A cross cultural study on expressing satisfaction in American English and Vietnamese

A cross cultural study on expressing satisfaction
in American English and Vietnamese

Nguyễn Thị Thùy Linh


Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ
Luận văn ThS. Chuyên ngành: English linguistics; Mã số: 60 22 15
Người hướng dẫn: Huynh Anh Tuan, PhD.
Năm bảo vệ: 2013


Abstract: Based on the theoretical background of cross- cultural communication, this
study aims at investigating the similarities and differences in expressing satisfaction
towards different co- interactants in the Vietnamese and American language and culture.
It focuses primarily on: The popularity of strategies of expressing satisfaction employed;
The use of directness and indirectness in expressing satisfaction. To succeed in doing
such a research, the author of the study takes informants’ social parameters such as age,
sex, marital status, living area, and knowledge of foreign language(s) into consideration.
Besides, their survey responses are carefully analyzed to build a frame, a common set of
strategies in the field. The conclusion is drawn from data analysis and findings are
presented and compared in a brief and concise way. Some common expressing
satisfaction patterns in both Vietnamese and American cultures from the data are also
presented and illustrated with the hope of partially helping avoid cultural conflicts or
communicating breakdowns.

Keywords: Tiếng Anh; Văn hóa Việt Nam; Giao thoa văn hóa; Văn hóa Mỹ

Content
PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale

With the great speed of developing and expanding, English has emerged as the most powerful
international language all over the world. Starting from its use gradually turning into colossal,
plus the characteristics of convenience, English on those days can be said to be the “golden key
to every door”.
In the Vietnamese context, as a result of the open policies and a lot of encouragement and
support from society, the needs of learning English have also been magnified. However, for the
sake of examination, the real purpose of learning English has been somehow distorted. A long
time ago, the method of English teaching at school was Grammar- Translation Method with the
stress on grammatical points. Up till now, thanks to the attentive researches from language
teachers and educators, the pendulum of English language teaching has swung to communicative
approach. Acquiring a new language means a lot more than the manipulation of syntax and
lexicon. Language is not just a system of sounds, words and grammatical structures in isolation,
yet it is seen as a system of communication existing in a community. The goal of language
teaching is, therefore assumed to be learners’ ability to communicate in the target language.
As a matter of fact, to attain the good command of communication, culture learning apparently
becomes indispensable. Brembeck (1977) noted that, “To know another’s language and not his
culture is a way to make a fluent fool of oneself”. It is the same in the case of teaching and
learning English. In order to help learners achieve communicative competence, we have to pay
close attention to culture awareness and acquisition. That dialectical connection has always been
a concern of researchers and from time to time it has received more and more agreement.
Thomas (1983) states that the lack of socio linguistic competence results in rudeness,
miscommunication or even communication breakdown because non - native speakers’
inappropriate use of cultural norms and conventions are considered as manifestation of
“impoliteness or unfriendliness” due to “boorishness or ill will” rather than lack of pragmatic
knowledge. Accordingly, culture learning no longer remains humble and unnecessary in the
syllabus. In contrast, it needs to be taken in great consideration and concentration. Succeeding
this point of view, Nguyen Quang (1998) came to the conclusion that, “One cannot master a
language without profound awareness of its cultural background and in both verbal and non-
verbal communication, culture makes itself strongly felt.” A learner can truly master English
only when he is able to hold a good understanding of the intertwined relationship between

culture and language.
Recognizing the intertwined relationship between culture and language, the researcher would
like to carry out a small-scale study on Expressing satisfaction as a speech act, which is viewed
in the light of Politeness (Positive politeness- negative politeness) in English and Vietnamese.
Due to the limit of the paper, she would not be able to deal with all aspects but draw some
differences and similarities in expressing satisfaction in the two languages. It is hoped that the
study may contribute some help to learners to avoid culture shock and failures in expressing
satisfaction as well as in inter-cultural communication.
2. Aims of the study
The study focuses to achieve the following aims:
- To have a thorough examination in the similarities and differences in directness and
indirectness strategies of expressing satisfaction by Vietnamese and English informants,
whereby to find out some similarities and differences in politeness strategies of
expressing satisfaction in English and Vietnamese.
- to find out factors that affects the choice of politeness strategies when expressing
satisfaction in English and Vietnamese.
- to raise awareness of cross-cultural factors in expressing satisfaction and help learners of
English avoid cultural shock in -cultural communication.
3. Scope of the study
The paper investigates expressing satisfaction as a speech act in English and Vietnamese.
Expressing satisfaction will be analyzed in accordance with verbal cues. And the study focuses
on the dimension of Politeness (Positive Politeness and Negative Politeness), as well as
Directness- Indirectness.
Due to the limitation of time and material, the study only concentrates on investigating strategies
of expressing satisfaction in English and Vietnamese in some certain situations together with
some typical socio- cultural factors among various ones governing the choice of politeness
strategies.
Besides, the number of informants is limited: 30 informants from the U.S and 30 informants
from Vietnam (Northern Vietnam).
4. Methods of the study

Within the length of this study, quantitative method will be primarily deployed. Qualitative
remarks, assumptions and conclusions of the study will be mainly based on the quantitative
contrastive analysis of data.
With a view to the data collection methods, the one and only tool that helps the researcher get
hold of the statistics and responses is questionnaires. Specifically, there are two questionnaires
delivered to Vietnamese and American informants, one is Metapragmatic Questionnaire (MPQ)
and another is Discourse Completion Task (DCT). One one hand, MPQ is designed to test the
validity and reliability of 12 situations in 3 activity areas: at home, at work and in public places.
. On the other hand, DCT which was logically and emperically valiadated before it is used as a
data collection instrument is employed as the tool to analyze negative and positive strategies as
well as the use of directness/ indirectness in some certain situations.
5. Design of the study
The thesis consists of three main parts:
Part A: Introduction
The rationale, aims, scope of the study, methods are presented in this part.
Part B: Development
This is the main part of the study which is divided into three chapters.
Chapter 1: Theoretical background
Chapter 2: Literature review
Chapter 3: Methodology
Chapter 4: Data analysis: Findings and Discussions
In the first chapter, in order to lay the basis for the study, some definitions and theories about
culture, communication and speech acts will be covered. Following is the methodology of the
research in which the author has in-depth discussions about the questionnaires and the
informants. After that, the second chapter follows the thread with the contrastive analysis of
data.
Part 3: Conclusion
In this part, the major findings are summarized, conclusions drawn and suggestions for further
study made.

REFERENCES
In English:
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bach, K.& Harnish, R. (1984). Linguistic communication and speech acts. England: The MIT
Press.
Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford
etc.: OUP.
Bachman, L.F., & Palmer, A.S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice: Designing and
Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford etc.: OUP.
Bentahila, A. & Davies, E. (1989). Culture and language use: A problem for language teaching.
In RAL, vol. 27/2, 99-112.
Blum- Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (eds). (1989). Cross- cultural pragmatics: requests and
apologies. Ablex.
Brembeck, W. (1977). Development and teaching of college course in intercultural
communication. Reading in intercultural communication. Pittsburgh: SIETAR Publications,
University of Pittsburgh.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics.
Celce- Murcia, M. Z. Dornyei & S, Thurrel. (1995). Communicative competence: A
pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6: 5-
35.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. M.I.T Press.
Condon, J.C. & Yousef, F.S. (1975). An introduction to Intercultural communication. 20
th
ed.
Prentice Hall.
Ferraro, G. (1995). Cultural anthropology. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Green, G.M. (1989). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Lawrence Eribaum
Associates, Inc.

Gudykunst, William B. & Mody, B., eds (2002) “Handbook of International and Intercultural
Communication”. 2
nd
edition.
Homes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London and New York: Longman.
Hybels, S. & Waver, R.L. (1992). Communicating effectively. Mc Graw- Hill, Inc.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In: J.B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds)
Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth
Kaplan, J. (1972). “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education”. Language Learning 16.
Lakeoff, R. (1977). What Can You Do with Words: Politeness, Pragmatics and Performatives. In
Roger, Andy, Wall, Bob and Murphy, John (eds), Proceedings of the Texas Conference on
Performatives, Presuppositions and Implicatures, 79-106. Arlington, V.A.: Centre for Applied
Linguistics.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Levin, D.R. & Adelman, M.B. (1993). Beyond language- intercultural communication for
English as a second language. Prentice Hall, Inc.
O’ Neil, D. (2010).
Richards, J.C. & Schmitdt, R. W. (1983). Language and communication. In London and New
York: Longman.
Richards, J.C., Platt, J. and Flatt. H. (1992). Longman dictionary of language teaching and
applied linguistics (2
nd
edition). UK: Longman.
Samovar, L., Porter, R. & Jain, N. (1981). Understanding intercultural communication. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Samovar, L.A. (2007). Communicating between cultures. 6
th
ed. Belmont: Thomson
Wardsworth.
Saville- Troike, M. (1982). The ethnography of communication: An introduction. New York:

Basil Blackwell.
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. London and New
York: Longman.
Williams, F. (1989). The new communication. Wardsworth Publishing Company Inc.
Wood, J.T. (1997). Everyday encounters: An introduction to interpersonal communication.
Toronto. Ont: ITP Nelson.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

In Vietnamese:
Bùi Thị Thu Mai (2007). Some Vietnamese- Anglicist cross- cultural differences in teachers’
expressing dissatisfaction to their students. M.A Thesis. HULIS, VNU.
Đoàn Văn Huân (2005). Expressing gratitude by native speakers of English and Vietnamese
learners of English. M.A Thesis. HULIS, VNU.
Đỗ Mai Thanh (2000). Some English- Vietnamese cross- cultural differences in requesting. M.A
Thesis. HULIS, VNU.
Đỗ Thị Phương Thanh (2011). A cross- cultural study on American- Vietnamese verbal
expressions in confirming and negating. M.A Thesis. HULIS- VNU.
Hà Cẩm Tâm (2005). Requests by Vietnamese learners of English. PhD thesis. CFL, VNU.
Ngô Hữu Hoàng (1998).A cross cultural study of thanking and responding to thanks in English
and Vietnamese. M.A Thesis. CFL, VNU.
Nguyễn Như Trang (2009). Vietnamese-Australian cross- cultural study on hiding feelings at the
workplace. M.A Thesis. HULIS, VNU
Nguyễn Quang. (2002). Giao tiếp và giao tiếp giao văn hóa. NXB Đại học Quốc Gia.
Nguyễn Quang. (2004). Giao tiếp nội văn hóa và giao văn hóa. NXB Đại học Quốc Gia.
Nguyễn Quang. (1998). Intercultural communication. HULIS, VNU.
Nguyễn Quang (1999). Một số khác biệt giao tiếp lời nói Việt- Mỹ trong cách thức khen và tiếp
nhận lời khen.
Nguyễn Thị Thúy Thu (2007). An American- Vietnamese cross cultural study of politeness

strategies used in making requests. M.A Thesis. HULIS, VNU.
Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (2002). Dụng học Việt ngữ. NXB Đại học Quooscs gia Hà Nội.
Phạm Anh Toàn (2005). A Vietnamese- American cross cultural study on expressing gratitude
to people with different social distances. M.A Thesis. HULIS, VNU.
Tạ Thị Thanh Hiền. (2010). A politeness strategy in expressing sympathy by American and
Vietnamese speakers. M.A Thesis. HULIS, VNU.