Disagreeing in english and vietnamese

2.2. Empirical Study

2.2.1. Aims and Methodology

2.2.1.1. Aims

This empirical study tends to yield findings to testify:

1. 
   If there are any differences in the assessment of politeness level of disagreement responses by native speakers of English in North America and Vietnamese speakers in Hanoi.
   
2. 
   If these differences are manifestations of the differences underlying the systems of socio-cultural norms, values and beliefs which determine local perceptions of politeness.
   

2.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents

Written mini-questionnaires # 4 filled by 200 native speakers of English and Vietnamese contain 12 evaluative expressions of disagreeing (given in detail in Appendix 2, numbered from 4.1 to 4.12) carefully chosen from the corresponding literature and 20 pre-questionnaires conducted before the official SDCTs. The respondents are asked to mark politeness level of each utterance on the continuum ranging from polite, neutral to impolite. A total number of 2,400 disagreeing tokens (1,200 in English and 1,200 in Vietnamese) are rated and they construct the database for this empirical study. The outputs are examined and those which are statistically significant (i.e. the significance, or the sig. for short, offered in the chi-square is below 0.05) are selected for further investigation.

2.2.2. Politeness Level Rated by Respondents

2.2.2.1. Data results

The output of the disagreeing response to Grandma ‘She’s all right, I suppose’ (Ch¸u thÊy c« Êy b×nh th­êng) depicted in chart 2-1 and table 2-1 exhibits a striking difference between the two groups of speakers. While 58 English respondents (accounting for 58%) consider it polite and 38 of them (making up 38%) rate it neutral, 22 Vietnamese respondents mark it polite and 78 of them regard it neutral. This contrary trend could result from the absence of deference particle ‘¹’ conventionally used in Vietnamese upward interaction to show inferiors’ respect to superiors. However, there seems to be no substantial difference in the respondents’ rating impoliteness of the utterance.

4.1.	Level of Politeness			Total
First Language	Polite	Neutral	Impolite
English Count	58	38	4	100
English %	58.0%	38.0%	4.0%	100.0%
Vietnamese Count	22	76	2	100
Vietnamese %	22.0%	76.0%	2.0%	100.0%

Table 2 20: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.1. 'She's all right, I suppose.'



Chart 2 1: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.1. 'She's all right, I suppose.'



Chart 2 2: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.3. 'Fashions change, you know.'

4.3.	Level of Politeness			Total
First Language	Polite	Neutral	Impolite
English Count	27	52	21	100
English %	27.0%	52.0%	21.0%	100.0%
Vietnamese Count	3	57	40	100
Vietnamese %	3.0%	57.0%	40.0%	100.0%

Table 2 21: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.3. 'Fashions change, you know.'

The negative evaluation ‘Fashions change, you know’ (Mèt ®æi råi.) (to a colleague, same age and gender) yields a big contrast in columns #1 (polite) and column #3 (impolite) between the Ss of the two languages under investigation. 27% of the English Ss assume it to be polite compared to 3% of their Vietnamese counterparts, and 21% of the first group see it as impolite opposed to 40% of the second. The low percentage in politeness and the high percentage in impoliteness rated by the Vietnamese can be the result of zero-address form usage. Address terms are normatively deployed to express solidarity and deference in the corresponding culture. Without it, the Vietnamese version may insinuate some sarcasm or/and threat. The proportion of neutralization reveals a marginal difference that is worth taking no notice of.

4.4	Level of Politeness			Total
First Language	Polite	Neutral	Impolite
English Count	72	18	10	100
English %	72.0%	18.0%	10.0%	100.0%
Vietnamese Count	45	50	5	100
Vietnamese %	45.0%	50.0%	5.0%	100.0%

Table 2 22: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.4. ‘We’re very much in agreement, but ….'

The native speakers of English substantially differ from their Vietnamese counterparts in evaluating 4.4. ‘We’re very much in agreement, but….’ (V©ng, nh­ng….), a negative assessment to ‘older boss’. The majority of the English Ss (70%) take it polite and some of them (18) get it neutral, whereas 45% and 50% of the Vietnamese find it polite and neutral. This suggests that the former attach greater importance to indirectness in expressing such FTAs as disagreeing, while the latter do not seem to share the same assumption. In spite of the particle/deference marker ‘V©ng’ and the sentence incompleteness, the version in Vietnamese is not judged as polite as the English version. This is possibly due to the weightiness of two factors age and status, assessed in section 1.2.2.1 as the most influential socio-cultural parameters governing interpersonal communication in Vietnamese society.

Chart 2 3: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.4. 'We're very much in agreement, but ....'



Chart 2 4: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.5. 'Not me, I totally disagree.'

The impact of age and status on the Vietnamese addresser can also be seen in disagreeing attribute 4.5. ‘Not me, I totally agree’ (Kh«ng, con hoµn toµn ph¶n ®èi), where the addressee is Father. In such less hierarchical societies ‘as the northern European and the North American’ these factors might be considered as ‘far less marked in verbal and non-verbal interaction’ (Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003: 1463). As a result, the percentage observed in the English column Polite is much higher than that in the Vietnamese: 34% vs. 11%.

4.5	Level of Politeness			Total
First Language	Polite	Neutral	Impolite
English Count	34	53	13	100
English %	34.0%	53.0%	13.0%	100.0%
Vietnamese Count	11	66	23	100
Vietnamese %	11.0%	66.0%	23.0%	100.0%

Table 2 23: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.5. 'Not me, I totally disagree. '

4.6	Level of Politeness			Total
First Language	Polite	Neutral	Impolite
English Count	43	40	17	100
English %	43.0%	40.0%	17.0%	100.0%
Vietnamese Count	27	60	13	100
Vietnamese %	27.0%	60.0%	13.0%	100.0%

Table 2 24: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.6. 'That's pretty good.'



Chart 2 5: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.6. 'That's pretty good.'

Chart 2-5 and table 2-5 unravel a sensitive nuance of socio-communicative interaction by Ss of English and Vietnamese. The disagreement to the person the S hates, ‘That’s pretty good’ (C¸i ®ã kh¸ hay ®Êy), which may sound diplomatically pleasing, is marked considerably different: 43 and 40 English informants find it polite and neutral in comparison to 27 and 60 Vietnamese. The slight difference between the two groups of informants in column # 3 is statistically negligible.

Chart 2 6: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.7. 'That may be so, but....'

The careful consideration of the negatively evaluative token to an older acquaintance, ‘That may be so, but….’ (Còng cã thÓ nh­ thÕ ®Êy ¹, nh­ng….) demonstrates a distinctive feature in Vietnamese assumption of linguistic politeness. Whilst the difference in English and Vietnamese rating columns Polite & Neutral is noteworthy with 66% and 33% in English vs. 40% and 48% in Vietnamese, the proportion presented in Impolite draws the most attention. The striking imbalance of percentage (English 1% vs. Vietnamese 12%) again implies the inconsistent correlation between indirectness and politeness in non-Anglophone cultures where community-based solidarity is the central locus of concern.

4.7	Level of Politeness			Total
First Language	Polite	Neutral	Impolite
English Count	66	33	1	100
English %	66.0%	33.0%	1.0%	100.0%
Vietnamese Count	40	48	12	100
Vietnamese %	40.0%	48.0%	12.0%	100.0%

Table 2 25: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.7. 'That may be so, but....'

The non-correlation between politeness and indirectness is clear looking at the results in chart 2-7 and table 2-7, where status affects the S’s saying ‘Really?’ (ThËt thÕ sao?) to his/her younger boss. Obviously, indirectness in Vietnamese is not always rated polite.

Chart 2 7: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.8. 'Really?'

While the informants appear to be similar in their marking column #3, estimating the disagreeing evaluation ‘No, grandpa, no, no, you’re wrong’ (Kh«ng, «ng ¬i, kh«ng, kh«ng, «ng nhÇm råi ¹.) (41% in English and 36% in Vietnamese), they keep exhibiting their different attitudes toward what is assumed polite in their local socio-cultural milieus. More English Ss consider the utterance polite (36 vs. 17), whereas more Vietnamese Ss find it neutral (47 vs. 23). The use of deference maker ‘¹’ and the kin-term ‘«ng’ does not seem to completely save the S’s face when proffering such a negative token to grandfather. Here, again, can be clearly observed the various influences of age and status on understanding and realizing politeness across cultures and societies.

4.8	Level of Politeness			Total
First Language	Polite	Neutral	Impolite
English Count	47	43	10	100
English %	47.0%	43.0%	10.0%	100.0%
Vietnamese Count	16	53	31	100
Vietnamese %	16.0%	53.0%	31.0%	100.0%

Table 2 26: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.8. ‘Really?’



Chart 2 8: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.9. 'No, grandpa, no, no, you're wrong.'

4.9	Level of Politeness			Total
First Language	Polite	Neutral	Impolite
English Count	36	23	41	100
English %	36.0%	23.0%	41.0%	100.0%
Vietnamese Count	17	47	36	100
Vietnamese %	17.0%	47.0%	36.0%	100.0%

Table 2 27: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.9. 'No, grandpa, no, no, you're wrong.'



Chart 2 9: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.10. 'Boring people get bored.’

4.10.	Level of Politeness			Total
First Language	Polite	Neutral	Impolite
English Count	14	31	55	100
English %	14.0%	31.0%	55.0%	100.0%
Vietnamese Count	17	65	18	100
Vietnamese %	17.0%	65.0%	18.0%	100.0%

Table 2 28: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.10. 'Boring people get bored.'

The difference in the findings demonstrated in chart 2-9 and table 2-9 might be the consequence of non-equivalence of the English and Vietnamese versions (cf. ‘Boring people get bored’ and ‘Ng­êi buån thÊy g× ch¼ng tÎ’). While most of the Vietnamese rate it as neutral or polite, more than half of the English (55%) see it as impolite. In English the response may allude to certain irony, mockery or even disgrace. Thus, indirectness is not always equal to politeness, even in the Anglo-American culture.

4.11	Level of Politeness			Total
First Language	Polite	Neutral	Impolite
English Count	43	56	1	100
English %	43.0%	56.0%	1.0%	100.0%
Vietnamese Count	24	67	9	100
Vietnamese %	24.0%	67.0%	9.0%	100.0%

Table 2 29: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4. 11. 'Do you really think so?'



Chart 2 10: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.11. 'Do you really think so?'

Unlike utterance 4.10, the disagreeing token in 4.11 (to colleague, same age different gender) is believed to be linguistically equivalent in the two languages (cf. ‘Do you really think so?’ ‘CËu nghÜ thÕ thËt µ?’). The assessment of politeness level is, however, apparently dissimilar. The English preference for indirectness as a polite means of behavior is reflected in columns Polite with 43%, Neutral with 56% and Impolite with 1%. The Vietnamese resort more to Neutral with 67%, Polite with 24% and Impolite with 9%, which is in conformity to the local trend towards solidarity and intimacy. The reason for the low degree of politeness in Vietnamese may lie in the implication of the interrogative form which seems to question the reliability and truthfulness of the prior assessment, and thus, might allude to first Ss’ inability.

4.12	Level of Politeness			Total
First Language	Polite	Neutral	Impolite
English Count	54	39	7	100
English %	54.0%	39.0%	7.0%	100.0%
Vietnamese Count	65	30	5	100
Vietnamese %	65.0%	30.0%	5.0%	100.0%

Table 2 30: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.12. 'Sorry, but I think it was interesting.'

The negative assessment to the prior evaluation ‘Sorry, but I think it was interesting’ with its Vietnamese version ‘Xin lçi, nh­ng t«i/… thÊy nã hay’ is chosen on purpose despite its statistic insignificance (its sig. is 0.283). First, it has high percentage of politeness in both English and Vietnamese: 54% and 65% respectively. Second, the rating of impolite level is almost the same, 7% in English and 5% in Vietnamese. In addition, the English and the Vietnamese versions are quite similar in terms of wording and meaning. This means that the use of an apology token as a mitigation device for disagreement appears to work well in both languages and cultures.

Chart 2 11: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.12. 'Sorry, but I think it was interesting.'

2.2.2.2. Comments

The English informants seem to considerably differ from the Vietnamese informants in their assessment of politeness level. The English rating of politeness is much higher in 10 tokens (4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11) in comparison with the Vietnamese. In several English disagreements indirectness seems to correlate with politeness, except for 4.10 ‘Boring people get bored’, where indirectness may imply irony. The important role of markers ‘v©ng’ and ‘¹’, and appropriate address terms in expressing politeness in Vietnamese is noteworthy. Also, it is of interest to see the interactions and interrelationships of such socio-cultural parameters as age and status in the linguistic realization of disagreements in Vietnamese.

The last token 4.12 exhibits the similarity of using apology as an effective means to convey politeness in the two languages and cultures under study.

2.2.3. Summary

Of 2400 disagreeing tokens assessed by 200 English and Vietnamese Ss and processed on SPSS, 2200 are selected for further study. Except for 200 tokens of utterance # 4.12, which yield identical usage of apologies in English and Vietnamese as softeners, 2000 tokens display striking differences in the respondents’ evaluating and perceiving politeness. The rating of politeness level by English and Vietnamese Ss seems to go in reverse directions in almost all cases. Impoliteness marking by the Vietnamese Ss can be traced to the absence of deference markers like ‘¹’, ‘v©ng’, or appropriate address terms or other formal semantic items. The deployment of politeness devices in Vietnamese should be made in compliance with and negotiation of such determinants as age and status which have strong impact on interactive communication. The English Ss are inclined to see strategic indirectness as a primary means to express politeness, whereas the Vietnamese Ss tend to attach higher level of politeness to such disagreeing expressions in which deference markers, addressing terms, etc. are deployed in interrelation to socio-cultural factors (age, status, etc.). This is similar to the finding by Nguyen D. H. (1995) concerning the Vietnamese frequent use of discourse indirectness vs. the Australian extensive exploitation of form indirectness.