NGHIÊN cứu sự PHÊ BÌNH BẰNG NGÔN từ TRONG văn HOÁ ANH VIỆT

PART A. INTRODUCTION
I. RATIONALE:
In the light of Communicative Language Teaching, language is taught for but
communication. In other words, to teach language is to provide learners with communicative
competence, by which Richards et al. (1992:65) means “the ability not only to apply
grammatically correct sentences but also know when and where to use the sentences and to
whom”. Sharing the same point of view, Saville-Troike (1982) believes that linguistic
knowledge, interactional skills, and cultural knowledge are all essential components of
communication that must ultimately be accounted for in order to communicate appropriately.
However, the teaching and learning of English in Vietnam are more or less under the
influence of the traditional ways of teaching and learning language, which mainly focused on
the development of linguistic competence – lexis, grammatical rules, vocabulary, and
pronunciation. Meanwhile, little attention has been paid to oral skills and even less to cultural
aspects. This leads to a fact that Vietnamese learners of English, though they have fairly good
knowledge of linguistic competence, usually find themselves unable to communicate in a
natural way or face up with communication breakdown in the target language, especially with
native speakers of English. Moreover, it is the lack of the target language culture and cultural
differences that lead Vietnamese learners of English experience culture shock in every aspect
of cross-cultural communication. Therefore, learners must have mutual understandings and
awareness of cultural differences to be successful cross-cultural communicators.
Of the universal human speech acts, criticism is a subtle one, a high face-threatening
act in communication, especially in intercultural communication. In addition, criticisms are
socially complex even for for native speakers. Furthermore, many studies regarding the speech
act of criticizing have been carried out in different languages and in interlanguage of English
learners of different language backgrounds such as House and Kasper (1981), Tracy, Van
Dusen, and Robison (1987), Tracy and Eisenberg (1990), Wajnryb (1993, 1995) and Toplak
1
and Katz (2000) and others, but not in Vietnamese. The problems posed for Vietnamese
learners of English concerning criticism have not yet been adequately investigated. Therefore,
a study on the similarities and differences in giving criticism in English and Vietnamese
cultures through verbal cues is believed to be of great importance and significance. The

findings from the research would partly help teachers and learners of English, especially
Vietnamese learners of English, avoid miscommunication, hence cultural shock and
communication breakdown.
II. AIMS OF THE STUDY:
The research is intended to thoroughly contrast verbal criticism in English and
Vietnamese from cultural perspective, thus partly helping to increase the awareness of the
similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese cultures in giving criticisms. To
achieve this overall purpose, the study aims at:
• Describing and classifying the criticizing strategies in English and Vietnamese.
• Comparing and contrasting different strategies employed by Vietnamese and
English people when they give criticism in their own language and culture.
• Studying how culture exerts its influence on English and Vietnamese in giving
criticism.
III. SCOPE OF THE STUDY:
For the limited time and scope, paralinguistic (speech, tone, and pitch) and
extralinguistic (facial expression, eye contact, postures, orientation, proximity, movement,
clothing artifacts etc.) factors, important though they obviously are and the author is well
aware of, play a vital part of effective interpersonal communication in accompanying and
amending the spoken word(s), the study is only confined to the verbal aspect of the speech act
of giving criticism.
2
Secondly, to raise learner’s awareness of the wide application of criticizing strategies,
the data used for illustration and exemplification are taken mainly from short stories and
novels in English and Vietnamese. The collection of the data in this ways brings us some
convenience for the contrastive study: it yields a wide range of strategies, used by people from
different cultures in different situations, which a questionnaire or an interview, highly or to
some extent controlled, would not have offered.
Finally, by English, the author means the English language as a mother tongue; no
distinction will be made between American English, British English, Australian English and
so on.

IV. METHODOLOGY:
Since the main purpose of the study is to compare and contrast verbal expressions in
giving criticism in English and Vietnamese, the result of which will be exploited for language
learning and teaching; therefore, describing, comparing and contrastive analysis prove to be
the best candidates of all. Thus, the thesis will be oriented in the following steps:
- identify strategies of criticism in both English and Vietnamese stories in the source
of books.
- classify them into sub-strategies.
- describe them in each language to find out the typical features of each sub-
strategies.
- analyse, compare, and contrast criticizing strategies based on the cultural features
in two languages to point out the basic similarities and differences in this aspect.
- reach the comments and conclusions on the subject under research.
- make some necessary pedagogical suggestions.
In order to facilitate the process of doing the comparison and best exploit our
knowledge of English language, most the the description in this work is based towards English
and Engilsh is considered as the basic language and Vietnamese as the comparative language.
Source of samples of data: The corpus with 1,100 examples will be collected from
3
selected English, American, Newzealand and Australian short stories and novels and from
Vietnamese short stories in early years of 19
th
century and modern ones before and after 1945.
The information about the source of the data is given in parentheses.
V. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:
This study certainly has some limitations.
The research cannot include the paralinguistic and non-linguistic aspects due to the
limit of time, which will certainly limit the authenticity of the data and then the pragmatic
effect of the expected results. Secondly, the data in this study are taken from a number of short
stories and novels in English and Vietnamese, thus this reveals the disadvantage of missing

suprasegmental features such as stress and intonation. In addition, this research is carried out
by a non-native speaker of English, so there must be a lack of native linguistic sensitivity in
analyzing.
In view of these limitations, the research can only be regarded as a preliminary study
and any conclusions are tentative.

VI. RESEARCH DESIGN:
As for the design of the study, it is composed of three main parts:
Part A - Introduction - introduces the rationale, scope, aims and methodology of the study as
well as the way to collect the data.
Part B - Development - consists of three chapters. They are:
- Chapter I encompasses the relationship between language and culture, the notions
of speech acts, theories of politeness, as well as the aspects of C.A. in culture,
which are relevant to the purpose of the study.
- Chapter II investigates the similarities and differences in the criticism strategies in
English and Vietnamese. In this chapter, what is meant by criticizing in this study
4
is taken into account. Then the criticism strategies as well as the criticism modifiers
in the two languages will be described, compared, and contrasted.
- Chapter III deals with, on the basis of the previous chapter, the implications to the
teaching of the criticism strategies in English to the Vietnamese learners of English
from a socio-cultural perspective.
Part C – Conclusion – draws conclusions of the study and proposes some suggestions for
further research.
5
PART B. DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter reviews the theories and literature relevant to the topic under investigation
in the present study. The first two sections mention to contrastive analysis (I.1) and the
relationship of language and culture (I.2). The final two sections offer two linguistic notions:

speech acts (I.3) and politeness (I.4).
I.1. CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS (C.A.)
Contrastive Analysis dates back to the 1950s when it was first developed and practiced
as an application of structural linguistics to language teaching. As regards its definition James,
C. (1980: 3) declares:
“Contrastive Analysis is a linguistic enterprise aimed at producing inverted (i.e.
contrastive, not comparative) two-valued typologies (a C.A. is always concerned with
a pair of languages), and founded on the assumption that languages can be
compared.”
(Carl Jame, 1980: 3)
James also claims that there are three branches of two-valued (two languages are
involved) interlingual linguistics: translation theory – which is concerned with the process of
text conversion; error analysis; and contrastive analysis – these last two having as the object of
enquiry the means whereby a monolingual learns to be bilingual. Among these branches of
linguistics, C.A seems to be the most effective way in comparing between the first language
and the second language as well as a pairs of languages foreign language learners are learning.
Hence, in the preface of his book Contrastive Analysis, Carl James (1980) states,
“In the heyday of structural linguistics and the pattern practice language teaching
methodology which derived insights and justification from such an approach to
6
linguistic description, nothing seemed of greater potential value to language teachers
and learners than a comparative and contrastive description of the learner’s mother
tongue and the target language.”
(In the Introduction of Contrastive Analysis by Carl James, 1980)
Contrastive analysis is defined, according to James (1980), as a form of interlanguage
study and a central concern of applied linguistics. As a matter of fact, C.A. has had much to
offer not only to practical language teaching, but also to translation theory, the description of
particular languages, language typology and the study of language universals. In relation to
bilingualism, C.A. is concerned with how a monolingual becomes bilingual; in other words, it
is concerned with the effects exerted by the first language (L1) on the foreign language being

learnt (L2). Thus, C.A has been a preferable method used by Vietnamese linguists in recent
years as it enables them to contrast Vietnamese with other languages not only of the same
typologies, but also of different ones. It also helps bring out many interesting differences and
similarities between languages, which make a great contribution to lightening the language
teaching and learning burden.
It has been suggested that there are two kinds of C.A.: theoretical and applied ones.
According to Fisiak et al (cited by James, C., 1980:142), theoretical C.As. “do not investigate
how a given category present in language A is presented in language B. Instead they look for
the realization of a universal category X in both A and B.” Meanwhile, applied C.As. are
“preoccupied with the problem of how a universal category X, realized in language A as Y, is
rendered in language B.” That means applied C.As are unindirectional whereas theoretical
C.As. are static, because they do not need to reflect any directionality of learning, which is
illustrated in the following diagram:
X X
A B A(Y) B(?)
Theoretical C.As Applied C.As
Figure 1. Theoretical C.As and Applied C.As
7
As James (1980: 142-143) states, applied C.As. are interpretations of theoretical C.As.
rather than independent executions, since an applied C.A. executed independently is liable to
lose its objectivity; that is, its predictions will tend to be based on teachers’ experience of
learners’ difficulties rather than derived from linguistic analysis.
Mentioning to learning theory, particularly the theory of “transfer”- a term used by
psychologists in their account of the way in which present learning is affected by past
learning, Lado (1957: 2) states,
“ individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings and the distribution of forms
and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture
– both productively when attempting to speak the language and to act in the culture,
and receptively when attempting to grasp and to understand the language and culture
as practiced by natives.”

In fact, there are two types of transfer, namely “positive transfer” (or “facilitation”)
and “negative transfer” (or “interference”), which may occur during the process of learning
language by learners who have already attained considerable degrees of competence in their
first language:
- “Positive transfer” (or “facilitation”): the transfer makes learning easier and may
occur when both the first language and second language have similar features.
- “Negative transfer” (or “interference”): the constraint of L1 or the borrowing of a
first language pattern or rule leads to an error or appropriate form in the foreign
language.
Therefore, to gain the effective teaching and learning of the L2, it is necessary for
teachers to recognize the potential transfer problem areas and integrate strategies that would
help the learner to overcome difficulties and to avoid errors attributed to these transfer
problem areas.
Considering that learning difficulty and differences between L1 and L2 are directly and
proportionally related, Lado, R. (1957: 1-2) suggests, “the student who comes in contact with
8
a foreign language will find some features of it quite easy and others extremely difficult.
Those elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him and those
elements that are different will be difficult.”
However, Whitman and Jackson (cited by James, C., 1980: 188) argues that “relative
similarity, rather than difference, is directly related to levels of difficulty.” What is more, Lee
(cited by James, C., 1980) concludes that “different” or “exotic” languages may not be
difficult to learn, for L1 and L2 are so far apart that there is a very little or no L1 interference.
Supporting that point of view, Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis claimed that the principal
barrier to second language acquisition is the interference of the first language systems with the
second language system and that a scientific, structural analysis of the two languages in
question will yield a taxonomy of linguistic contrasts between them which in turn would
enable linguists to predict the difficulties a learner would encounter.
Apart from that, human learning theories highlighted interfering elements of learning,
concluding that where no interference could be predicted, no difficulty would be experienced

since one could transfer positively all other items in a language. Lado, R. (1957: vii) in the
preface to his book “Linguistics Across Culture”, says: “The Plan of the book rests on the
assumption that we can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulties in
learning, and those that will not cause difficulty by comparing systematically the language
and the culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the students.” Then in
Chapter One of the book, he continues: “ in the comparison between native and foreign
languages lies in the key to ease or difficulty in foreign language learning.”
Hence, it is widely agreed that comparison of cultures is considered as an integral part
of contrastive linguistics and of the language learning and teaching.
As Lado (1957, cited in Valdes, 1986) notes, when comparing two cultures we must be
very careful in the generalisations we make and be prepared to revise or change these
generalisations as our understanding of another culture develops. However, generalisations are
flexible and change over time with our experiences (Clarke and Clarke 1990, 34). Therefore,
we should ignore other aspects of culture such as gender, class, or ethnicity, and Kramsch
(1993, 49) urges to consider this range of diversity within culture when teaching cultures.
9
However, our view of culture has broadened to include a more interpretive approach towards
culture (Kramsch 1993, 24). Instead of just being concerned with the facts of one culture the
emphasis has moved towards interpreting culture based on cross-cultural understanding,
involving comparisons and contrasts with a learners' native culture and the culture of the
language they are studying (see Valdes 1986). Dunnet et. al. suggest six aspects of culture that
learners and teachers should be familiar with:
(1) Languages cannot be translated word-for-word … (2) The tone of a speaker's voice (the
intonation pattern) carries meaning… (3) Each language-culture employs gestures and body
movements which convey meaning… (4)…languages use different grammatical elements for
describing all parts of the physical world. (5) All cultures have taboo topics… (6) In personal
relationships, the terms for addressing people vary considerably among languages. (1986, 148-
149)
Therefore, teachers and learners should be aware of these features and be prepared to
analyse both their own culture and the target culture according to such criteria.

I.2. LANGUAGE AND CULTURE
I.2.1. The relationship of language and culture:
Language, according to “Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary” (1992: 506), is
defined as “systems of sounds, words, patterns, etc. used by humans to communicate thoughts
and feeling”. Crystal (1992: 212) also shares this definition of language when the researcher
considers language as “the systematic, conventional use of sounds, signs, or written symbols in
a human society for communication and self-expression”. Thus, language is one of the highest
and the most amazing product of human being that helps distinguish them from other creatures
and that serves the main purpose of communication.
Language, according to Kramsch (1998:3), is “the principle means whereby we
conduct our social lives”. That means language is considered as the medium through which a
culture is reflected. That point of view is also shared by Saville-Troike (1982; 35), which says,
“there is a correlation between the norm and content of a language and the beliefs, values and
10
needs present in the culture of its speaker”. In addition, sharing with Brown’s and Saville-
Troike’s idea about the relationship between language and culture, Kramsch in his book
Language and Culture (1998) emphasizes this correlation by presenting three functions of
language related to culture:
- Language expresses cultural reality
- Language embodies cultural reality.
- Language symbolizes cultural reality.
Therefore, it is widely believed that the correlation between language and culture is
obviously undeniable.
What can be derived from the above discussions is the relationship between language
and culture. In order to make this interrelation more explicit, it is necessary to clarify what
we mean by culture.
Culture is so popular a notion in our daily life that many researchers have defined it in
many ways.
According to Veresiaghin, Kostomarov (1990), “culture” is considered as a social
phenomenon, which consists of both material and spiritual values. In other words, there are

two catergories of culture “tangible culture” (architectual buildings, costumes and the art of
food…) and “invisible culture” (folk songs, festivals …). Whereas, others hold the idea that
“culture” is limited to products of culture which include visible expressions and invisible
patterns –the hidden ones. Therefore, culture in this point of view also refers to the often
hidden patterns of human interactions, expressions and viewpoints that people in one culture
share. Because of its submergence, it is difficult for most people to realize cultures deeply and
encounter in communication.
When defining the notion of culture, Goodenough (1981; in Wardhaugh, 1991: 217)
affirms, “Culture is a sort of knowledge which everyone must possess to function within a
society.” What is more, “culture is everything that people have, think and do as a member of
a society” (Gary Ferrando, 1996; in Quang, N., 2005: 38). It can be interpreted from these
points of view that culture is the knowledge of patterns (models/ schemes/ behaviors) learned
11
and shared by a set of people in a community and that the process related to the products of
culture and the dynamic factors of the creations of cultural products are paid more attention.
Culture is also defined as ‘human’s behaviors’ by another group of researchers, who
emphasize on the mechanisms of human’s behaviors. One of the typical definitions of
‘culture’ related to human’s behaviors is Clinfford Geertz’s (1973: 383), in which culture is:
a. The total way of life of a person.
b. The social legacy that individual acquires from his group.
c. The way of thinking, feeling and believing.
d. An abstraction from behavior.
e. A theory on the part of the anthropologist about the way in which a group of people
in fact behave.
f. A store house of pooled learning.
g. A set of standardised orientation, to recurrent problems.
h. Learned behavior.
i. A mechanism for the normative of behavior.
j. A set techniques for adjusting both of the external environment, to other men.
k. A precipitate of history.

l. A behavior map, sieve, matrix.
In addition, sharing the idea about the influence of culture on people’s behaviors,
Seelye (in Fantini, A.E., 1997: 23) has his own definition:
“Culture is the systematic, rather arbitrary, more or less coherent, group-invented,
and group-shared creed from the past that defines the shape of “reality” and assigns
the sense and worth of things; it is modified by each generation and in response to
adaptive pressures; it provides the code that tells people how to behave predictably
and acceptably, the cipher that allows them to derive meaning from language and
other symbols, the map that supplies the behavial options for satisfying human needs”.
12
Parson, T. (1949: 8) also argues, “Culture … consists in those patterns relative to
behavior and the products of human action…” Thus, “culture” influences behaviors and it is
structured system of patterned behavior. (Lado, R., 1957:110)
Laying the emphasis on the invisible and non-natural aspect of “culture”, a number of
researchers consider “culture” as the products of “consciousness” and “behavior”. One
representative of this group, Levin and Adelman (1993: XVIII) states,
“Culture is a shared background resulting from a common language and
communication style, customs, beliefs, attitudes and values”. Richards et al (in Clyne,
1996: 94) shares the same idea with Levine and Adelman’s and Banks et al’s (1989
:72) when he defines “Culture is a total set of belief, attitudes, customs, behaviors, and
social habits.”
Culture, according to Redder and Rehbein (1980; in Clyne, 1996), is “an ensemble of
social experiences, thought structures, expectations, and practices of action, which has the
quality of a “mental apparatus”. Moreover, “culture is the collective programming of the
mind which distinguished the members of one group or category of people from another”
(Hofstede, 1984: 22).
In short, learning about cultures is absolutely enriching. The more one knows others,
the more she sees her own culture more clearly. Therefore, Quang, N. (2005:5) states, “by
learning about contrast, we can better understand how cultures influence individuals and
their communication with others”.

I.2.2. The culture of Vietnam
The culture of Vietnam, according to Wikipedia encyclopedia, is considered as one of
the oldest in the Southest Asia region. Although Vietnam lies geographically in Southeast
Asia, long periods of Chinese domination and influence has resulted in the emergence of many
East Asian characteristics in Vietnamese culture. While Chinese culture has the largest foreign
13
influence on traditional Vietnamese culture, there is also a much smaller influence from the
Cham and later Western cultures (most notably that of France, Russia and the United States).
Vietnam’s population (in 2006) was 84.402.966, with a population density of 253
persons per km². Most people live in or near the densely populated Red River or Mekong
deltas, which are Vietnam’s two major cultivated areas. The Red River Delta, in the North, is
the cradle of the Vietnamese civilization and rice culture. The Mekong Delta, a very fertile
land in the South with a favorable climate, is the largest rice growing area in Vietnam. It can
be said that Vietnamese culture has evolved on the basis of the rice culture. Thus, the lifestyle
of the Vietnamese population is closely related to the village and native land. It helps to shape
the community value and especially patriotism among the Vietnamese. It is the fact that the
Vietnamese people are well known for fiercely protectors of their independence sovereignty
for 2000 years. Most of the Vietnamese are always willing to devote all through their lives of
struggle for national liberation and independence when needed.
Another noticeable feature is the familial relation of Vietnamese culture value. If it can
be said that Western cultures value individualism, then it can also be said that Eastern cultures
value the roles of family (from Wikipedia encyclopedia). Indeed, you cannot understand the
Vietnamese until you first understand the importance of the family. As in many other Asian
countries, family is the foundation of Vietnamese society. Many families have 3 generations
living under one roof. Today, however, more and more couples are choosing to move into
their own homes. In Vietnamese society, decision-making is a family affair. Children cannot
make decisions for themselves if their parents are still alive.
About 74% of Vietnamese currently live in rural areas, and although many are being
influenced by the process of Westernization, traditional rural customs and traditions still play a
vital role in shaping the culture of Vietnam. In rural Vietnam, kinship plays an important role.

As a result, there is a complex hierarchy of relationships. This complex system of relationships
is conveyed particularly through the Vietnamese language, which has an extensive array of
honorifics to signify the status of the speaker in regards to the person they are speaking to.
This helps to form the personalism in Vietnamese culture value. This is also in agreement with
14
Phan Ngoc (cited by Nguyễn Văn Độ, 2004:146), who says, “Western culture value is
individualism, whereas Vietnamese culture value the personalism.”
Furthermore, a Vietnamese proverb says, “While drinking water, we must be grateful
for its source”. This is why, in almost every rural village or urban district, a temple has been
built to worship the tutelary spirit who founded the locality. Today people still worship the
tutelary spirit along with the national heroes who sacrified their lives for the country.
In addition, religion has exerted a deep influence on Vietnamese culture and the
Vietnamese concept of life. Vietnamese religious beliefs have been influenced by combined
values of the three traditional religions forming the Tam Giáo (“triple religion”). Buddhism,
introduced in Vietnam in the 2
nd
century, is considered as the official ideology. The
ideological influence of Buddhism remained very strong in social and cultural life.
Confucianism, originated from China and propagated to Vietnam in the early Chinese
domination period, is a moral doctrine advising people that they have a part of responsibility
in their fate, that they must love one another, must not think of abstract things of the next
world, and pay much attention to education. Due to the influence of Confucianism, the
Vietnamese became more hardworking, friendly and scholars with knowledge. The central
idea of Taoism, founded by Lao Tseu, is to live purely and simply. It replies on harmony
between Man, Nature and a Universal Order.
Besides the “triple religion”, Vietnamese life was also profoundly influenced by the
practice of ancestor worship as well as native animism. Most Vietnamese people, regardless of
religious denomination, practice ancestor worship and have an ancestor altar at their home or
business, a testament to the emphasis Vietnamese culture places on filial duty.
In sum, Vietnam is at the crossroads between South East Asian and the offshore

islands. Its culture bears common features of the South East Asian cultural region, while also
having absorbed the quintessence of cultures from other parts of the world. However, the
Vietnamese highest culture values are patriotism, community value, familial value and
personalism. It is culture values that help to shape patriotism, peace loving, closeness,
friendliness, sincerity, straightforwardness and interdependence in each of Vietnamese people.
15
I.2.3. The culture of England
British customs and traditions are famous all over the world. When people think of
Britain they often think of people drinking tea, eating fish and chips and wearing bowler hats,
but there is more to Britain than just those things. We have English and British traditions of
sport, music, food and many royal occasions. There are also songs, sayings and superstitions.
Britain, the largest island of the British Isles, includes the countries of England, Wales
and Scotland. Being an island has affected the British people’s characteristics. British people
still have an island mentally: independent, separate and on the edge of things. British families
are often criticized for they way they do things separately, though many people believe that it
is good for children to learn to be independent. From an early age, children are encouraged to
decide what they want to do, eat or wear, and their parents try to respect their opinions. Upon
reaching their appropriate age, children are encouraged to “live the nest” and begin an
independent life. Compared to that familial culture value of Vietnam, the members of a family
in Britain usually do not share the rame roof. In Britain, it is common for members of the
extended family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.) to live far away. Some grandparents see
very little of their grandchildren. Families try to stay in contact with each other by writing and
telephoning, by visiting occasionally, and sometimes by holding big family reunions. Since
they see less of each other, their concern for each other is not so strong. It is the fact that
although family loyalty is still important, and many people feel they have a duty to care for
members of their family when they need it, it is not the part of British culture for old people to
live with younger members of their family. Most elderly people live in their own homes and,
when they cannot care for themselves, move into an old people’s home or a nursing home.
When the community value is concerned, it is rare to find people who have lived all
their lives in one community. As a result, the British also have no the same community value

as the Vietnamese do.
Furthermore, the British are known as perfectly polite and proper, always saying
“please”, “thank you” and “excuse me”. British people are also famous for their reserve and
their “stiff upper lip” (not giving their opinion or showing their feeling in public), which
16
makes them seem formal and distant. The view of Britain as a country where everyone
behaves in a strange but nice way is not realistic. For many American people the British are
snobbish and do not seem very friendly. In addition, the British often cause confusion and
upset by not saying what they mean; for example, they usually say, “That’s no problem” when
they know that it will be a big problem.
Modern Britain is a multi-faith community, in which many religions are practiced, but
the main religion is Christianity. The Church of England functions as the established church in
England. Both the Church of England and the Catholic Church in England and Wales trace
their formal history from the 597 Augustinian mission to the English. Other churches which
have started in England include the Methodist church, the Quakers and the Salvation Army.
Many British people believe that luck plays an important part in their lives, they thus
usually wish somebody luck (good luck) in many situations. British people learn superstitions
while they are children, and though few adults will admit to being superstitious, many act on
superstitions out of habit. The British are also interested in fate and in knowing what will
happen to them in the future. Most people know which sign of the zodiac they were born
under, and read their horoscope or “stars” in magazines, though only a few take what is said
seriously. British people may thank their lucky stars for a piece of good fortune. When things
go wrong thay may say “Just my luck!”, blaming their own bad luck, or look back on an
unlucky act that has, in some unexplained way, caused their current problem.
In short, Britain according to many Western scholars contains a rich mixture of many
different cultures (England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland). However, it is word-wide agreed
that British people are independent, separate, and reserve. In addition, individualism is also the
main ego in British culture.

I.3. THE THEORY OF SPEECH ACTS

According to Levinson (1983), speech act theory is one of the central issues in the
study language use. In this section, the works by Austin, Searle, and Yule - the pioneers in the
field, are briefly reviewed in order to provide theoretical frameworks.
17
I.3.1. Notion and classification of speech acts:
The notion of speech acts dates back the British philosopher of language John Austin
(1962). In his very influential work, ‘How to do things with words’, Austin defines speech acts
as the actions performed in saying something or actions performed using language. In fact,
when speaking, we perform certain linguistic actions such as giving reports, making
statements, asking questions, giving warnings, making promises and so on. In other words,
speech acts are all the acts we perform through speaking – all the things we do when we
speak. Austin (1962) distinguished between the three kinds of acts, namely locutionary,
illocutionary, and perlocutionary then. Of these, a locutionary act is the act of saying
something in the full sense of “say”. An illocutionary act is the one of using the sentence to
perform a particular function; and a perlocutionary act is the one of producing some kinds of
effects that are produced by means of saying something. Among above three kinds of acts, the
illocutionary act which Austin later termed “speech act” is the core interest of Austin as well
as of other pragmatists (Levinson, 1983).
Meanwhile, Searle (1974) argue that each type of illocutionary acts requires certain
expected or appropriate conditions called felicity conditions. These conditions relate to the
beliefs and attitudes of the Speaker and the Hearer and to their mutual understanding of the
use of the linguistic devices for information. What is more, Searle (1965), cited by Minh,
(2005, p. 11) emphasized that Austin’s felicity conditions are not only dimensions in which
utterances can go wrong but they are also constitutive of the various illocutionary forces, and
therefore, can differentiate illocutionary acts from one anther . Searle classified those felicity
conditions into four kinds, which are:
(1) Preparatory conditions: The person performing the speech act has to have quality to
do so.
(2) Sincerity conditions: The speech act must be performed in a sincere manner.
(3) Propositional context conditions: The utterance must have exact content.

18
(4) Essential conditions: The speech act has to be executed in the correct manner.
(Searle, 1979, p.44)
Both Austin and Searle has paved the way to research into linguistic functions instead
of linguistic forms as is often observed in earlier linguistic studies. They also have tried to
classify speech acts and put them under categories.
Austin (1962) categorizes five classes of speech acts as:
(1) Verdictives : “the giving of a verdict”, e.g. assess, appraise …
(2) Exercitives : “exercising of powers, rights, or influence”, e.g. command, direct
(3) Commissives : “committing the speaker”, e.g. promise, propose …
(4) Behabitives : “reaction to other people’s behavior and fortunes”, e.g. apology,
thank …
(5) Expositives : “expounding of views, the conducting of arguments and the
classifying of usages and of references”, e.g. accept, agree
However, this classification is criticized for basing mainly on the performative verb
through which a speech act is expressed and having no clear or consistent principle or set of
principles based on which Austin constructed his taxonomy. Thus, many speech acts
according to his classification, may belong to two different categories.
Searle (1979), finding fault with Austin’s, suggests his own classification of speech
acts. These speech acts are further described as follows:
(1) Representatives: representing states of affairs (e.g.: assertions, conclusions, or
descriptions ).
(2) Directives: getting the hearer to do something (e.g.: suggestions, commands or
requests ).
(3) Commissives: committing the speaker to doing something (e.g.: threats, refusals, or
promises.)
19
(4) Expressives: expressing feelings about states of affairs (e.g.: apologies,
compliments or congratulations).
(5) Declarations: bringing about changes of some state of affairs (e.g.: resignations,

declarations or baptism )
Wardhaugh (1992) summarizes and explains Austin’s (1962) and Searle’s (1975)
speech act theories and then concludes:
In contrast to Austin, who focused his attention on how speakers realize their
intentions in speaking, Searle focused on how listeners respond to utterances, that is,
how one person tries to figure out how another is using a particular utterance [ … ]
what we see in both Austin and Searle is a recognition that people use language to
achieve a variety of objectives .
Wardhaugh (1992: 287)
Another approach to distinguish types of speech acts can be made on the relationship
between structure and function (Yule, 1996: 54). He divided speech acts into direct speech act
and indirect speech act and defines,
“Whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function, we have
a direct speech acts. Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure
and a function, we have an indirect speech act.”
The utterance “Turn on the fan, please”, for example, the speaker (S) has directly
requested the hearer (H) to turn on the fan. The syntactic structure of this utterance indicates a
straightforward request in English. Nevertheless, the same request can be made in a more tacit,
indirect manner to achieve the same result; S may say something like “It’s hot in here”.
I.3.2. Speech acts across cultures:
Speech acts like greeting, complimenting, requesting, thanking or giving advice and so
on are present in almost all cultures. In principle, these speech acts can be fulfilled in any
20
language, but they are performed in different manners and by different means. Sharing the
same point of view, Hymes (1964) and Saville-Troike (1982) state that there is a close
connection between language, society and culture and that all speech acts and speech
behaviors are governed by social norms. That explains why Wierzbicka (1985: 146) observes,
“Cultural norms reflected in speech acts differ not only from one language to another,
but also from one regional and social variety to another.” What is more, “Every
culture has its own repertoire of characteristic speech acts and speech genres.”

(Wierzbicka, 1991: 149)
Hence, governed and conditioned by our culture and though the contact with other
members in our cultural environment, everyone sets own “cultural schemata” that helps
him/her interpret what is wrong and what is right. These standards are appropriate in our
community, but when coming into contact with a new culture, if we interpret other’s behavior
according to these standards, there may be arise some cross-cultural problems in our own
communication that potentially lead to cultural conflict.
Therefore, the study on speech acts across cultures is believed to be essential or vital
for not only a person who expects to survive in a new environment, but also for a learner of a
foreign language who expects to succeed in communication.
I.3.3. The speech act of criticizing:
In real-life communication, the speech act of criticizing – as in the case of complaining
- has proven to be composed of different speech acts and of great risk of causing face
threatening act (FTA). It is, therefore, suggested that studies on criticizing as a speech act
across cultures should be carried out with the hope of contributing to the successful cross-
cultural communication.
The speech act of criticizing has been studied by different researchers such as House
and Kasper (1981), Tracy, van Dusen, and Robison (1987), Tracy and Eisenberg (1990),
Wajnryb (1993, 1995) and Toplak and Katz (2000) and others.
21
Tracy, et al (1987) investigated the characteristics of criticisms by people from
different cultural backgrounds and distinguished “good” from “bad” criticisms. According to
him, a good criticism is one that displays a positive language and manner; suggests specific
changes and possible critic; states justified and explicited reasons for criticizing and does not
violate the relationship between interlocutions and is accurate. Supporting that point of view,
Wajnrub (1993) holds “an effective criticism must be kept simple specific, well-grounded,
linked to strategies for improvement and delivered as an attempt to share experience. It also
needs to be softened by means of a number of strategies. These include ‘measuring words’ (to
avoid being too negative), ‘soft-pedaling’ (i.e. using internal and external modifications to
lessen the harshness of the criticism), ‘using affirmative language’ such as comforting

messages, ‘distancing and neutralizing’ (to depersonalize the criticism) and ‘using negotiating
language’ (to avoid imposing on the addressee.) (Wajnryb, 1993; cited by Minh, 2005: 15).
That point of view seems to be supported by Wajnryb (1995) who preferred a direct and
‘economical’ criticism rather than indirect, wordy, and ‘time-wasting’ one.
Along these perceptions, Toplak and Katz (2000) focused on the difference between
the speaker and the addressee when giving their judgments of the criticism given, “The
addressee tented to view sarcasm as more severe than the speaker intended.” However, they
also discovered that sarcasm was not perceived by the recipient as having as negative an
impact on the relationship between the interlocutors as direct criticisms.
Tracy and Eissenberg (1990) in their investigation into the preferences for message
clarity and politeness in giving criticism found that among people from different races and
gender the superiors tended to give more weight to message clarity that did subordinates and
that this preference also varied according to gender and race.
Overall, the speech act of criticizing has attracted many researchers thanks to its great
contribution to thoroughly deep understanding of the field. Yet, the definition of this speech
act is still not mentioned, which makes it difficult to compare and contrast the findings of the
various studies.
One of the most widely-used definition in the study of the field is Tracy et al’s (1987),
in which they consider both criticizing and complaining as the act of ‘finding fault’ and define
22
these two speech acts as ‘negative evaluation of a person or an act for which he/she is deemed
responsible.’ However, Tracy et al’s (1987: 56) suggest two main points to distinguish
between criticizing and complaining, which are “content and form and the salient role
identity” of the giver and the receiver: criticisms are usually associated with higher social
status and complaints with lower social status, although there may also be exceptions.
Another definition of criticism is found in House and Kasper (1981), who consider
criticisms, accusations, and reproaches as different kinds of complaints. Their reasons for this
are that all of these speech acts share the same two features, namely “post-event” and “anti-
speaker”. However, one might argue against this definition at least on the following grounds.
Firstly, a criticism does not necessarily have to be always targeted at an event which happens

earlier in the sense used by House and Kasper. It can also be made about something static,
permanent, and independent of chronological time such as a person’s personality or
appearance. Secondly, the feature “anti-speaker” seems more applicable to complaints than to
criticisms as pointed out by Tracy et al. (1987). Both the illocutionary force and the
illocutionary point that a critic and a complainer intend are inherently different. In criticizing,
S may intend H to try to improve to his or her own benefits, or S just may wish to express his
or her opinion known. In complaining, S implies that something bad has happened to himself
or herself, or that H has done something bad to him or her and therefore expects a repair from
the latter. Thus, criticisms are usually, though not necessarily, associated with constructive
attitudes or at least with non-self involvement, which is not the case with complaints.
In light of this discussion, it is apparent that compared to other speech acts, our
understanding of the speech act of criticizing is rather limited due to the fact that this speech
act is under-researched in literature. It is therefore necessary that more studies be conducted to
shed lights on the pragmatic properties of criticizing, thus supplementing the existing body of
speech act research, which is presently confined to a rather small set of speech acts. (Ellis,
1994).
I.4. THEORIES OF POLITENESS

23
“Politeness is basic to the production of social order, and a precondition of human
cooperation … any theory which provides an understanding of this phenomenon at the
same time goes to the foundation of human social life.”
(Gumper, cited by Brown and Levinson, 1987)
It can be interpreted from Gumper’s words that politeness is so crucial a notion in real-
life communication. That partially explains why most research into politeness as a linguistic
dimension has been centred on one of the following four perspectives : conversational-maxims
(Lakoff, 1973; Leech, 1983), face-saving (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987), social norms
(Jespersen, 1965), and conversational-contracts (Fraser, 1975; Fraser and Nolen, 1981; Fraser,
1990). These perspectives are presented as below:
I.4.1. Conversational-maxims

Lakoff (1973), basing on Grice’s construct of Conversational Principles, has described
the following three different politeness sub-rules a speaker might follow in choosing to be
polite :
Rule 1. DON’T IMPOSE
This is the most formal rule and appropriate to situations in which there is an
acknowledged difference in power and status between the participants. Accordingly, S
will avoid, mitigate, or ask permission or apologize for making the addressee do
anything which A does not want to do. More particularly, a speaker chooses his acts
so as to minimize the extent which he imposes on the hearers, which means not giving
or seeking personal opinions, avoiding personal reference, avoiding reference to
family, personal problems, habit, and even avoiding earthy, slangthy, merely
emotional language, and any topics which are considered taboo.
24
Rule 2. OFFER OPTIONS
It is a more informal rule and appropriate to situations in which the participants
have approximately equal status and power, but are not socially close. In general, if S
wishes to persuade A of some view or course of action, S will phrase his speech so that
A does not have to acknowledge S’s intent.
Rule 3. ENCOURAGE FEELINGS OF CAMARADERIE
This rule is appropriate for close friends or intimates. In intimate politeness,
almost any topic of conversation is fair game, assuming that with a close friend, one
should be able to discuss anything. In contrast to informal politeness, the governing
principle here is not only to show an active interest in the other, but asking personal
questions and making personal remarks, but also to show regard and trust by being
open about the details of one’s own life, experiences, feelings, and the like.
In a later work, Lakoff (1990) states that those three sub-rules of politeness may not
necessarily have an equal weight in different cultures. European cultures, for example, may
prefer Distance (sub-rule 1), while Asian cultures can be Deferential (sub-rule 2) and modern
American culture to Camaraderie (sub-rule 3).
Leech (1983) introduces a number of maxims based on Gricean Cooperative Principle

that explain the relationship between sense and force in conversations. The main maxims are
presented as follows:
(1) Tact Maxim: Minimize hearer’s costs; maximize hearer’s benefit.
(2) Generosity Maxim: Minimize your own benefit; maximize your hearer’s benefit.
(3) Approbation Maxim: Minimize hearer’s dispraise; maximize hearer’s praise.
(4) Modesty Maxim: Minimize self-praise; maximize self-dispraise.
(5) Agreement Maxim: Minimize disagreement between yourself and others; maximize
agreement between yourself and others.
25