Bước đầu nghiên cứu đối chiếu văn hóa Mỹ-Việt thông qua các cuộc đối thoại hàng ngày

Bước đầu nghiên cứu đối chiếu văn hóa Mỹ-
Việt thông qua các cuộc đối thoại hàng ngày

Nguyễn Thị Hoàng My

Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ
Luận văn ThS ngành: Ngôn ngữ Anh; Mã số: 60 22 15
Người hướng dẫn: PGS.TS Trần Xuân Điệp
Năm bảo vệ: 2012

Abstract: Mastering a new language does not only consist of the ability to master its
system of forms, linguistic but also the competence to understand the way that language
used in certain contexts, compared to the mother tongue. Besides the distinctions of
phonology, syntax, and lexicon systems, languages differ from one another because of
the drive of culture. Since communication is meaning-based, conventional, appropriate,
and interactional and structured (Richards, 1983:242), speakers of a foreign language
must take into account the importance of knowing and understanding the culture if they
wish to communicate successfully in the target language without breakdowns or
unwanted hostility in cross-cultural interactions. This study was carried out with the
theoretical background of Contrastive Analysis, Conversation Analysis and viewpoints
on Language-Culture relationship as frameworks in order to investigate the similarities
and differences between the U.S and Vietnamese cultures through everyday
conversations.

Keywords: Ngôn ngữ; Tiếng Anh; Ngôn ngữ đối chiếu; Hội thoại


Content
PART I: INTRODUCTION
1. RATIONALE OF THE STUDY
The study on everyday conversations, specifically the topic of friendship, made by American and

Vietnamese students, has been selected to investigate as it was one of the great interests to the
researcher and of great help to language insiders and outsiders. Thereupon, a contrastive analysis
of the ways American and Vietnamese deal with disparate cases is regarded practical, necessary
and worthy for a mutual understanding.
2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The study was aimed at pointing out the answers for the two questions:
(1) What are the similarities between American culture and Vietnamese culture reflected
through the topic “Friendship” in daily conversations?
(2) What are the differences between American culture and Vietnamese culture reflected
through the topic “Friendship” in daily conversations?
3. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
This study was aimed at promoting communicative competence through everyday conversations
between the U.S and Vietnamese cultures. Thereupon, the main objective of this study was to
analyze and reflect the similarities as well as differences between the two targeted cultures.
4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
Due to the constraint of time and personal ability, the writer had no ambition for covering a wide
range of everyday conversations; instead, some featured situations related to Friendship were
chosen to take into consideration. This study was intended to discover how university students of
American and Vietnamese cultures reacted to the same circumstances. The database of this study
consisted of elicited written questionnaires and audio-tapes of natural conversations.
5. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
The study has been carried out based on a combination of different methods of quantitative and
qualitative approach which are as follows:
- Document;
- Synthesize;
- Analyze and contrast.
6. DESIGN OF THE STUDY
The study is comprised of three parts:
Part I, “Introduction”, includes the rationale, objectives of the study, research questions, research
methods, the scope and the design of the study.

Part II, “Development”, consists three chapters:
- Chapter 1 – Theoretical background - presents the preliminary knowledge of some basic
theories and a review of related literature to the study.
- Chapter 2 - Methodology - describes the research method, data collection instruments,
and detailed information about the research procedures.
- Chapter 3 - Findings and Discussions - analyzes the initial data collected and interviews.
Part III, “Conclusion”, a recapitulation of the research including the theoretical frameworks,
methodology and major findings, together with the limitations and suggestions for further study.



PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1 A brief overview on Contrastive Analysis
1.1.1 Definition
The term „Contrastive Linguistics‟ was first suggested by Whorf (1941), meaning of „a
comparative study which emphasizes on linguistic differences‟. However, not until the
publication of „Linguistics Across Cultures‟ by Lado, R. (1957) was the in-depth excavation into
this field commenced.
As Fisiak (1981:1)‟s redefinition, CA is „a sub discipline of linguistics concerned with the
comparison of two or more languages or subsystems of languages in order to determine both the
differences and similarities between them.‟
Robert Lado (1957) noted: „Individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings and the
distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language
and culture- both productively and when attempting to speak the language and to act in the
culture and receptively when attempting to grasp and understand the language and culture as
practiced by natives.‟
1.1.2 Macro-linguistic Contrastive Analysis
Macro-linguistic CA is a formal description of how people communicate, including cultural and
behavioral features associated with languages based on the interrelationships.

Macrolinguistics in CA can be characterized by (James, C. 1980:98):
(i) A concern for communicative competence rather than linguistic competence.
(ii) An attempt to describe linguistic events within their extra-linguistic settings.
(iii) The search for units of linguistic organization larger than the single sentence.
Also, James, C. (1980:101) paraphrased six variables first mentioned by Hymes (1974) into „who
says what to whom, where and when, how and why.‟
1.2 An brief overview on Conversation Analysis
1.2.1 Conversation
According to C. Goodwin and Heritage (1990:283), social interaction was elucidated as „the
primordial means through which the business of the social world is transacted, the identities of
its participants are affirmed or denied, and its cultures are transmitted, renewed and modified.‟
1.2.2 Conversation Analysis
„Conversation Analysis‟ is seen as a unique way of analyzing language and social interaction.
Conversation analytic approach has become most influential for its contributions to provide deep
insights that can unravel many linguistic problems (Levinson 1983: 364). In order to provide
real-life data from different subjects, audio taping technologies have been employed to record
naturally occurring actions in real-world settings, combined with direct observation and notes by
researchers.
1.3 Language and Culture
1.3.1 What is ‘language’?
Kramsch, C. (2004) defined language as „the principal means whereby we conduct our social
group‟. Another view from Sapir (1921) was that „language is a purely human and non-
instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions and desire by means of voluntarily
produced symbols.‟
Fulfilling many other tasks, language was denoted with three major functions as stated by Krech
(1962). Firstly, language plays a role of the primary vehicle of communication, such as
expressing thoughts, greeting, conducting religious services and so on. Secondly, it reflects the
personality of an individual and his cultural properties and also forms the shape of personality
and culture in return. Last but not least, language enables the growth and transmission of culture,
the continuity of societies, and the effective functioning and control of social group.

1.3.2 What is ‘culture’?
Tylor, E. (1871) first gave the definition of culture which has been widely quoted: „Culture… is
that complex whole which includes knowledge, beliefs, arts, morals, law, custom and any other
capacities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.‟
Goodenough proposed that „A society‟s culture consists of whatever it is one has to know or
believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members, and to do so in any role that
they can accept for any of themselves‟ (as cited in Wardhaugh, 1992:216).
From Banks‟s point of view (1988:126), it was „a cluster of attributes such as values, beliefs,
behavior patterns and symbols unique to a particular human group.‟
It is Nguyen, Q. (1998) who defined the term „culture‟ was “a shared background resulting from
a common language and communication style, customs, beliefs, attitudes and values.‟ In other
words, culture is the heritage from generation to generation.
1.3.3 The relationship between language and culture
Language is employed to maintain and convey culture and cultural ties. It is such a definite
assertion that language is one part of culture and under the impact of culture. That is not to
mention about the fact that language is influenced, shaped by culture and reflects culture.
Without language, culture would not be possible. The understanding of a culture and its people
can be enhanced by the knowledge of their language. Different languages will create different
limitations; therefore, a person who shares a culture but speaks different languages, will have
different world views.
1.4 An overview on Friendship
1.4.1 Definition
Friendship is of the voluntary relationship which includes the practices of starting up, sustaining
and ruining, together with the expectations that friends have for each other. Linguistically
speaking, in the attempt to translate the original word into our own mother tongue, we encounter
an enormous problem: there are a huge number of corresponding connotations. That leads to a
way to uncover cultural differences: review the philological roots of those verbal equivalents
and trace their implications.
1.4.2 Types of friendships
In the old Greeks‟ time, the great philosopher Aristotle initiated the very first classification of

friendships in his book Nicomachean Ethics.
- Friendship of utility: This kind of friendship based on the usefulness that people see in
each other that they think they can take advantage of.
- Friendship of pleasure: The name suggests the key factor for the existence of
friendship: pleasure. It depends on the amount of pleasure, informally „fun‟, that the
involvers get from the relationship. In other words, they enjoy each other‟s
companionship.
- Friendship of the good: also known as Friendship of Virtue. This friendship is based
on the respect and admiration that the participants have for each other.
At present, the concept of „friendship‟ can vary across a different, new scale. Wikipedia, for
example, provides the following levels of friendships:
- Acquaintance: not a true friend; sharing of emotional ties is absent. Normally,
acquaintances are the ones we see once in a while after a long time.
- Best friend (or close friend): The kind of friendship owns the strongest ties between
the participants.
- Bromance: A mixed term of „brother‟ and „romance‟ is newly established to denote the
close relationship (non-sexual) between men.
- Casual relationship: Two people sticking together for the purpose of sexual or near-
sexual affinity, not for the demand of sharing a formal relationship.
- Comrade: A very common term in military service or political connotation.


- Internet relationship: A form of friendship or romance which takes place over the
Internet. These friendships are also based on the thought that they may never meet in
real life, they know each other for who they are, instead of the mask they may use in
real life.
- Open relationship a relationship, usually between two people, that agree each partner
is free to have sexual intercourse with others outside the relationship.
- Pen pal: People who have a relationship via postal correspondence. They may or may
not have met each other in person and may share either love, friendship, or simply an

association between each other.
1.4.3 Friendship in the U.S culture
A study done by Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew E. Brashears (American
Sociological Review, 2006) suggested that American society was believed to be witnessing a
significant reduction in the quantity and quality of close friendships.
Diep, T.X. (US and Vietnamese cultures in contrast through everyday conversations, 2009)
pointed out some features of American people towards making friends.
- Firstly, Americans respect other people‟s privacy and hope those people do the same
thing for them. They hesitate to make questions that may invade others‟ personal issues.
Nevertheless, once they can get rid of their reluctance and understand each other
thoroughly, they will certainly become best friends and cherish their friendship.
- Secondly, Americans are often quite initiative in striking up a conversation with
strangers, which creates an intimate atmosphere. They are prone to keep the
conversations at savoir-vivre level with topics on traffic, weather or news on public
media.
- Thirdly, in spite of being open in starting a talk-in-interaction, Americans are rather
critical towards the politeness.
- Fourthly, despite being widely known for their sociality and friendly appearance,
American people only consider their relationships as a circle of acquaintances.
1.4.4 Friendship in Vietnamese culture
Diep, T.X (2009) also asserted that Vietnamese people easily open their heart to other people as
soon as they can overcome their reservation and find the interlocutor trustworthy. In spite of the
fact that there may not many clearly-stated taboo topics for conversations, the Vietnamese people
are usually careful about the choice of conversation contents. Moreover, in contrary to the U.S
culture, in Vietnamese culture, it may be easier for two Vietnamese people to become close even
if they only share a few interests or characteristics in common.

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
Research approach
The study was based on a mixed model paradigm. It was because the paradigm owned

appropriate nature and characteristics for the research topic, questions and context. Therefore,
the employment of both the two research methods in this sort of study has proved to uphold
validity and reliability of the findings.
2.1 Data collection instruments
2.1.1 Survey questionnaire
The questionnaire was designed with four real-life situations with suggested solutions. The
purposes of the survey questionnaire are 1) to explore how American and Vietnamese people
with the different cultures react to the same situations, 2) to compare the data collected from
audio tape to enhance the reliability of the study.
2.1.2 Audio taping
Audio taping of naturally occurring talks is the main instrument in the process of data collection
as the study emphasized on interactive conversations. The purpose of these tapes is to re-confirm
the results obtained from the survey questionnaire.
2.2 Participants
Apart from the direct informants, since the study was intended to investigate two cultures, the
writer called for the help from six assistants (two in two disparate states of the U.S: Georgia and
Indiana, and four in Hanoi). Assistants in the U.S included one Vietnamese student studying in
Wesleyan College (Macon, Georgia) and the other in Wabash College (Crawfordville, Indiana).
Assistants in Hanoi were four students enrolling in two universities: National Economics
University and Thang Long University.
2.2.1 Survey questionnaire
Copies of the survey questionnaire were delivered to 80 informants: 40 American and 40
Vietnamese college students whose age ranged from 17 to 25. All informants in the U.S were
native American, and in Hanoi were native Vietnamese. American informants from different
departments selected were joining same classes with the writer‟s assistants. Meanwhile,
Vietnamese informants were students from two different universities; 20 of whom also were
attending same classes with each of the writer‟s assistants.
2.2.2 Audio taping
Among 80 informants, the six assistants observed and randomly recorded their natural
conversations in real-life on four mentioned situations. Each assistant in the U.S was in charge of

recording two situations; each assistant in Hanoi took care of one situation.
2.3 The procedure of data collection and analysis
2.3.1 Survey questionnaire
In the U.S, due to the strict school regulations, in both colleges, an online version of the survey
questionnaire was sent via a mass email to the selected informants. After getting replies from
informants, assistants were to work out the numbers of answers for every question, then sent via
email to the writer.
In Hanoi, a hardcopy of the questionnaire was given to informants during their recess by their
classmates (assistants). Next, the four assistants collected the answered questionnaire papers and
did the same work as the U.S assistants. Lastly, they sent the calculation via email to the writer.
2.3.2 Audio tapes
The data were collected from mundane talk occurring in natural settings in 2012, in Georgia and
Indiana (the U.S) and in Hanoi (Vietnam). In the U.S, the assistants decided the situations of
which they were in charge of recording corresponding real-life conversations. Each situation was
observed and recorded without the notice of the informants. In Hanoi, the assistants took care of
their own recordings of assigned situation in which the recordings were also unknown.
The collected audio tapes, then, were sent to the writer to transcribe analyze. However, due to the
spontaneousness in occurring of the talks and time constraint, each assistant could only tape one
conversation for one situation. That made, in total, two recordings for each case, one in English
language and one in Vietnamese language.
The English corpus consisted of four tapes, all of which were recorded in the U.S (including
Georgia and Indiana). All informants were native speakers of English from North America and
studying as undergraduates. These data were claimed to come from actual interactions between
native speakers of English in natural everyday settings. Generally, they were transcribed on the
basis of the conventions used in conversation analysis. This, according to Psathas (1995: 45),
was appropriate and allowable in conversation analysis, as „Data may be obtained from any
available source, the only requirement being that these should be naturally occurring, rather
than produced for the purpose of study.‟ By and large, the data could be assumed to consist of
naturally occurring interactions, and were very much similar to those happen in everyday
exchanges between native speakers.

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Data analysis of the survey questionnaire
3.1.1 Question 1
What would you do if your neighbor turns the music so loud at night that you cannot sleep?
A. Complain directly to the neighbor or shout out towards the neighbor‟s house.
B. Ignore the noise and find ways to get back to sleep.
C. Phone and make a request that the neighbor turn down the volume; or call for the
landlord‟s help; or the police.
D. Others (please specify): ……………….

A
B
C
D
Vietnamese students
24
5
10
1
American students
13
0
26
1
Table 1. Answers for question1 of Vietnamese students and American students
As can be seen clearly, for most Vietnamese students, the first option was of the best choice (24
over 40 informants). Meanwhile, American students had a different thought of this question,
shown in the number of whom choosing option C (26 students), twice as many as Vietnamese
(10 students).

3.1.2 Question 2
You are invited to drink something you do not like. You have refused several times but the inviter
insists that “It is a popular drink here and everybody is enjoying it.” What would you do?
A. Re-confirm your refusal until the inviter quits.
B. Agree to take the drink but not try it.
C. Take the drink and try it.
D. Others (please specify): ………………

A
B
C
D
Vietnamese students
1
9
30
0
American students
30
5
5
0
Table 2. Answers for question 2 of Vietnamese students and American students
The above result shows that for the second question, there were striking differences in the
number of students choosing option A and C between the two nationalities. 30 out of 40
American were consistent with their refusal of not to drink the thing they did not like (option A).
Meanwhile, the similar number of Vietnamese informants selected C which was to be compliant
with the offer: take the drink and try it eventually.
3.1.3 Question 3
You are one of the best students in your class. One day, your classmate asks you to let him/her

copy your finished homework. How would you react to his/her favor?
A. Accept and hand him/her your homework.
B. Explain that copying is not good; instead, showing him/her how to do the homework.
C. Refuse without restraint.
D. Others (specify): …………………

A
B
C
D
Vietnamese students
30
3
6
1
American students
9
22
9
0
Table 3. Answers for question 3 of Vietnamese students and American students
Looking at the figures illustrated for question 3, it was easily noticeable that the greatest
dissimilarities were reflected in the choice of option A and B. In details, 30 Vietnamese students
compared to 9 American ticking A suggested that they got loose with their friends‟ request of
copying homework after being persuaded. In contrast, 22 American informants went for B which
they saw as the best answer for the question.
3.1.4 Question 4
You are to share room with a random schoolmate. After a few weeks, you cannot stand your
roommate‟s rudeness and untidiness. What would you do?
A. Move out with an excuse that is not related to the roommate‟s problems.

B. Discuss frankly over the problems with the roommate.
C. Tolerate with the problems and continue sharing room.
D. Others (specify): …………………………….

A
B
C
D
Vietnamese students
6
32
2
0
American students
7
30
3
0
Table 4. Answers for question 4 of Vietnamese students and American students
The last question seemed to gain the highest rate of shared opinions between students of the two
different countries. The figures demonstrated that more or less than 80% of students think face-
to-face discussion over the problems was the most optimal way to better the room-sharing
situation.
3.2 Data analysis of the audio tapes
3.2.1 Situation 1
Your neighbor turns the music so loud at night that you cannot sleep.
American students
Vietnamese students
Sheilla: The student renting apartment
Laura: The landlord

Sheilla: Sorry for bothering you this late but I
can‟t stand my neighbor. He‟s like the most
annoying creature in the world.
Laura: What‟s wrong, Sheilla?
Sheilla: He has some kind of problem with his
hearing or what. He turns the music to the max,
for God sake.
Laura: Calm down. Are you sure?
Sheilla: Yes, my god. Today is not the first
time. He‟s been doing like that for almost a
week now and usually at 2 or 3 a.m.
Laura: Have you tried talking to him?
Sheilla: Of course, phone calls, knocking door,
I think I‟ve tried all. I lose my patience so I
come down here to ask for your intervention.
Ngọc (Gõ cửa): Anh ơi, ồn quá, anh bật nhỏ
nhạc đi, nửa đêm rồi! Buồn cười thật đấy, có
phải nói lần đầu đâu cơ chứ.
Mạnh (Mở cửa): Sao đấy? Nhạc có to lắm đâu
nhỉ?
Ngọc: Trời, lại còn không to lắm, anh bật nhỏ
đi hoặc đeo tai nghe vào, hàng xóm còn phải
ngủ chứ!
Mạnh: Ơ hay, nhạc nhà tôi, tôi thích bật thế
nào, kệ tôi. Cô đi mà đeo tai nghe!
Ngọc: Anh ngang vừa chứ, có bị dở hơi đâu
mà đeo tai nghe đi ngủ!
Mạnh: Tôi không quan tâm.
Ngọc: Ơ…anh đừng có ngang, cái gì đúng thì
phải làm chứ?

Mạnh: Tôi thấy tôi đúng!
Ngọc: Đồ dở hơi! (bỏ về)
Table 5. Analysis of conversations for situation 1
In the US cultural view, after several useless complaints that Sheila clearly sent out to her
neighbor, she sought help from the landlord to solve before asking for authoritative help. The
Vietnamese solution demonstrated the habit of coping with problems, until Ngoc could endure
the annoyance from her neighbor, she still kept silence.
3.2.2 Situation 2
You are invited to drink something you do not like. You have refused several times but the
inviter insists that “It is a popular drink here and everybody is enjoying it.”
American students
Vietnamese students
Tom: Mary, what a surprise! You look
gorgeous tonight!
Mary: Hi, Tom! I didn‟t notice you are here,
too.
Tom: I‟ve just settled for a few tik-toks. Um,
Khôi: Này Thúy ơi, có cái này hay cực.
Thúy: Sao đấy? Cái gì mà cứ úp mở thế?
Khôi: Đây, cái này này, uống đi!
Thúy: Ôi không, tôi chẳng thích cái này,
không hợp khẩu vị.
Mary, would you like something to drink?
Mary: Not really. I‟m fine.
Tom: Hey, try this, you‟d love it.
Mary: Err, no, thanks.
Tom: Oh, come on! Look! Everybody‟s
having it just now. See?
Mary: Thank you, Tom. You‟re very nice but
I‟ll take it as soon as it appeals to me.

Khôi: Thì cứ uống đi cho vui, có sao đâu mà
sợ.
Thúy: Đã bảo không mà lại.
Khôi: Uống đi, uống một ít thôi cũng được.
Thúy: Không uống là không uống.
Khôi: Bà không uống thì đừng nhìn mặt tôi
nữa nhé!
Thúy: Ừ, thôi được rồi, uống thì uống!
Table 6. Analysis of conversations for situation 2
On the one hand, if Mary handled the situation in a gentle, polite and determined way by
asserting her thankfulness to Tom before insisting her refusal. On the other hand, Thuy posed the
opposing reaction as she turned down directly at first but reluctantly accepted the drinks from her
friends finally.
3.2.3 Situation 3
You are one of the best students in your class. One day, your classmate asks you to let him/her
copy your finished homework.
American students
Vietnamese students
John: Hey dude, homework done? Back me
up, bro. I forgot about it.
Ron: You were playing computer games
overnight, ain‟t cha?
John: You read me well, bro. This time only, I
swear!
Ron: Come on, can‟t fool me. I‟ve seen you
copying Jane‟s homework a few times. It‟s
your habit, man!
John: Okay okay, I admit, I promise to do
homework every day, alright? But this
homework…

Ron: Right. I have an idea, let me show you
how to do it before Mrs. Lily arrives. Not
very tough I‟d say.
Trung: Ê mày ơi?!
Tuấn: Sao sao?
Trung: Làm bài Giao Dịch Tài chính quốc tế
thầy giao chưa?
Tuấn: Rồi, mới làm hôm qua. Sao đấy?
Trung: Khó quá, tao chả làm được. Cho tao
mượn ngó một tẹo, kẻo tí nữa thầy sờ gáy thì
chết.
Tuấn: Gì? Không được. Khó gì mà khó. Tại
mày lười, tao lạ gì mày.
Trung: Ừ thì lười được chưa? Cho chép nhờ
đi.
Tuấn: Cho mày chép rồi nhỡ thầy kiểm tra
thấy hai đứa làm giống hệt nhau thì sao?
Trung: Không có đâu. Mày học giỏi, lại hay
phát biểu, thầy kiểm tra mày làm gì. Yên chí!
Tuấn: Hừ, được rồi, lần này thôi đấy.
Table 7. Analysis of conversations for situation 3
Noticeably, in the early part of both conversations, how the two excellent students reacted to the
entreatment was similar; that was the implication of refusal. However, as shown in the latter part,
the final decisions were distinct. The American student still stood on his ground by refusing his
friend to copy the homework; whereas, the Vietnamese student accepted the request after being
persuaded by the friend‟s promise.
3.2.4 Situation 4
You are to share room with a random schoolmate. After a few weeks, you cannot stand your
roommate‟s rudeness and untidiness.
American students

Vietnamese students
Jim: Peter, see my belt anywhere?
Peter: No idea. And I guess you have no
clues, too.
Jim: Right. What do you mean?
Peter: I mean you‟re too untidy. Look at your
mess over there.
Jim: Not a mess, my clothes, FYI.
Peter: That‟s my point. Your clothes should
be on the hanger, not on the floor like mopes.
Jim: Chill, mate! I can see that.
Peter: And you‟re not going to do anything
with it? Or you want to live in this sty until
surrounding peope run away from you?
Jim: Okay, alright. I‟ll do it right now.
Lan: Sao lại vứt quần áo lung tung thế này?
Hà: Sao đâu? Tí về tớ dọn.
Lan: Tí nữa là lúc nào? Ấy bừa bộn quá đi.
Hà: Bừa gì mấy. Tại tớ bận quá nên không có
thời gian dọn ấy mà.
Lan: Chẳng bao giờ thấy ấy bảo ấy rảnh, toàn
tớ phải dọn hộ. Ngăn nắp hơn hộ tớ với!
Hà: Nhưng tớ thấy bình thường mà, tớ quen
rồi.
Lan: Ở nhà riêng thì ấy làm thế được chứ bây
giờ ấy đang ở cùng phòng với tớ mà, phải biết
thay đổi đi chứ. Đây, bắt đầu thay đổi từ đống
quần áo này này!
Hà: Ừ, được rồi, tớ làm đây.
Table 8. Analysis of conversations for situation 4

The same solution chosen by both American and Vietnamese participants revealed the nature of
two decisions was under the effect of living conditions, communicative proximity and mutual
compromise.
3.3 Discussions
A Vietnamese-American contrast of findings is summed up in the following table:
Situation
American’s reaction
Vietnamese’s reaction
You are wakened up
Request the neighbor to volume
Complain and request directly to
at night because your
neighbor turns up the
music so loud.
down with appropriate reasons. If
he/she refuses, call for the
intervention of the landlord or
police.
the neighbor. This easily leads to
quarrels or fights if no
compromise is reached.
A friend of yours
offered you a drink
you do not like.
Despite your refusal,
he/she still insisted
that you should try by
persuading you:
“Everybody is
enjoying it”

Continue to refuse the offer until
that person quits.
Vietnamese behaves differently in
this situation, but the common one
is to accept the offer.
Your classmate
expresses his/her wish
to copy your
homework as you are
a quite good student.
Instead of letting other people copy
the work, American are willing to
instruct them how to do it.
Vietnamese often allow their
friends to copy the homework
which they see as of no
importance or causing no harm for
themselves.
Your roommate‟s
untidiness is beyond
imagination. You feel
that you no longer
want to share room
with that person.
Discuss frankly with the roommate
over the problems between two
people and work out the most
suitable solution together.
Similar to American‟s reaction.
Table 9. Summary of Vietnamese-American contrasts

PART III: CONCLUSION
1. Recapitulation
For the purpose of contrastive task, this thesis chose to launch two research phases. The first
phase was to survey 80 students: 40 of whom were native American and 40 native Vietnamese.
The second phase was to tape randomly 16 students among 80 chosen ones above of whom 8
were native American and 8 were native Vietnamese.
2. Major findings
2.1 Differences
As for American culture, American students in particular and American people in general hold
their reputation for being direct, straightforward and frank in dealing with social situations.
Moreover, Americans show that they are normally consistent with their decision from the
beginning to the end.
As for Vietnamese culture, it is a widely believed assumption that Oriental people prefer
maintain a good link with people and apply face-saving strategy when communicating than
turning them down.
2.2 Similarities
Different people from different cultures may have something in common. This case of American
culture and Vietnamese culture is not exceptional. In spite of the wish of being treated as an
independent individual, when gathering in a community, American and Vietnamese people
socialize and remain proximity with one another to reach a compromise.
3. Limitations of the study
Firstly, definitions of „language‟ and „culture‟ remain controversial in linguistic fields. That is
not to mention the complex relationship between language and culture.
Secondly, referring to „everyday conversations‟, there are a vast variety of included topics, yet to
consider the factors governing the choice of conversation contents.
Finally, within the scope of this study, the results obtained from 80 university students (in the
U.S and in Vietnam) participating in the data collection procedures could not be general enough
to apply directly to all university students in these regions of the world. Another point is that
there were only four situations in the questionnaire and audio tapes; they were not a
representative of conversation topics of „friendship‟ occurring daily between university students.

4. Suggestions for further study
The research can be continued in a number of ways. For example, it can be either an in-depth
analysis of conversations on the topic „friendship‟ with different aspects or investigations of a
wider range of areas of everyday conversation topics.

References
1. Aristotle. 350BC. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W. D. Ross
2. Banks, J.A. 1988. Multi-ethnic education. U.S.: Allyn & Bacon.
3. David, G., Cheshire, J. and Swan, J. 1994. Describing Language (2
nd
edition)
Buckingham: Open University Press.
4. Emmitt M. and Pollock J. 1997. Language and learning: An Introduction for Teaching
(2
nd
edition). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
5. Emmitt, M. and Pollock, J. 1990. Language and Learning (1
st
edition). Melbourne:
Oxford University Press.OUP
6. Fisiak, J. et al. 1984. Contrastive Linguistics and the Language Teachers. Pergamon
Press. Oxford.
7. Garfinkel, H. 1964. Studies in the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social
Problems, 11, 225-50.
8. Garfinkel, H. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity.
9. Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic.
10. Goodwin, C. and Heritage, J. 1990. Conversation Analysis. Annual Review of
Anthropology, vol. 19 (1) pp. 283-307.
11. Hall, E.T. 1976. Beyond culture. Anchor Books/A Division of Random House, Inc.
12. Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. 2008. Conversation Analysis. Polity Press, Cambridge.

13. Hymes, D.H. 1966. Two Types of Linguistic Relativity. In Bright, W. Sociolinguistics.
The Hague: Mouton. pp. 114–158.
14. Hymes, D.H. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach.
University of Pennsylvania Press.
15. James, C. 1980. Contrastive Analysis. Longman Group ltd.
16. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. 2004. Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (2
nd
edition). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.
17. Kramsch, C. 2004. Language, Thought, and Culture. In A. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.),
The Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 235-261). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
18. Krech, D. 1962. Individual in Society: A Textbook of Social Psychology. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
19. Lee, S.K. 2003. Exploring the Relationship between Language, Culture and Identity.
GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies Vol.3 (2) 2003 ISSB1675 – 8021.
Retrieved from the web, August 8
th
, 2012
20. Liddicoat, A.J. 2007. An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. Continuum
International Publishing Group
21. Nguyen, Q. 1998. Vietnamese - American Cross Cultural Differences in Extending and
Encountering Compliments – as seen from Communicative Activities. Ph.D Thesis.
22. Phan, T.V.Q. 2011. Some English-Vietnamese cross-cultural differences in refusing a
request. MA thesis, Hanoi.
23. Psathas, G. 1995. Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction. Sage
Publications.
24. Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York:
Harcourt, Brace.
25. Thurgood, G. 1990. Contrastive Analysis - An Overview. California State University

Press.
26. Tran, X. D. 2009. A series of reports on the findings of “US and Vietnamese cultures in
contrast through everyday conversation”. Journal Science of Hanoi National University
of Education.
27. Tylor, E. B. 1871. Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology,
Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom. John Murray, London.
28. Wardhaugh, R. 1992. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics – Basil Blackwell. Levinson,
S. C. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman