Luận văn Disagreeing in english and vietnamese: a pragmatics and conversation analysis perspective

oice of politeness strategies are likely to be the consequences of the differences in assessment of socio-cultural parameters and social situations which can be traced back to the differences in the socio-cultural structures. 3.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents The database used in the present empirical study is obtained from elicited written questionnaires #3, administered among 100 English native speakers in North America and 100 Vietnamese speakers in Hanoi. Questionnaires #3 contain 3 concrete situations in which the informants are supposed to converse with 10 partners different or/and identical in terms of age, gender, status, familiarity and closeness. In other words, the informants and their co-participants are put in symmetrical and asymmetrical role relationships. The informants are asked to provide their disagreeing responses to the prior evaluative tokens ‘Miss X is getting too fat’ (Situation 1), ‘Tax increase – a really cool idea’ (Situation 2) and ‘That party you and I went to was very boring’ (Situation 3). The informants can either create their own replies or choose from a set of utterances selected from the pretests and literature. Each informant has a set of 30 disagreements, classified as bald-on-record, on-record, off-record strategies and no FTA (based on Brown & Levinson’s model of politeness strategies), to write down or mark. A total of 6000 disagreement tokens (3000 in English and 3000 in Vietnamese) are loaded into and processed on SPSS. The English corpus is investigated in comparison to and contrast with the Vietnamese. The most significant cases are chosen and brought to further discussion. 3.2.2. Choice of Strategies by Respondents 3.2.2.1. Data results Five cases out of ten in each situation are taken to further investigation provided that they are proved to be statistically significant across situations. Below are the outputs of 15 cases marked c, d, e, h and j, where the informants are supposed to be in disagreement with their close friends, people they dislike, colleagues (same age & gender), older acquaintances and older bosses as regards the prior evaluative tokens. Chart 32: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Miss X is fat) Sit. 3.1c. Miss X is getting too fat. Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend Total First Language Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA English Count 41 14 42 3 100 English % 41.0% 14.0% 42.0% 3.0% 100.0% Vietnamese Count 19 35 45 1 100 Vietnamese % 19.0% 35.0% 45.0% 1.0% 100.0% Table 31: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Miss X is fat) Chart 33: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Tax increase) Sit. 3.2c. Tax increase – a cool idea. Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend Total First Language Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA English Count 28 44 25 3 100 English % 28.0% 44.0% 25.0% 3.0% 100.0% Vietnamese Count 18 27 55 0 100 Vietnamese % 18.0% 27.0% 55.0% .0% 100.0% Table 32: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Tax increase) Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend: The English respondents are likely to be straightforward in expressing their disagreements conversing with close friends by their frequent abiding by bald-on-record and on-record strategies. The Vietnamese respondents seem to be careful in overtly stating their opposing stances, which reflects in their using more off-record strategies with the exception of 3.1c, where 35% of them deploy direct strategies with redress compared to 14% of the English. The low proportion of silence across three situations is worth noting. All respondents are likely to be responsive and co-operative, especially the Vietnamese. In 3.1c and 3.3c only one Vietnamese respondent out of 100 refuses to reply and in 3.2c the percentage is zero, which suggests the existence of some socially-ethical sanction concerning being responsive in interpersonal interaction to establish and keep solidarity and rapport in the target culture. Chart 34: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Boring party) Sit. 3.3c. Boring party. Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend Total First Language Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA English Count 16 59 21 4 100 English % 16.0% 59.0% 21.0% 4.0% 100.0% Vietnamese Count 14 39 46 1 100 Vietnamese % 14.0% 39.0% 46.0% 1.0% 100.0% Table 33: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Boring party) Chart 35: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Miss X is fat) Sit. 3.1d. Miss X is getting too fat. Disagreeing Strategies to Someone You Dislike Total First Language Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA English Count 49 6 37 8 100 English % 49.0% 6.0% 37.0% 8.0% 100.0% Vietnamese Count 13 26 52 9 100 Vietnamese % 13.0% 26.0% 52.0% 9.0% 100.0% Table 34: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Miss X is fat) Sit. 3.2d. Tax increase Disagreeing Strategies to Someone you dislike Total First Language Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA English Count 31 33 29 7 100 English % 31.0% 33.0% 29.0% 7.0% 100.0% Vietnamese Count 23 15 52 10 100 Vietnamese % 23.0% 15.0% 52.0% 10.0% 100.0% Table 35: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Tax increase) Chart 36: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Tax increase) Disagreeing Strategies to Someone You Dislike: Normally, it is embarrassing and inconvenient to interact with people with whom you do not get on well, let alone to disclose your negative views. The English Ss seem to be direct in their disagreements, and they appear to be most eager to defend Miss X in 3.1d with 49% of them clinging to bald-on-record strategies. Almost half of the Vietnamese informants are inclined to be less direct and imply their disagreement tokens via off-record strategies. In addition, the number of informants who opt out of performing the act, i.e. who do no FTA at all, is quite high in both groups. Chart 37: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring party) Sit. 3.3d. Boring party Disagreeing Strategies to Someone you dislike Total First Language Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA English Count 20 39 34 7 100 English % 20.0% 39.0% 34.0% 7.0% 100.0% Vietnamese Count 13 34 49 4 100 Vietnamese % 13.0% 34.0% 49.0% 4.0% 100.0% Table 36: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring party) Chart 38: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Miss X) Sit. 3.1e. Miss X is getting too fat. Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague (same age & gender) Total First Language Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA English Count 23 17 54 6 100 English % 23.0% 17.0% 54.0% 6.0% 100.0% Vietnamese Count 16 51 30 3 100 Vietnamese % 16.0% 51.0% 30.0% 3.0% 100.0% Table 37: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Miss X) Sit. 3.2e. Tax increase - a cool idea. Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague (same age & gender) Total First Language Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA English Count 14 50 33 3 100 English % 14.0% 50.0% 33.0% 3.0% 100.0% Vietnamese Count 8 19 73 0 100 Vietnamese % 8.0% 19.0% 73.0% .0% 100.0% Table 38: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Tax) Chart 39: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Tax) Sit. 3.3e. Boring party. Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague (same age & gender) Total First Language Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA English Count 7 57 33 3 100 English % 7.0% 57.0% 33.0% 3.0% 100.0% Vietnamese Count 13 43 44 0 100 Vietnamese % 13.0% 43.0% 44.0% .0% 100.0% Table 39: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Party) Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague (same age & gender): The Vietnamese show greater tendency to abide by off-record strategies in 3.2e and 3.3e, which can be traced back to their emphasis on community-based solidarity, while the high proportion in English on-record strategies in these two cases might be the manifestation of Anglo-American focus on freedom from imposition and of action. However, the English in 3.1e are likely to be indirect in disagreeing with their colleagues by adhering to off-record strategies, while the Vietnamese Ss seem to prefer direct strategies with 16% of the respondents opting for bald-on-record strategies and 51% of them using on-record. Chart 310: Choice of Politeness to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Party) Chart 311: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X is fat) Sit. 3.1h. Miss X is getting too fat. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Acquaintance Total First Language Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA English Count 24 13 55 8 100 English % 24.0% 13.0% 55.0% 8.0% 100.0% Vietnamese Count 13 38 42 7 100 Vietnamese % 13.0% 38.0% 42.0% 7.0% 100.0% Table 310: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X is fat) Chart 312: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax increase) Sit. 3.2h. Tax increase - a cool idea. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Acquaintance Total First Language Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA English Count 9 52 36 3 100 English % 9.0% 52.0% 36.0% 3.0% 100.0% Vietnamese Count 2 34 60 4 100 Vietnamese % 2.0% 34.0% 60.0% 4.0% 100.0% Table 311: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax increase) Disagreeing Strategies to Older Acquaintance: It is of great interest to see the reciprocal influence of age and intimacy in the Vietnamese choice of strategies compared to the English. The preference for intimacy is visible in on-record strategies in 3.1h, whereas the emphasis on age is reflected in the adherence to off-record strategies in 3.2h and 3.3h. The high percentage of bald-on-record by the English informants implies that age is recognized but lightly treated in their culture. Also, their deployment of off-record strategies in 3.1h consistent with their choice of indirect strategies to colleagues in 3.1e may serve as evidence for English usage of indirectness as a means to express politeness. Chart 313: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring party) Sit. 3.3h. Boring party. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Acquaintance Total First Language Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA English Count 10 62 26 2 100 English % 10.0% 62.0% 26.0% 2.0% 100.0% Vietnamese Count 13 37 45 5 100 Vietnamese % 13.0% 37.0% 45.0% 5.0% 100.0% Table 312: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring party) Sit. 3.1j. Miss X is getting too fat. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss Total First Language Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA English Count 13 12 60 15 100 English % 13.0% 12.0% 60.0% 15.0% 100.0% Vietnamese Count 11 27 44 18 100 Vietnamese % 11.0% 27.0% 44.0% 18.0% 100.0% Table 313: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat) Chart 314: Choice of Disagreeing Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat) Sit. 3.2j. Tax increase - a cool idea. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss Total First Language Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA English Count 10 52 31 7 100 English % 10.0% 52.0% 31.0% 7.0% 100.0% Vietnamese Count 0 26 66 8 100 Vietnamese % .0% 26.0% 66.0% 8.0% 100.0% Table 314: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase) Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss: Although the present number of informants who opt out of responding to their older bosses’ evaluative tokens is the highest across situations, the disparity in their use of direct and indirect strategies is of paramount significance. While the English exploit more off strategies in 3.1j, and on-record strategies in 3.2j and 3.3j, the Vietnamese would rather allude to their negative responses by using off-record strategies or stop voicing them. In Vietnamese culture, where interpersonal relationships are vertically structured, age and status are institutionalized respected and valued. Thus, one should act in caution in proffering disagreements to one’s older boss. The asymmetrical role relationships provide persuasive explanations for the low percentage of direct strategies by Vietnamese Ss, especially bald-on-record, the use of which seems to potentially damage the norms of social hierarchy. In 3.2j, for instance, none of 100 Vietnamese informants choose bald-on-record strategies. Chart 315: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase) Chart 316: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Boring Party) Sit. 3.3j. Boring party. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss Total First Language Bald-on-record On-record Off-record No FTA English Count 6 51 34 9 100 English 6.0% 51.0% 34.0% 9.0% 100.0% Vietnamese Count 3 32 49 16 100 Vietnamese % 3.0% 32.0% 49.0% 16.0% 100.0% Table 315: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Boring Party) 3.2.2.2. Comments The two groups of informants demonstrate considerable differences in their deployment of politeness strategies to express their disagreement tokens to the early stated assessments. In general, the English informants do not pay much attention to such factors as age, status or gender of their interlocutors, and they seem to be direct in situations where these factors reciprocally influence (e.g. disagreeing with colleagues, same age & gender; older acquaintances or bosses). They are inclined to forthrightly speak out their different evaluations no matter the Hs are their close friends or those they dislike. Also, they tend to directly disagree with others on non-personal topics like economics, politics and social issues (taxes or social get-togethers, for instance). In contrast, the Vietnamese informants attach significant importance to age and status in accordance with their socially normative ethics. Thus, instead of acting quite freely according to individual wills, they have to make their personal choices of strategy in conformity to institutionalized norms of behavior, which stress community-based solidarity and intimacy. They are likely to abide by direct strategies in ‘safe’ settings where role relationships are symmetrical, for example, talking with close friends or colleagues. In cases where there is little possibility of balancing personal choices and social norms, they opt for indirect strategies so as to avoid sounding too critical or aggressive. The reasonable account for the differences in Ss’ choice of politeness strategies can be made via due consideration of the differences in their assessment of social parameters and situations (cf. findings in Chapter 1). After all, they are just surface manifestations of the deep-level differences in the socio-cultural structures. 3.2.3. Summary The findings have provided strong evidence for the differences in strategic choice made by native speakers of English and Vietnamese in proffering disagreement tokens. Being less constrained by socially normative practices, the English informants are observed to flexibly adjust themselves to different interactive contexts and frequently deploy direct strategies according to their personal wants. Their local socio-cultural context which is much less hierarchical takes as its main concern the individual and his/her freedom of action and from intrusion. The Vietnamese might generally be judged as more indirect than their English counterparts in performing disagreements. However, as native Ss of a speech community, they cannot stay independent of the indigenous system of social norms determining linguistic and behavioral manners, which stresses hierarchy. It comes as no surprise that the Vietnamese tend to sound less direct when facing asymmetrical relationships which need some compromise or reciprocity in linguistic expressions. It is the wider socio-cultural contexts that serve as good grounds for all these differences in the Ss’ assessment of socio-cultural parameters and situations and choice of strategies. 3.3. Concluding Remarks Despite the paramount effectiveness it has offered the SA study, Brown & Levinson’s model of strategies unveils certain controversial points which engender modification across cultures and subcultures. Basing themselves on the speech act of requesting, which is performed in first-turn utterances, Brown & Levinson pay very little attention to ‘No FTA’ strategies in such second-turn responses as disagreement tokens. In addition, the set of strategies as regards the notion of negative/positive face has also triggered numerous arguments. Native Ss of English and Vietnamese, according to the empirical findings, differ in choosing politeness strategies to realize disagreement attributes, and this confirms Blum-Kulka and House's hypothesis that differences in perceptions of social situations and in the relative importance attached to any socio-cultural parameter may lead to differences in linguistic behavior (Blum-Kulka and House 1989: 137). The English preference for direct strategies with redress and the Vietnamese tendency to use indirect strategies have proved Leech (1986) and Brown & Levinson’s assumption (1987[1978]) that cultures may differ in terms of precedence and significance given to each strategy in spite of having the same sets of strategies. This has also coincided with Kieu T. T. H.’s finding (2001: 86) of Americans’ favorite use of on-record and Vietnamese deployment of off-record strategies in disagreements. The assumption of consistent correlation between politeness and indirectness is taken into consideration and is proved to be less convincing. The empirical study shows that indirectness does not always correlate with politeness. The deployment of indirectness varies across cultures, across speech acts and across contexts of a speech act of a culture. Thus, linguistic indirectness is both culturally and contextually dependent and colored, and the Vietnamese exploitation of indirect strategies in different contexts ranging from intimacy to asymmetrical role relationships should be interpreted in consideration of social factors and norms of behavior. Politeness in the Vietnamese socio-cultural framework, which is strongly anchored in Confucian ethics, is essentially motivated by the maintenance social harmony and community solidarity via individual observance of institutionalized practices. On the contrary, Anglo-American culture with its primary focus on individualist non-imposition tends to leave more free space for Ss to make their own choice of politeness strategies. The following chapter provides a thorough investigation of the organizational structure of disagreeing to bring out the shared and unshared strategies deployed in English disagreement tokens in comparison to Vietnamese ones. CHAPTER FOUR STRATEGIES CONCERNING PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION 4.1. Theoretical Preliminaries 4.1.1. Preferred Second Turns 4.1.1.1. Markedness Typical adjacency pairs, as earlier mentioned, consist of two parts: a first pair part and a second pair part. Once the first part is given, there is a set of potential seconds to it. However, not all second parts are of equal structural complexity and status. Some are very simple, made of one or two words (‘Yes’, ‘Fine, thanks’), others are constructed of several long utterances (like long explanations, elaborate accounts etc.). In general, all second alternatives can be distinguished as either preferred or dispreferred responses. In spite of its original connotation, the concept of preference organization has nothing to do with psychological preference of the speakers or hearers. It is merely a structural notion similar to the concept of markedness in linguistics, which was first proposed and developed by the Prague School, and later, by Jakobson and others (Levinson 1983: 333). The concept of markedness in linguistics can be understood as follows: The intuition behind the notion of markedness in linguistics is that, where we have an opposition between two or more members…, it is often the case that one member is felt to be more usual, more normal, less specific than the other (in markedness terminology it is unmarked, the others marked). Cited from Comrie (1976: 111) Preferred/unmarked seconds, as interpreted on the basis of linguistic markedness, have less material, and are structurally simpler compared to dispreferred/marked (Levinson 1983, Mey 2001). Apart from a range of different and unrelated first parts, the latter seem to have more in common, namely, delay components and various degrees of structural build-up. Preferred alternatives tend to occur within simple sequential structures. On the contrary, dispreferred are likely to be accompanied with different kinds of structural complexity, as in the following examples by Pomerantz (1984a: 60-71): J: It’s really a clear lake, isn’t it? → R: It’s wonderful. L: Maybe it’s just ez well you don’t know (2.0) → W: Well uh-I say it’s suspicious it could be something good too. The preferred second in (1) is immediately produced after the first evaluative token, whereas the delivery of the dispreferred second is deliberately delayed in (2). After a two-second silence, W starts speaking, prefacing his disagreeing with ‘well’ and other delay components. Other kinds of dispreferred seconds like rejections of requests, refusals of offers, denials of blames etc., are normally done in this marked manner, as Levinson (1983: 308) puts it: …[I]n contrast to the simple and immediate nature of preferreds, dispreferreds are delayed and contain additional complex components; and certain kinds of seconds like request rejections, refusals of offers, disagreements after evaluative assessments, etc., are systematically marked as dispreferreds. By and large, the marked actions are likely to be avoided in interpersonal conversations due to the complexity of their marked formats. 4.1.1.2. Structural organization Conversation analysts working on the structural organization of preferred/dispreferred seconds like Atkinson and Drew (1979), Pomerantz (1978, 1984a-b, 1997), Heritage (1989, 1997, 2002), Sacks (1987), Goodwin (1983), and Goodwin & Goodwin (1987, 1992) realize the salient and essential differences in structural organization between preferreds and dispreferreds. The specific characteristics of such complex-structured responses are examined and generalized in the works by Atkinson and Drew (1979), Pomerantz (1975, 1978, 1984a-b), Levinson (1983), Yule (1996), Mey (1993, 2001) among others. The main features include: (i) delay tokens: silences/ pauses, hesitations and hedges (false starts ‘Er’, expletives ‘Yes’…), repairs, or insertion sequences, (ii) prefaces: dispreferred markers like ‘Well’ and ‘Uh’, appreciations, apologies, qualifiers and mitigations ‘I don’t know for sure, but…’, and (iii) accounts or explanations for uttering dispreferreds. Some other prosodic features like speed of delivery, articulation, stress, irregular breathing, as well as non-linguistic factors (head nods/shakes, smiles, facial expressions, body movements etc.) may create certain impact on the quality of dispreferred seconds. On the whole, the production of such wordy and elaborate responses takes time and requires a great effort on the part of conversationalists. Moreover, they may bring unpleasant feelings to whatever parties involved in interchanges. Consequently, dispreferred seconds are likely to be avoided due to their complex-structural format and communicative ineffectiveness. Conversation analytic work also focuses on the correlation of the content and the sequential structure of preference. Quite interestingly, there is an organic relationship between the content and its format, to wit, some patterns seem recurrently occur in fixed structures. For instance, agreements with evaluative assessments tend to appear in unmarked/preferred format, whereas almost all of disagreements are delivered in marked/dispreferred structures. The notion of preference may be applied to the actions that are produced in either preferred or dispreferred constructions, i.e., preferred actions are normally done