In order to become competent in a foreign language

1

Part A: Introduction
I. Rationale
In order to become competent in a foreign language, it is important for language
learners not only to acquire new vocabularies and a new set of phonological and syntactic
rules but also to learn what Wilson (1986) calls the rules of speaking: the patterns of
sociolinguistic behavior of the target language. The rules of speaking involve us in knowing
when and how it is suitable to open a conversation, what topics are appropriate to particular
speech events, how speech acts are to be given and interpreted. In many cases, this
interpretation goes beyond what the language learners might intend to convey and includes
assessments such as “polite” and “impolite”.
In Vietnam, as the economy grows and international business develops, English
proficiency becomes a master tool for young people to get a job. They encounter foreigners
in everyday settings where communication is necessary. In the modern society, the need for
communication is increasing, especially in the process of globalization, when communication
spreads beyond the boundary of a country. During the last decades, linguistic researchers
have broadened their focus of their interests from the development of grammatical
competence to other areas of target language development, such as discourse and pragmatic
competence, common speech routines, for example, requests, apologies, complaints,
compliments, refusals, and the like have been most frequently studied in cross-cultural and
interlanguage pragmatics. According to Tsui (1994), there seems to be little empirical
research that has been conducted in responses to questions. For a long time, questionresponse has been considered one of the most basic structures of conversation (Schegloff,
1974) but as Tsui (1994; p. 160) points out: “responses have been given little attention in the
speech acts literature. Most of the acts characterized and listed in the various taxonomies
are illocutionary acts which are often done by making the function of utterance in discourse,
and as many responding acts do not have a corresponding responding performative verb,
this kind of analysis inevitably neglects responses”
A characterization of utterances (based on observation of real-life discourse) is not
likely to neglect the importance of responses. Let’s consider an example illustrated by Tsui
(1994)

A: What’s the time?
B:

(a) Eleven
(b) Time for coffee
(c) I haven’t got a watch, sorry


2

(d) How hold I know
(e) Ask Jack
(f) You know bloody well what time it is
(g) Why do you ask?
(h) What did you say?
(i) What do you mean?
Various possible responses from (a) to (i) shows us the complicated relationship
between question and a proper answer. For the same question, the speaker A may be replied
in different ways with different intentions by the addressee. Obviously, a response can be a
proper answer, an indirect or implicit reply, an evasive answer, a refusal or denial, an outright
lie or even a challenge to the speaker’s questioning act. Moreover, the question-answer
exchange cannot always be a simple relationship in the actual communicative process. It is
the addressee’s response that may establish, deepen and maintain the conversation, develop
the intimacy among interlocutors, or interrupt the interactional process and even badly
change the participants’ role, for example, from friends to enemies. There is no doubt that the
addressee’s responses depend on so many social factors: the speaker’s intent; the hearer’s
perception of that intent, the various fits between actual and perceived intents, concurrent
gestures, facial expressions, movements and some decisions as to how the two parties are to
deal with this complex mix of factors (Wardhaugh,1997). A question which is now posed to
us is how we can precisely understand and interpret the speaker’s intents to a question; what

types of question responses are; what strategies the speaker uses to respond to questions; and
what factors affect speaker’s responding behavior. This is the reason that motivated our
choice of the research to present a contrastive analysis of responses to questions in English
and Vietnamese conversation. Through the study, we hope to gain some insights which
highlight both the similarities and the differences between English and Vietnamese response
types, strategies used to respond to question by Native Speakers of English and Vietnamese.
The study will also try to present difficulties as well as some practical recommendations for
the process of teaching and learning English.
II. Aims of the study
In order to distinguish the different ways of replies and responses to questions as well
as different responding strategies in English and Vietnamese, this research aims at:
- describing and analyzing different types of responses to questions in English and
Vietnamese conversation


3

- investigating how verbal responses to question express cultural values by examining
the relationship between gender, closeness of relationship and status of the interlocutors and
the kinds of responses to questions.
- putting forward some implications for teaching and learning the functions of
responses to questions in everyday conversation.
III. Scope of the study
In this research, we mainly concentrate on some types of responses to seekinginformation questions. The term, “question”, whose illocutionary focus is to elicit
information and knowledge, is defined as a functional or speech act label. A question is
asked when the questioner does not really know the answer and wants the addressee to
supply a piece of information (Tsui, 1994). As we mentioned the name of the study “ An
investigation on some types of verbal responses to questions in English and Vietnamese
conversation” above, non-verbal responses such as silence, gestures, movements and the like
will be outside the scope of the study.

IV. Research questions
1. What are the various types of verbal responses to questions in English and
Vietnamese conversations?
2. What are the differences and similarities in the choice of response patterns to
questions between native speakers of English and Vietnamese?
V. Organization of the study
The study contains three parts. Part A: Introduction establishes the rationale of the
study, the aims, and the scope of the study; the research questions and organization of the
study. Part B: Contents consists of four chapters. Chapter one points out comprehensible
review of theoretical background on speech acts, discourse and conversation analysis, and it
is concerned with literature review in which attention is paid to the classification of questions
and responses in the theoretical framework by Tsui (1994). Chapter two gives the method to
collect and analyze data. The next is chapter three, in which we compare and contrast various
types of responses to questions and their pragmatic functions in English and Vietnamese
conversations. This chapter also analyses the data collected from linguistic books, articles,
novels, tape records, find out some similarities and differences in verbal responses to
questions in English and Vietnamese conversation. In the chapter four, we investigate
sociolinguistic variables affecting to some typical types and strategies of responses to
questions in English and Vietnamese conversation. Part C is the conclusion and some
implications for English learning and teaching.


4

PART B: development
CHAPTER 1: THEORITICAL BACKGROUND
1. Conversational theory
1.1. Conversation
First and foremost, it is necessary to clarify the term “conversation”. Conversation is
the primary means for human communication. Many linguists have given different

definitions of what a conversation is, as follow: “conversation is the exchange of language
through language” (Hornby et. al, 1963), or “conversation is a friendly, natural talk in
which people exchange information, ideas, and emotion to one another” (Collins, 1987).
Levinson (1983: 284) sees conversation as “familiar predominant kind of talk in which two
or more participants freely alternate in speaking, which generally occurs outside specific
institutional settings like religious services, law courts, classroom, and the like”. However,
the definition of Finegan et.al (1994: 316) about the conversation may help us understand
deeply.
“a conversation can be viewed as a series of speech acts- greetings,
enquiries, congratulations, comment, invitations, requests…to accomplish the work of these
speech acts, some organization is essential: we take turns to speak, answer questions, mark
the beginning and end of conversation, and make corrections when they are needed ”
1.2. Conversation structure
When we are talking to each other we are not just pronouncing words. By saying
something we are also doing something. An utterance such as “Could you close the door?”
can function as a request for information or a warning depends on the circumstances. When
we say something, we also expect the addressee to respond in one way or another, by
answering a question, by agreeing or disagreeing to a proposal, by acknowledging receipt of
information, and so on, in other words by being an active partner. This is what interaction is
about. The term “interaction” could actually apply to a very large number of quite different
social encounters. For example, a teacher talking to a student in a classroom is one kind of
interaction. Others include a boss talking to his assistant at the workplace, a doctor to patient
in a clinic…The basic pattern “I speak – you speak – I speak – you speak” is what
linguists call the structure of conversation. The study of question responding acts in
conversation is necessary. There are two approaches to examine the conversation structure:
conversation analysis and discourse analysis.


5

1.2.1. Conversation analysis
Many conversational analysis researchers have defined ordinary conversation as the
kind of casual, social talk that routinely occurs between friends and acquaintances, either
face-to-face or on the phone. According to Markee (2000) “conversation analysis concerned
with naturally occurring instances of everyday talk follow still another, separate academic
tradition of inquiry, which concentrates on the actual discourse mechanisms that serve to
allocate turns of speaking, to negotiate changes in focus and to manage and direct the flow
of interaction”. Conversation analysis, like ethnomethodology, focuses on the common,
everyday competencies that make the social interaction possible. It examines oral dialogue to
determine the social and pragmatic principle whereby speakers and hearers negotiate,
structure and interpret conversation. The general strategy in conversation analysis is to
examine actual verbal interactions in order to bring the structural properties of talk. The
descriptive units that the conversation analysis has been using in describing the structure of
conversation are Turn, Adjacency pair and Sequence.


Turn

Conversation is a collaborative process. A speaker does not say everything he or she
wants to say in a single utterance. Conversation progresses as a series of turns. Turn is seen
as everything one speaker says before another begins to speak. Turn might be short or long.
Some short turns consist of a single word like turn (1) and (4) in the following telephone
closing:
TURNS
< 1>

B: right

(1)

A: Yes thanks very much

(2)

B: OK bye

(3)

A: bye

(4)
(36: 4)



Adjacency Pair
Schegloff (1974) observe that a conversation is a string of at least two turns which are

produced by different speakers and are related to each other in such a way they form a pair
type. They call them an adjacency pair. The adjacency pair always consists of a first part and
a second part. The utterance of a first part immediately creates an expectation of the
utterance of a second part of the same pair. There is a class of first pair parts which include
Questions, Greetings, Offers, Requests, etc. For some first pair parts, the second pair part is


6

reciprocal (Greeting – Greeting); for some there is only one appropriate second (Question
– Answer), for some more than one (Complaint – Apology/Justification). For examples:
<2> First past

Second Part

A: Hello

B: Hi

A: What time is it?

B: About eighty-thirty

A: Morning, Bob! Late again!

B: I’m ever sorry. I promise it won’t happen again.

In a second part pair, there is often a choice of two likely responses. A request is most
likely to be followed by either an acceptance of refusal. An assessment is responded by an
agreement or disagreement. In such cases, one of the responses is termed the preferred
response and the other the dispreferred response. The preferred is the structurally expected
next act and the dispreferred is the structurally unexpected next act. The following general
patterns are presented by Levinson (1983, p. 336)
First part

Second part
Preferred
Dispreferred
Assessment
Agree
Disagree
Invitation/Offer

Accept
Refuse
Request
Accept
Refuse
Question
Expected answer
Unexpected answer or non-answer
Blame
Deny
Admission
Table 1. Correlation of content and format in adjacency pair


Sequence

The structure of adjacency pair described so far has been linear: The first pair part
followed by the second pair part. However, there are also cases of embedding: one pair
occurring inside another. Sometimes, either because the listener does not understand or
because he does not want to commit himself until he knows more or because he is simply
stalling, a next speaker produces not a second part but another first pair part. This
conversational fragment is referred to as insertion sequence. Tapes of sequence are illustrated
in <3> and <4>:
<3> Agent: Do you want the early flight?

(=Q1)

Client: What time does it arrive?

(=Q2)

Agent: Five-fifty

(=A2)

Client: Yeah – that’s great

(=A1)
(71: 78)

This sequence takes the form of Q1 - Q2 - A2 - A1, A1 is the answer of Q1, and A2
is the answer of Q2. Therefore, the middle pair Q2 - A2 is called an insertion sequence.


7

<4> A: Your jewellery looks very nice

(Assessment)

B: Which one do you mean exactly?

(Question)

A: The necklace

(Answer)

B: Well, I don’t think the same

(Disagreement)

In this conversation, there is pair which consists of making an assessment
disagreement with an insertion sequence of question answer pair which seems to function as
a condition on the disagreement being provided.
1.2.2. Discourse analysis
Coulthard (1985) proposed a descriptive framework for analyzing conversation. They
discovered a typical classroom exchange that is made up of three moves: an initiating move,
a responding move, a follow-up move, as the following example:
<5> T: What does the next one mean?
You don’t often see that one round here, Miri.

Initiating move

P: Danger falling rocks

Responding move

T: Danger, falling rock

Follow-up move

However, Sinclair and Coulthard (1985) also pointed out that when a move consists of
more than one act, then one of the acts is the main act called head act which carries the
discourse function of the entire move. It is obligation. The rest are subsidiary acts called prehead act if they precede the head act, or post-head act if they follow the head act. They are
optional. Sinclair and Coulthard (1985) illustrated the following conversation:
<6> A: Why are you standing? Do sit down.
B: Thanks. (Sit down)

(1)

(2)

In this conversation, (1) consists of two acts: a question “Why are you standing?” and
an invitation “Do sit down”. Obviously, the main discourse function of move (1) is an
invitation (not a question). B’s response to the invitation is obligatory. B’s response “Thanks”
can be understood as accepting the invitation. A cannot challenge B for not responding to his
question. If B says “Well, I’ve been sitting all day”, B’s response is not only an answer to the
question, but rather a declination of the invitation. A will not challenge B for having only
responded to the question but also not the invitation.
However, the fact that an initiating move sets up the expectation of a responding
move does not mean that the former will always be followed by the latter. After the
production of an initiation, the next speaker makes a systemic choice of whether, to support
or reject it. The following is an illustration of how the system works in conversation form


8

(Tsui, 1994). Tsui supposes a tourist in Birmingham City Centre asks a passer-by “Can you
tell me where New Street station is?” The followings are examples of the choices that are
available to the passer-by:
<7> Tourist: Can you tell me where New Street station is?
Passer-by: (a) It’s just round the corner.
(b) Do you know where the shopping centre is?
(c) Sorry, I’m a stranger here.
(66: 20)
The illustration shows the passer-by the choice of supporting the utterance or
rejecting it altogether. If he chooses the former, then he has the choice of producing a
response, which supplies the information (7a). Or he may produce another elicitation before
supplying the information (7b). If the choice is to reject the utterance, he may reject the
assumption that he is able to supply the requested information (7c).

1.3. Conversational principle
1.3.1 Co-operation and implicature
It has become clear from the studies of conversation that conversation proceeds on
the basis that participants are “reasonable” people who can be expected to deal decently with
one another. In considering the suitability of participants’ moves in conversation, Grice
(1975, p. 45) formulates a rough general principle which participants will be expected to
observe as follows: “Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the state
at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you
are engaged. One might label this the cooperative principle”.
Grice has described four categories of special cases of this principle which he called
“Maxims”. These maxims can briefly be characterized in modified form below:
1) Maxim of Quantity: Be brief. Make your contribution as informative as is
required and no more.
2) Maxim of Quality: Be true. Do not say what you believe to be false and do not say
that for which you lack adequate evidence.
3) Maxim of Relation: Be relevant.
4) Maxim of Manner: Be clear. Avoid obscurity and ambiguity.
Grice points out that speaker do not always follow these maxims. They may violate,
exploit the maxims. That is to say, they do not give as much of the relevant information as he
could, or he may offer utterances ambiguously, etc. In such instances, the conversation


9

maxims provide a basis for the hearer to construct a sequence of inferences which make it
relevant or at least cooperative. Grice called this process “implicature”.
Let us consider this example:
<8> A: What do you think of our new boss?
B: Not very nice
A: Not nice? I think he’s great

This conversation is constructed on the basis of the observation that when a
speaker questions a proposition stated by the previous speaker, he is often signaling
disagreement by questioning is not relevant unless the speaker is implying disagreement with
that statement. In brief, conversation is a cooperative activity. Conversation makes use of the
cooperative principle. Speakers and hearers are guided by considerations of quantity, quantity
relation, manner and the process of implicature which allow them to figure out relationships
between the said and the unsaid. According to Thomas (1998) a speaker can say one thing
and manage to mean something else or something more by exploiting the fact that he may be
presumed to be cooperative, in particular, to be speaking truthfully, informatively, relevantly,
and otherwise, appropriately. The listener relies on this presumption to make a contextually
driven inference from what the speaker says to what the speaker means. In other words, the
hearer has to work out from what is said by appealing to the rules governing successful
conversational interaction. Sometimes the speaker’s reply is untrue and uncooperative but in
fact this is the sort of sarcastic reply we encounter everyday and have no problem at all in
interpreting. How do we interpret it? There are two ways of inferring the meaning by the
speaker: Observation to maxims and Non-observation to maxims


Observation to maxims: observing maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation and
Manner



Non-observation to maxims: flouting maxims of Quantity, Quality, Relation and
Manner

1.3.2. Politeness principles
In the aspects of politeness, different ways of responses to questions ultimately
influence someone’s behavior or attitude. According to Green (1996), politeness is seen as
trade in commodity called face. Face is defined as consisting of the freedom to act

unimpeded (Negative Face) and the satisfaction of having one’s value approved of (Positive
Face). To maintain face requires the cooperation of others’ actions and value systems, so
interactants trade face, paying face whenever they must perform a face-threatening act in


10

the course of accomplishing their goals. Brown and Levinson (1987) argues that when
speaker does an act, which he believes may threaten addressee’s face, speaker must calculate
how much he is risking in performing the face – threatening act. Therefore, there are some
factors affecting to this calculation: speaker’s estimates of the social distance assumed to
separate speaker and hearer, the relative social power of speaker and hearer, and the extent to
which the act contemplated is considered to be an imposition in the culture of which speaker
and hearer are members.
1.4. Verbal communication
Communication can be understood as “the exchange of ideas, information, etc.
between two or more persons”. Successful communication should not only send information
to another but also ensure that this information is understood by the receivers in more or less
the way it is intended by the sender.
Communication can take in many different ways. Generally speaking, two categories
of communication can be identified. The first is verbal communication, that is
communication using language and speech to share or exchange information. The second is
non-verbal communication; that is communication without the use of language but
depending rather on other channels such as body language, eye contact, physical appearance,
attitude distance and physical contact. Due to the limitation of the small study, we only
research verbal communication that verbal responses to questions in English and Vietnamese
conversations are specifically taken into the consideration.
2. Speech act theory
The theory of speech act was first discussed in Austin’s book entitled How to do things
with words (1962). In this book, Austin assumes that language not only functions as stating

and describing things but also as performing acts. He examples that an apology or a promise
conveys psychological or social practice and takes place at the right time when someone
apologizes or promises, not before the actual action. He also modifies that many declarative
sentences are defined as the doing or part of, the doing of a certain action although they do
not only make any description, report, or statement.
Based on Austin’s work, Searle (1976; p.16) pointed out that “the unit of linguistic
communication is not, as has generally been supposed, the symbol, word or sentence, but
rather the production or issuance of the symbol or word or sentence in the performance of
the speech act”. This is only expresses information through words but also performs certain
functions such as promising, inviting, questing, wishing, etc, in everyday communication. In


11

addition, in everyday use of language, the act may occur either before or after the utterance is
produced. An apology or an expression of congratulation belongs to the type of speech acts
taking place after the propositional act. For example, in the utterance “I am sorry, I lost your
watch”, the speaker expresses regret for a past act. On the contrary, a promise or a request is
uttered before the act actually occurs, as in “I’ll lend you some money”. The action of lending
money is done after the speaker produces the utterance.
2.1. Classification of speech acts
In attempting to express themselves, people do not only produce utterance containing
grammatical structures and words, they perform action via those utterances. For example, the
utterance (1) “You are so gentle” can be used to perform the act of complement, (2) “You are
welcome” serves as the acknowledgement of thanks, (3) “I am sorry for breaking your
glasses” is the act of apology. Actions performed via these utterances are called speech acts.
According to Austin (1962), a speaker can perform three acts:
•

Locutionary act: the act of saying something in the full sense of “say”

•

Illocutionary act: the act performed in saying something

•

Perlocutionary act: the act performed by or as a result of saying

For instance, in a response to A’s statement “That new James Bond is the best one”, B
utters “Are you kidding?” to make a question. This is known as illocutionary act. However,
this utterance conveys the assumption that the hearer A will recognize it as a signal of
disagreement. This is generally known as perlocutionary act.
According to Searle (1976), speech acts are categorized into five types:
•

Representatives (Assertives):

commit the speaker to something being the case

such as assertions, reports, conclusions, descriptions, etc…
<8> I assert that Nicole’s a mole.
•

Directives: the speaker gets the hearer to do something. This class includes order,
request, challenge, invite, etc
<9> I beg you to convey the respectful compliments of myself and Mrs. Veal.

•

Commisieves: commit the speaker himself to some future action such as promise,
refusal, threat, swear, etc
<10>They are not rented less gloomy, I promise you.

•

Expressives: express feelings and attitudes about a state of affairs such as
apology, compliment, thanks, etc…
<11> I thank you for paying me the money.


12

•

Declaratives: change the world via utterance. This includes many of those which
Austin first considered as performatives
<12> I now pronounce you husband and wife.

2.2. Felicity conditions
Felicity conditions are conditions to count an act as having the illocutionary act of one
sort or another. Austin (1962) distinguishes between three main categories on the
conventional procedure and its effect with the appropriate speaker and circumstance, the
completion and correctness of the procedure performance and the speaker’s desires in giving
directives. Accordingly, in Austin’s view, performatives can be assessed as felicity
conditions are met.
Searle (1976) proposes the taxonomy of four kinds of conditions. For a speech act to be
successful (effective, acceptable) it must meet certain criteria (known as felicity conditions):
-

Preparatory conditions: The right person and the right situation

-

Sincerity condition: You should mean what you say

-

Essential conditions: What you say must be consistent with certain beliefs and
behaviors.

For example to offer a guest a drink at a party, you need to be the host (or otherwise have
the right to make the offer) and there needs to be some drink, you must really mean to give
the person a drink if they accept your offer, and if they accept you must get them a drink.
Searle’s conditions on requests (H is the hearer and S in the speaker)
a) Propositional content: Future act A of H
b) Preparatory conditions: H is able to do A. S be lives H is able to do A.
It is not obvious to both S and H that H will do A in the normal course of events of
his own accord.
c) Sincerity: S wants H to do A
d) Essential condition: counts as an attempt to get H to do A.
2.3. Direct and indirect speech acts
A different approach to distinguish types of speech acts can be made on the basis of
structure and a function; we have a direct speech act. When the syntactic form of an
utterance does not match its apparent illocutionary force, we have an indirect speech act. For
example:
<13> It’s raining.
How nice you are!

13

A declarative <13> used to make a reprentative and an exclamatory used to make an
expressive are direct speech acts. However, there are cases where speech acts are performed
indirectly through the performance of another speech act as in <14> and <15>
<14> You’re standing in front of the TV.
<15> A: I think George is a real nut case.
B: What do you mean a real nut case?
Utterance B in <15> has the form of an interrogative. It is not typically used to ask a
question, but to indicate an indirect disagreement.
In fact, communicative problems involving the nontranslatability of the illocutionary
force of an utterance are particularly noticeable in the use of indirect speech acts. According
to Yule (1996), indirect speech acts are generally associated with greater politeness in
English than direct speech acts. Hence, interlocutors should note that in order to be effective
in communication, they have to look at a bigger picture than just a single utterance
performing a single speech act.
3. Literature Review of Questions and Responses
Quirk, R & Greenbeam, S (1987) propose that there are three major classes of
questions according to the answer they expect. They are: Yes-No question, Tag-question,
Question Words. Besides these, Lyons (1977) characterizes question as utterance with
particular illocutionary force. The difference between a question and a statement is that the
former contains a feature of doubt; the speaker should not know the answer to his questions.
Robert, D & Collins, C (1984) see questions as requests and directives. They suggest
that the logic form of questions should be “I request that you tell me”, instead of “I ask you”.
Butt (2000) considers questions as a kind of directives on the grounds that a directive is an
instruction to perform something and questions are instructions to make verbal perform. For
example “Tell me the time.” is a directive to make a verbal performance.
However, Tsui (1994) and Lyons (1977) assert that questions are not kind of request.
They also support some examples to illustrate, such as

“No”

in

response

to

Yes-No

questions:
<16>

A: Is the door open?
B: No

<17>

← answer to the question

whereas “No” to

A: Open the door, please?
B: No

← refusal to do what is requested

(66: 80)

14

In the M.A thesis of linguistic: Comparison of structures of Vietnamese and English
Questions, Tran Chi Mai (2000) propose two main kinds of Vietnamese questions. They are
alternative questions and non-alternative questions according to the purposes in the relation
of responses. According to Hoang Trong Phien (1980), questions are classified into sub-types
basing on the features of questions and responses. He asserts that the speaker mainly makes
questions because of “unobvious” things. This also decides the responses.


Non-alternative questions

This kind of questions is created in the hope that the hearer gives the responses. In
Vietnamese, we often use interrogative pronouns, such as: ai (who), thÕ nµo (How), đi đâu
(where), bao giờ (when)
<18> - Ai đang ngoài vờn đấy?
- Cháu đây, bà ạ.

(Who is in the garden?)
(Its me.)

<19> - Sao chị biết anh ấy không có tiền? (How do you know that he has money?)
- V× anh Êy tróng vÐ sè.


(He has just won lottery.)

Alternative questions

This kind of questions often appears some words, such as: cã ph¶i, hay….the

addressee often gives the response on the basis of the purposes of questions.
<20>

Ai đa nó đi học bây giờ, tôi hay cô?

<21>

Anh ta là ngời tử tế hay không phải là ngêi tö tÕ?

Through the literature, there are many linguists pay much attention to initiating acts:
requesting, complimenting, complaining…however, the studies of responses are less
mentioned. Although we meet much difficult to find references to do our research, we try our
best to give some types of verbal responses to questions in English and Vietnamese
conversations. The followings are various patterns of responses to questions defined
linguistic researchers in English and Vietnamese.
Lakoff (1973) mentions two kinds of responses to questions: answers and replies.
According to Lakoff, a question like “What’s the time, please?” has the underlying structure,
“I request that you supply the information necessary for us to know what time it is”. Let’s
consider the following example:
<22>A: What’s the time?
B: (a) Eleven

answers

(b) Time for coffee
(c) I haven’t got a watch, sorry

responses

15

(d) How hold I know
(e) Ask Jack
(f) You know bloody well what time it is

replies

(g) Why do you ask?
(h) What did you say?
(i) What do you mean?

(66: 160)

Utterance like those in (a) and (b) respond to the question and are considered to be
“answer”, whereas utterances like those in (c) to (i) respond to the verb of questioning itself
and are considered to be “replies”. Lakoff (1973) sees them as all appropriate responses,
although some of them do not satisfy the speaker. It is clear that every question is followed
by a set of responses, but the responses are not the answers to the question. For example:
<23> A: Where’s Peter’s office?
B: (a) I don’t know.
(b) I can’t tell you.
(c) That’s none of your business.
(d) It’s on the second floor.
(e) It’s over there.

(37: 60)

Supporting Tsui’s ideas, Dik also illustrates the example above <25>. He sees that all
utterances (a) to (e) are responses, but the utterances (d) and (e) are answers.

In the book “An Introduction to Discourse Analysis”, Coulthard (1985) proposes
every time a speaker asks a question, there is a set of underlying assumptions, all of which
must be true if he is to receive the answer he seeks. However, some of assumptions
sometimes may not hold while the responses may consist of a challenge or a denial to the
assumption. Coulthard gives his examination about questions and responses in the novel
“Othello”, and sees that there are eight assumptions of questioning and the eight
corresponding challenges and denials to the assumptions that: addressee is listening,
addressee hears the question, speaker questions at an appropriate time, addressee understands
the question, addressee accepts speaker and empowered to ask the question, addressee thinks
the speaker does not know the answer, address is willing to answer, addressee knows the
answer. In Vietnamese, Le Anh Xuan (2000) studies positive and negative responding acts in
form of questions. His studies are on the different types of indirect responses to seeking
information questions. These indirect responses can be in form of a statement, a question, an


16

exclamation and a special pattern, such as, proverbs, idioms…Le Anh Xuan (2000; p. 127)
also gives the results of the study as follow:
Form of indirect responses
No
%
Statement
960
64
Question
480
32
Exclamation
15

1
Special patterns
45
3
Table 2. Forms of indirect responses to questions
In an article entitled Câu trả lời và câu đáp cho câu hỏi chính danh, Le Dong
(1985) proposes different patterns of responding to question. They are: direct and indirect
responses, refusals to answer, challenges to the presupposition of question, responses to
implicit meaning of the question and some special responses: misunderstandings or evasive
responses…
Classification of questions and responses in Tsui’ s model
Tsui (1994) argues that it is the communicative choice or function, which seeks not
only information but also confirmation, agreement, repetition or classification. Unlike Quirk
and Greenbaum’s (1987) classification of questions which seeks affirmative, negative or
information, Tsui gives some examples to illustrate as follow:
-

Has the boat left already? → seeking confirmation

-

Are you still here? (the addressee is working in the office) → seeking information
not “yes” or “no” confirmation

-

It’s lovely day, isn’t it? → seeking agreement not a confirmation

-

What did you say? → seeking the repetition

-

What do you mean? → seeking the clarification

(66: 63)

According to Tsui (1994), questions are different from requests. The utterances referred
to as Questions elicit or prospect a very different response from requests. “A question elicits
an obligatory verbal response (or nonverbal surrogate) and the interaction between the
speaker and the addressee is completed entirely at the verbal level”. Besides, Tsui also
suggests that a request elicit an obligatory non-verbal response with an accompanying verbal
response, and the interaction is complete at the non-verbal level.
Sinclair and Coulthard (1985) introduce the term “elicitation” to describe utterances
in the classroom, which elicit verbal responses. “An elicitation is an act the function of which
is to request a linguistic response- linguistic, although the response may be a non-verbal
surrogate such as a nod or raised hand”. Tsui (1994) characterizes questions as


17

“elicitations” to avoid the confusion ambiguity with requests or directives. Tsui (1994) also
gives six subclasses of elicitation: Initiating → Elicitations→ information/ confirmation/
agreement/ commitment/ repetition/ clarification.
In characterizing responding acts, Tsui (1994) asserts that not any move following an
initiating move is a responding move. An initiation can be followed by a move, which is
totally unrelated. The question is how do we decide whether a related move is a responding
move? Let’s consider the examples below:
<1>

A: What’s the time?
B:

(a) Eleven
(b) Time for coffee
(c) I haven’t got a watch, sorry
(d) How hold I know
(e) Ask Jack
(f) You know bloody well what time it is
(g) Why do you ask?
(h) What did you say?
(i) What do you mean?

<2>

(66: 80)

A: Where’s Peter’s office?
B: (a) I don’t know.
(b) I can’t tell you.
(c) That’s none of your business.
(d) It’s on the second floor.
(e) It’s over there.

(37: 60)

We can see that B’s utterances are all related to A’s initiating move. However, all
these utterances are responding moves? To know the answer of the question, we should
consider the illocutionary intent and pragmatic presuppositions (refer to the background

belief of the speaker; propositions that the speaker takes for granted to be true in making the
utterance) of A’s elicitation.
The illocutionary intent for A’s elicitation in the examples above is to get B to
provide a piece of information. (a) and (b) in <1> and (d) and (e) in <2> fulfill the
illocutionary intent of A’s elicitation. They provide the information that A is seeking.
Although (b) in <1> is given indirectly, A can know the answer on the basis of his common
knowledge about the world (The time for coffee is often around eleven o’clock in the


18

morning). According to Tsui (1994), (a) and (b) in <1> and (d) and (e) in <2> are
responding moves, the other utterances are challenging moves because they do not provide
the information that A is seeking and do not fulfill the illocutionary intent of A’s elicitation.
Tsui (1994) argues that any move, which maintain the framework set up by preceding
initiating move is a supporting move. A supporting move facilitates the progress of the topic
presented in the preceding utterance. Any more breaks up the discourse framework and holds
up the progress of the topic is a challenging move. Take the consideration of the following
example:
A: What’s the time?
B:

(c) I haven’t got a watch, sorry
(d) How hold I know
(e) Ask Jack
(f) Why do you ask?
(g) What did you say?
(h) What do you mean?

B makes the utterance like (c) in order to politely provide a reason for not giving the

information, while (d) does it in an aggressive way. The utterance (e) challenges the
presupposition that the addressee has information or the addressee is willing to supply the
information. In (f) the presupposition that the addressee has the need to ask for the
information is challenged, whereas utterances (g) and (h) challenge the presupposition that
the speaker can hear and understand what has been said.
We have mentioned the literature review of questions and responses in English and
Vietnamese. In the study, we try to bring the light of different responses in different contexts
in English and Vietnamese. In this chapter, we provide theoretical background, that is the
criteria for classification of responses to questions in English and Vietnamese, that is really
practical for making an in-depth study in the next chapters.
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
This chapter is to illustrate the methodology of the study and the sections which
follow, include:
-

Research questions

-

Data collection instruments

-

Selection of subjects

-

Data collection procedures

19

-

Data analysis

1. Research Questions
1. What are the various types of verbal responses to questions in English and
Vietnamese conversations?
2. What are the differences and similarities in the choice of response patterns to
questions between native speakers of English and Vietnamese?
2. Data collection Instruments
As stated in the previous sections, our purpose is to examine the types of verbal
responses to questions in English and Vietnamese, how Vietnamese speakers differ from
English native speakers in their choice of response types to questions.
In this study, data collection instruments will include two main questionnaires. First,
The Discourse Completion Task (DCT) was designed to elicit some types of question
responses from the set of English Native Speakers in English. Second, the Vietnamese
translated version of the DCT questionnaire was used to collect some types of question
responses from the set of Vietnamese Speakers in Vietnamese.
•

Some issues in choosing methods to collect data

In an attempt to answer these questions, a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) was
used. Arguments for the choice of this data collection will be discussed in the following
section.
Several methods have been used in researching speech acts. Ethnographic methods
have been used to collect naturally occurring question responses (or whatever types of speech
events in being studied), which are observed or recorded, along with information about the

sex, age, status, situation, culture, relationship …of the interactants. The advantage of this
method is that it can reveal the linguistic strategies used in many contexts in a given
language and culture. However, this method seems to be infeasible in Vietnam because
Vietnamese people do not want to be recorded for any reasons. This method also wastes time
and money in recording and transcription of taped interactions. Multiple choice methods, in
which a series of questions is prepared with answers, subjects are asked to choose the answer
they think is most appropriate. A possible advantage of this method is that it makes the job of
the subjects easier and enables the researchers to get information from a large number of the
subjects in a short time. However, it does not allow the subjects to provide as many
possibilities as in the case of open-ended questions, as the responses given depend on the
number of possibilities anticipated in the design of the questionnaire. In a study of linguistic


20

forms of a speech act, therefore, this method would limit the variety of the information
provided.
One method that seems to overcome some of the disadvantage of the methods
mentioned above is the Discourse Completion Task (DCT) (Cohen. 1996 – quoted in Tam,
2005, p.55). In the DCT, which is used in this study, the discourse is structured so that part of
it is left open and part closed. A space is provides for the subjects to supply the speech acts
under investigation, but the response is provided in order to cue the respondent as to the
appropriate nature of the speech act realization. The DCT allows to elicitation of data from a
large sample of subjects relatively easily, using the same situations where contextual
variables can be controlled. It is a good way to gain insight into social factors that are likely
to affect speech and performance. Cohen (1995, p.25) concedes that “Discourse Completion
Test are effective means of gathering a large amount of data quickly, creating an initial
classification of semantic formulas and ascertaining the structures of speech acts under
consideration.” However, a major difficulty in using a DCT for research of this kind is that
the researcher designing the questionnaire and the subjects providing responses to the

situations may perceive the social factors of the context differently. Moreover, a difficulty
when using a written task for collection of spoken language is that some certain kinds of
information such as, non-verbal features of oral –interaction cannot be recorded.
In brief, every method has its advantages and disadvantages. In this study, in order to
collect sufficient data within the time and resource constrain available, and as discussed in
the previous sections, our purpose is to understand some types of verbal responses to
questions in English and Vietnamese conversations, not non-verbal responses, we will use
DCT to collect data.
•

The content of the questionnaire

The situations in the questionnaire were designed to reflect real life situations.
Additional information about the subjects’ personal backgrounds was obtained by a section
at the front page of each questionnaire. The questionnaires are in English and in Vietnamese.
The English Native Speakers were asked to answer the questions in English and the
Vietnamese Speakers were asked to answer the questions in Vietnamese. The questionnaire
was intended to elicit response forms from subjects. It consists of eight situations.
To obtain the data for the study, observation was employed in order to bolster the
results from the questionnaire, as well as to clarify and test the validity of the obtained
information. Observation was paid on some types of English and Vietnamese question


21

responses in daily-life situations, books, articles, novels, stories, authentic listening
materials.
3. The selection of subjects
The process of collecting data lasted for nearly five months with the help of my
friends who works in offices and in universities where there occur native and non native

speaker interactions. Data was collected from two groups of participants: one group of the
English participants who come from Australia, America, and England; another group consist
of Vietnamese people. All of them are working in RMIT University and American
International College (AIC), World Bank Office of Road Project Management Unit 2
(RPMU2). The subjects in both groups are from 25 plus to below 50 years old; have had high
levels of education. All subjects of the study are classified into two groups: Native Speakers
of English (NSE) and Native Speakers of Vietnamese (NSV).
The characteristics of each group are listed in the following table:
Criteria
NSE
NSV
English, American, Australian
Vietnamese
Nationality
English as native language
English as a foreign language
Language
Number
of 14 (50%) (7 males and 7 14 (50%) (7 males and 7 females)
females)
Teachers: 7 (25%)

Teachers: 9 (32.1%)

Staff:

participants
Occupation

Staff:

4 (14.3%)

Manager: 1 (3.6%)

3 (10.7%)

Manager: 1 (3.6%)

Assistant: 2 (7.1%)
Assistant: 1 (3.6%)
Table 3. Summary of characteristics of subjects
4. Data collection procedure
The two questionnaires were conducted on 63 Vietnamese subjects and on 47 English
ones. Two groups of subjects were asked to write what they would say in such a situation.
After 3 months, 39 Vietnamese questionnaires and 21 English questionnaires were returned.
However, only 14 English questionnaires and 16 Vietnamese questionnaires satisfactorily
comply with the purpose of the study.
The purpose of the questionnaire was to elicit how the English and the Vietnamese
subjects express their responses to questions and how the two groups of subject differ in
choosing question response forms.
The data collected was considered as a source to gain some significant insights in
pragmatic strategies of responding acts, the situations are designed to investigate socio-


22

cultural factors including the decision of using different types of question responses in
English and Vietnamese.
5. Data analysis

As mentioned in the previous parts, we collected various kinds of question responses
in English and Vietnamese, bilingual samples, on the basis of their communicative meaning;
the data was classified into groups on the basis of the presented forms for the realization of
responses to questions in each language. Contrastive analysis was employed so that the
similarities and the differences in responses to questions in English and Vietnamese were
found out on the foundations of the findings in each language. The number of overlaps by
both native speakers and non native speakers was codified, counted and compared.
The data was also analyzed according to the pragmatic function of question
responses. It followed the discourse frame work proposed by Tsui (1994). The instruments
for an analysis of the study are adopted in Tsui’s Model: Responding Move; Challenging
Move; Responses and Challenges. According to Tsui (1994), the use of some terms
“question”, “answer” (response) and “challenge” (reaction) is understood as follows:
Question (Q): any eliciting of a response regardless of grammatical form.
Answer (A): any response that fulfills the expectation of the question.
Challenge(C): any response that modifies (clarifies; expands) or rates (negatively) a
previous statement (question; answer; or another reaction)
Fussell & Krauss (2002; p.41) gives an example of a information-seeking question and
its response as follows:
A: Who is president of the United States?

(Q)

B: That’s too easy.

(C to Q)

A: No it isn’t.

(C to C)

B: George Washington.

(A to Q)

In this study, we try to isolate some types of responses to questions which have
the illocutionary forces of information and agreement seeking, clarification or confirmation
checking.
CHAPTER 3: SOME TYPES OF VERBAL RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS IN
ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE CONVERSATIONS
This chapter is going to present, compare and analyze some various patterns from
both English and Vietnamese conversations. After contrasting samples from English and
Vietnamese textbooks, course books, novels, stories, daily conversations, newspapers …We
try to find out some different types of question responses in English and Vietnamese.


23

Tsui (1994), Searl (1976), Lakoff (1973) assert that any utterances which direct
or indirect, fulfill the illocutionary intent of question’s elicitations are replies. On the other
hand, those which do not provide information, disconfirm the speaker’s assumption, disagree
with the speaker’s goal; fail to repeat or clarify what being said before are realized as
challenges.
In this chapter, we classify some types of question responses according to Tsui’s
Model (1994). Tsui (1994; p.162) proposes different patterns of responses to questions:
responses can be realized directly or indirectly as answers or replies to questions. These
kinds of responses patterns fulfill the speaker’s goal directly or indirectly. The other
responses are called challenges that do not provide what the speaker seeks; the challenges
can be a refusal or an evasion. They do not fulfill the illocutionary intent of speaker’s
elicitation.
1. Replies to questions

As mentioned above, responses can be realized directly or indirectly as answers
or replies to questions. In this section, we draw out two types of responses: direct and indirect
responses. This type of response fulfills the speaker’s goal directly. In verbal interaction, any
speaker who poses a question is assumed to be answered in a cooperative, sincere way. The
speaker hopes the addressee to provide the expected information without misleading or
confusing.
1.1. Direct responses
We randomly choose 117 samples of English responses and 117 samples of
Vietnamese responses, of which 68.3% in English and 49% in Vietnamese are direct replies.
Based on the samples collected, we realized some types of direct responses as follows:
1.1.1. Supplying the missing information
<1>

Q: Is there a gym here?
A: Yes, Madam, it’s on the third floor.

<2>

Q: The Ham sandwich. How much is that?
A: $5.95.

<3>

(60: 57)

Q: And how long have you been married?
A: Oh, for twenty-two years now.

<4>

(60: 51)

(48: 234)

Q: Who was your first girl friend?
A: Well, that’s easy. It was Emma.

(60: 122)


24

Similarly, in Vietnamese, the direct responses also give a proper answer.
<5>

Q: Ch¸u mÊy ti råi?
A: Ch¸u ba tuổi ạ.

<6>

(10: 70)

Q: Chú bắt ở đâu mà nhiều cá rô thế?
A: ở ngoài đồng.

(7: 135)

Q: Bao giờ em đi?

<7>

A: Tối nay.

(7: 135)

1.1.2. Agreeing Q’s assumption
According to Levinson (1983) illocutionary intent of elicit agreement is that the
addressee agrees with the speaker’s assumption that the expressed proposition is selfevidently true.
English conversation

<8>

Q: Did he go to the concert?
A: He went.

<9>

(52: 101)

Q: Did she feel lonely?
A: Very lonely.

(50: 122)

Vietnamese conversation:
<10>

Q: Con thÝch b¸nh này chø?
A: Con thích.

(6: 39)

<11> Q: Ai đấy? út Thơng hả?
A: út Thơng đây.

(2: 317)

<12> Q: Vợ T Năng đâu?
A: Vợ T Năng ®©y.

(25: 219)

1.1.3. Confirming the assumption of Q’s question
According to Brazil (1995) & Quick et all (1987), illocutionary intent of elicit
confirmation is that the speaker believes the expressed proposition is true, but some certain
things in the context lead him to doubt his belief. The addressee is able to confirm the
speaker’s assumption is true.
English conversation:
<13>

Q: Don’t you think Marian looks better that she’s ever looked?
A: That’s exactly what I am thinking.

<14>

Q: What? Your wife is Emma?
A: Yes, That’s right.

<15>

(67: 227)

Q: That’s the eleventh, isn’t it?

(60: 122)


25

A: Yes, so it is.

(48: 238)

Vietnamese conversation
<16>

Q: C« Êy cã con?
A: Phải.

<17>

Q: Sắp hội diễn rồi phải không em?
A: Vâng, sắp.

<18>

(6: 134)
(2: 84)

Q: Cụ bán rồi?

A: Bán rồi! Vừa bắt xong.

(6: 115)

1.1.4. Repeating or clarifying Q’s assumption
<19>

A: I’d like anything to drink.
Q: Anything to drink? What is “anything to drink”?
A: Coke, orange juice, water…

<20>

(50: 121)

Q: How do you stay so slim?
A: I follow the food combining rules.
Q: Food combining? What’s that?
A: Well, for example, I never eat protein and carbohydrate together. (50: 120)

<21>

Q: Cô lên cầu Đá Xanh có việc gì?
A: Em về trên đơn vị có chút việc.
Q: Việc gì? Hay là cô lên thăm chồng hay thăm ngời yêu?
A: Em đi thăm ngời yêu.

<22>

(25: 234)

Q: Anh Tánh hả? Thiệt anh Tánh hả?
A: Tánh đây. Tao đây.
Q: Mình diệt nó hết rôì hả anh?
A: ờ diệt hết rồi, trận ®¸nh xong råi.

(25: 116)

The above samples collected reveal the significant similarities of direct response
patterns to questions in English and Vietnamese conversations. In English, the expressions,
such as “Right”; “That’s right”; “Sure”; “Yes, sure”; “Exactly”, “Me too”…are regularly used
in direct responses while in Vietnamese, we often use some direct response patterns as:
“V©ng”; Đúng; Chính xác; Phải; ừ; Chắc chắn and so on.
In any verbal English and Vietnamese conversations, a speaker who poses a
question is assumed to be answered in a cooperative, sincere and information way. Normal
conversation proceeds so smoothly because we cooperate in them. According to Grice
(1975), we are able to converse with one another because we recognize common goals in