Disagreeing in english and vietnamese

5.2. Empirical Study

5.2.1. Aims and Methodology

5.2.1.1. Aims

This empirical study aims at finding proofs for the followings:

1. 
   While both speakers of English and Vietnamese tend to choose mid-positions in proffering responses to compliments, the former exhibit more cases of acceptance/appreciation than the latter as regards the constraint systems.
   
2. 
   The two groups of speakers are similar in their strategies for negotiation of disagreements with prior evaluative tokens in terms of the turn and sequence organization.
   
3. 
   To perform disagreements, English and Vietnamese speakers deploy intensifiers, person referring terms and other supportive devices to different extents.
   

5.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents

The empirical study in this chapter uses the same corpora as the empirical study in Chapter 4. Briefly speaking, the Vietnamese corpus is taken from 30 native speakers in Hanoi, and the English corpus is obtained from 2 sources: 16 native speakers in North America and excerpts recorded and used by famous CA analysts. Paralinguistic features are seldom referred to in order to make up for the inability to use an elaborate system of transcription notations in Vietnamese correlative to that in English.

5.2.2. Strategies for Constraint Systems

5.2.2.1. English corpus

1. Scaled-down disagreements: As the first solution, recipients of compliments may downgrade prior evaluative terms within agreement turns, thus producing scaled-down disagreements that display features of both agreements and disagreements. In general, these responses have the format of agreement turns with initially positioned agreement components, or appreciation, but the level of evaluation is quite different, namely, is weakened or softened, as illustrated below:

17. 
    B: I’ve been offered a full scholarship at Berkeley and at UCLA
    

G: That’s fantastic.

→ B: Isn’t that good?

18. 
    A: Oh it was just beautiful.
    

→ B: Well thank you uh I thought it was quite nice,

Pomerantz (1978: 94)

19. 
    C: W’l my God it sounds marvelou s Don,
    

[

→ D: Yeah it is, it’s a-good deal,

(Ibid. 95)

Responses to prior compliments of this kind seem to be similar to downgraded disagreements in ‘agreement plus disagreement’ format discussed above.

2. Downgrading prior compliments: Recipients may disagree with initial compliments by considering them as over-rated or exaggerated, and regularly, they qualify these complimentary assertions using such qualifiers as ‘though’, ‘just’, ‘yet’, ‘but’, and the like, as exhibited in:

20. 
    L: You bou:ght. –like a ton of things. // ( )
    

→ E: Just a few little (thi::ngs,)

21. 
    A: Good shot.
    

→ B: Not very solid though. (Pomerantz 1978: 99)

By downgrading prior complimentary attributes, second Ss seem to have made an optimal decision: they neither totally agree nor totally disagree with first Ss, hence getting rid of the constraint systems discussed in the previous section.

3. Credit shift: Recipients of compliments may also shift credits from ego to alter. That is to say, they transfer the ‘referentship’ to parties other than themselves. They can, for instance, praise some third party, insinuating that prior compliments are sent to the wrong direction. In the following fragment (Ibid. 102), J shifts the credit from self to another referent, and in this case, a particular type of boats, when he is praised as a ‘good rower’. Although J does not verbally disagree with R, his praising the boat ‘very easy to row’ and ‘very light’ implicitly demonstrates his partly disagreement:

22. 
    R: You’re a good rower, Honey.
    

→ J: These are very easy to row. Very light.

4. Reciprocal compliments: English Ss sometimes returns complimentary attributes to their producers. It is worth noting that credit-shift responses are often delivered as disagreements because subsequent Ss imply that they do not deserve to get such assessments, whereas reciprocal compliments are structured as agreements, as in:

23. 
    C: Ya’ sound (justiz) real nice,
    

→ D: Yeah you soun’real good too.

24. 
    E: Yer lookin good,
    

→ G: Great. So’r you. (Ibid. 105)

5. Negating compliments: English Ss might negate prior compliments, but second Ss’ negating of compliments could hurt first Ss, as in the case of a man named Perflexed in Pomerantz’s story (Ibid. 79). Unlike other native speakers of English, his wife always downgrades or rejects his compliments, which hurts him. Abby, Perflexed’s friend, explains that the wife negates compliments just because she lacks self-confidence. Pomerantz, however, proposes that her behavior deviates from the common standards of accepting compliments, which results in communication failures.

5.2.2.2. Vietnamese corpus

1. Scaled-down disagreements: Second Ss in Vietnamese exchanges may first agree, and then disagree with prior Ss, as illustrated in the extract below:

V03.8.48

25. 
    L: …P. Êy. Xinh h¬n lµ håi nã bÐo.
    

P that. Pretty more be then she fat

(That P she’s prettier than when she was fat.)

→ H: µ, õ. Nh­­ng mµ nh­­ thÕ th× gÇy qu¸.

Ah yeah but particle like that be thin very

(Ah, yeah, but she’s too thin.)

L talks about P, a girl who used to be fat. That girl got rid of overweight by using certain kind of medicine, and consequently, she’s lost about twenty kilos. H constructs her disagreement turn by using the ‘agreement + disagreement’ format, prefaced with a recognition signal ‘Ah’. The conjunction ‘but’ is deployed in this structure to initiate the disagreement. The combination of agreements and disagreements in responses subsequent to compliments weakens or qualifies disagreements despite the presence of contrastive elements (Pomerantz 1978). In addition to this, this format is typical of disagreement turns and sequences. It is not utilized in producing agreements.

2. Downgrading prior compliments: In the data, Ss of Vietnamese seem to often qualify or downgrade first Ss’ complimentary tokens, especially when the referents are their relatives or they themselves. In the following fragment, H and L talk about education system in Vietnam. H praises L’s niece, a girl with a special gift in math:

V03.2.5

26. 
    H: …con ®Êy häc giái thËt…
    

daughter that study well truth (That girl studies very well.)

→ L: Nã häc nhµn…

She study easy (She doesn’t have to work hard.)

In her positively evaluative assessment, H emphasizes the excellent study results of the girl. Although L is not the object of the praise, she downgrades H’s compliment on her niece’s intellectual ability. The discrepancy between the prior compliment and the response to it reflects a common behavior of the Vietnamese responding to compliments, which might be considered an unwritten norm of socially behavioral manners.

3. Credit shift: To avoid self-praising or praising their own relatives and not to reject co-participants’ compliments, subsequent Ss may transfer the credit to a third party. In the excerpt given below, D comments on H’s husband, looking at a picture of his, taken when he was young:

V03.8.43

27. 
    D: §Ñp trai nhÊt nhµ cßn g× n÷a.
    

handsome most house particle what particle

(He’s the most handsome in the family.)

→ H: ¤ng anh th× ®­­îc mäi ng­­êi khen lµ ®Ñp giai nhÊt nhµ…

grandfather older brother particle all people compliment be

handsome most house

(His older brother is complimented as the most handsome in the family.)

Here, H does not directly negate the compliment, since she is not the one who is being praised but she avoids acknowledging it verbally. For her agreement to the prior assessment might be interpreted as an implicit compliment token on her husband, which is normally assumed as an unfavorable action in the local culture. By shifting credit from her husband to his older brother, she has a good strategy: she can maintain the harmonious atmosphere but does not violate the socially accepted norm of behavior.

4. Reciprocal compliments: No reciprocal compliment is found in the tape-recorded data obtained for this study, possibly because of the limit and size of the data. However, according to Nguyen Q. (1998), the Vietnamese respondents utilize this strategy more often than their American counterparts. In his research, Nguyen Q. pays close attention to second Ss’ returning compliments to first Ss, and calls this strategy ‘khen phản hồi’. In response to the teacher’s compliment, for instance, the student may say:

28. 
    Dạ, đó cũng là nhờ được thầy dạy dỗ đấy ạ.
    

Particle that also be thanks to teacher teach that particle

(That is thanks to your teaching.) (Ibid. 45)

5. Negating compliments: The preference for negating the prior compliment tokens seems to be common in the Vietnamese corpus. Second Ss regularly treat positive evaluations as overdone or exaggerated, and they tend to qualify and soften them, as in:

V03.8.51

29. 
    T: C« thÕ nµy lµ b×nh th­êng råi… §Çy ®Æn, c©n ®èi…
    

aunt this be normal particle plump well-proportioned

(You’re now normal. Plump and well-proportioned.)

→ H: Giêi ¬i, cßn c©n ®èi n÷a ((C­êi)) …

God particle particle well-proportioned particle ((Laughs)).

C©n ®èi c¸i nçi g× ((C­êi)).

Well-proportioned particle particle what ((Laughs)).

(My god, well-proportioned ((laughs))… I’m not.) ((Laughs))

H partially repeats the prior compliment elements with the use of two particles ‘cßn’ and ‘nçi’, prefacing her response with an exclamatory token ‘Giêi ¬i’ (gosh/god). She explicitly disagrees with the compliment. Her laughter, however, tacitly shows that she is happy with the prior positive assessment. Unlike English Ss, Vietnamese Ss demonstrate a tendency to reject or obviate prior complimentary attributes, especially, if ego is the object of credit, as in the excerpt given below:

V03.2.4.

30. 
    L: H ¹, tao c«ng nhËn mµygiái qu¸: c¬:: thËt.
    

H particle I acknowledge you excellent very particle truth

(Hey H, I acknowledge you’re really excellent.)

→ H: Giái c¸i nçi g×. Gím, ®Õn lóc ®Êy th× ®µnh ph¶i lµm.

Excellent particle particle what Particle come then so reluctant have do

(I’m no excellent at all. Gosh, you’d do the same in my position.)

In this excerpt, H tries to downplay the compliment given by her close friend. The use of particles ‘c¸i’, ‘nçi’ and ‘Gím’ is effective in downgrading the evaluative components in the first turn. H also points out that she just does the normal things that others might do in the same situations. By showing that what she has achieved is nothing special, she can avoid self-praising. The first person singular pronoun ‘tao’ and second person singular pronoun ‘mµy’ are employed in L’s wording exhibit their close friendship and solidarity. The particle ‘¹’ is used in L’s addressing H does not demonstrate any respect or deference. In this case, it has the same meaning as particles or vocatives ‘nµy’ or ‘¬i’, which often go with person-referring words for address.

5.2.3. Strategies for Negotiation of Disagreements

5.2.3.1. English corpus

1. Downgrading initial assessments: As discussed in the previous parts, the Ss in the English data seem not to forthrightly oppose proffered evaluations or boldly assert dispreferred disagreements. Instead, they are inclined to soften or hedge their different perspectives, trying to minimize disagreeing responses. Second Ss’ withholding or delaying responses could engender first Ss’ elaboration or qualification of initial assessments to preempt upcoming disagreements, as in the following excerpt:

31. 
    A: God izn it dreary?
    

(0.6)

A: //Y’know I don’t think-

→ B: .hh- its’ warm though, (Pomerantz 1984a: 61)

A’s incomplete elaboration in this case is, however, unsuccessful as it is overlapped by B’s producing a disagreement. In another fragment by Pomerantz (Ibid. 100), the first S modifies her prior assessment (by replacing ‘happy’ with ‘cheerful’) after a set of successive disagreements on the part of the second S:

32. 
    B: …Yih sound HA:PPY, hh.
    

A: I sound ha:p//py?

B: Ye:uh.

(0.3)

A: No:,

B: N:o:?

A: No.

(0.7)

→ B: .hh You sound sorta cheerful?

2. Adopting new stances: Sometimes, recipients of initially proffered opinions delay the uptake of their turns, thus causing prior Ss’ adopting new positions, as below:

33. 
    B: … an’ that’s not an awful lotta fruitcake.
    

(1.0)

→ B: Course it is a little piece goes a long way.

A: Well that’s right. (Pomerantz 1984b: 160)

B’s initial opinion is received with a long silence that implies an unstated disagreement on the part of the second S. B then decides to make a change, and overtly states her new stance. Eventually, she gets the positive answer from her co-conversant.

3. Insisting on prior assessments: In other cases, producers of prior assessments may tend to challenge second Ss by reasserting previously produced evaluative terms. In the following example, the second S’s downgrading the evaluation of the referent leads to the first S’s reasserting and upgrading her first position.

34. 
    E: That Pat. Isn’t she a doll::
    

M: Yeh isn’t she pretty,

→ E: Oh she’s a beautiful girl.

M: Yeh I think she’s a pretty girl. (Pomerantz 1978: 96)

In spite of E’s upgraded evaluative term, M appears to persist in her assessment, and ends her turn with a ‘pseudo-agreement’ or ‘muted disagreement’ prefaced by ‘Yeh’ (Heritage 2002: 218). Two extracts given below (Pomerantz 1984a: 69) illuminate the first Ss’ persistence in retaining their prior stances:

35. 
    A: She’s a fox.
    

L: Yeh, she’a pretty girl.

→ A: Oh, she’s gorgeous.

36. 
    G: That’s fantastic.
    

B: Isn’t that good?

→ G: That’s marvelous.

As demonstrated, first Ss tend to provide stronger terms in reasserting their previously taken positions. The first Ss in the two extracts above use ‘gorgeous’ in contrast with ‘pretty’, and ‘marvelous’ in contrast with ‘good’. Also, the ‘oh-preface’ used in A’s turn (and in E’s turn in the previous example by Pomerantz ‘Oh she’s a beautiful girl’) is interpreted as ‘holding a position’ (Heritage 2002). This special use of ‘oh’ mainly occurs in responses to downgraded agreements or weakened disagreements (Ibid.).

Profferers of initial assessments may make use of ‘oh-preface’s to construct and reaffirm their stances in case recipients are in disagreement with them, as in the fragment by Goodwin & Goodwin (1987: 43):

37. 
    Mike: Well I can’t say they’re ol: clunkers- eez gotta Co:rd?
    

(0.1)

Mike: Two Co:rds.

(1.0)

Mike: //And

Curt: Not original,

(0.7)

→ Mike: Oh yes. Very original.

Producers of initial evaluative attributes are observed to overwhelmingly utilize ‘oh-prefaced disagreement’ format as effective ‘weapons’ to attack second Ss’ disagreeing responses (Heritage 2002: 215). In the example above, Mike resorts to the oh-prefaced turn shape to intensify and escalate his prior stance, and fight back Curt’s disagreement.

5.2.3.2. Vietnamese corpus

1. Downgrading initial assessments: Vietnamese Ss exhibit quite a range of different ways to negotiate with their co-participants. Given upcoming or real disagreements in response to their prior assessments they may modify their first perspectives to make them less challenging and more acceptable, as below:

V03.7.28

38. 
    N: C¸i nµy bän nhµ b¸o th× ®­­îc.
    

Classifier this band correspondent be okay

(This [appliance] is good for correspondents.)

H: Kh«ng, nhµ b¸o nã còng kh«ng dùng.

No correspondent it also not use

(No, correspondents do not use it either.)

→ N: C¸i nµy nã còng (0.5) cång kÒnh.

Classifier this it also bulky (This is quite bulky.)

H: C¸i nµy thùc sù nã còng cång kÒnh …

Classifier this really it also bulky (This is really bulky…)

N first assesses the tape recorder which is placed in front of her and H, her interlocutor, as a good thing for correspondents to use. She then modifies her evaluation by pointing out that it is ‘bulky’, and thus inconvenient in her turn, which follows H’s forthright disagreement. There might be a reason for her work of elaboration. Her interlocutor H is the owner of the appliance, and consequently, H has ‘epistemic priority’ to assess her own belonging (Heritage 2002 & forth.). As a result of this concessive action, she finally gets the approval from her co-participant in the turn subsequent to hers.

Second Ss may appear to compromise with initial evaluative terms after first Ss’ reassertion of prior opinions. In the extract given below, H disagrees with N when the latter says that K, a teenage boy is selfish. However, after N reaffirms her stance by providing good grounds for it (The boy’s mother told her that information), H seems to abandon her previous view and sounds quite dubious with ‘Really’.

V03.7.30

39. 
    N: …th»ng nµy tÝnh nã Ých kû…
    

boy this character he selfish

Nã bao giê nã còng nghÜ ®Õn b¶n th©n nã tr­­íc.

he when he also think about self he before.

(This boy is selfish… He always thinks of himself first.)

H: Th× trÎ con mµ. Còng cßn bÐ // nã kh«ng,

Particle child particle also still small // he not

([He’s] still a small boy. Still small, he isn’t ….)

N: Nh­­ng nã l¹i b¶o c¸i th»ng lín kh«ng thÕ.

But she particle tell particle boy big not that

(But she [the boy’s mother] said her older boy isn’t.)

→ H: ThÕ:: µ.

Particle (Really.)

Profferers of prior evaluative statements may soften their first views to some extent, but are still consistent with their earlier stated point of views, as T does in the next extract from the Vietnamese corpus:

V03.8.36

40. 
    T: GÇy qu¸ tr«ng sî l¾m…
    

Thin much look afraid very (A very thin person looks horrible…)

H: GÇy qu¸ nh­ b¹n L tr«ng vÉn xinh.

Thin very like friend L look still pretty (Very thin like L still looks pretty.)

→ T: Còng cßn tuú, tr«ng th× xinh nh­­ng mµ…

Also depend look particle pretty but…(It still depends, looking pretty but…)

2. Adopting new stances: Vietnamese Ss may change their prior point of view, offer new assessments of other aspects of the same things or people in addition to those already stated, as exemplified:

41. 
    T: Thầy hay,
    

Teacher interesting (The teacher is interesting.)

L: Thầy (0.5) cũ:::ng vui.

Teacher also fun (He’s also fun.)

T: Nhưng mà như thế lớp mình lại hư.

But particle like that class we particle spoiled (But our class became spoiled)

L: Ừ.

Yeah (Yes.)

T and L talk about their former teacher at school. T first assumes that the teacher is ‘hay’, but he does not get L’s full agreement, then he poses another evaluation concerning their teacher’s teaching results ‘Nhưng mà như thế lớp mình lại hư’. Only by adopting a new stance can T be successful in negotiating with his co-conversant.

3. Insisting on prior assessments: When first Ss find themselves in disagreement with second Ss’ stances, they may wish to reassert their prior opinions, and the reaffirmation process may result in adding more turns and sequences to the talk, as exemplified in the excerpt below:

V03.8.48

42. 
    L: Nh­­ng con thÊy nã xinh h¬n ngµy tr­­íc bao:: nhiªu…
    

But daughter see she pretty more day before how much

Xinh h¬n lµ håi nã bÐo.

Pretty more be then she fat

(But I see she is much prettier…Prettier than when she was fat.)

H: …µ, õ. Nh­­ng mµ nh­­ thÕ th× gÇy qu¸.

Ah yeh but particle like that be thin very

(Ah, yeh, but she’s too thin.)

→ L: Con ch¼ng thÊy nã gÇy qu¸.

Daughter not see she thin very

(I don’t think she’s too thin.)

H. … nhÞn ¨n nhÞn uèng // nh­­ thÕ th×…

… No eat no drink // like that be…

(… her going without eating and drinking much // like that is…)

→ L: Nh­­ng mét ng­­êi mµ b¾t ®Çu gÆp

But one person particle start meet

nã th× thÊy nã ch¼ng gÇy … thÕ còng ch¼ng ph¶i lµ gÇy.

she particle see she not thin … that also not be thin

(But a person who first meets her now doesn’t think she’s

thin…that’s not thin at all)

In the same manner, in the following fragment, B escalates and intensifies his prior evaluative terms in his next turn after the second S’s first turn. He uses ‘siªu’ (powerful) to replace ‘m¹nh’ (strong) to bring out his stance.

43. 
    B: N­íc Êy nã cò::ng (.) Kü thuËt cña nã còng m¹nh phÕt ®Êy.
    

Country that it also technology of it also strong intensifier particle

That country is also (.) Its technology is also very powerful.

H: õ kü thuËt cña nã th× còng kh¸.

Yeah technology of it be also good

(Yeah its technology is also good.)

→ B: Còng siªu phÕt ®Êy nhÊt lµ n«ng nghiÖp cña nã (1.0) rÊt giái …

Also powerful intensifier particle specifically agriculture of it so excellent

(Also very powerful, especially its agriculture (1.0) so excellent…)

Ss may finally arrive at some kind of compromise after a range of disagreements. They settle down with their own views and respect their interlocutors’ stances, as below:

V03.9.57

44. 
    H: Mµ ®µn bµ thÕ còng lµ giái råi «ng ¬i.
    

particle woman that also be good grandfather vocative

(And women like that are good.)

→ B: Nh­ng mµ t«i nãi bµ // nghe

But I tell grandmother // listen.

(But just let me tell you.)

H: §µn bµ ... thÕ lµ qu¸ giái råi

Woman … that be extremely good particle

(And women like that are really good.)

→ B: Tí … mµ cã vî nh­ thÕ (.) tí kh«ng thÝch.

I particle have wife like that I not like.

(I don’t like to have such a wife.)

H: ¤ng kh«ng thÝch nh­­ng mµ ng­­êi ta thÝch.

Grandfather not like but particle people like.

(You don’t like but other people do.)

B: (4.0)

H: ¤ng kh«ng thÝch nh­­ng ng­­êi kh¸c thÝch.

Grandfather not like but people other like.

(You don’t like but other people do.)

 B: Tí quan ®iÓm kh¸c.

I point of view different. (I have a different point of view.)

H: ¤ng quan ®iÓm lµ g×?

Grandfather point of view be what. (What’s your point of view?)

B: NghÜa lµ vî ph¶i lo c«ng viÖc nhµ chu ®¸o tÊt c¶ mäi c¸i.

Mean wife must worry work house thoroughly every whole classifier

Cßn c¸i viÖc th­¬ng tr­êng Êy chång lo.

And classifier business world that husband worry

(The wife must take very good care of housework, and business

is for the husband.)

H: õ, thÕ nh­ng mµ (1.0) lµm thÕ nµo ®­îc. Chång nã l¹i lo khoa häc.

Yeah particle but do how particle husband she still worry science

(Yeah, but (1.0) what to do. Her husband cares for science.)

→ B: hhhhh

Two mid-aged Ss named H and B talk about one of their mutual friends at school, who is now a chief sale executive in a big foreign company. In her first turn, H assumes women like the mentioned female friend are ‘good’, and she intensifies her evaluation by adding ‘really’ in her next turn. On the contrary, B does not share her stance. However, he stops verbally expressing his different view, and mutes himself after a set of successive disagreements. As a result of disagreement-negotiation, both friends implicitly acknowledge each other’s co-existing different perspectives.

When conversing with B, H addresses him as ‘«ng’ (grandfather) and she is addressed as ‘bµ’ (grandmother). These two kin terms for address, as aforementioned, are commonly used in interaction between friends and peers. Sometimes, B uses ‘tí’ for self-reference. ‘Tí’ is a popular form of first person singular pronoun used in talk with peers and close friends or in downward speech.

5.2.4. Summary

The hypotheses raised have empirically been proved. Conversationalists in the English data show a tendency to choose ‘middle positions’ to avoid the dispreferred organization of disagreeing and self-praise in response to compliments. They may use the ‘agreement + disagreement’ format to produce (i) scaled-down disagreements, elaborate complimentary components with qualifiers or (ii) downgrade prior compliments, deploy the (iii) credit shift strategy, or provide (iv) reciprocal compliments.

The Vietnamese data exhibit a similar organization of turns and sequences in performing disagreements under the influence of the constraint systems. Vietnamese compliment recipients are observed to make use of the ‘agreement + disagreement’ format, and they also downgrade the scale of prior complimentary assertions, shift the credit referent to a certain third party, or return compliments to first Ss. However, the Vietnamese Ss in the data do not demonstrate active utility of delay components such as “‘mh’s”, “‘hm’s”, and the like. As well, they show careful and delicate usage of kinship terms, and pronouns for self-reference and address. In addition, acceptance and appreciation tokens seem to be common in English while they are rare in the Vietnamese corpus; maybe, it is the manifestation of the common trend in Vietnamese culture to disagree with/reject prior compliments to show modesty or humbleness rather than to agree with/accept and express appreciations.

Native Ss of English and Vietnamese also have similar strategies in their negotiation of disagreements. Given the case of potential or overtly articulated disagreements, they may elaborate or (i) downgrade prior evaluations or positions, (ii) adopt new stances that are less opposite to second Ss’ to pre-empt imminent disagreements, or they may go on with defending or (iii) insisting on prior views, often by escalating and intensifying them. The negotiation of disagreements in these cases is normally shaped in sequences consisting of more than two turns.

At the same time, we can see the salient role of person-referring terms and particles in the construction of disagreements in Vietnamese. The appropriate usage of terms for self-reference and address, as well as particles makes important contribution to the effectiveness and politeness of disagreements. Not having such rich systems of address terms and particles, Ss of English make good use of devices like emphasizers, amplifiers, downtoners, delay components etc. in expressing disagreements