A comparative study on hedges in declining an invitation in english and vietnamese

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale of the study
The goal of learning a language, nowadays, is to be able to carry out effective
communication. In another words, to learn a language means to learn the
culture of the country where that language is spoken. One can have a wide
range

of vocabulary

and

a

sound

knowledge

of

grammar,

but

misunderstandings can still arise if we cannot apply pragmatic competence
appropriately .Thus, it is necessary to have certain understandings of the
culture where that language is spoken.
Human communication is a combination of cooperation and understanding.
Understanding social conventions and attention to such concepts as
politeness, and face, which are important to members in a particular culture,
will certainly enable us to better comprehend the different ways of speaking
by people from different cultures, thus helping eliminate ethnic stereotypes

and misunderstandings.
To have successful conversations, each interlocutor has to perform some
conversational principles such as the cooperative and the politeness
principles. Among them, politeness plays an important role in making
utterances in communicative process. Evenly, it also contribute in helping
speakers decide whether or not to produce the first pair part of the base
sequence in order to avoid failure in communication everyday social life,
people are sometimes invited to go somewhere or to do something. Accepting


an invitation is a delicate matter although it is much easier than declining as
the latter is a face- threatening act. However, there are situations in which
invites cannot avoid declining.
Decline, as the word refusal itself, like other speech acts, occur in all
languages. The speech act of refusal has been looked at by many researchers.
However, they are mainly based on literary works either published or
uploaded in the internet and English speaking materials written by native
speakers.
This paper focuses on speech acts of invitation declining performed by native
speakers of English and then compare them to those performed by
Vietnamese native speakers. The research will first shed light on how learners
think and react when declining invitation in cross-cultural. It aims to
investigate the similarities and differences in English and Vietnamese to help
the Vietnamese learners overcome the difficulties caused the interfere of two
cultures when they face the sticky cases of declining invitations, create the
tactfulness and flexibility in language use for both Vietnamese learners of
English and English-speaking learners of Vietnamese with the maxim
declared in a Vietnamese proverb: “Lời nói chẳng mất tiền mua/ Lựa lời mà
nói cho vừa long nhau”. (“You don’t have to buy words, so don’t let them hurt
the feeling of others.”). It also helps to enhance and improve language

communicative competence of Vietnamese learners of English. Furthermore,
the study is a hope to give some reliable suggestions for teaching declining
invitations in particular, and raise the importance of applying cross-cultural
activities to teaching and learning English in Vietnam


2. Aims and objectives of the study
• Find out the similarities and differences in the way Vietnamese
and English speakers using hedge when declining an invitation.
• Help avoid potential cross-cultural conflicts between Vietnamese
and English speakers, with focus on the proper use of hedging in
invitation declining.
• Helps to enhance and improve language communicative
competence of Vietnamese learners of English
• Give some suggestions on teaching hedging in the situations of
invitation declining.

3. Research questions
1. What are the major similarities and differences in the ways native

speakers of English and native speakers of Vietnamese using hedges
to decline invitations?
2. Do social distance, relative power, and gender affect the choice of

hedging strategies by native speakers of English and Vietnamese
native speakers?

4. Scope of the study
The study focuses on speech acts of invitation declining performed by
native speakers of English and then compare them to those performed

by Vietnamese native speakers in order to investigate the similarities
and differences between the two groups of participants under the light
of cross-cultural perspective


5. Design of the study
The thesis consists of three parts:
Part A: Introductions, this part presents the overview of the thesis
including rationale, aims and objectives, research questions, scope and
design of the study
Part B: Development, this part consists of four chapters:
Chapter 1: Literature review, this chapter provides the theoretical
background including speech act theory, politeness strategies,
pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics
Chapter 2: Methodology, this chapter focuses on presenting research
participants, research procedure, data collection, as well as methods of
analysis.
Chapter 3: Findings and discussion, this chapter presents the results
gained in survey questionnaires and observation and discusses the
similarities and differences in how invitations speech acts are declined
in English and Vietnamese as well as the influence of three variables to
the choice of inviting forms of two groups of participants.
Part C: Conclusions, this part summaries the major findings recorded
during the making of the thesis, presents the limitations of the study,
provides some suggestions for further research


PART B: INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1.Generalization of speech acts

1.1.1 Definitions of speech acts
J. Austin takes the pioneering role in formulating the theory of speech acts. In
his first book discussed in the theory of speech act entitled “How to do things
with words (1962)”, he assumes that language not only functions as stating
and describing things but also as performing acts. He gives examples that an
apology or a promise conveys psychological or social practice and takes place
at the right time when someone apologizes or promises, not before the actual
action. He also points out that the declarative sentences are not only used to
say things or describe states of affairs but also used to do things. According to
Austin, when people produce utterances, they often perform actions via those
utterances. These actions are called speech acts: such as apology, complaint,
compliment, invitation, promise, or request.
Searle (1976: p.16) pointed out that : “the unit of linguistic communication is
not, as has generally been supposed, the symbol, word or sentence, but rather
the production or issuance of the symbol or word or sentence in the
performance of the speech act”. This is only expresses information through
words but also performs certain functions such as promising, inviting,
questing, wishing, etc… in everyday communication. In addition, in everyday
use of language, the act may occur either before or after the utterance is


produced. An apology or an expression of congratulation belongs to the type
of speech acts taking place after the propositional act. For example, in the
utterance “I am so sorry, I broke your car”, the speaker expresses regret for a
past act. On the contrary, a promise or a request is uttered before the act
actually occurs, as in “I’ll pay you back tomorrow”. The action of paying
money is done after the speaker produces the utterance.
Paltridge (2000, p.15) defines that a speech act is an utterance that serves a
function in communication. Some examples are an apology, greeting, request,
complaint, invitation, compliment or refusal. A speech act might contain just

one word such as "No" to perform a refusal or several words or sentences
such as: "I' m sorry, I can't, I’ll be on duty this weekend". It is important to
mention that speech acts include real-life interactions and require not only
knowledge of the language but also appropriate use of that language within a
given culture. Socio-cultural variables like authority, social distance, and
situational setting influence the appropriateness and effectiveness of
politeness strategies used to realize directive speech acts such as requests
Yule (1996, p.47), another famous linguist, defines that "in attempting to
express themselves, people do not only produce utterances containing
grammatical structures and words, they perform actions via those
utterances." According to him, actions performed via utterances are speech
acts. In daily communication, people perform speech acts when they offer an
apology, greeting, complaint, invitation, compliment or refusal. Since people
often do more things with words than merely convey what words encode,
speech acts have to be seen from real-life interactions. For example: “Could
you open the window” is a request more than a question. In the same way,


when a student talks to his friend, “ We’re having a party on Saturday
evening and wanted to know if you’d like to join us” is an invitation more
than a question. Moreover, speech acts require not only knowledge of any
languages but also the culture of the country where this language is use. For
examples in Vietnamese when we utter: “Where are you going?” means we
are greeting the people we meet.

1.1.2 Classification of speech acts
According to Austin (1962), a speaker can perform three acts:
• Locutionary act: the act of saying something in the full sense of
“say”
• Illocutionary act: the act performed in saying something

• Perlocutionary act: the act performed by or as a result of saying
For instance, in a response to A’s statement “I am gonna marry her in the next
2 months”, B utters “Are you kidding me? How come? Way too fast” to make
a question. This is known as illocutionary act. However, this utterance
conveys the assumption that the hearer A will recognize it as a signal of
disagreement. This is generally known as perlocutionary act.
Searl (1965), basing on the speakers’ intention, presents one of the most
influential and widely used classifications of speech acts. His classification
consists of five broad types, namely:
• Representatives (Assertives): commit the speaker to something
being the case such as assertions, reports, conclusions, descriptions,
etc…


Exercise may be just as good as medication to treat heart disease
• Directives: the speaker gets the hearer to do something. This class
includes order, request, challenge, invite, etc…
Would you like some coffee?
• Commisieves: commit the speaker himself to some future action
such as promise, refusal, threat, swear, etc…
I swear I don’t know what to tell her.
• Expressives: express feelings and attitudes about a state of affairs
such as apology, compliment, thanks, etc…
I sincerely thank for your help.
• Declaratives: change the world via utterance. This includes many of
those which Austin first considered as performatives
You aren't lazy.
According to Yule (1996), there is one general classification system that lists
five types of general functions performed by speech acts including
declarations, representatives, expressives, directives, and commissives. He

also presents a table showing speech acts classification as follows:
Speech act types

Direction of fit

S=speaker
X=situation

Declarations

words change the world S causes X

Representatives

makes words fits the world

S believes X

Expressives

makes words fits the world

S feels X

Directives

make the world fits words

S wants X

Commissives

make the world fits words

S intends X


1.2 . Politeness theory
1.2.1 Politeness strategies
Politeness is one of the most important aspects of human communication. In
English, politeness may be described as a form of behavior which is exercised
in order to consolidate and promote relationship between individuals or, at
least, to keep it undamaged. According to Leech (1983), politeness means to
minimize the effect of impolite statement or expression (negative politeness)
and maximize the effects of polite illocutions (positive politeness).
Early work on politeness by Goffman (1967,p. 77) describes politeness as
“the appreciation an individual shows to another through avoidance or
presentation of rituals”. Lakoff (1973) suggests that if one wants to succeed
in communication, the message must be conveyed in a clear manner. Fraser
and Nolan (1981) define politeness as a set of constraints of verbal behavior
while Leech (1983) sees it as forms of behavior aimed at creating and
maintaining harmonious interaction. He also considers the Politeness
Principle as part of the principles for interpersonal rhetoric. He presents six
maxims for the Politeness Principle (Leech 1983, pp. 132-139):
• Tact maxim: Minimize cost to other. Maximize benefit to other
• Generosity maxim: Minimize benefit to self. Maximize cost to self.
• Approbation maxim: Minimize dispraise of other. Maximize
dispraise of self.
• Modesty maxim: Minimize praise of self. Maximize praise of
other.

• Agreement maxim: Minimize disagreement between self and other.
Minimize agreement between self and other


• Sympathy maxim: minimize antipathy between self and other.
Minimize sympathy between self and other
According to Brown and Levinson (1987), “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”. They set out to develop a model
of politeness which will have validity across cultures. The common factor in
Lakoff’s (1975), Leech’s (1983), and Brown and Levinson’s(1978, 1987)
approaches is that they all claim, explicitly or implicitly, the universality
of their principles for linguistic politeness. The general idea is to understand
various strategies for interactive behaviors based on the fact that people
engage in rational behaviors to achieve the satisfaction of certain wants.

1.2.2 Politeness in Vietnamese language
In Vietnam, politeness is highly considered. Everyday courses of action and
lifestyle should be based on the grounds of morality than reasonability. In
former times, politeness was considered more important than education itself.
Students of Confucian culture were taught tiên học lễ, hậu học văn, or “behave
oneself before studying” (tiên: first, học: study, lễ: good manners, hậu: later,
học: study, văn: knowledge) (Luu 2004).
Vietnamese society is no longer as agriculturally dominated as it once was. It
has become industrialized and is subject to increasing globalization. A large
percentage of the population has to conform to the norms and patterns of
industrial life, with changing lifestyles and ways of thinking. However, there

are many innate characteristics that Vietnamese people still observe in their
daily life, though it is a hectic lifestyle. One of those unchanged thinking
modes is that of indirectness. The Vietnamese seldom use a direct approach in
their dealings. To do so indicates a lack of tact or delicacy. Directness is
appreciated in the Western world, but not in Vietnam (Crawford
1966).Moreover, in the Vietnamese culture, when asking such questions as
“Where are you going”, “What are you doing”. "Are you married ?", "How
old are you ?", " How much do you earn a month?", people simply want to
show their concern for others, with no motive other than facilitating and
making the distance between communicators closer and friendlier, thus
enhancing solidarity. These questions, on the other hand, are considered
intrusive to privacy in non-Confucian societies. Marital status, age, income,
and religion are matters that people usually refrain from discussing when they
are engaged in everyday social conversation, especially with someone that
they do not know well enough. With regard to politeness strategies in decline,
Vietnamese have some social norms that require conversant to be able to
decline in a polite manner. This fact has modified the thinking and behaviors
of VEs. Some have successfully become very fluent in English Nonetheless,
when resorting to different ways of refusing; they tend to be more indirect
than their English-speaking counterparts. This study aims to discuss this
phenomenon in English language learning and teaching in Vietnamese
context.

1.3The notion of face and Face-threatening act
The main issue of politeness is the notion of face. Face is defined as “the
public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” (Brown and


Levinson 1987, p.61). "Face" associates with the English idiom to lose face
which means “to do something which makes other people stop respecting you;

to not maintain your reputation and the respect of others”. Brown and
Levinson treat the aspects of face as “basic wants”, and distinguish between
positive face and negative face. Positive face is interpreted as the want of
every member to be desirable to, at least, some others, whereas negative face
is the want of every “competent adult member” for his actions to be
unimpeded by others (1987, p.62).“Face” is “something that is emotionally
invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced and must be
constantly attended to in interaction” (Brown and Levinson 1978, p.66). In
everyday discourse, we often defer to interlocutors by avoiding subtle and
personal topics, we reassure our partners, and we avoid open disagreement. If
we realize that our messages are not clear to the listeners, we highlight
important items and mark background information. When we do not
understand other persons, we give non-verbal or non-threatening feedback to
that effect. By doing so, we are taking the “face” of both ourselves and of the
hearers into account. According to Goffman (1967), there may be several
reasons why people want to save their face. They may have become attached
to the value on which this face has been built, they may be enjoying the
results and the power that their face has created, or they may be nursing
higher social aspirations for which they will need this face. Goffman also
defines “face work”, the way in which people maintain their face. This is done
by presenting a consistent image to other people. And one can gain or lose
face by improving or spoiling this image. The better that image, the more
likely one will be appreciated. People also have to make sure that in the
efforts to keep their own face, they do not in any way damage the others’
face. “In everyday social interactions ,people generally behave as if their


public self-image, or their face wants, will be respected. If a speaker says
something that represents a threat to another individual’s expectations
regarding self-image, it is described as a face threatening act. Alternatively,

given the possibility that some action might be interpreted as a threat to
another’s face, the speaker can say something to lessen the possible threat.
This is called a face saving act.”(Yule 1996, p.61).
In daily communication, people may give a threat to another individual’s selfimage, or create a “face-threatening act”. These acts impede the freedom of
actions (negative face), and the wish that one’s wants be desired by others
(positive face) – by either the speaker, or the addressee, or both. Requests
potentially threaten the addressee’s face because they may restrict the
addressee’s freedom to act according to his/her will (Holtgraves 2002, p.40).
Decline, on the other hand, may threaten the addressee’s positive face
because they may imply that what he/she says is not favored by the speaker.
In an attempt to avoid FTAs, interlocutors use specific strategies to minimize
the threat according to a rational assessment of the face risk to participants.
The following figure shows strategies that are chosen when a speaker does an
FTA to a listener. According to Brown and Levinson (1987), the lower the
number preceding the strategies, the higher chance of face threat.

1.4. Hedge
1.4.1 The notion of hedge
The word ‘‘hedge’’ or ‘‘hedging’’ can be broadly defined as referring to a
barrier, limit, defense or the act or means of protection (see the Oxford
English Dictionary vs. hedge and hedging).The term ‘‘hedge’’ or ‘‘hedging’’


itself was introduced first by G. Lakoff (1972) in his article “Hedges: A Study
in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts”. Lakoff argues that the
logic of hedges requires serious semantic analysis for all predicates. He
defines hedges as words whose function is to make meaning fuzzier or less
fuzzy as follows: “For me, some of the most interesting questions are raised
by the study of words whose meaning implicitly involves fuzziness - words
whose job it is to make things fuzzier or less fuzzy. I will refer to such words

as 'hedges'”.(1972:195)
In his article "Fuzzy-Set - Theoretic Interpretation of Linguistic Hedges",
Zadeh (1972) followed Lakoff in using the new designation ‘hedge’ and
analyzed English hedges (such as simple ones like ‘very’, ‘much’, ‘more or
less’, ‘essentially’, and ‘slightly’ and more complex ones like ‘technically’
and ‘practically’) from the point of view of semantics and logics. The author
assumes that hedges are operators that act on the fuzzy set representing the
meaning of their operands. Hedges vary in their dependency on context.
However, with the first develop of linguistics, hedging phenomena, seen as
purely semantic phenomenon, have been attacked from the perspective of
pragmatics, thus said to contribute to the interpersonal function of language,
by which we are able to “recognize the speech function, the type of offer,
command, statement, or question, the attitudes and judgments embodied in it,
and the rhetorical features that constitute it as a symbolic act” (Halliday and
Hassan, 1985:45).
Brown & Levinson (1978, 1987), dealing with politeness in verbal
interaction from the point of view of pragmatics, viewed hedges as a device to


avoid disagreement. Brown and Levinson (1987: 145) define ‘hedges’ as:
“…a particle, word or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a
predicate or noun phrase in a set; it says of that membership that it is partial,
or true only in certain respects, or that it is more true and complete than
might be expected”. (1987:146)
The concept of hedge/ hedging is understood in different ways in the
literature. Hedges have been referred to as compromisers (James,1983),
downtoners (Quirk at all, 1972,1985), understatements (Hubler, 1983),
weakeners (Brown and Levinson, 1987), downgraders (House and Kasper,
1981), softeners (Crystal & Davy, 1975), backgrounding terms (Low,1996),
approximators and shields (Prince at all.1982) and pragmatic devices

(Subble& Homes, 1995), mitigators(Labov and Fanshel 1977, Stubbs, 1983),
tentativeness (Homes, 983,1995) and vagueness (Channell 1994).
Hedges are sometimes extended to the area of gambits. They are
conversations as the various social, psychological, and communicative
signals. In Richards’s definition (50:118) “Gambits may be used to show
whether the speaker’s contribution adds new information, develops something
said by previous speaker, express an opinion, agreement, etc”
Vietnamese linguists such as Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (2000), Hoàng Phê (2002),
Nguyễn Quang (2003) also view hedging as a pragmatic phenomenon.
Referring the so-called Quán Ngữ, a possible equivalent to gambit in his work
: “Từ và nhận diện từ trong tiếng Việt” Nguyễn Thiện Giáp argues “Gambits
are repeatedly-used expression in discourses for coherence, cohesion,
communication, emphasis on ideas”


Hoàng Phê in his Vietnamese Dictionary states that ‘hedges are expressions
which

are

preventive

from

[unexpected]

misunderstanding

and

reaction/responses to what is said’. According to Nguyễn Quang (2003),
hedging is a strategy used simply to hedge the propositional content.
In this paper, we mainly view hedging from pragmatic perspective. In
pragmatics, the concept of hedging is mainly linked to the concept of speech
act and politeness phenomena. A hedge is either defined as one or more
lexico-syntactical elements that are used to modify a proposition, or else, as a
strategy that modifies a proposition. A hedge can appear before or after a
proposition. The term ‘hedging’ is used to refer to the textual strategies of
using linguistic means as hedges in a certain context for specific
communicative purposes
Hedging, when being viewed from pragmatic perspective, is surely linked to a
very common pragmatic perception: speech act, as speech act is “one of the
central phenomena that any general pragmatic theory must account for” (S.C
Levinson 1983:226). Hedging, therefore, can be treated as speech acts, as
hedging is set up to perform intentions and to express the attitudes of the
speakers, for examples: to make an excuse, a question, to give thanks,
apologies, promises etc. The act of hedging can consist of different means,
including hedging devices (or hedges).

"If you hedge against something unpleasant or unwanted that might affect
you, you do something which will protect you from it. If you hedge or hedge a
problem or question you avoid answering the question or committing yourself


to a particular action or decision." (Collins 1987)
Hedge, considered to be the devices of politeness, is an important factor that
determines the success in choosing language from the point of view of culture
or society as well as from the point of view of linguistics. According to Janet
Homes (1995:75), "Hedges attenuate or reduce the strength of the utterance.
They damp down its force or intensity or directness".

1.4.2 Classification of Hedges
According to diversity in research surrounding hedges, there are many terms
of how they are defined and labeled. Traditionally, hedges were considered to
be “ semantic modifiers” or “ approximations” in the spirit of the original
definition by R. Lakoff ( 1972). She is considered with hedges in terms of the
semantic contribution they make to the staments in which they occur
(Loewenberg1982:196), insofar as they can weaken or strengthen category
membership. E. F. Prince ,Frader and Bosk divided hedges into two groups:
approximators and shields:

3.1 Approximators
Approximators refer to the expressions which call change the original
meaning of a proposition or provide alternative meaning to the proposition
according to different situations. Simply speaking approximators can affect
the original truth condition of the proposition, sometimes they even change
the meaning of the proposition. They can be divided into adaptors and
rounders.


3.1.1 Adaptors
Adaptors can be regarded as modifiers of terms to suit a non-proto typical
situation. To put it more specifically, adaptors are expressions which reveal
the degree of truth of the original proposition.
Occasionally the proposition is correct or it is partially correct; the adaptors
help to express the degree of correctness. The examples are as follows: sort
of, kind of, somewhat, really, almost, quite, entirely, a little bit, to some
extent, more or less, etc. The uncertain tone of the speaker is obvious through
using adaptors. For example:
The news was somewhat of a surprise．

In the above mentioned example, the original degree of certainty and
absoluteness has been changed in accordance with the real situations through
the using of “somewhat”.

3.1.2 Rounders
Rounders indicates the inexact preciseness of terms. They are often used
when it comes to measuring, especially if the exact data is missing or precise
information is unavailable. The examples of rounders are like approximately,
essential1y, about, something between...and…, roughly, etc. For example:
Ballet is essentially a middle-class interest．
In the above mentioned example, the expression “essentially” makes the
original accurate data less precise

3.2 Shields
Shields do not affect the truth condition but reflect the degree of speakers’
commitments to the truth value of the whole proposition. In other words,


shields indicate that speakers are not fully committed to the validity of the
proposition they are conveying. Shields can be further classified into
plausibility shields and attribution shields.

3.2.1 Plausibility Shields
Plausibility shields are used to show speakers’ own attitude towards a
proposition. Mostly, they express speakers’ doubtful attitude or uncertainty of
the truth value of propositions. Consequently, they usually include first
person pronouns so as to show speakers’ stance that their statement is not
absolutely right or true since it is just their own opinions. Plausibility shields
include I think, I guess, I believe, I am afraid, I assume, I suppose, as far as
I’m concerned, seem, etc.

e.g. As far as I’m concerned, his proposal is the best of all that we have
received．
In the above mentioned example, the expression “as far as I’m concerned”
does not affect the truth condition of the original propositions; however, they
are reflections of the speakers’ personal stances. Meanwhile the speakers’
uncertainty can be seen from the example.

3.2.2 Attribution shields
Attribution shields are also used to express the attitude of guess or doubt, but
they attribute the degree of uncertainty toward a proposition to another party.
So by attribution shields, the speaker’s attitude is expressed indirectly.
Attribution shields include according to, as is well known, the possibility will
be, someone suggests that…, etc.
E.g It is reported that the original habitat of this kind of deer is in Northern
Africa.


In the above mentioned example, the attribution shields like “it is reported
that” helps the speakers to avoid taking the responsibility if the proposition is
false. No matter whether the source of information is told or not, the speaker
expresses his/her opinion indirectly.

1.4.3 Hedges in Invitation Declining
It is noticed that normally, an invitation decline is a set of speech acts.
According to Murphy and Neu (1996), a speech act set is a combination of
individual speech acts that, when produced together, comprise a complete
speech act. Often more than one discrete speech act is necessary for a speaker
to develop the overarching communicative purpose –or illocutionary force –
desired.
When declining an invitation we commit an act of refusal, as the word decline

itself, according to the Longman Dictionary, means ‘refuse to accept’.
However, declining an invitation sometimes is not simply saying no to an
invitation. When declining an invitation, speakers might produce different
individual speech acts, for example,
(1) What a pity! (2) I’ve got an appointment today. (3) I can’t come to your
birthday party.
(1) is an expression of regret, ‘What a pity’, followed by (2) an excuse ‘I’ve
got an appointment today’, followed by (3) a direct refusal, ‘I can’t come to
your birthday party’. In this case, to perform one communicative purpose of
declining an invitation, the speaker is employing a speech act set, which
consists of many other individual speech acts.
In the example above (1) and (2) are hedges which combine with the direct
refusal to makeup a speech act set. They play as individual speech acts in the


whole set.
Within the larger act of communicating something, Austin (1965) identifies
three components speech acts: the locutionary act - the act of saying
something as might be reported in direct or indirect discourse, the
illocutionary act as would be performed in saying something—acts of
proposing, promising, apologizing, etc., and the perlocutionary act identified
primarily in terms of the outcome or consequences of a communicative effort.
Of these three classes, the illocutionary act counts as Austin’s great discovery.
These three acts are ultimately related because normally, in a meaningful
utterance, ‘Speakers (S) says something to Hearer (H); in saying something to
H, S does something; and by doing something, S affects H.’ (Bach & Harnish,
1979:3)
Basing on the five categories set by Searl, it can be said that hedges in
invitation declining belong to different types of speech acts. It can be
assertive when the speaker is giving an excuse ‘I’ve to leave now.’, or ‘I am

busy.’ If the speaker is asking about the invitation or giving some
suggestions, for examples: ‘When is the wedding party?’ / ‘Why not this
weekend?’ it can be considered Directives. Hedges are Commissivse if
speaker is talking about his plans or arrangements, or making promises: ‘I’ll
be on duty all day on Saturday’/‘I will give you a hand in preparing the
wedding’. In the case when speaker express their feelings about the invitation,
such as appreciation, regret, confusion etc. Hedges are Expressive.
Declarations hardly appear among hedges in invitation declining.
Hedging in general and hedging in invitation declining in particular is


apparently a phenomenon of language. And as language is believed to be
woven into the very fabric of every human culture, it can be said that hedging
in invitation declining is an element of culture.
Although there are plenty disagreements on the definition of culture and the
relation of language and culture, a majority of people agree that culture
overwhelms language and language reflects culture. Nevertheless, cultural
features vary from region to region, even when they speak the same language.
That is why their reflections in language are different. Hedging in invitation
declining is not an exception. It is influenced by cultures. There are plenty
dissimilarities between Vietnamese and American cultures though in this era
of globalization, cultural transfers are commonly seen. Cultures rooted so
deeply in people’s awareness that cannot be changed easily in a short time.
Each culture still has its own characteristics and dignity. These dissimilarities
between two cultures often create a phenomenon called cultural shock when
people from the two cultures endeavor to communicate.
The use of hedges in invitation declining by Vietnamese and American people
is surely affected by cultural features. To partially help avoid the cultural
shock in this area, the following part will analyze the data collected from both
Vietnamese and American informants to see the similarities as well as the

differences in the way Vietnamese and American people employ hedges to
make an invitation decline.


1.5 Factors affecting directness and indirectness in human interaction
There are many socio-cultural factors affecting the directness-indirectness
of utterances. Nguyen (1998) proposes 12 factors that, in his view, may affect
the choice of directness and indirectness in communication:
1- Age: the old tend to be more indirect than the young
2-Sex: females prefer indirect expression.
3-Residence: the rural population tends to use more indirectness than the
urban.
4-Mood : while angry, people tend to use more indirectness.
5-Occupation: those who study social sciences tend to use more indirectness
than those who study natural sciences.
6-Personality: the extroverted tend to use more directness than the introverted.
7-Topic: while referring to a sensitive topic, a taboo, people usually opt
for indirectness.
8-Place: when at home, people tend to use more directness than when they are
elsewhere.
9-Communicative environment/setting: when in an informal climate, people tend
to express themselves in a direct way.
10-Social distance: those who have closer relations tend to talk in a more direct
way.
11-Time pressure: when in a hurry, people are likely to use direct expressions.
12-Position: when in a superior position, people tend to use more directness to
their inferiors.
These factors help to determine the strategies as well as the number of
semantic formulae used when speakers perform the act of refusing. A

semantic formula may consist of a word, a phrase, or a sentence which meets
a given semantic criterion or strategy (Fraser 1981). A semantic formula is
described as “ the means by which a particular speech act is accomplished, in
terms of the primary content of an utterance, such as a reason, an
explanation, or an alternative” (Bardovi-Harlig and Hartford 1991, p.48).

1.6

Social Distance and Social Status

1.6.1 Social distance:
Social distance is one of the factors that determine politeness behaviors
(Leech1983; Brown and Levinson 1987). The notion of social distance refers
to the consideration of “the roles people are taking in relation to one another
in a particular situation as well as how well they know each other” (p.126),
which means the degree of intimacy between interlocutors. Brown and
Levinson (1987) claim that politeness increases with social distance. On the
other hand, Wolfson (1988) mentions that there is very little solidarityestablishing speech behavior among strangers and intimates because of the
relative pre-existing familiarity of their relationship, whereas the negotiation
of relationships is more likely to happen among friends.

1.6.2 Social status
The role of social status in communication involves the ability to recognize
each other’s social position (Leech 1983; Brown and Levinson 1987; Holmes
1995). Holmes(1995) claimed that people with high social status are more
prone to receive deferential behavior, including linguistic deference and


negative politeness. Thus those with lower social status are inclined to avoid

offending those with higher status and show more respect to them.

1.7 Pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics
As the study is centered on the speech act of invitation declining in terms of
cross - cultural perspective. It is, therefore, necessary to look at some basic
information on what is called pragmatics and cross - cultural pragmatics.
Pragmatics, since its appearance, has excited great attention from many
leading linguists. Enormous efforts have gone into reaching a satisfactory
definition of this linguistic phenomenon. The notion of pragmatics is clarified
by Richards, Platt, & Webber (1992, p.284) as follows: Pragmatics includes
the study of: How the interpretation and use of utterances depend on
knowledge of the real world; How speakers use and understand speech acts;
How the structure of sentences is influenced by the relationship between the
speaker and the hearer. Of the above issues, the study of speech acts is
considered to be of high importance to pragmatics. Yule (1996, p.3) defines
pragmatics as follows: Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning.
Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning. Pragmatics is the study of how
more get communicated than is said. Pragmatics is the study of the expression
of relative distance. As "every culture has its own repertoire of characteristic
speech acts" and "different cultures find expression in different system of
speech acts and different speech acts become entrenched, and to some extent,
codified in different languages" (Wierzbicka (1991, p.25). Nguyen Thien
Giap (2007) states that in different cultures, speech acts are performed in
different ways through different languages.