative and volitional in the sense that discernment in form of socially institutionalized norms is open to volitional choices and the frequent use of strategic manipulations may lead to community conventions. Therefore, the two sides of politeness - discernment and volition – need to be combined to make the analytical framework for politeness research across cultures and languages (Hill et al. 1986, Kasper 1990, Ide 1993, Nguyen D. H. 1995; Vu T. T. H. 1997 & 2000, Lee-Wong 2000) especially for politeness research in ‘status-based societies’ like China, Korea and Vietnam as Bargiela-Chiappini (2003: 1463) suggests:

‘Socially stratified societies where normative ‘politeness’ is dominant (e.g. … Mexico and the Zulu in South Africa) can be contrasted to ‘face’ and status-based societies such as China and Korea, where both normative and strategic ‘politeness’ are present. Finally, in less hierarchical societies such as the northern European and the North American ones, status is allegedly far less marked in verbal and non-verbal interaction, and normative politeness is therefore much less in evidence.’

The outputs of the empirical study do not support the assumption of consistent correlation between politeness and indirectness, i.e., indirectness does not always mean politeness. Native Ss of English in North America seem to be direct in their disagreements while their Vietnamese counterparts tend to be indirect. This finding by no means implies that the latter are more polite than the former. As a result, the relationship between politeness and indirectness should be examined in relation to the local perception and interpretation of politeness and the wider context of socio-cultural beliefs and values, for cultural beliefs and values have significant bearings on communicative styles and interpretive strategies (Gumperz 1978). Vietnamese culture, which is deeply rooted in Confucian ethics, is mainly aimed at social harmony and community solidarity via individual observance of social norms. On the contrary, Anglo-American culture, which primarily focuses on individualistic rationality, provides greater possibility of strategic choices. The differences in socio-cultural systems of norms, values and beliefs result in the differences in the rating of politeness level by native Ss of English and Vietnamese. Vietnamese Ss are prone to attach high level of politeness to those disagreements which are accompanied with deference markers like ‘¹’, ‘v©ng’, other particles and appropriate address terms, the deployment of which is made in accordance with such determinants as age and status.

1.3. Strategies concerning preference organization

Disagreement attributes in English and Vietnamese frequently tend to be hedged to minimize the seriousness of the act on the one hand, and delayed to avoid the complex-structural format as regards preference organization on the other. English and Vietnamese Ss are alike in using such strategies as (i) delay devices or (ii) silences to withhold their direct disagreements, qualifying or (iii) downgrading prior assessments or deploying the (iv) ‘agreement + disagreement’ format to produce weakened disagreements. Nevertheless, while responding to self-deprecations, Ss are prone to provide (i) immediate disagreements and include (ii) complimentary elements to intensify the positive impact of disagreements as preferred seconds. Ss may also disaffiliate with or (iii) undermine prior self-critical formulations by indicating that they are products of irrational or improper actions. The turn/sequence organization is both designed for, and oriented towards by Ss in current talk-in-progress to minimize disagreements as dispreferred seconds, and maximize disagreements as preferred seconds.

The pervasive existence of person-referring terms and particles in Vietnamese demonstrates their paramount significance to this culture and society. Terms for self-reference and address, as well as particles ‘µ’, ‘­’, ‘nhØ’, ‘nhÐ’, ‘d¹’, ‘v©ng’, ‘¹’ etc. are essential in the construction of mitigated, softened and polite disagreeing attributes. There is a great probability to be rude or impolite in Vietnamese culture if Ss use incorrect terms or no terms for self-reference or address (Luong V. H. 1987, 1990; Vu T. T. H. 1997; Nguyen. T. T. B. 2001).

1.4. Strategies for negotiation of disagreements and constraint systems

Facing imminent and/or actually articulated disagreements, Ss of English and Vietnamese show the same trend of strategies for remedial work to negotiate with co-interactants. They may (i) modify, elaborate or reformulate previously produced viewpoints, (ii) adopt new stances, or (iii) persist in protecting initially formulated evaluations, thereby reasserting, extending, and upgrading them.

Both English and Vietnamese show a similar repertoire of ‘mid-position’ responses to compliments by producing (i) scaled-down disagreements, (ii) elaborating/ downgrading prior complimentary tokens or using strategies like (iii) credit shift, and (iv) reciprocal compliments as regards the constraint systems. These similarities between English and Vietnamese serve as suggestions concerning the existence of some universal aspects of conversational organization. Interestingly, many CA studies done on languages other than English (Fox et al. 1996, Mori 1999 on Japanese, Wu 1997 on Chinese, Moerman 1988 on Thai, Park 1999 on Korean, Sorjonen 1997 on Finnish, among others) have also proved the organizational invariance of turn-taking, repair work and preferred/dispreferred turn delivery across languages and cultures.

The striking difference is found in the fact that the Vietnamese corpus exhibits very few cases whereby compliments are responded with appreciations, while the English database demonstrates a range of responses with appreciation tokens. The explanation for this can be found in the Vietnamese socio-cultural assumptions of modesty and preference for disagreement with or rejection of prior complimentary assessments (cf. Nguyen Q. 1998). In Vietnamese culture, the ‘pressures for social harmony are very strong’ (Ellis 1996: 150), and people tend to exhibit modesty towards their capabilities, possibly because they are unwilling to be salient or set off from others, as Ellis states:

‘In conversation, people display great modesty towards their abilities and work. It is not acceptable to boast about one’s past achievements or capabilities and compared with foreigners, the Vietnamese often sound shy and reserved, and self-effacing about their own skills.’ (Ibid. 151)

The English frequent use of direct strategies could be explained via the Ss’ need to be non-intrusive and free of action (Brown & Levinson 1987[1978]). Wanning (2000: 154) notices that giving and accepting compliments seem to be popular in Anglo-American culture and found to give rise to further communication:

Compliments are always in order…. We keep the compliments flowing even with close friends and family. The recipient should accept the compliment graciously by looking very pleased and saying, “Oh, thank you.” The tale of the item in question often provides further talk.

It is obvious that any linguistic study should not be separated from the study of the larger socio-cultural context with its norms, beliefs and values since language is assumed to be rooted, and embedded in the reality of its responding culture.

2. Implications

2.1. EFL & VFL implications

The differences in perception and realization of disagreements in English and Vietnamese are likely to result in inevitable misunderstanding, unintended impressions, miscommunication, and cultural conflicts when, for example, Vietnamese Ss transfer their native cultural values and beliefs into English linguistic forms of disagreeing. They may sound either too indirect because of their abidance by the Vietnamese cultural norms or too direct because of their overemphasis on or overgeneralization of the rules of Anglo-American culture (cf. Thomas 1983, Takana 1988). Language competence is more than grammar and lexicon, which includes formulaic expressions. It compasses the ability to use linguistic forms correctly and appropriately, known as pragmatic knowledge. Not all native Ss who gain in-born communicative capability in the context of their mother tongue through the process of language socialization are successful in communication in their native language and culture, let alone cultural outsiders who lack knowledge of the local socio-cultural norms. Unfortunately, the teaching of second/foreign languages is mostly left ‘unrelated to socio-cultural context’ (Stern, 1983: 253). This is quite true in the context of Vietnam, where the teaching of English is essentially based on grammar patterns. Since the ‘Open-door Policy’ was started and motivated, English teaching and learning has gained pride of place in the Vietnamese Education System. Not only does it serve as a lingua franca in international communication, it is a must in job finding and job promotion, too. It is high time language learners were provided with pragmatic knowledge parallel with linguistic bulk. Informed of the ‘dos’ and the ‘don’ts’ in the culture of the target language, learners can eliminate, or at least, reduce culture and communication gaps. Being ill-prepared for intercultural interactions in a world that is shrinking in distance like ours is careless and risky. Thus, linguistic as well as pragmatic input should be included in textbooks and syllabus (Richards, 1983). The findings of this study may be a reminder for textbook writers and syllabus builders, and a guide for teaching English as S/F language to the Vietnamese and Vietnamese to North American English Ss.

2.2. Pragmatics and CA perspective in speech act study

As clearly seen, conversation analytic studies have so much to contribute to the study of language in general, and speech acts in particular. Relying on the frameworks of pragmatics and CA this paper provides thorough an analysis of the speech act of disagreeing and its related issues by comparing and contrasting the elicited written questionnaires and audio-taped recordings of talk-in-interaction in English and Vietnamese. A careful analysis of the recorded interactive fragments exhibits deep insights into complexity of preference organization of turns and sequences in disagreeing. Many basic organizational features of turn/sequence shapes used to be taken for granted, or simply not recognized or/and aware of, are elucidated. The marvelous and systematic methods used in CA are of great help in exploring the strategies concerning organization and development of on-going talk, as well as the usage of linguistic devices in certain structural organizations.

Pragmatics with speech act and politeness theories ‘is interested in the process of producing language and in its producers’ (Mey 2000: 5). The theory of SA, which has long been considered an ‘eye-opener’, clarifies ways humans doing things with words, while the theory of politeness looks at how polite language use is perceived and realized. Nevertheless, pragmatics does not seem to provide adequate and efficient means to sufficiently investigate the working of human words, when and how SAs are deployed. It is CA with its elaborate techniques for the analysis and explanation of conversational mechanisms that can provide substantial insights into these matters, simply because conversation is the very place where people ‘do things with words’ together, and ‘the prototypical kind of language use’ (Levinson 1983:284).

Language users, however, communicate and use language in conformity to society’s sanctions which determine their choice of linguistic means. It is natural that pragmatics takes as one of its main objects the study of societal practices and premises and the extent to which they affect and determine human language use. The strictly CA-based analytic framework does not allow the study of these society’s premises and determinants. Therefore, the integration of pragmatics and CA approaches in speech act study makes good use of the advantages and eliminates or reduces the disadvantages of each approach. Seeing the sound reason for CA to be applied to the study of speech acts within and across languages and cultures in combination with other linguistic approaches and methods, Levinson (1983: 285) proposes:

Nearly all the pragmatic concepts … claimed to tie in closely with conversation as the central or most basic kind of language usage…the proper way to study conversational organization is through empirical techniques, this suggests that the largely philosophical traditions that have given rise to pragmatics may have to yield in the future to more empirical kinds of investigation of language usage.

Basing on its findings, the present research strongly recommends the synthetic approach of pragmatics and CA to the investigation of speech acts within and across languages and cultures.

3. Suggestions for Further Research

There are issues left untouched in this preliminary research into the SA of disagreeing on the basis of pragmatics and CA because of its size and limit. The present study almost cannot take into account prosodic features (intonation, pitch, pauses…) as well as paralinguistic factors (facial expressions, gazes, laugher…), supposed to be crucial in face-to-face interactions, to highlight other nuances of meanings and their relationships with forms. In addition, the field notes do not fully reflect detailed body movements and facial expressions of the participants, and audiotape recording fail to capture them as well. The study would be better if videotape recording could have been done.

The process of ‘opinion-negotiation’ involves disagreeing and agreeing, considered two sides of a coin, and one cannot exist without the other. Consequently, it will be more appealing if disagreeing and agreeing are investigated together. Very often, it is hard to distinguish the subtle border between agreements and disagreements in face-to-face talk. A ‘yes’ may mean ‘no’, and on the contrary, a ‘no’ may have an opposite meaning.

It is my hope that the aforementioned issues will fully be pursued in my future research.