disagreeing among power-unequals in english and vietnamese a cross-cultural pragmatics study = cách diễn đạt sự bất đồng giữa những người không bình đẳng về quyền lực trong tiếng anh và tiếng việt

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS II
ABSTRACT IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS VI
ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS X
LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND GRAPHS XII

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1. Rationale 1
2. Aims of the study 5
2.1. Overall purpose 5
2.2. Specific aims 5
3. Research questions 6
4. Scope of the study 6
5. Contributions of the study 7
6. Methodology 8
7. Organization of the study 8

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 11

CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW 11
1.1. Cross-Cultural pragmatics (CCP) and interlanguage pragmatics (ILP) 11
1.1.1. Notion and scope 11

1.1.2. Pragmatic transfer and relevant issues 12
1.2. Speech act theory and disagreeing as a speech act 14
1.2.1. Notion of speech acts 14
1.2.2. Classification of speech acts 16
1.2.3. Disagreeing as a potential face threatening act 18
1.3. Politeness theory and its application to the present study 24
1.3.1. Definitions of politeness 24
1.3.2. Politeness approaches in literature 25
1.3.2.1. The strategic view 25
1.3.2.2. The normative view 35
1.3.2.3. Concluding remarks 39



VII

1.3.3. Application of politeness approach in the present study 40
1.4. Disagreeing in previous studies and in the present study 41
1.4.1. Previous studies of disagreeing in English and Vietnamese 41
1.4.2. Summary of findings and shortcomings in the previous studies 47
1.4.3. Disagreeing in the present study 50

CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY 51
2.1. Research methods 51
2.1.1. An overview of research methods in inter-language pragmatics 51
2.1.1.1. A brief description of the two major research methods in ILP 52
2.1.1.2. Common trends in applying research methods to ILP studies 58
2.1.1.3. Some concluding remarks on ILP research methods 61
2.1.2. Research methods in the present study 62
2.1.2.1. The chosen research methods 62

2.1.2.2. Reasons for choosing the methods 64
2.2. Research design 65
2.2.1. Data collection instruments 65
2.2.1.1. Meta-pragmatic assessment questionnaires (MAQ) 65
2.2.1.2. Discourse completion task (DCT) 67
2.2.2. Subjects 69
2.2.3. Procedures of developing instruments and gathering data 70
2.3. Data analysis 71
2.3.1. Validity test (T-Test) for developing data-gathering instrument (DCT) 71
2.3.1.1. A description of the T-Test 71
2.3.1.2. Interpretation of the T-Test scores 72
2.3.1.3. Results of the T-Test 75
2.3.2. Chi-square analysis of the MAQ and DCT 79
2.3.2.1. A description of the Chi-square 79
2.3.2.2. Interpretation of the Chi-square 82
2.3.2.3. Results of the Chi-square analyses 90

CHAPTER III: CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND PRAGMATIC
TRANSFER IN THE PERCEPTION OF RELATIVE POWER 91
3.1. Power and language in social interactions in previous studies 91
3.1.1. The concept and nature of power in social interactions 91
3.1.2. Previous studies of power and language in social interactions 92



VIII
3.1.3. Major findings and shortcomings in the previous studies of power 93
3.1.3.1. Power and language are closely interconnected 93
3.1.3.2. Power is conceptualized differently in different cultures 95
3.1.3.3. Factors that need taking into concern when studying power 97

3.1.4. Concluding remarks 101
3.2. Perception of P in the present study 102
3.2.1. The perception of P in the family context 102
3.2.1.1. Equal-power situations in the family context 103
3.2.1.2. Unequal-power situations in the family context 104
3.2.1.3. Concluding remarks of P perception in the family context 108
3.2.2. The perception of P in the university context 110
3.2.2.1. Equal-power situations in the university context 110
3.2.2.2. Unequal-power situations in the university context 111
3.2.2.3. Concluding remarks of P in the university context 115
3.2.3. The perception of P in the work context 117
3.2.3.1. Equal-power situations in the work context 117
3.2.3.2. Unequal-power situations in the work context 119
3.2.3.3. Concluding remarks of P in the work context 122
3.2.4. The perception of P in the social context 124
3.2.4.1. Equal-power situations in the social context 124
3.2.4.2. Unequal-power situations in the social context 133
3.2.4.3. Concluding remarks of P in the social context 136

CHAPTER IV: CROSS-CULTURAL DIFFERENCES AND PRAGMATIC
TRANSFER IN THE USE OF DISAGREEING POLITENESS STRATEGIES 139
4.1. Disagreeing politeness strategies realized in the invested situations 139
4.1.1. Disagreeing strategies based on B&L’s framework 139
4.1.1.1. Bald on record 139
4.1.1.2. Positive politeness 139
4.1.1.3. Negative politeness 144
4.1.1.4. Off record 146
4.1.1.5. Don’t do the FTA (No FTA) 148
4.1.2. Disagreeing strategies in the analytical framework of the present study
148

4.2. Disagreeing politeness strategies in powerless situations 150
4.2.1. Situation 1 150



IX

4.2.2. Situation 9 155
4.2.3. Situation 27 159
4.2.4. Concluding remarks 164
4.3. Disagreeing politeness strategies in powerful situations 168
4.3.1. Situation 5 168
4.3.2. Situation 12 173
4.3.3. Situation 13 178
4.3.4. Concluding remarks 182

PART C: CONCLUSION 188

1. Major findings 188
1.1. On inverse PT and CC differences in power perception 188
1.2. On negative PT and CC differences in the use of disagreeing politeness
strategies 189
1.2.1. On negative PT in the use of disagreeing politeness strategies in
specific situations 190
1.2.2. On CC differences in the use of disagreeing politeness strategies in
specific situations 191
1.2.3. On the use of disagreeing politeness strategies in powerful and
powerless situations 193
2. Implications 196
3. Suggestions for further studies 196

ARTICLES AND PROJECTS RELATED TO THE DISSERTATION 198
REFERENCES 199
APPENDICES 209
APPENDIX A: QUESTIONNAIRES 209
APPENDIX B: CODING SYSTEM OF DISAGREEING POLITENESS STRATEGIES 224
APPENDIX C: STATISTIC RESULTS 263










X

ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS
A: Addressee
ANS: Australian native speaker
B&L: Brown and Levinson
CC: Cross-cultural
CCP: Cross-cultural pragmatics
D: Social Distance
DCT: Discourse completion task/test
FTA: Face Threatening Act
H: Hearer
IL: Interlanguage

ILP: Interlanguage pragmatics
MAQ: Metapragmatic assessment questionnaire
P: Relative Power
PT: Pragmatic transfer
R: Ranking of imposition
S: Speaker
Se: Setting
VLE: Vietnamese learner of English
VNS: Vietnamese native speaker

Politeness strategies:
Avoid D: Avoid disagreement
Bald-on R: Bald on record
Common G: Presuppose/ raise/ assert common ground
Concern: Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of or concern for H’s wants
Conventionally ind: Be conventionally indirect
Deference: Give deference
Encourage: Condolence, encouragement
FTA as a GR: State the FTA as a general rule
Gift: Give gifts to H
Hint: Give hints
Impersonalize: Impersonalize S and H
In-group: Use in-group identity markers
Include S&H: Include both S and H in the activity
Interest: Intensify interest to H
Ironic: Be ironic
Minimize the imp: Minimize the imposition, R
x

Multiple P: Multiple positive politeness

Multiple N: Multiple negative politeness
Multiple O: Multiple off record
Negative P: Negative politeness



XI

No FTA: Don’t do the FTA
N + O: Negative politeness plus off record
Optimistic: Be optimistic
Positive P: Positive politeness
Promise: Offer, promise
=P: Equal-power
P + N: Positive politeness plus negative politeness
P + O: Positive politeness plus off record
P + N + O: Positive politeness plus negative politeness plus off record
Reciprocity: Assume or assert reciprocity
Reason: Give (or ask for) reasons
Rhetorical Q: Use rhetorical questions
Single P: Single positive politeness
Single N: Single negative politeness
Single O: Single off record
Vague: Be vague

In tables and sample analyses:
CCD: Cross-cultural difference
+D: Small social distance
=D: Not-large-nor-small social distance
-D: Large social distance

-P: Powerless/Low power
=P: Equal-power
+P: Powerful/High power
+Se: Formal setting
=Se: Semi-formal setting
-Se: Informal setting
Sit.: Situation
No PT: No pragmatic transfer

In numbered examples:
Examples are numbered for ease of reference. For example, (4.9) signifies the ninth
example in the fourth chapter.
Underlined: used to highlight what is being demonstrated.

In the text:
Italics: used for emphasis, examples, politeness strategies, or technical terms mentioned for
the first time.
&: used to replace “and” for linking the names of co-authors of references.






XII

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND GRAPHS
FIGURES
In chapter I:
Figure 1.1: Classification of communicative illocutionary acts 17

Figure 1.2: Lakoff’s rules of pragmatic competence 27
Figure 1.3: B&L’s framework of politeness strategies 30
Figure 1.4: Taxonomy of disagreement (Adapted from Miller, 2000: 1095) 44

In chapter II:
Figure 2.1: Methods of data elicitation 51
Figure 2.2: Procedures of developing instruments and gathering data 71
Figure 2.3: T-Test description 72
Figure 2.4: Interpretation of P, D, and Se values in the T-Test 74
Figure 2.5: Description of the Chi-square analysis of P perception 79
Figure 2.6: Description for the Chi-square test of the use of disagreeing strategies 80

TABLES
In chapterII:
Table 2.1: 13 valid and reliable situations in which S & H are not equal in power 75
Table 2.2: Six selected situations for the DCT 78
Table 2.3: General notation 2 x 2 contingency table 81
Table 2.4: An example of a 2 x 2 contingency table in the present study 81
Table 2.5: The Chi-square distribution table 82
Table 2.6: The analytical framework of the present study 90

In chapter III:
Table 3.1: Power distance index values for 50 countries and 3 regions 96
Table 3.2: Role relationships used for Equal/Unequal dyads (Spencer-Oatey, 1996: 11) 99
Table 3.3: Family equal-power situations (Sit. 3 and 6) 103
Table 3.4: Family powerless situations (Sit. 1 and 4) 105
Table 3.5: Family powerful situations (Sit. 2 and 5) 107
Table 3.6: CC differences and inverse PT in P perception in the family context 108
Table 3.7: University equal-power situations (Sit. 7 and 8) 110
Table 3.8: University powerless situations (Sit. 9 and 10) 112

Table 3.9: University powerful situations (Sit. 11 and 12) 114
Table 3.10: CC differences and inverse PT in P perception in the university context 116
Table 3.11: Work equal-power situations (Sit. 15, 17, and 18) 117
Table 3.12: Work powerless situation (Sit. 16) 120



XIII
Table 3.13: Work powerful situations (Sit. 13 and 14) 121
Table 3.14: CC differences and inverse PT in P perception in the work context 123
Table 3.15: Social equal-power situations with gender aspect (Sit. 19 and 20) 125
Table 3.16: Social equal-power situations with social status (Sit. 21 and 22) 127
Table 3.17: Social equal-power situations with economic status (Sit. 23 and 24) 129
Table 3.18: Social equal-power situations with physical strength (Sit. 25 and 26) 130
Table 3.19: Social equal-power situations with intellectual capacity (Sit. 29 and 30) 132
Table 3.20: Social powerless situation with age aspect (Sit. 27) 134
Table 3.21: Social powerful situation with age aspect (Sit. 28) 135
Table 3.22: CC differences and inverse PT in P perception in the work context 136

In chapter IV:
Table 4.1: Perception of P, D, and Se in situation 1 151
Table 4.2: Realization of 6 major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 1 152
Table 4.3: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 1 154
Table 4.4: Perception of P, D, and Se in situation 9 by the three groups 156
Table 4.5: Realization of 6 major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 9 157
Table 4.6: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 9 158
Table 4.7: Perception of P, D, and S in situation 27 by the three groups 160
Table 4.8: Realization of 6 major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 27 161
Table 4.9: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 27 163
Table 4.10. CC differences and negative PT in the subject’s use of six major groups of

strategies in the powerless situations 164
Table 4.11. CC differences and negative PT in the subject’s use of 12 subgroups of
strategies in the powerless situations 165
Table 4.12: Perception of P, D, and Se in situation 5 by the three groups 169
Table 4.13: Realization of 6 major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 5 170
Table 4.14: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 5 171
Table 4.15: Perception of P, D, and Se in situation 12 by the three groups 173
Table 4.16: Realization of 6 major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 12 175
Table 4.17: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 12 176
Table 4.18: Perception of P, D, and Se in situation 13 by the three groups 178
Table 4.19: Realization of 6 major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 13 179
Table 4.20: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 13 180
Table 4.21. CC differences and negative PT in the subject’s use of six major groups of
strategies in the powerful situations 182
Table 4.22. CC differences and negative PT in the subject’s use of 12 subgroups of
strategies in the powerless situations 183




XIV

In part C:
Table C.1. Negative PT, as seen from the six major groups of strategies 191
Table C.2. Negative PT, as seen from the twelve subgroups of strategies 191
Table C.3. CC differences, as seen from the six major groups of strategies 192
Table C.4. CC differences, as seen from the twelve subgroups of strategies 192


GRAPHS

In chapter III:
Graph 3.1: Family equal-power situations (Sit. 3 and 6) 103
Graph 3.2: Family powerless situations (Sit. 1 and 4) 105
Graph 3.3: Family powerful situations (Sit. 2 and 5) 107
Graph 3.4: University equal-power situations (Sit. 7 and 8) 110
Graph 3.5: University powerless situations (Sit. 9 and 10) 112
Graph 3.6: University powerful situations (Sit. 11 and 12) 114
Graph 3.7: Work equal-power situations (Sit. 15, 17, and 18) 119
Graph 3.8: Work powerless situation (Sit. 16) 120
Graph 3.9: Work powerful situations (Sit. 13 and 14) 121
Graph 3.10: Social equal-power situations with gender aspect (Sit. 19 and 20) 125
Graph 3.11: Social equal-power situations with social status (Sit. 21 and 22) 127
Graph 3.12: Social equal-power situations with economic status (Sit. 23 and 24) 129
Graph 3.13: Social equal-power situations with physical strength (Sit. 25 and 26) 130
Graph 3.14: Social equal-power situations with intellectual capacity (Sit. 29 and 30) 132
Graph 3.15: Social powerless situation with age aspect (Sit. 27) 134
Graph 3.16: Social powerful situation with age aspect (Sit. 28) 135

In chapter IV:
Graph 4.1: Realization of 6 major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 1 152
Graph 4.2: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 1 154
Graph 4.3: Realization of 6 major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 9 157
Graph 4.4: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 9 158
Graph 4.5: Realization of 6 major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 27 161
Graph 4.6: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 27 163
Graph 4.7: Realization of 6 major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 5 170
Graph 4.8: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 5 172
Graph 4.9: Realization of 6 major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 12 175
Graph 4.11: Realization of 6 major groups of disagreeing strategies in situation 13 179

Graph 4.12: Realization of 12 subgroups of disagreeing strategies in situation 13 181



1

PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
In the process of globalization, English has played an increasingly important role in
various fields, such as: science, business, education, and especially, cross-cultural
(henceforth CC) communication. As a consequence, there have been a large
number of worldwide studies on cross-cultural pragmatics (henceforth CCP) which
have been thoroughly presented in (1) Blum-Kulka, House & Kasper’s (1989)
Cross-cultural pragmatics: request and apologies, (2) Wierzbicka’s (1991) Cross-
cultural pragmatics – the semantics of human interaction, (3) Kasper & Blum-
Kulka’s (1993) Interlanguage pragmatics, (4) Trosborg’s (1995) Interlanguage
pragmatics – requests, complaints and apologies, and (5) Gass & Neu’s (1996)
Speech acts across cultures – challenges to communication in a second language.
CCP, according to Trosborg (1995: 45), is a particular field of contrastive
pragmatics that is concerned with contrasting pragmatics across cultural
communities. The major reasons for the appearance and development of this field
are, as clarified by Wierzbicka (1991: 69), that in different societies and cultural
communities, people speak differently. Being profound and systematic, those
differences reflect different cultural values, different ways of speaking, and
different communicative styles.
One of the objectives of those studies is to focus on comparing and contrasting the
similarities and differences between a language and English in certain speech acts in
particular contexts, which leads to the trend of contrastive pragmatics studies.
Another objective is to figure out potential features of pragmatic transfer
(henceforth PT) from one language to English, which results in another common

trend, namely interlanguage pragmatics (henceforth ILP) studies. The overall
purpose of the CCP studies is to help learners and non-native speakers of English
become aware of potential similarities and differences between their language and
culture and English language and culture as well as potential PT, especially



2

negative PT or pragmatic failures, which may affect their study or use of English to
communicate with English native speakers and possibly cause culture shock or
communication breakdowns.
As regards the contrastive pragmatics trend, there have been a great number of
studies conducted by researchers all over the world, as reviewed by Trosborg
(1995). Those studies investigate different speech acts, with a focus on requests,
apologies, compliments, and thanks (cf. Trosborg, 1995: 46-47). In Vietnam, there
have been a number of contrastive pragmatics studies, as part of the researchers’
unpublished PhD research projects, comparing and contrasting Vietnamese and
English in certain speech acts comprising complimenting (Nguyen Van Quang,
1998), requesting (Nguyen Van Do, 1999), disagreeing (Kieu Thi Thu Huong,
2006), and inviting (Duong Bach Nhat, 2008). There have also been a great number
of other relevant studies of a variety of speech acts on a smaller scale of MA theses,
as presented in Nguyen Quang Ngoan and Nguyen Tien Phung’s (2007) review,
presenting various speech acts such as greeting (Nguyen Phuong Suu, 1990; Huynh
Thi Ai Nguyen, 1997), requesting (Nguyen Van Do, 1996; Do Thi Mai Thanh,
2000), apologizing (Dang Thanh Phuong, 1999), refusing a request (Pham Thi Van
Quyen, 2001), among others (cf. Nguyen Quang Ngoan and Nguyen Tien Phung,
2007: 26-29).
Regarding the ILP trend, Kasper & Dahl (1991) present a detailed literature
review of 39 ILP studies. Trosborg (1995) also does a good job of reviewing ILP

pragmatics studies comprising studies of requests, thanks, complaints, and
apologies (cf. Trosborg, 1995: 55). In Vietnam, as far as the author of this study is
aware of and able to access, there have been only a few ILP studies, including
those of requesting (Ha Cam Tam, 1998, 2005), criticizing (Nguyen Thuy Minh,
2006), and general cultural linguistic features, (Pham Dang Binh, 2002).
Thus, in the last fifteen years in Vietnam, there have been a great number of
contrastive pragmatics studies comparing and contrasting Vietnamese and English



3

in various speech acts. However, there have not been sufficient ILP studies
contrasting English by Vietnamese learners and English by its native speakers. It is
for this reason that the dissertation author decided to contribute to developing the
trend of ILP studies by conducting a research into PT from Vietnamese to English
in the act of disagreeing under the influence of the relative power (henceforth P) in
some particular contexts.
The focus of the study is on pragmatic transfer (i.e. “transfer of some culturally
specific politeness strategies from one’s native language to the target language”
(Beebe & Takahashi, 1989: 200). It should be noted that a deep insight into this
phenomenon contributes a great deal to language teaching, learning, and use.
However, as discussed, in Vietnam the relevant studies are completely limited.
Thus, it is urgent that more thorough studies on ILP trend in other speech acts
should be done to build up a better background for teaching and learning English
and CC communication in Vietnam.
It is for this reason that disagreeing has become the speech act under investigation
in this study. Disagreeing was chosen also because of some additional reasons.
Firstly, some similarities and differences in disagreeing politeness strategies
between the Vietnamese and the Americans were investigated by Kieu Thi Thu

Huong (2001) and Nguyen Quang Ngoan (2004) at the level of MA theses, from the
perspective of contrastive pragmatics. It was also studied from the perspective of
conversational analysis combined with contrastive pragmatics by Kieu Thi Thu
Huong (2006) for her PhD research project. Thus, no studies of the speech act of
disagreeing from the ILP perspective have been conducted in Vietnam.
Additionally, in literature, the dissertation author is able to access only one study of
this type which was conducted by Beebe and Takahashi in 1989 to contrast English
by Japanese learners and that by English native speakers. Hence it is expected that a
thorough investigation into disagreeing from the ILP perspective will contribute to
drawing a whole picture of studies of the speech act.



4

Secondly, another focus of the present study is on the effects of P on verbal
interactions, and according to many researchers (Beebe & Takahashi, 1989; Rees-
Miller, 2000; and Locher, 2004), the realizations of disagreeing strategies are
proven to be under great influence of P. In other words, disagreeing is a potential
speech act on which P is enacted. However, the dissertation author has not noticed
any studies of speech acts, in which P was realized as a separated social variable
that is in focus. Thus, it is the author’s purpose to attempt to investigate the issue.
There are also some other reasons for his choice of P as the focused social variable
operating in this study of disagreeing as an example of verbal interaction.
One reason is that, as far as the author knows, there have been no thorough
empirical studies of power influence on verbal interaction in Vietnam although
there have been a lot of relevant discussions and studies on power and its
correlation with language in English-speaking cultures (Leech, 1983; Thomas,
1985; Brown & Levinson, 1987; Wartenberg, 1990; Ng, 1995; Ng and Bradac,
1993; Watts, 1991, 2003; Hofstede, 1977, 1991, 2001; Holmes, 1992; Rees-Miller,

2000; Fairclough, 2001; Holmes & Stubbe, 2003; Locher, 2004). Thus, this study
can serve to fill in the gap in the Vietnamese literature.
Another reason is that, according to Hofstede (1991, 2001) and his supporters,
including Spencer-Oatey (1997), Gibson (2002), Samovar and Porter (2001), and
Ting-Toomey & Chung (2005), high-power-distance values are appreciated in
Asian countries while lower-power-distance values are appreciated in the USA,
Great Britain and its former dominions, including Australia. Vietnam is an Asian
country but it was not a country under Hofstede’s investigation, so it seems to be
logical to hypothesize that Vietnam is among other Asian countries which show
high-power-distance values but this hypothesis must be tested to know whether it is
right or how high power distance is perceived in Vietnamese culture, especially
when it is compared to an English-speaking culture, Australia.



5

A third reason is that the effects of P on language have been discussed and
emphasized by many authors (Leech, 1983; Thomas, 1985; Brown & Levinson,
1987; Holmes, 1992; Ng & Bradac, 1993; Ng, 1995; Rees-Miller, 2000; Fairclough,
2001; Nguyen Quang, 2002, 2004; Holmes & Stubbe, 2003; Locher, 2004).
However, to what extent does the relative power affect the speaker’s use of
disagreeing strategies realized in Vietnamese by Vietnamese native speakers and in
English by Vietnamese learners of the language and Australian native speakers? Do
the effects cause negative PT in the use of disagreeing strategies from Vietnamese
to English? These are some of the questions which remain unanswered, and so the
questions the author hopes to answer in the present study.
2. Aims of the study
2.1. Overall purpose
The overall purpose of the dissertation is to investigate thoroughly primarily the

negative PT from Vietnamese into Australian language and culture, and secondarily
noteworthy Vietnamese-Australian CC differences as valid clues for the
interpretation and discussion of the PT in the speech act of disagreeing under the
effects of P in the investigated situations.
2.2. Specific aims
To achieve the overall purpose, the study is aimed:
- to find out the major features of Vietnamese-English PT caused by the VLE and
CC differences between the VNS and ANS in their use of disagreeing politeness
strategies with the more powerful as well as with the less powerful in the
investigated situations.
- to investigate the effects of P on the subject’s use of disagreeing politeness
strategies reflected from the differences in their use of politeness strategies for
disagreeing which is affected by their perception of P described in the relative roles
in the investigated situations.



6

3. Research questions
1. What are some significant features of negative PT caused by the VLE and what
are some significant CC differences between the VNS and ANS in their use of
disagreeing politeness strategies in the investigated situations? Sub questions are:
- Which features of negative PT and CC differences in the use of disagreeing
politeness strategies are significant?
- Which CC differences between the VNS and ANS lead to negative PT and
which CC differences do not?
- Which disagreeing politeness strategies are used and preferred by the VLE,
ANS, and VNS? What are the differences in their use of those strategies in
the powerful and powerless situations?

- Which politeness strategies in B&L’s (1987) framework are realized, either
as single strategies or strategy combinations for disagreeing in the
investigated situations? Is there a high possibility for strategy combinations?
2. How does the subject’s perception of P in the investigated situations affect their
use of disagreeing politeness strategies? How do the similarities and differences in
the subject’s perception of P affect negative PT and CC differences in their use of
disagreeing politeness strategies? Sub questions are:
- How is P described in the relative roles in the investigated situations
perceived by the VNS, ANS, and VLE?
- To what extent is the VNS’s perception of P different from the ANS’s? Is it
true that Vietnam is a higher-power-distance culture than Australia?
- Is there the phenomenon of inverse PT in P perception caused by the VLE in
the investigated situations?
- How do the similarities and differences in the subject’s perception of P in the
investigated situations affect their use of disagreeing politeness strategies?
4. Scope of the study



7

- The study focuses on intralinguistic factors. Paralinguistic and extralinguistic
aspects are, therefore, out of the scope of the study. The verbal interaction is
restricted to the act of disagreeing.
- The act of disagreeing focuses on the frequency and realizations of politeness
strategies used by the VLE, ANS, and VNS in some specific situations in light of
the politeness framework by B&L (1987).
- The particular situations are restricted to thirty situations in the Meta-pragmatic
Assessment Questionnaires (henceforth MAQ) and six situations in the Discourse
Completion Task (henceforth DCT).

- “Among power-unequals” is meant to cover all the interactions between not only
the more powerful and the less powerful but also the less powerful and the more
powerful in various situations in the four contexts: (1) at home, (2) at work, (3) at
school, and (4) in society.
- P is described in the relative roles, such as a parent versus his/her child (at home),
a university lecturer versus a student (at school), a boss versus an employee (at
work), or an elder person versus a younger one (in society).
- The focused social variable is P, which is used to refer to the relative power each
speaker temporarily has in each given context. However, the social distance
(henceforth D) and the speaking context (henceforth Se) are also taken into
consideration for detailed interpretation and discussion of each particular situation.
- Vietnamese-Australian PT in disagreeing among power-unequals is what the study
aims to investigate. Thus, comparison and contrast of disagreeing strategies by the
VLE and ANS are in focus. However, for the objectivity and validity of the
research, the study is expanded to cover the comparison and contrast of the power
perception and disagreeing strategies by the VNS and ANS to serve as the basic
background for the interpretation, discussion, and conclusion of the PT.
5. Contributions of the study



8

The study is expected to bring out some following contributions:
- Theoretically, it contributes an investigation to some research areas in Vietnam:
(1) socio-cultural effects (i.e. power effects) on verbal interactions, (2) pragmatic
transfer (i.e. Vietnamese-English transfer), (3) speech act theory (i.e. disagreeing as
a speech act), and (4) linguistic politeness. Specifically, this is the first thorough
empirical research in Vietnam, the focus of which is on the influence of P on
language, or to be more exact on disagreeing, and also the first study of

Vietnamese-Australian PT in the act. Its findings are expected to reinforce or deny
existing hypotheses in the fields and to bring about a better insight into the issues.
- Practically, its findings on the Vietnamese-Australian PT, especially negative PT,
in the frequency and realizations of disagreeing strategies in particular situations
with sufficient details and plenty of specific examples from a rich source of data can
be applied to English language teaching and CC communication.
- Methodologically, it serves as a valid study on people’s perception of socio-
situational factors and their production of language strategies in verbal interactions
through the suitable research methodology of a combination between the MAQ and
DCT. It also contributes a new way of applying B&L’s (1987) politeness model to
data analyses in empirical studies concerning linguistic politeness.
6. Methodology
This is primarily a quantitative CCP study in combination with some qualitative
methods. The data collection is conducted with a combination of MAQ and DCT.
The data analysis is done with the T-Test and Chi-square statistics in the SPSS
package through various techniques including statistical, descriptive, contrastive,
and inferential analysis. This methodology is presented at length in chapter two.
7. Organization of the study
The present study is divided into three parts: Part A – Introduction, Part B –
Development, and Part C – Conclusion.



9

Part A is the introduction to the study in which the author writes about the reasons
for which the study is conducted. Other issues clarified in this section are the aims,
scope, research questions, methodology, and contributions of the study. A summary
of all the parts and chapters is also presented to help the audience have an overall
idea of the study.

Part B is the major part which is divided into four chapters, discussing the relevant
theoretical concepts, literature review, methodology and results of the empirical
research of the study.
Chapter one is where a theoretical background and literature review are done in
light of CCP. It begins with an introduction to basic terminologies and concepts of
CCP and ILP. Then the speech act theory is visited with critical comments,
followed by a discussion of disagreeing as a potential face-threatening act. Next,
politeness theory is revisited with critical comments on its notion and approaches in
literature. Especially, Western politeness approaches are compared to the Asian
ones, with reference to the perception of the issue by Vietnamese researchers to
build up a theoretical background for the chosen theoretical framework in the
present study. Finally, all the up-to-date studies of disagreeing as a speech act that
the author is aware of and able to get access to, be they domestic or international,
are introduced for an overview of the achievements and shortcomings in the
previous studies of the speech act.
Chapter two describes the methodology of the present study. In this chapter, various
research methods in ILP studies with their strengths and weaknesses, as discussed
by well-known authors, are introduced with critical comments before an
introduction to the methods in the present study is made, with specific reasons for
choosing them. Then, the research design including the data-gathering instruments,
subject selection, and data-gathering procedures are all introduced. Finally, the data
analysis procedures are clarified with a thorough description of the T-test analysis,
Chi-square analysis, and analytical framework.



10

Chapter three discusses the effects of the relative power as a socio-cultural
dimension in verbal interactions, especially in disagreeing. It is conducted to

uncover how the VNS, VLE, and ANS perceive the relative power between the
speaker and the hearer in the investigated situations. This also helps ensure the
validity and reliability in the discussion of P effects on disagreeing in chapter four.
In the first place, relevant studies with their findings, discussions, and shortcomings
are presented to serve as a narrower background for the comparison and contrast of
the perception of P by the VNS and ANS to find out the cross-cultural similarities
and differences between the two cultures. In parallel, the perception of P by the
VLE is also compared to that by the VNS for the purpose of finding out possible
inverse socio-pragmatic transfer. Concluding remarks of CC differences and inverse
PT are given at the end of the chapter.
Chapter four focuses on the Vietnamese-English PT and CC differences in the
subject’s use of disagreeing politeness strategies in the investigated situations
realized with the data collected from the three subject groups. It begins with an
introduction to all the disagreeing strategies realized in the present study either as
single strategies or strategy combinations with examples from the collected data.
Then, the statistic results of similarities and differences between the VLE and ANS
as well as between the VNS and ANS in their use of disagreeing strategies in each
situation are presented, interpreted, and discussed at length. Finally, concluding
remarks of the PT and CC differences are highlighted.
Part C is the conclusion of the study where the author summarizes the major
findings on the inverse PT caused by the VLE and CC differences between the VNS
and ANS in their perception of P in the investigated situations. It is also where the
major findings on Vietnamese-English negative PT and CC differences in the
subject’s use of disagreeing politeness strategies are confirmed and highlighted.
Then implications of the research findings to better English language teaching and
CC communication are suggested before suggestions for further studies of the field
are put forward.

11

PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE
REVIEW
1.1. Cross-Cultural pragmatics (CCP) and interlanguage pragmatics (ILP)
1.1.1. Notion and scope
In his discussion of approaches to inter-cultural communication, Clyne (1996: 3)
states,
There are three main ways in which the role of culture can be, and has been,
studied – by comparing native discourse across cultures (the Contrastive
Approach), by examining the discourse of non-native speakers in a second
language (the Interlanguage Approach), and by examining and comparing the
discourse of people of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds interacting
either in a lingua franca or in one of the interlocutors’ languages (the Interactive
Inter-cultural Approach).
He (1996: 4) also argues that the three approaches are not always clearly
differentiated and that the third approach has been the least developed and
investigated so far. Actually, Clyne’s classification and comments are completely
appropriate, as seen from the perspective of CCP.
According to Kasper & Blum-Kula (1995: 3), pragmatics is considered as “the
study of people’s comprehension and production of linguistic action in context”.
Thus, CCP is the study of liguistic action patterns carried out by language users of
different cultural backgrounds. Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper (1989: 1-11) argue
that the field of CCP can be divided into two trends: one is contrastive pragmatics
and the other is ILP.
Contrastive pragmatics is concerned with comparing and contrasting the similarities
and differences in different pragmatic aspects such as politeness or speech act
performance across cultural communities. Contrative pragmatics studies are
conducted in the belief that in different cultural communities, people speak

differently and those profound and systematic differences reflect different
cultural values, different ways of speaking, and different communicative



12

styles, which can be explained and made sense of (Wierzbicka, 991: 69).
ILP studies, on the other hand, focus on investigating linguistic actions by language
learners or non-native speakers in comparison with those by native speakers to
uncover the learner’s comprehension and production of different pragmatic aspects.
However, ILP can also be a branch of Second Language Acquisition Research in
contrast to interlanguage morphology, syntax, and semantics. Thus, as argued by
Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993: 3), ILP is “a second-generation hybrid” because it
“belongs to two different disciplines, both of which are interdisciplinary”.
To sum up, as a subset of cross-cultural pragmatics, contrastive pragmatics has
the strength of investigating cross-cultural and cross-linguistic pragmatic
differences and similarities, while ILP focuses on identifying learner-specific
pragmatic behaviors and their relationship to learners' first and second language.
However, research methods from these areas of investigation should be combined
for a good research project, as it is stated by Kasper and Blum-Kulka (1993: 13):
“A full-fledged research program that sheds light on the relationship between
cross-cultural differences, IL-specific pragmatic features, including transfer, and
communicative effects will usefully combine methods from all three areas of
investigation.”
Based on this line of reasoning, this research project is a combination of research
methods from contrastive pragmatics and ILP although the primary investigation is
the comprehension and production of pragmatic aspects in English by Vietnamese
learners, which belongs to the discipline of ILP. It is also for this reason that the
research subtitle is “a cross-cultural pragmatics study” instead of “an

interlanguage pragmatics study”. Another reason for the chosen subtitle is that
“ILP has derived its theoretical and empirical foundation from general and
especially cross-cultural pragmatics” (Kasper and Blum-Kulka, 1993: 4).
1.1.2. Pragmatic transfer and relevant issues
Pragmatic transfer, as defined by Beebe & Takahashi (1989: 200), is “transfer of
some culturally specific politeness strategies from one’s native language to the



13

target language”. It is resulted from the “influence from learners' native language
and culture on their IL pragmatic knowledge and performance” (Kasper & Blum-
Kula, 1995: 10).
On the one hand, PT can be divided into negative PT and positive PT, the first of
which is the influence of the first language pragmatic competence on the
interlanguage pragmatic knowledge that differs from the target language, while the
latter refers to pragmatic knowledge behaviors that display consistent across the
first language, the interlanguage, and the target language. The focus of ILP is,
however, on negative PT because it may lead to communication breakdown.
Positive PT attracts less attention possibly because it usually results in
communicative success, and thus appearing less exciting to study.
On the other hand, in literature, PT is divided into two types of pragmatic failures,
as suggested by Thomas (1983). They are: sociopragmatic failure and
pragmalinguistic failure. According to Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper (1989: 10), in
the first type, learners “assess the relevant situational factors on the basis of their
native sociopragmatic norms” and in the second type, “native procedures and
linguistic means of speech act performance are transferred to interlanguage
communication”. Pragmatic failure is another term used to refer to negative PT.
As possibly seen in a number of studies, negative transfer has been found at both

the sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic level. At the sociopragmatic level,
negative PT has been found in the learners’ perception of the status relationships, of
the appropriateness of speech acts, of the choice of politeness styles, and so on. At
the pragmalinguistic level, most of the reported negative PT is related to the
learners’ strategic options and forms that modify the politeness value of a linguistic
act (Kasper & Blum-Kulka, 1993: 10-11).
One final concept of PT is inverse pragmatic transfer, which is used to refer to the
influence of the second/foreign language pragmatic competence on the learner’s
perception and production of different pragmatic aspects in their first language to



14

make them differ from those perceived or produced by the first language native
speakers. In the present study, the author also investigates the inverse
sociopragmatic transfer caused by Vietnamese learners of English in their
perception of P in the investigated situation on the basis of Vietnamese culture.
1.2. Speech act theory and disagreeing as a speech act
The speech act theory, first mentioned by philosopher John Austin (1962) in his
influential work, “How to do things with words”, is one of the most compelling
notions in the study of language use. Levinson (1983: 226) claims that “[of] all the
issues in the general theory of language usage, speech act theory has probably
aroused the widest interest”.
Actually, since its initiation, it has been inherited, refined, and developed by a
number of philosophers and linguists, including Searle (1969, 1975, 1976), Bach
and Harnish (1979), and Wierzbicka (1987), among others.
1.2.1. Notion of speech acts
As stated, the notion of speech acts was first mentioned by John Austin (1962) and
then discussed by a number of pragmaticists with a common belief that in saying

something that has a certain sense and reference, the speaker normally also does
something such as making a promise, a request, or an apology (Austin, 1962; Geis,
1995). For example, in saying, “I’ll come and pick you up.”, a speaker not only
produces a meaningful utterance but also constitutes the act of promising.
In studying speech act theory, it is essential to have a deep insight into the well-
known distinction made by Austin (1962) between the three kinds of acts:
locutionary act, illocutionary act, and perlocutionary act. According to Austin
(1962) and Searle (1969), clarified by Richards et al. (1992: 217), a locutionary act
is the saying of something, which is meaningful and can be understood; an
illocutionary act is using the sentence to perform a function; and a perlocutionary
act is the results or effects produced by means of saying something. Clyne (1996:
11) puts it simply that locution is the actual form of an utterance, illocution is the



15

communicative force of the utterance, and perlocution is the communicative effect
of the utterance.
The three acts are, however, ultimately related because normally, in a meaningful
utterance, “S says something to H; in saying something to H, S does something; and
by doing something, S affects H” (Bach & Harnish, 1979: 3). For example, on
producing the meaningful utterance, “I’ve just made some coffee” (the locutionary
act), we might make an offer (illocutionary act) which might get the hearer to drink
some coffee (perlocutionary act).
Of the three dimensions, as stated by Yule (1997: 52), the most essential act that
counts is the illocutionary force because the same utterance can potentially have
quite different illocutionary forces. For instance, the utterance, “I’ll see you later”
can count as a prediction, a promise, or a warning in different contexts. That
partially explains why Yule (1997: 52) claims that “[t]he term ‘speech act’ is

generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of an
utterance”.
Speech acts are a universal phenomenon, but they might vary greatly across cultures
under the effects of socio-cultural norms. This explains why Wierzbicka (1991:
149) argues that “[e]very culture has it own repertoire of characteristic speech acts
and speech genres”. It is for this reason that studies of speech acts across cultures
have been conducted with an awareness of both universality and culture specificity,
as claimed by Blum-Kulka et al.
Work done in this area is based on the assumption that speech communities share
detectable patterns of speech, and that ‘cultural ways of speaking’ provide an
important domain for the exploration of speech as a cultural phenomenon. Specific
studies of speech act from this perspective show how clashes between different
interactional styles can lead to intercultural miscommunication (1989: 5).
What can be interpreted from Blum-Kulka’s argument is that a lack of insight into
differences of speech acts in different cultures appears to be one of the causes which
potentially lead to cultural conflict or communication breakdowns. Thus, more



16

studies of speech acts across cultures to compare and contrast the similarities and
differences between them are of crucial importance, though it is challenging to
conduct those studies as a result of culture specificity or even context specificity.
1.2.2. Classification of speech acts
Speech acts can be classified according to their functions. Austin (1962: 151), for
example, started the classification by assigning five types of functions to utterances,
namely: verdictives (e.g., assess, appraise, ) exercitives (e.g., command,
direct,…), commissives (e.g., promise, propose, ), behabitives (e.g., apologize,
thank, ), and expositives (e.g., accept, agree, ). Searle (1976) presents one of the

most influential and widely used classification of speech acts with a focus on how
listeners respond to utterances intentionally, which is on the contrary to Austin
(1962) whose attention is on how speakers realize their intentions in speaking
(Wardhaugh, 1986: 287). Searle’s classification consists of five broad types: (1)
commissives (e.g., a promise or a threat), (2) declarations (e.g., a pronouncement at
court), (3) directives (e.g., a suggestion or a request), (4) expressives (e.g., an
apology or a complaint), and (5) representatives (e.g., an assertion or a report)
(ibib.: 10-16). Following Searle (1976), Yule (1997: 55) clarifies the five general
types of speech acts that in declarations, the speaker (S) causes the situation (X); in
representatives, S believes X; in expressives, S feels X; in directives, S wants X;
and in commissives, S intends X. Bach and Harnish (1979: 41) appear more specific
when they divide illocutionary acts into six categories. Two of them, the effectives
and verdictives, are conventional, not communicative. The four communicative
ones are constatives, directives, commisives, and acknowledgements, which are
more or less similar to Austin’s expositives, exercitives, commissives, and
behabitives, and closely related to Searle’s representatives, directives, commissives,
and expressives, respectively, but their characterizations are a bit different from
Searle’s. For instance, suggestions belong to the constatives in Bach and Harnish’s
but to the directives in Searle’s.