a cross-cultural study on american-vietnamses verbal expressions in offering a gift and responding to a gift offer = nghiên cứu giao thoa văn hóa việt - mỹ về cách sử dụng ngôn từ để tặng quà và nhận quà

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES
**********





ƯNG THỊ THU QUYÊN



A CROSS – CULTURAL STUDY ON
AMERICAN – VIETNAMESE VERBAL EXPRESSIONS IN
OFFERING A GIFT AND RESPONDING TO A GIFT OFFER

NGHIÊN CỨU GIAO THOA VĂN HÓA VIỆT – MỸ VỀ CÁCH
SỬ DỤNG NGÔN TỪ ĐỂ TẶNG QUÀ VÀ NHẬN QUÀ


SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH



Field : ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
Code : 602215
Supervisor : Dr. Hoang Thi Xuan Hoa

Hµ Néi - 2010

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Certificate of originality of project report
 Acknowledgements
 Abstract
 Abbreviations
Part A. Introduction
I. Rationale 1
II. Aim of the study 1
III. Scope of the study 2
IV. Design of the study 2
Part B. Development
Chapter I. Theoretical background. 3
I.1. Language and communication 3
I.2. Language and culture. 3
I.3. Communicative competence 4
I.4. Speech acts 5
I.4.1. Definition 5
I.4.2. Types of speech acts 5
I.4.3. Politeness strategies: 5
I.4.3.1. Bald on – record 6
I.4.3.2. Positive politeness 6
I.4.3.3. Negative politeness 6

I.4.3.4. Off – record 7
I.5. Offering as a speech act 7
I.6. Gift offering. 8
Chapter II. Methodology 10
II.1. Instrument 10
II.2. Procedures 10
II.3. Informants 11
II.4. Coding of the data and mode of data analysis 12
Chapter III. Strategies in gift offering 15
III.1. Communicative strategies used in gift offering. 15
III.2. Similarities and differences of gift offering between American and Vietnamese 21
III.2.1. Data analysis. 21
III. 2. 2. Major similarities and differences 21

vi
III.2.3. Concluding remarks 22
Chapter IV. Strategies in responding to gift offers 24
IV.1. Agreeing to receive a gift 24
IV.1.1. Communicative strategies in receiving a gift 24
IV.1.2. Similarities and differences of gift receiving between American and Vietnamese 28
IV.1.2.1. Data analysis 28
IV.1.2.2. Major similarities and differences. 28
IV.1.3. Concluding remarks 29
IV.2. Refusing a gift. 29
IV.2.1. Communicative strategies used in refusing a gift. 29
IV.2.2. Similarities and differences of gift refusing between American and Vietnamese 33
IV.2.2.1. Data analysis 33
IV.2.2.2. Major similarities and differences 33
IV.2.3. Concluding remarks 34
Part C. Conclusion

I. Summary of the findings 35
I.1. Offering a gift 35
I.2. Receiving a gift 37
I.3. Refusing a gift 39
II. Implications: 41
1. Implications for cross-cultural communicators. 41
2. Implication for ELT. 41
III. Limitations and suggestions for further research. 42
References 43
Appendix A: Survey questionnaires
Appendix B: Data analysis








iv
ABBREVIATIONS

S : Speaker
H : Hearer
G : Giver
R : Receiver
FTA : Face Threatening Act
FT : Face Threat
ELT : English Language Teaching
DCT : Discourse Completion Task/Test

1
Part A. Introduction
I. Rationale
Language is very important for international communication nowadays. People from

different cultures when using a second language as a main means of communication, more
or less, experience misunderstandings. Why does communication breakdown may occur in
cross-cultural communication? Why are many utterances grammatically correct but
communicatively and culturally meaningless? This is mainly because participants lack
knowledge of each other’s culture. For example, the following is a story I heard from my
friend. The students gave their American volunteer-teacher a carefully wrapped gift on the
Vietnamese Teachers’ Day. They were very surprised at seeing the teacher open the gift in
front of them. And he said “Thank you very much. It’s very nice!” The disappointment
immediately appeared on the students’ faces as they expected longer and more formal
sentences than that and thought how impolite the teacher opened the gift at once. Vice
versa, the teacher seemed to be impatient and embarrassed when listening to the monitor’s
words “On the occasion of Vietnamese Teachers’ Day, we have a special gift for you. We
hope that you’ll love it. We wish you happiness, good health and big success.” What was
wrong in that situation? The American teacher was completely reasonable in his behavior
and there was nothing grammatically wrong in the monitor’s words. Obviously, cultural
differences here confused the participants and make the communicative process
unsuccessful. From her personal observations in teaching career, the writer would like to
have an insight into a really nice social manner- offering gifts and responding to gift offers
from cross-cultural communication perspective. As a result of that, to seek a proper answer
of what and how to say to offer a gift and respond to a gift offer. Why a gift offer,
traditionally considered to bring benefit to the Receiver, is occasionally still refused? And
why sometimes the Receiver’s behavior hurts the Giver?
II. Aim of the study and research question
The aim of this study is: To compare and contrast the strategies employed by Vietnamese
and American people when they offer a gift and respond to a gift offer in their own
language and culture. The study aimed to get the answers to the following question: What
are the similarities and differences in American and Vietnamese when offering a gift and
responding to a gift offer?

2

III. Scope of the study
This study is limited to the verbal aspects of the act of offering gifts. Nonverbal aspects of
the act such as paralanguage, extra-language and the like are not investigated. Conclusions
will be based on the analysis of the data collected from the questionnaires, not spontaneous
discourse. It is said that data obtained from questionnaires about what people might say in
certain situations may not always be the same as what they actually say in real life. It may
be because the answers in written form seem to be more formal than speaking one.
Obviously, it takes longer thinking so the answers are less natural. But it was felt that the
data would indicate possible similarities and differences between American and
Vietnamese ways of giving gifts and responding to the offers. The informants feel free
from time pressure and their names are unknown so the data would be reliable. The
Northern Vietnamese dialect and the English spoken as the first language in the United
States are selected for contrastive analysis. Thus, the study will not go to a fixed
conclusion but based on statistic data, give remarks, comments and assumption on the
frequency of some verbal ways of offering gifts. This study is only confined to one aspect
of language in action: what strategies are most commonly found in association with gift
offering. Moreover, gift offering in this study is simply understood as a nice cultural
behavior in daily life expressing deep gratitude, concern and attention to the Receiver. Of
course, gifts can be offered without saying a word but the non – verbal aspect of gift
offering, as mentioned before, is beyond the scope of this study. Moreover, this is as minor
thesis so what kind of present should be given, to whom (the influence of informants’
parameters on the choice of strategies: age, gender, etc.) and what kind of present should
be avoided are not touched in this study although the author is highly aware of them as a
cultural characteristics of each nation.
IV. Design of the study
Part A: Introduction: All the academic routine required for the study is represented.
Part B: Development: This is the focus of the study and consists of four chapters
Chapter I. Theoretical background.
Chapter II. Methodology
Chapter III. Strategies in gift offering.

Chapter IV. Strategies in responding to gift offers.
Part C: Conclusion.

3
Part B. Development
Chapter I. Theoretical background
I.1. Language and communication
Language is considered as one of the highest and the most amazing achievements of
human kind in labor process. In the Oxford “Advanced learner’s encyclopedic dictionary”
(1998:506), language is defined as a “system of sounds, words, patterns, etc used by
humans to communicate thoughts and feelings”. Thus, language is a means of
communication and communication is the aim of language. According to Richard et al
(1992:28) communication is “the exchange of ideas, information, etc between two or more
persons. The sender/speaker transmit message to the receiver/listener”. However,
communication is not merely an exchange of information. An important function of
communication is to keep a particular society going. Individuals cooperate with one
another to sustain reality and they use language as one of the means to do so.
In communication, whether or not the language is intended and spoken, any
communication behavior is perceived and interpreted. Such factors as the speaker’s
communicative intention, the interlocutor’s expectation and communicative effects of the
message are contributive to the success of communication. This means, “The
communicative effects match the intentions” (Clyne, 1996:144). Thus, the speaker’s idea is
grasped and the hearer’s interpretation is relevant to what the speaker (S) desires.
Communication breakdown is a hidden risk in any communication settings. It falls into two
types: non-communication where no message is communicated and miscommunication
where any unintended message is communicated. In conclusion, through language we can
affect every aspect of our relationships and successful communicators must be aware of
their own and their interlocutors’ expectations of communication.
I.2. Language and culture
Anna Wierzbicka (1992:371) regards “language as a mirror of culture and national

character.” People can understand the cultural characteristic of the nation through the
language they use. Different cultures use language differently, even though some cultures
possess the same language such as American culture, British culture, and Australian
culture. Richard et al (1992:94) defines: “Culture is the total set of beliefs, attitudes,
customs, behavior, social habits of the members of a particular society”. This definition not

4
only helps us understand what culture is, but also lists the components of culture.
Obviously, culture is a sort of knowledge, which everyone must possess to function within
a society. Beliefs, attitudes, customs, behaviors and social habits are not innate or born
naturally but they are learnt through the socialization process in which you grow up a full
member of a society. That is why culture does not belong to any single person but to all
people. It is believed that language and culture are interrelated, language contains culture
in itself and culture is expressed via language. Language, as a means of communication, is
also bound up with culture in complex ways. Kramsch (1998:4) views the relationship
between language and culture as follows: language expresses cultural reality. When people
express their ideas, they use a stock of knowledge about the world that they share with one
another; language embodies cultural reality. Members of a community create experience
through language; language symbolizes cultural reality. Language is a system of signs with
cultural values. Language of a group can be viewed as a symbol of their social identity.
It can be obviously seen that language and culture are interrelated and interwoven with
each other. Every cultural reality is expressed, embodied and symbolized by language.
From a broader point of view, Nguyen Van Do (2004:71) mentions the relationship
between language-culture and the society in which human beings are central. According to
his argument, without people, culture and society would not exist. So, it is possible to
interpret and describe a culture in its language. In its turn, culture influences the way in
which language is used. It provides guidelines for our linguistic behavior.
I.3. Communicative competence
When learning a new language, the students must learn its grammatical rules to make a
sentence correctly in grammar. This ability is called “linguistic competence”. If the

linguistic competence of students is good, he can do grammatical exercises fluently and get
high marks in exams. But that is not enough. In real-life communication, we also need
“communicative competence”. It is the Students’ ability to know “when and where to use
these sentences and to whom” (Richard et al (1992:65)).
In order to communicate appropriately, students are supposed to have shared knowledge.
According to Saville-Troike (1982:26), communicative competence consists of three
components: linguistic knowledge, interaction skills, and cultural knowledge. The relation
of these communicative components consolidates that knowledge of language and
interaction skills are not enough. Choosing what to say and how to say to fit into a

5
community and its language are very essential. For successful communication, especially
cross-cultural communication, learners must be aware of the target culture and the
difference between the target and the source cultures. In other words, both knowledge of
language and its culture decide successful communication.
I.4. Speech acts
I.4.1. Definition
According to Searle (1969:50), whenever we make a speech, we carry out an act. A
speech act is an act that a speaker performs when making an utterance, including the
following: a general act (illocutionary act) that a speaker performs, analyzable as including
the uttering of words (utterance acts), making reference and predicating (propositional
acts), and a particular intention in making the utterance (illocutionary force); an act
involved in the illocutionary act, including utterance acts and propositional acts; the
production of a particular effect in the addressee (perlocutionary act)
I.4.2. Types of speech acts
According to Austin (1996:51), there are four kinds of speech acts: 1, illocutionary act is a
complete speech act, made in a typical utterance, which consists of the delivery of the
propositional content of the utterance (including references and a predicate) and a
particular illocutionary force, whereby the speaker: asserts, suggests, demands, promises,
or vows; 2. perlocutionary act is a speech act that produces an effect, intended or not,

achieved in an addressee by a speaker’s utterance; 3. propositional act is a speech act that a
speaker performs when referring or predicating in an utterance; 4. an utterance act is a
speech act that consists of the verbal employment of units of expression such as words and
sentences.
According to Searle (in Levinson 1983:240), there are five broad classes of illocutionary
points: declaratives, representatives, expressives, directives and commissives. In order to
understand the speaker’s intention behind the words, the hearer can rely on some
conventional way to predict, called “speech event”. For instance, when a student comes to
class late, his teacher may ask “What’s the time?” All the students in the class understand
that the teacher is annoyed, but he does not want to know the time of the moment.
I.4.3. Politeness strategies
Politeness strategies are used to formulate messages in order to save the hearer’s face when
face-threatening acts are inevitable or desired. In Brown and Levinson (1987: 180), there

6
are four main types of politeness strategies: bald on-record, negative politeness, positive
politeness, and off-record (indirect).
I.4.3.1. Bald On-record
Bald on-record strategies usually do not attempt to minimize the threat to the hearer’s face,
although there are ways that bald on-record politeness can be used in trying to minimize
FTAs implicitly. Often using such a strategy will shock or embarrass the addressee, and so
this strategy is most often utilized in situations where the speaker has a close relationship
with the audience, such as family or close friends. Brown and Levinson (1987:181) outline
various cases, in which one might use the bald on-record strategy, including: great urgency
or desperation: Watch out! Speaking as if great efficiency is necessary: Hear me out ;
task-oriented: Pass me the hammer; little or no desire to maintain someone's face: Don't
forget to clean the blinds! ; doing the FTA is in the interest of the hearer: Your headlights
are on! ; Offers: Leave it, I'll clean up later. Eat!
I.4.3.2. Positive Politeness
Positive politeness strategies seek to minimize the threat to the hearer’s positive face. They

are used to make the hearer feel good about himself, his interests or possessions, and are
most usually used in situations where the audience knows each other fairly well. In
addition to hedging and attempts to avoid conflict, some strategies of positive politeness
include statements of friendship, solidarity, compliments, and the following examples:
attend to hearer’s interests, needs, wants: You look sad. Can I do anything? ; Use solidarity
in-group identity markers: Hey, mate, can you lend me a dollar?; be optimistic: I’ll just
come along, if you don’t mind; include both speaker (S) and hearer (H) in activity: If we
help each other, I guess, we’ll both sink or swim in this course; wish or promise: If you
wash the dishes, I’ll vacuum the floor; exaggerate interest in H and his interests: That’s a
nice haircut you got; where did you get it?; avoid Disagreement: Yes, it’s rather long; not
short certainly.
I.4.3.3. Negative Politeness
Negative politeness strategies are oriented towards the hearer’s negative face and
emphasize avoidance of imposition on the hearer. These strategies presume that the
speaker will be imposing on the listener and there is a higher potential for awkwardness or
embarrassment than in bald on record strategies and positive politeness strategies. Negative
face is the desire to remain autonomous so the speaker is more apt to include an out for the

7
listener, through distancing styles like apologies. Here are some examples: be indirect:
Would you know where Oxford Street is?; use hedges or questions: Perhaps, he might have
taken it, maybe. Could you please pass the rice?; be pessimistic: You couldn’t find your
way to lending me a thousand dollars, could you?; minimize the imposition: It’s not too
much out of your way, just a couple of blocks; apologize: I’m sorry; it’s a lot to ask, but
can you lend me a thousand dollars?. Favor seeking, or a speaker asking the hearer for a
favor, is a common example of negative politeness strategies in use. Held observes three
main stages in favor-seeking: the preparatory phase, the focal phase, and the final phase:
 The preparatory phase is when the favor-seeking is preceded by elaborate
precautions against loss of face to both sides. It often involves signals of openings
and markers to be used to clarify the situation (e.g. ‘You see,’ or ‘so,’). The request

is often softened, made less direct, and imposing (e.g. past continuous ‘I was
wondering’; informal tag ‘What d’you reckon?).
 The focal stage is subdivided into elements such as asker’s reasons or constraints
(e.g. ‘I’ve tried everywhere but can’t get one’), the other’s face (e.g. ‘you’re the
only person I can turn to’), and more.
 The third stage is the final stage which consists of anticipatory thanks, promises,
and compliments (e.g. ‘I knew you would say yes. You’re an angel.’).
I.4.3.4. Off-record (indirect)
The final politeness strategy is the indirect strategy. This strategy uses indirect language
and removes the speaker from the potential to be imposing. For example, a speaker using
the indirect strategy might merely say “wow, it’s getting cold in here” insinuating that it
would be nice if the listener would get up and turn up the thermostat without directly
asking the listener to do so.
I.5. Offering as a speech act
According to Searle’s speech act classification (in Levinson 1983:245), the position of
offers can be easily recognized in the class of commissives. But Hancher (in Wierzbiska,
1987:192) states that offering has “a double nature”, being “a commissive” like a promise
but also “a directive” like a request. This statement is reasonable as offering something to
somebody is both to try to direct that person’s behavior, and also commit oneself to a
corresponding course of behavior. Anna Wierzbiska (1987:191) states the following
meaning of offers: I think of X as something that could be good for you, I say: I will cause

8
X to happen if you say you would want me to do it, I think that you may want it to happen,
I don’t know if you want it to happen, I say this because I want to cause you to know that I
would cause it to happen if you said that you wanted it to happen, I assume that you will
say if you want it to happen.
Offer falls into two types: offer something and offer to do something. Offering to do
something means to say that one is willing to do it. Offering something to somebody
“shows or expresses willingness or intention to do or to give something, etc.” (Oxford

Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: 623). The speaker assumes that the proposed course of
events could be good for the hearer, but it is not quite clear how the relevant component
should be formulated. Wierzbicka (1987) argues that the formula “I think of X as
something that you may want” may be more appropriate than the formula “I think of X as
something that would be good for you”. Also, according to Wierzbicka (1987: 191 – 192)
offering shares some common features with such other speech acts as inviting,
volunteering and promising but there are still differences among them:
- In the case of inviting the action is to be performed by the hearer whereas it is to be
performed by speaker in that of offering.
- Volunteering does not have to be directly beneficial for hearer, or indeed for other
people. We volunteer to do something that has to be done. Consequently, we will
free some other people from the burden of having to do it and thus benefit them
indirectly.
- Promising refers to actions situated in distant or indefinite future and consequently
they are normally hypothetical than offering, which refers to the present of the
immediate future.
Offering can be more or less tentative, but they always embody a degree of uncertainty “I
don’t know if want me to do it”. Consequently, they always call for an answer from the
hearer. One might suggests that offering has a double illocutionary purposes: (i) to let
hearer know of speaker’s willingness to do something for him/her and (ii) to cause hearer
to say “yes” or “no” to enable speaker to act accordingly.
I.6. Gift offering
Gift offering belongs to the type of offer something. Gift is defined as “a thing given
willingly without payment” (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Encyclopedic Dictionary,
1998:379). Offering a gift is a culture – specific behavior. What gift to offer, on what

9
occasion, how to offer gifts and respond to the offer are not the same among different
cultures. Here are some instances: In France, if you receive an invitation to a person’s
home, take good chocolates, flowers or a good bottle of cognac. You should not take wine

because they drink that everyday, so it is too ordinary. In Germany, for social invitations,
flowers or chocolates are suitable gifts. And you should give an odd number of flowers,
say, eleven or thirteen, not twelve and the present them without the wrapping paper (Liz
Taylor, 1996:128). The most suitable gift in Vietnam when you come to someone’s home
is fruit put in plastic bags, and other kinds of gifts carefully wrapped in colorful wrapping
paper. Unlike the Westerners, the Vietnamese “will not open your gift in front of you but
will accept it, place it aside and open it later” (Claire Ellis, 1996:157). Claire Ellis
(1996:157) also states that in Vietnam, “presents are given on numerous occasions”. And if
“in the West, a gift is a symbol of thanks from the giver, in Vietnam, where the Buddhism
prevails, giving a gift is one way in which the giver can gain greater merit for the next life.
Hence, the whole action is to the benefit of the giver, not the receiver”. There are
thousands of reasons leading to the behavior of offering gifts, from ordinary occasions
such as coming to visit a friend, returning from a trip, etc to important events like attending
a wedding party, getting a job promotion, etc. Besides, in Vietnam, offering gifts also
comes from the reason of religion. They believe and expect to receive more in their future.











10
Chapter II. Methodology
II.1. Instrument
The theoretical background of the study relies on the research of various home and foreign

authors concerned with the subject. In order to achieve the objectives of a cross-cultural
research, the main method of the study is the quantitative one. All the considerations,
comments and conclusions in this thesis are largely based on: survey questionnaires,
statistics, description and analysis of the collected data and personal observation. It was
clearly necessary to study gift offering made by the two groups of informants in similar
situations involving the same social and contextual variables (namely social distance and
relative status). Considering the necessity for variable control and practical effectiveness,
the DCT was the most appropriate methodological instrument for this study. The DCT
would allow the researcher to gather a great deal more data in comparable situations from
more subjects than would have been possible through random observations of naturally
occurring discourse. The questionnaire contains two social situations with high frequency
of occurrence. The first situation is that “how would you actually say when you offer a
birthday gift to the following person?” The second one is that “how would you actually say
in response to a gift offer on your birthday from the following person?” In this thesis, we
only choose a specific setting for research, that is “on the occasion of one’s birthday”
because by using the same situations, which hopefully would be able to elicit responses for
gift offering from both the Vietnamese and Americans, for both groups of respondents, we
could directly compare the strategies used by them to determine similarities and
differences in the relationship of strategy use to the social power and distance. The habit of
offering birthday gift is very popular in America but in Vietnam, now it is just almost
common in the city. Therefore, all the Vietnamese informants selected for the
questionnaire are living in Hanoi, one of the biggest cities in Vietnam.
II.2. Procedures
In order to collect sufficient data for the analysis, a survey questionnaire was designed. The
survey was conducted with both Vietnamese and American speakers. They was required to
fill it out with specific utterances used when they give and receive a present in specific
situations and under certain variables such as age, social distance, social hierarchy, etc.

11
These utterances were then analyzed from the cross-cultural perspective, in the light of

politeness theories. The full text of the questionnaires is given in Appendix A. The
informants were required to express verbally when they offer a birthday gift to and respond
to a gift offer from the following people: a new friend/colleague you have just met for a
very short time (far social distance), their close friend (close social distance), their brother
or sister (intimate relationship, same family rank), their employee (lower social status),
their employer (higher social status). The survey was done in some language centers in
Hanoi (Apollo center, Clever Learn Center); in the Embassy of the United States at Lang
Ha Street, Hanoi and at some universities in Hanoi (Foreign Trade University, University
of Industry and Vietnam National University, Hanoi). It took each participant about 10
minutes to complete the DCT. The researcher was sitting there to provide any information
or clarify any point that was unclear to the informant, and to make sure that the informants
did not skip any situation.
However, it should be noted that there are some aspects of communication, which the
questionnaire fails to capture, for example: Paralinguistic factors: pitch, rate, volume, vocal
filers, etc. Non – verbal factors: gestures, body motions, facial expressions, etc. Setting of
communication: place, time, conversational distance, kind of presents, on what occasions,
etc. With respect to these limitations, the study is only regarded as a preliminary study and
any conclusions are tentative and suggestive.
II.3. Informants
American informants: The questionnaire was mostly handed to American people who
work at the Embassy of the United States in Hanoi and teach at some English centers in
Hanoi, Vietnam such as Apollo center, Clever Learn center, etc. The rest was sent by
email. The total number of American informants is 50.
Vietnamese informants: The same number of Vietnamese informants as the American
ones was chosen, with the hope to collect as accurate data as possible for the contrastive
analysis. The Vietnamese informants come from Hanoi and the North of Vietnam as the
language in this area is temporarily taken as standard Vietnamese. These informants all are
lecturers at Hanoi University of Industry, Foreign Trade University and Vietnam National

12

University. All the informants are assured that they would not be identified in any
discussion of the data with the hope of obtaining more authentic replies from them.
50% of the informants is male and 50% of the informants is female. The questionnaire was
handed to equal number of informants within two age ranges (24-39, 40-61). Care was
taken so that the informants in Vietnam matched with the American ones in terms of
gender, age, educational background and residence (urban). As a result, the mean age of
both groups was identical (average: 35 years, range: 24 – 61), minimizing any possible
effect the age of the speakers in this intergroup comparison.
The informants selected for this study do not totally represent American and Vietnamese.
They only have some features in common of a specific group of people. For example: they
have the same age range (24-61); they all are living in the urban; and to some extent, they
have the same educational background.
II.4. Coding of the data and mode of data analysis
In this study, a response was everything an informant said in responding to a situation in
order to make a gift offer or a response to a gift offer, which can be an utterance or a
number of utterances. In order to arrive at a set of strategies, we first divided the response
into discourse components, which, in the present study, is an utterance (phrase, sentence,
or several sentences) constituting a part or whole of an offer or a response. The discourse
components were next coded into relevant categories of pragmatic strategies. The
strategies used as the framework for the analysis of the present study were built on the
results of a number of previous research studies, of which the study on the speech act of
gift offering and responding to a gift offer (Ha, N.T.H., 2005) was the main source, and
studies on the speech act of offering and responding to an offer (Blum-Kulla, 1978; Hoang,
1998; Lan, 2000; Lanier, 1973; Nhat, 1997; Hanh, 2003) were supplementary. Following
Ha, N.T.H. (2005), the strategies were arranged in a table as follows:
Strategy
Definition
Example
1. Direct offer
Usually made when the G shows his/her

straightforwardness without any hedging or
hesitation.
- Hey! I have got a gift
for you. (Situation 1)
2.Showing
concern
This is the way that the G wants to pay
his/her special attention to the R.
- I thought you would
like this one. (Situation

13
for the
Receiver
1)
3. Giving the
Receiver
a surprise
The G would like to give the R a nice
surprise by having the R guess what the gift
is.
- I have something for
you; can you guess what
it is? (Situation 1)
4. Showing
modesty
about the gift
value
Usually expressed in their choice of
vocabulary such as “small”, “just”, “and

little”.
- This is a small gift for
you.
- Just a small present for
you. (Situation 1)
5.Stating
reason
of gift offering

- On the occasion of
your birthday, I have a
gift for you.(Situation 1)
6. Wishes
An expression of a desire or longing for
good things to the R.
- Best wishes for you!
- Happy birthday to
you! (Situation 1)
7.Expressing
the
Giver’s feeling
Usually expressed by nouns “love” or
“heart”
- Much love from all of
us. (Situation 1)
8. Asking for
permission
to offer a gift
Often expressed by using questions with
modal verbs “may” or “can”

- Sir, may I give you
something?
- Could I make you
happy?
(Situation 1)
Table 1.Offering gift strategies

Strategy
Definition
Example
1. Thanking
An expression of gratitude
- Oh, thank you so
much!
- Wow, thanks a lot!
(Situation 2)
2. Token refusal
The R mildly complains about the gift
- You shouldn’t do like

14
of the G. Often using modal verbs
“should” or “need” in negative form.
this.
- You don’t need to give
me a gift. (Situation 2)
3. Complimenting
the gift
Used only when the gift if unwrapped in
the cases of close distant: close friend or

family members.
- Wow, this is a
wonderful/great gift.
(Situation 2)
4. Complimenting
the Giver
Adjectives like: kind, nice, sweet, etc
are of frequent us
- You are very kind.
- It’s so sweet of you.
(Situation 2)
5. Expressing the
R’s feeling
Usually using adjectives like “honored”,
“surprised”, etc.
- I’m so honored
- I’m very surprised
with this. (Situation 2)
6. Negating the
necessity of gift
offering
The R wants to confirm that gifts are not
necessary.

- It’s very kind of you,
but it’s not necessary.
(Situation 2)
7. Giving reason
for refusal
The R lets the G know that he/she

already possesses the same gift or the
gift is not his/her taste
- Oh, I already have
this.
- It’s not appropriate.
(Situation 2)
8. Flat refusal
This gives the H almost no further
chance to insist.
- No, thank you
anyway! (Situation 2)
9. Delay
Would be direct with an excuse or
reason to save the G’s face.
- Let it next time.
Thanks. (Situation 2)
Table 2.Responding to gift offer strategies
The list of strategies, however, would be modified based on the data of the present study.
Thus, may be some categories were collapsed, and the categories that were not reflected in
the data were dropped from the classification scheme. Apart from the strategies, we found
linguistic modifiers embedded in the offering and responding made by the informants but
due to limitation of this thesis, they were not analyzed and compared including the external
modifiers and internal modifiers.


15
Chapter III. Strategies in gift offering
The focus of this study is on the verbal expression in offering gifts and responding to gift
offers in Vietnamese and American languages and cultures from cross – cultural
perspective. In fact, what to say to give a gift, and how to respond to a gift offer are culture

– specific and depend very much on the parameters of the communicating partners, the
relationship between the Giver (G) and the Receiver (R), the context and reason of gift
offers. And, in addition, paralinguistic and extra linguistic also include in this speech act,
but, as we mentioned earlier, they are beyond the scope of the thesis.
Analyzing data collected by conducting the survey questionnaire, we realized that
informants’ parameters did not much influence their choice of strategies of offering gifts
and responding to gift offers, so the use of the strategies as seen from informants’
parameters is not analyzed in this study. From our knowledge of cross – cultural
communication, we would like to provide a descriptive account of the strategies employed
to offer gifts and respond to gift offer by speakers of American and Vietnamese. Moreover,
we want to indicate the similarities and differences of verbal expression in the two
languages.
III.1. Communicative strategies used in gift offering
In our observation, the following strategies are found from the survey questionnaire:
No
Strategy
American
Vietnamese
1
Direct offer
31.6%
24.8%
2
Showing concern for the Receiver
20.4%
5.6%
3
Giving the Receiver a surprise
4.00%
2.00%

4
Showing modesty about the gift value
12%
10.4%
5
Stating reason of gift offering
24.8%
16.4%
6
Wishes
1.6%
34%
7
Expressing the Giver’s feeling
5.2%
6.4%
8
Asking for permission to offer a gift
0.4%
0.4%
Table 3.Strategies used to offer a gift
It can be easily seen from the above table that all strategies are employed by both groups of
informants. Both groups use the strategy “asking for permission” at the lowest rate. In our

16
observation, sometimes, in some situations the informants resort to several strategies at the
same time, not only one, to produce more effective offers.
1. Direct offer
According to politeness strategy theory in Brown and Levinson (1987:180), this is bald on
– record strategy. Both American and Vietnamese employ this strategy at a rather high

rate, but the Americans use it at a considerably higher rate: 31.6% in American and 24.8%
in Vietnamese. This is the most commonly used strategy by the Americans, but only the
second by the Vietnamese. This strategy is realized in different utterances which have the
same illocutionary effect.
For example:
By the American informants:
- Hi! This is a gift for you.
- Hey! I have got a gift for you.
- Here is a nice present for you.
By the Vietnamese informants:
- Em xin tặng anh/chị một món quà. (I want to give you a present).
- Tặng cậu này! (Here is a gift for you)
- Chị có món quà tặng em này. (I have a gift for you)
It can easily be seen that Vietnamese informants often use the per formative verb tặng/xin
tặng in their utterances while Americans do not. Instead of that, they use preposition for so
frequently. This suggests that, for this strategy, the degree of directness in utterances in
Vietnamese is higher than in English. This is opposite to what we expect before the
research that the degree of directness in offering gifts by the Americans would be
considerably higher than that by the Vietnamese.
2. Showing concern for the R
Relying on the relationship with the R, the G tries to say in way that makes the R know and
feel that the G really understand his/her taste, hobby, etc. Thus, the gap between them
would be smaller. Surprisingly, this strategy is used by the Americans much more often
than by the Vietnamese (20.4% vs 5.6%). The Americans often resort to short sentences
but the Vietnamese prefer using longer utterances. They can be:
By the American informants:
- I thought you like this gift.

17
- I thought you might enjoy it.

- I know you will love this.
By the Vietnamese informants:
- Em biết là sếp rất thích cái này nên đã mua tặng sếp ạ. (I know you like this so I
buy it for you)
- Mình nghĩ chắc là bạn sẽ rất vui khi nhận được món quà này. (I am sure that you’ll
be happy getting this gift)
Brown and Levinson (1987:190) state that when giving a gift, the G assumes that the R
will like or likes it. Thus, by employing this strategy, the G makes the positive face want of
the R be satisfied. The G notices and understands the R’s taste, hobby, need, want, etc and
to some extent, the G has or appears to have the same taste as the R. It is positive
politeness strategy.
3. Giving the R a surprise
This strategy is often accompanied by nonverbal behaviors. For example, hiding the gift
behind the back, the G wears a mysterious expression of the face and says:
By the American informants:
- I have something for you. Can you guess what it is?
- Hey, I have a nice surprise for you.
By the Vietnamese informants:
- Này, đố mày biết cái gì đấy! (Hey, guess what it is!)
- Chị thử đoán xem em có cái gì tặng chị đây này. (Please guess what I have for you)
- Mình có cái này rất hay muốn tặng bạn, thử đoán xem! (I’d like to give you
something very nice, please make a guess!)
This strategy is used at a rather low rate by the both of groups. However, the Americans
resort to this strategy more often than the Vietnamese (4.00% vs 2.00%). Usually, when
giving gifts to their close friend, the informants employ this strategy. This is also positive
politeness strategy.
4. Showing modesty about the gift value
The Americans often use the words like “small”, “just”, and “little”. This would mean that
the gift is modest in order that the R can be happier to receive the gift without any wonder.
This is positive politeness, according to politeness strategy theory. The rate of the

18
Vietnamese employing this strategy is slightly lower than the rate of the Americans (10.4%
vs 12% respectively). The utterances can be:
By the American informants:
- This is a small gift for you.
- Just a small present for you.
- I have got a little gift for you.
By the Vietnamese informants:
- Em có món quà nhỏ xin biếu sếp ạ. (I have a little present to give you)
- Chẳng đáng là bao, xin chị nhận cho em vui. (It’s not much. I’ll be very happy if
you take it)
- Của ít lòng nhiều, mong sếp nhận cho ạ. (A little gift, great emotion, I hope you
will take it)
In Vietnamese utterances, the words expressing small quantity like “nhỏ”, “chút”, “chẳng
đáng”, “ít” are often used. Vietnamese people frequently place more significance on the
spiritual aspect of the act of offering gift than on the material aspect of the gift itself. Thus,
the idiom “của ít lòng nhiều” (a little gift, great emotion) is used by many Vietnamese
informants. Showing modesty about the gift value, the G would like to make the R not
worried too much about the receiving behavior as the gift is humble. Therefore, this is also
an effective way to persuade the R to receive the gift.
5. Stating reason of gift offering
Giving reason is one of the positive politeness strategies. Sometimes, the informants state
the reason for offering gift. Here are some examples:
By the American informants:
- On the occasion of your birthday, I have a gift for you.
- Today is your birthday, so please receive this gift.
- Here is a gift for your birthday.
By the Vietnamese informants:
- Mừng bạn món quà nhân dịp sinh nhật! (I have a gift for you on the occasion of

your birthday)
- Em xin tặng sếp món quà nhỏ nhân dịp sinh nhật. (I have a small gift for you on
your birthday)

19
It can be easily seen that this is the second most frequently used strategy by the American
informants. And they tend to favor short and simple utterances while the Vietnamese,
similar to strategy “showing concern for the R”, often use longer sentences. We had
interviewed some American informants, they considered roundabout expressions to be
unsure, insincere and lack of involvement. Moreover, they said that such wordy
roundabout expression is not necessary because they already know why to offer a gift, no
need to speak out. Meanwhile, if too short or simple sentences are used in Vietnamese, the
G may be considered to be rude, impolite or informal. Although this strategy is less used
often in Vietnamese than in American (16.4% vs 24.8%), the utterances in Vietnamese are
various. Besides using the same reason as the Americans above, the Vietnamese often
resort to so – called “on – the – occasion” strategy. This way makes the R implicitly
understand that the G does not offer the gift intentionally, but accidentally. Thus, the R will
feel comfortable to receive the gift. Nevertheless, in practice, in some cases the G does not
do this accidentally, but intentionally. It is noticeable that, this strategy is mainly used in
the situation of offering gift to boss or employee.
6. Wishes
This strategy is the most frequently used by the Vietnamese: 34% compared to only 1.6%
by the Americans. The Vietnamese often expect good health, happiness, property, success,
etc and their utterances are conventional and formulaic. Wishes by the Americans are often
short and simple while the Vietnamese tend to make long utterance of wishes. It is believed
that the more wishes they get, the more likely they become true:
By the American informants:
- Best wishes for you!
- Happy birthday to you!
By the Vietnamese informants:

- Chúc anh/chị/em sinh nhật vui vẻ! (Happy birthday to you!)
- Chúng em chúc sếp sức khỏe, hạnh phúc và thành đạt (Wish you health, happiness
and success)
- Sang tuổi mới, chúc chị ngày càng trẻ đẹp và tràn đầy niềm vui. (On your birthday,
wish you long youth, beauty and full pleasure)

20
One interesting is that, although the wishes are conventional and formulaic, wishes in
American are often expressed by nouns “wishes” or by adjectives “happy”. Meanwhile, the
verb “chúc” is usually appeared in almost Vietnamese wishes.
7. Expressing the G’s feeling
This strategy is more employed by the Vietnamese than the American ones (6.4% and
5.2% respectively). The G’s feelings toward the R are expressed by nouns “love”, “heart”.
The Vietnamese informants prefer using verb “yêu” (love), and adjectives “hạnh phúc”
(happy), “may mắn” (lucky), “vui mừng” (pleasant). These utterances are reinforced by the
intensifier “much”, “very” (rất) or “really” (thật).
By the American informants:
- Much love from all of us.
- This is something from my heart.
By the Vietnamese informants:
- Xin vui mừng tặng anh món quà này. (I’m pleasant to give you this gift)
- Rất vui được tặng cậu món quà sinh nhật. (I’m very happy to give you this birthday
gift)
The American informants seem to be quite open and extrovert when revealing their
feelings while the Vietnamese ones tend to be more reserved and introvert. They
apparently mind expressing real emotion and try to hide it. The Vietnamese informants
often express their feeling when giving gifts to their close friend or family member of the
same rank because the distance between the communicative participants is very close. On
the other hand, when interviewed, some Americans stated that they are very happy to let
the R know their feeling.

8. Asking for permission to give a gift
Surprisingly, both American and Vietnamese informants employ this strategy at the same
rate (0.4%). And this is the least frequently used strategy by both groups of informants.
They are:
By the American informants:
- Sir, may I give you something?
- Could I make you happy?
By the Vietnamese informants:

21
- Em xin mạn phép gửi đến anh món quà này nhân dịp sinh nhật. (I ask for
permission to give you this present on the occasion of your birthday)
One special thing here is the American express their offer in the form of question with
modal verb “may” or “can” and the Vietnamese one uses a statement. Both two kinds of
requests have the same aim: asking for permission. According to Brown and Levinson
(1987:224), this is one of the negative politeness strategies showing deference. Brown and
Levinson (in Nguyen Quang 2004:125) regard making question as an effective negative
politeness strategy and the question form “May I…? / Can I…?” is more frequently used
by the American informants. In the term of degree of formality, the words “xin mạn phép”
in Vietnamese seems to sound more formal than the modal verb “Can “or “Could” in
American.
III.2. Similarities and differences of gift offering between American and Vietnamese
III.2.1. Data analysis
The data analysis of the employment of gift offering strategies in interaction with different
informants has shown that all the strategies mentioned above are available to both speakers
of American and Vietnamese. However, the use of these strategies differs from partner to
partner. The most preferred strategies by the Vietnamese informants with all partners are
“wishes” and “direct offer”. Dominating the choice of the American informants is “direct
offer” and “stating reason”. The detailed analysis is presented in Appendix B (1)
III.2.2. Major similarities and differences

* Similarities
- All of the strategies of offering gift are available in both American and Vietnamese
informants.
- Only 2/8 strategies are used by both groups of informants in communication with
all partners: direct offer and showing modesty about the gift value
* Differences
- In the same situation, with the same partner, Vietnamese and American informants have
chosen quite different strategies:
+ American informants use the following strategies with:
o All the informants: direct offer, showing concern for the R and showing
modesty about the gift value.
o 80% of the informants: stating reason of gift offering.