Thesis: Directness in conversations in american english and vietnamese A comparative study

i

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
DONG THAP UNIVERSITY

LE THU HA

DIRECTNESS IN CONVERSATIONS IN AMERICAN
ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE – A COMPARATIVE STUDY

Branch: English Pedagogy
Degree: Higher education

BA THESIS

Supervisor: Phan Ngoc Thach M.A.

DONG THAP, 2012


i

DECLARATION
I confirm that the thesis entitled “Directness in conversations in American English
and Vietnamese - A comparative study” has been performed and interpreted
exclusively by myself. I clarify that the work is submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirement of the BA degree and has not been submitted elsewhere in any other
form for the fulfillment of any degree or qualification.

The author
Le Thu Ha

ii

ACKNOWLEGMENTS

I would first and foremost like to thank my supervisor, Phan Ngoc Thach M.A. for
giving me support, guideline, and feedback when I carried out my thesis.
I would also like to extend my gratefulness to all of the teachers in Foreign
Language Department who provide me with necessary help as well as good
suggestions whenever I get into trouble.
Last but not least, my special thanks are sincerely sent to my parents, my
friends and so many others who continuously offer spiritual support and
encouragement during the process of doing this thesis.

Le Thu Ha


iii

ABSTRACT
Students of English in Vietnam need a general consciousness of directness and
indirectness since they will benefit in many aspects. First, knowing how and when to
use directness and indirectness for communicating purposes is a way serving
politeness and face saving. That good point is for social interaction. In the field of
teaching, directness and indirectness can be used by the teacher to balance the
quality and quantity of work- share between the teacher and the students and
improve the teacher-student relationship.
Vietnamese students of English have difficulties in adjusting the degree of
directness and indirectness in their conversations. Evidently, various cross- cultural

values build up diverse language styles. Directness and indirectness in conversations
do not except and the cultural gap between Eastern and Western countries
unintentionally causes difficulties for the students. Moreover, the condition for
students to sharpen their flexibility in choosing appropriate degrees of directness and
indirectness is still limited because their sensitivity to directness and indirectness is
not put in the adequate attention.
The thesis “Directness in conversations in English and Vietnamese- A comparative
study” is carried out with four specific purposes. The first purpose is to remind students
of English of the values of directness and indirectness in aspects of life and career as
discussing about the importance of directness and indirectness. Secondly, a general
summary about directness and indirectness is given to provide people with a firm
foundation about directness and indirectness. Thirdly, directness in English as well as
indirectness in Vietnamese is investigated to find out similarities and differences between
the two. Lastly, hopefully, this research can give some indications for directness and
indirectness to teachers and students of English.


1

CONTENT
DECLARATION ..................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEGMENTS .......................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................... iii
CONTENT ...............................................................................................................1
Chapter 1 ..................................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................4
1.1Motivation ...........................................................................................................4
1.2 Aims of the study................................................................................................5
1.3 The research questions ........................................................................................5
1.4 Significance of the study.....................................................................................6

1.5 Related previous study ........................................................................................7
1.6 Organization of the thesis ...................................................................................8
Chapter 2 ..................................................................................................................9
LITERATURE REVIEW .........................................................................................9
2.1 Related theory ....................................................................................................9
2.1.1 A successful conversation ................................................................................9
2.1.2 Cooperation in conversation .......................................................................... 10
2.1.3 Speech acts ....................................................................................................11
2.2 Directness in conversations ............................................................................... 13
2.2.1 Definition of directness in conversations........................................................ 13
2.2.2 The significance of directness in conversations .............................................. 14
2.2.3 The influences on directness usage ................................................................ 14
2.2.4 Indirectness versus directness ........................................................................ 16


2

2.3 High-context versus low-context culture ........................................................... 17
Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................ 20
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................20
3.1 Research questions ........................................................................................... 20
3.2 Research participants ........................................................................................ 20
3.2.1 The author .....................................................................................................20
3.2.2 The subjects ...................................................................................................20
3.3 Research procedure........................................................................................... 20
3.4 Research methods ............................................................................................. 21
3.4.1 Material analysis ............................................................................................ 21
3.4.2 Material generalization .................................................................................. 21
3.4.3 Comparison ...................................................................................................21
3.5 Summary .......................................................................................................... 21

Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................ 22
COMPARISION ....................................................................................................22
4.1 Similarities .......................................................................................................22
4.1.1 Both Vietnamese and American English involve some commonly general
purposes of using directness and indirectness in conversations ............................... 22
4.1.2 Devices of indirectness are the same in Vietnamese and American English ...22
4.1.2.1 Rhetorical strategies and markers ................................................................ 22
4.1.2.2 Lexical and Referential Markers .................................................................24
4.1.2.3 Syntactic Markers and Structures ................................................................ 26
4.1.3 Both Vietnamese and American use directness and indirectness abiding the
Cooperative principles ............................................................................................ 26
4.2 Differences .......................................................................................................27


3

4.2.1 Styles ............................................................................................................. 27
4.2.2 Degrees of directness ..................................................................................... 33
4.2.3 Reasons and purposes of using directness and indirectness ............................ 37
4.3 Conclusion about directness and indirectness in American English and
Vietnamese ............................................................................................................. 41
Chapter five ............................................................................................................ 42
IMPLICATIONS ....................................................................................................42
5.1 What should people notice about directness and indirectness in conversations ..42
5.2 Some exceptions of directness and indirectness in Vietnamese and American
English ................................................................................................................... 43
5.3 Implications for teachers ................................................................................... 44
5.4 Implications for students ................................................................................... 45
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................47

4

Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1Motivation
Ochs states that humans learn norms and rules of social interaction through
socialization in specific contexts (1986). Gayle (2002) also affirms that different
contexts regulate people‟s interaction behaviors and perceptions of behavioral
interactions of others in various ways. Therefore, people in different areas of the
world behave differently. Their behaviors also vary from one group to another in
the same nation. Differences also exist among various communities in terms of
status, gender, and context. Inevitably, it causes culture shocks. According to
Deena and Mara (1982), directness is one of the most necessary parts in the
American English using. Meanwhile, Jeffrey and Chinh (1997) believe that in
Asian cultures including Vietnamese one, directness is not a valued trait. Hence,
there are significant differences in using directness between American English
and Vietnamese, particularly in conversations. Certainly, these differences can
cause certain cross-cultural problems for American and Vietnamese speakers.
Approaching cross-culture seems to be one of the good ways to help students get
used to diverse conducts and improve their communicative competence.
Learning the use of directness in conversations in the two languages is a very
essential part to promote interactive effectiveness.
Cross-cultural study demands learner remarkable efforts. Therefore, doing
research on the use of directness in conversations is believed to be one of the
very first steps to approach it. Because of the limited time of exposure to crossculture, an absolute perception is obviously unconceivable to students of English
at Dong Thap University. However, learners‟ capacity for understanding and
interpreting communication styles and patterns will be widened once they work
hard to deal with intercultural problems. They not only can use appropriate styles
and patterns of communication, contact naturally but also can be more confident

in their conversations with less misunderstanding, shocks, disappointment,
anxiety, and unexpected events.


5

Conversations are very important in researches as well as in daily life. People can
raise communication effectiveness when they know the right way of exchange
either directly or indirectly in daily language. However, the number of
communication styles is uncountable, which cause problems for students of
English at Dong Thap University, especially students who work in Englishspeaking environment and communicate with English-speaking people.
Consequently, it is more and more essential for them to know how to use
conversations effectively to promote their communication skills. Actually,
suitable directness in conversations and teaching support more flourishing
communication, improved achievements, better relationships, and successful
teaching.
Such complexity and problems mentioned above, it makes the necessity of this
thesis “Directness in conversations in American English and Vietnamese - A
comparative study”. The research needs to be done. A desire to enrich knowledge
of English is indispensible. In addition, if the research is exact and becomes a
factual science one, it will be an adding reference about directness in
conversations for students of English at Dong Thap University.
1.2 Aims of the study
The research aims to:
-

Realize similarities and differences between American English and
Vietnamese directness in conversations

-

Indicate implications of learning and using directness in conversations for
students.

-

Support students in using conversations‟ directness in both English and
Vietnamese more effectively in order to avoid culture shocks.

1.3 The research questions
Are there any similarities and differences in using directness in conversations
between American English and Vietnamese?
What are some implications for learning and using directness in conversations?


6

1.4 Significance of the study
Directness plays a very essential role in daily life of American people as Deena
and Mara say, “American English strongly emphasizes directness in verbal
interaction” (2002, p. 20). They need brief and straight dialogues. Deborah
(2007) supposes that sometimes telling the complete truth can actually get
communicators into trouble. When people converse daily, unpredicted situations
may occur with their directness. In addition, Gayle asserts, “The more direct the
refusal, the more the threat to the person‟s face.” (2002, p. 3). Brown and
Levinson (1987) affirm “some degree of indirectness usually exists‟‟ (p. 56). To
balance directness and indirectness in conversations is not easy. Conversing used
in the right way brings about a lot of advantages. It gives people chances to
develop their personality and emotion, spend time more effectively, and improve
relationships and confidence.

Appropriate directness in conversations helps people understand and support
each other. They could recognize what the partner needs and what they should
do. Also, they could acknowledge their strong points and weak points from
which they could get lessons and experiences through frank advice. Apposite
conversations are good for community‟s sake because it could increase the
solidarity.
Clever and straight conversations have positive psychological effects on students.
In teaching, the teacher evaluates his students constructively and gives them
advice in a frank way, which could support students to know their strengths and
shortcomings. They may learn from the mistakes. Teacher‟s advice shows
students exactly what they need to do to perfect themselves. Sincere and straight
comments from the teacher could inspire students. This makes the students feel
that they are well-treated and cared.
In addition, the teacher offers them positive points of view. Clear and honest
conversations can be the motivation for students. They become interested in their
study. They want to overcome their shortcomings. Furthermore, students can
give their idea straight, which helps the teacher know what they need so that the


7

teacher can adjust the way of teaching. Moreover, open and practical
conversations can improve the relationship between teacher and students. In
general, appropriate directness in conversations helps teaching and studying
more successful.
In conclusion, appropriate directness helps people to avoid unexpected troubles
and struggles appearing in daily conversations, as well it supports teacher to be
helpful and reliable consultant. This thesis “Directness in conversations in
American English and Vietnamese - A comparative study” intentionally
recommends directness in daily life talk and in teaching to students. Furthermore,

an exciting point is that directness in conversations between American English
and Vietnamese are compared, which support students more cross cultural
knowledge and appropriate way of using directness in conversations.
1.5 Related previous study
Many scholars have been done researches on “directness”. Arthur (2001)
performs “Directness in the Use of African-American English”. He presented the
form, meaning and function of directness. Nevertheless, his work is not a
comparative study and it is about African-American English only. Gayle,
Mahmoud, and Waguida (2002) are also successful with their thesis “Directness
vs. Indirectness: Egyptian Arabic and US English communication style”. They
make clear communication style, directness and indirectness in term of refusals.
Their results were analyzed according to the frequency of strategy usage and
directness as related to country, gender, and status. However, their study is a
comparative study on Egyptian Arabic and American English. Both of the works
above are not related to Vietnamese language.
In Vietnam, there are studies on indirectness in Vietnamese such as “Meandering
speeches of Vietnamese” (2007) by Nguyen Dang Khanh and “Synonymous
sentences using meandering speeches” (2010) by Nguyen Huu Chuong. Also,
some contrastive researches on directness in Vietnamese and American English
are carried out. Nguyen Thi My Ngan did a research named “Refusing and offer
in English and Vietnamese- A contrastive analysis” in 2010. Besides, “Some


8

differences in requesting strategies in English-Vietnamese” was accomplished by
Do Thi Mai Thanh and Tran Thi Le Quynh in 2011. However, all the researches
mentioned above do not determine popularly same points and different points
between

the

two languages.
This thesis, a comparative study on directness in conversations in both American
English and Vietnamese, will demonstrate some common similarities and
differences between them, indicate implications of learning and using directness
in conversations for students, and support them in using conversations‟ directness
in both English and Vietnamese more effectively in order to avoid culture
shocks.
1.6 Organization of the thesis
The thesis comprises five main parts as introduction, literature review,
methodology, comparative study and implications.
The first chapter, introduction, includes motivation, aims of the study, research
questions, significance of the study, previous related studies, and organization of
the thesis.
The literature review chapter gives information about directness in conversations
with three sections. The first one is about related theories, the second is about
directness in conversations, and the last one is about low-context and
high-context cultures.
The third chapter, methodical chapter, composes of research questions, research
participants, research procedures, research methods, and summary.
Comparative study chapter will show similarities and differences between
directness in conversations in American English and Vietnamese.
The last chapter is implications, in which some approaches to master the
knowledge and advance the competence in using directness in conversations will
be presented.


9

Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Related theory
2.1.1 A successful conversation
Effective communication requires many things. One of the requirements is the
level of directness. To make a successful conversation, people need to adjust the
level of directness and indirectness in it. But first of all, a successful conversation
must
be defined.
Joan (2002) defined “Conversation is discourse mutually constructed and
negotiated in time between speakers; it is usually informal and unplanned” (p.
28). She also affirms that conversations usually occur in strings of related and
combined utterances. It means that each speaker is affected by what the previous
speaker said, and what speaker says affects what the next speaker says.
According to Joan (2002), a real conversation must perform required standards
which are exchange structure, turn-taking, adjacency pairs, and sequences.
Firstly, the exchange structure must be carried out in a fixed order of moves.
There are three basic moves: the initiation, the response, and the follow-up which
is abbreviated into IRF (Initiation-Response-Follow-up). In other words,
participants start up a conversation, response, and then follow up it.
Secondly, turn-taking helps participants show their cooperation in conversations.
Next, adjacency pairs are known as frequently occurring patterns in pairs of
utterances. Particularly, the utterance of one speaker makes a certain response of
the next speaker.
Lastly, certain sequences, which are stretches of utterances or turns, emerge in
conversations. These can be pre-sequences, insertion sequences, opening and
closing sequences. Pre-sequences prepare the ground for a further sequence and
signal the type of utterance to follow. Insertion sequences allow pairs to occur

10

embedded within other adjacency pairs. Openings tend to contain a greeting, an
enquiry after health and past reference. Pre-closing can be drawn out on
occasions and it can be long in British and North American conversations (Joan,
2002).
A successful conversation brings people a lot of benefits such as widening and
deepening people‟s relationship “Even the most casual of conversations have an
interactional function. Casual conversations in parties can have the practical task
of ascertaining whether the future social cohesion is possible or desirable and, for
some, whether establishing an intimate relationship is going to be feasible” said
Joan in 2002 (p.28).
2.1.2 Cooperation in conversation
Cooperation in conversations is also expressed through the way people talk direct or indirect. Use directness in a right way can reduce “face-threatening” and
show communicators‟ collaboration. Therefore, cooperation theory provides a
basic knowledge for directness researching.
Conversations are carried on efficiently with cooperation. Cooperation also helps
participants focus on the already identified items and use simple language to
mention the items in their own way. It makes sure that the participants can get
their partner‟s ideas.
Cooperation in conversation is nurtured by the cooperative principles, which are
frequently mentioned many books such as “Pragmatics and Discourse” by Joan
Cutting or “Studies in the Way of Words” by Paul Grice. According to Paul
Grice (1991), there are four maxims of the principles including maxims of
quantity, quality, relation, and manner which ensure a successful conversation.
The first maxim of the cooperative principles is the maxim of quantity “which
says that speaker should be as informative as required” (Joan, 2002, p. 35). It
means that maxim of quantity shoes people what should be included in their
conversations.

11

The second maxim is the maxim of quality. Joan (2002) affirms that maxim of
quality says people to be genuine and truthful. It encourages partakers to say
true things
The maxim of relation is the third one of cooperative principles. It says
participants in conversation to say something relevant to what they have heard or
what they have been said.
The last one is the maxim of manner which says people to be brief and orderly,
and avoid obscurity and ambiguity (Joan, 2002)
Those principles are also described clearly by Paul Grice in 1991 (p. 26, 27):
Quantity:
1. Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of
the exchange).
2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
Quality: Try to make your contribution one that is true
1. Do not say what you believe to be false.
2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
Relation: Be relevant
Manner: Be perspicuous
1. Avoid obscurity of expression.
2. Avoid ambiguity
3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
4. Be orderly.

2.1.3 Speech acts
Austin (as cited by Joan Cutting, 2002) defines speech acts as the actions
performed in saying something. Joan (2002) said, “the action performed when an
utterance is produced can be analyzed on three different levels” (p. 15). It was

analyzed in an example


12
Three students are sitting at the “bun-lunch”, the social occasion at which the university
lays on filled rolls and fruit juice on the first day of the course, to welcome the students
and help them get to know each other.
MM

I think I might go and have another bun.

AM

I was going to get another one.

BM

Could you get me a tuna and sweetcorn one please?

AM

Me as well? (Joan, 2002, p. 15)

The first level of the analysis is locutionary act which is the form of the words
uttered. The second one is illocutionary force or the function of the words, the
specific purpose of the speaker. The last one is perlocutionary effect known as
the effect on the hearer, the hearer‟s reaction.
Searle (as cited by Joan, 2002, p. 16) classifies speech acts into five macroclasses which are declarations, representatives, commissives, directives, and
expressives. The first class is declaration including words and expressions such
as “I beg”, “I declare”, and “I resign”. The second one is representatives which

contain words of cases such as describing, claiming, hypothesizing, insisting, and
predicting. The third class is commissives which excites the speaker‟s future
action with promising, offering, threatening, refusing, vowing and volunteering.
The fourth class is the directives which are known as forces making hearer do
something such as commanding, requesting, inviting, forbidding, suggesting, etc.
Expressives is the class in this analysis. It comprises speaker‟s feels like
apologizing, praising, congratulating, deploring, and regretting.
In addition, according to George (1996), there are two general types of speech
acts. The first one is direct speech act and the second one is indirect speech act.
We have a direct speech act when an easily recognized relationship between the
three structural forms (declarative, interrogative, imperative) and the three
general communicative functions (statement, question, command/ request). And
whenever there is indirect relationship between structure and a function, we have
an indirect speech act.
Speech acts are mentioned in this chapter because they are main parts
constructing conversations. Studying directness in conversations means studying


13

directness in some speech acts. Speech act theory provides the author of this
study a firmer theoretical background to do the research.
2.2 Directness in conversations
2.2.1 Definition of directness in conversations
Directness, the subject of this chapter, is a highly important aspect of American
verbal culture.
It involves speech events such as cussing out (cursing directed to a particular addressee),
playing the dozens (a game of ritual insults), snapping, reading people (theatrically
delivered negative criticism), verbally abusing people (see below), going off on someone
(a sudden, often unexpected burst of negatively critical, vituperative speech), getting real

(a fully candid appraisal of a person, situation, event, etc.), and trash talk (talk in
competitive settings, notably athletic games, that is boastful and puts down opponents).

(Arthur, 2001,p. 2)
Moreover, directness can be characterized as a willingness to bring up certain
topics in certain contexts, for example talking about someone's being fat, foolish,
or ignorant, briefly or at length (Arthur, 2011). It is demonstrated in the example
below
When passing a professor‟s office, a students may say, “Excuse me, I‟d like to ask
you a couple of questions.” Her professor may respond, “Sure, go right ahead.
What‟s the problem?” In this interaction, the student stated her purpose and the
professor responded immediately. (Deena & Mara, 1982, p. 20, 21)

Directness is also showed at a dinner party
Host. Would you like some more dessert?
Guest. No, thank you. It‟s delicious, but I‟ve really had enough.
Host. OK, why don‟t we leave the table and sit in the living room?

(Deena and Mara, 1982, p. 21)
In addition, Marcyliena (1998) defines directness in conversations as the absence
of indirection and audience collaboration and a disregard for social context. His
definition makes the notion of directness more superior.


14

2.2.2 The significance of directness in conversations
Directness plays a very important role in conversations. Directness is available in
educational, work, and legal contexts where formal communication is defined
in relation to tasks and individual activities and where power relationships

are extreme. In addition, direct conversations are often used to disambiguate a
situation, determine truth, among other functions (Marcyliena, 1998). Therefore,
directness used in conversations in a right way could help interlocutors elucidate
a situation and reveal truth.
According to Marcyliena (1998), directness is considered to be functional rather
than truthful or dishonest. Because direct discourse is void of intent which can be
co-constructed, it is often view suspiciously outside of institutional contexts. This
is especially true for direct questions. Direct questions are institutional ways of
knowing which are not based on the truth (intentionality) of the questioner
or respondent.
Arthur (2001) states that direct speech can be used to maintain propriety, teach,
inform, aid in negotiating roles, role hierarchies, entertain, pass time,
demonstrate verbal wit and creativity, express the speaker's emotional state, and
define a social situation. The functions of directness are very numerous, which
makes its importance in conversations larger and larger.
2.2.3 The influences on directness usage
The deepest factor which concerns the usage of directness in conversations is the
culture because the language always has relations to culture which has many
dimensions such as ideas, customs, skills, arts, and tools in a given period of
time. Henry (1961) affirms that “language is not only the product of culture, but
also is the symbol of culture” (p.7). Larry, Richard, and Nemi (1981) state that
culture and communication are attached because culture not only determines the
participants, the issue, and the process of conversation but also helps to clarify
how people encode messages, the conditions and circumstances under which
diverse messages may or may not be sent, noticed, or interpreted. In other words,
culture is the groundwork of communication.


15

In addition, directness in conversations is also influenced by high or low-context
culture as stated by Benjamin (2005) “There is a difference in directness between
high and low context cultures, with low context cultures relying on directness
and high context cultures exhibiting a more indirect communicative style”(p. 15).
Therefore, culture has a strong impact on directness usage. Together with this
main factor, there are some more factors affecting on directness usage in
conversations.
Context where a conversation happens is an element influencing its directness.
Directness is available in educational, work, and legal contexts where formal
communication is defined in relation to tasks and individual activities and
where power relationships are extreme (Marcyliena, 1998). Therefore, the more
formal the context is, the more direct the conversation is.
Arthur (2001) affirms that direct speech is normally multilayered in terms of
meaning and function, both of which are mostly dependent on emotional states of
interlocutors and audience response. He also asserts that the kinds of speech
events associated with directness merit theoretical attention. In sum, the level of
directness is various in different emotional states.
Another factor that has much influence on directness is relationship. Depending
on the association and the position of communicators, the conversation can be
direct or indirect. Deena and Mara (1982, p. 21) say, “There are limits to the
degree of directness a person allowed to express, especially with people of higher
status such as teacher and employers.” Their theoretical point is illustrated in the
example below
A male student was surprised at the reaction of his female teacher when he said, “What
has happened to you? You look like you gained a lot of weight!” When the teacher
replied, “That‟s none of your business,” he answered in an embarrassed tone, “I was just
being honest.” In this case, his honesty and directness were inappropriate because of the
teacher-student relationship. (Deena & Mara, 1982, p. 21)

In addition to the factors above, the consciousness of directness in conversations

plays the role of the main cause. In other words, the more people know about


16

directness, the more levels of directness may be applied to the practical situation
in real life. However, lessons on directness in conversations and their practice are
not really available in Vietnam, for example students of English at Dong Thap
University are introduced to directness in American English briefly when
learning unit 2 “Verbal Patterns” of Cross Culture course by Deena and Mara
(1982, p. 19-41). As a result, the students can hardly use directness in a right way
in their conversations. To know about correct directness for different situations is
essential for limiting unexpected misunderstandings from the listener and
avoiding
offence listener.
“In sum, directness, in all social settings, comes in degrees, affected in complex
ways by the many mental and material factors that come into play in any social
situation.” (Arthur, 2001, p. 15)
2.2.4 Indirectness versus directness
Besides directness, indirectness is also a very important definition to be
discussed in this chapter. Indirectness, in fact, is opposed to directness.
Directness is a method people use when they want to refer to something as
Deborah defined, directness is “the way people mean what they don‟t exactly
say” (2007, p. 55). Directness is demonstrated more clearly in the example
below.
B says, “Are you wearing that dress to the concert?” to conveys a non-question
speech act, like a statement “I don‟t think you should wear that dress to the
concert.” or even a command “Go put on another dress.”
Thai (2007, p. 12) also asserts, “Indirectness in interpersonal communication
exists in various cultures around the world; however, it occurs in greater

frequencies in L2 writing than in Western composing. It can involve a circular
discoursal style in which the communicative purpose is achieved strategically (by
using such devices as hedges, rhetorical questions) or stated only after a number
of remotely-related points have been presented. It can also be manifested in the
unstated relationships between propositions or between propositions and the


17

topic or central theme” to supplement the definition of indirectness. (L2 here is
Vietnamese)
Indirectness also has some advantages. Thai (2007) alleges that the indirect
approach to an issue is employed when the speaker needs to avoid or postpone a
certain sensitive point in a conversation or composition and even a delayed
theme or digressive development in writing is meant to respect the reader‟s
judgment. Indirectness is also a strategy used to avoid “face-threatening-acts”.
Furthermore, indirectness is a good choice to maintain politeness as in
“Indirectness is thus most generally attributed to politeness” (p.13).
In addition to indirectness‟ advantages Thai alleges, Deborah (2007) supposes
that sometimes telling the complete truth can actually get communicators into
trouble, for example a communicator asks a question and his partner gives him a
truthful answer with no explanation, the communicator may think the answer is
suspicious even though the partner is telling the truth. Therefore, directness is not
always the best choice as Deborah states, “reason we can‟t solve the problems of
indirectness by being direct is that there are always unstated assumptions” (p.66)
2.3 High-context versus low-context culture
High and low contexts are factors that influence on directness in conversations
(Benjamin, 2005). In this section, high-context and low-context are compared to
highlight the difference in directness between Vietnamese and American.
According to Hall (1976), a high-context communication or message is “one in

which most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in
the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the
message” (p. 91). On the contrary, in low context communication, most of the
information is in the explicit code.
In addition, Hall (1976) also contrast high context culture with low-context
culture in the table below


18

Factor

High-context culture

Low-context culture

Many covert and implicit

Many overt and explicit

Overtness of

messages, with use of

messages that are simple

messages

metaphor and reading

and clear

between the lines

Locus of control and
attribution for failure

Use of non-verbal
communication

Expression of

Inner locus of control and

Outer locus of control and

personal acceptance for

blame of others for failure

failure
Much nonverbal

More focus on verbal

communication

communication than body
language

Reserved, inward reactions Visible, external, outward

reaction

Cohesion and
separation of groups

reaction
Strong distinction between Flexible and open grouping
in-group and out-group,

patterns, changing as needed

strong sense of family
Strong people bonds with
affiliation to family and

people with little sense of

community

loyalty.

High commitment to

People bonds

Fragile bonds between

Low commitment to

Level of commitment long-term relationships.

relationship. Task more

to relationships

important than relationships.

Relationship more
important than task.


19

Flexibility of time

Time is open and flexible.

Time is highly organized.

Process is more important

Product is more important

than product

than process

Fathi (1978) says that some misunderstandings could arise when people from

high-context cultures interact with people from low-context cultures. These
misunderstandings rise from the fact that in low-context cultures, communication
is more explicit and rule governed whereas in high-context cultures,
communication is not as open and overt. When high-context members interact
with low-context member, both form and content of the interaction are different.
Low-context members focus on the figure. On the other hand, high-context
members concentrate on the ground.
William (1991) maintains that when low-context communicators make
attributions about high-context communicators, they overestimate dispositions,
while high-context communicators overestimate the influence of the situation on
the individualist.
As Hall‟s model, Vietnamese culture is considered high-context (Mark and Diep,
2005) while American culture is low-context (Gayle, Mahmoud & Waguid,
2002). Evidently, Vietnamese is less direct compared with American people. Of
course, there are some misunderstandings occurring when Vietnamese people
communicate with American people. In addition, Americans focus on the figure
while Vietnamese concentrate on the ground. Lastly, Americans overestimate
dispositions when Vietnamese overestimate the influence of the situation on the
individualist.


20

Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
The chapter provides the way the study was carried out and the details of the
research including research questions, the author and the subjects of the research,
the research procedure, the data collection instruments and the summary.
3.1 Research questions
 Are there any similarities and differences between using directness in

conversations in American English and Vietnamese?
 What are some implications for learning and using directness in
conversations?
3.2 Research participants
3.2.1 The author
Le Thu Ha, the author of the research, has been studying at Dong Thap
University, which is located in Cao Lanh city, Dong Thap province. She is now a
senior student of English 08B from Department of Foreign Languages.
3.2.2 The subjects
A literature work, conversations, previous related studies
3.3 Research procedure
It takes six months for the research to be finished at Dong Thap University.
Although it is not a very long time for a research, it is planed flexibly and carried
out in the correct order so as to increase the findings of the thesis. The order is
clearly drowned up.
 Writing the outline
 Writing the proposal
 Collecting the material
 Studying the material
 Analyzing the material


21

 Writing discussions and pointing out solutions
3.4 Research methods
Research articles are collected and analyzed using methods such as material
analysis, material generalization, and comparison.
3.4.1 Material analysis
Consciousness of directness in conversations is a very significant factor which

provide researcher basic knowledge. It is very important to read directness in
conversations and relevant theories. The author needs to have an overall view of
directness in conversations in both American English and Vietnamese in order to
recognize confusing points. Through literature works containing conversations,
confusing points will be elucidated. It is the time the author was supported with a
firm groundwork by predecessors, which helps the author comprehend the usages
and deepen the knowledge of directness in American English and
Vietnamese conversations.
3.4.2 Material generalization
Basing on analyzing directness in conversations in American English and
Vietnamese, structures of directness are formed and appropriate usages of
directness are suggested.
3.4.3 Comparison
A comparison between directness in conversations in American English and
Vietnamese are performed to make clear the differences between them and the
dissimilarities in using them. The material for the method is from daily and
ordinary conversations, literature works and other helpful material related to
directness.
3.5 Summary
To achieve the study, a high responsibility is indispensable. Difficulties and
challenges are always available; however, they must be repelled. It is also crucial
that the answers will be found out at the end of this research.