SỰ PHẢN ÁNH GIÁ TRỊ CÁ NHÂN VÀ GIÁ TRỊ CỘNG ĐỒNG TRONG GIAO TIẾP NÓI TIẾNG ANH MỸ VÀ TIẾNG VIỆT

ABSTRACT
The values of individualism and collectivism have been proved to exert
profound effects on many aspects of life respectively in America and Vietnam, among
which is the two groups of people’s verbal communication styles. However, it seems
that this interesting topic has yet to be widely explored.
By employing the questionnaires to collect data from 40 European American
and Vietnamese informants, the study demonstrates their understandings of the
dominant value in their society, as well as how it is reflected in their language use in
terms of directness or indirectness, formality or informality. The result confirms the
exploitation of directness in American conversations as a manifestation of
individualism. Nevertheless, it also re-questions the popular remark that indirectness
and formality – signs of collectivism are preferred by Vietnamese interlocutors and the
same as European American ones with informality – sign of individualism, as the
dependence is on specific situations. Finally, some cross-cultural recommendations are
given with the hope to enhance mutual understandings between two groups of people
when they communicate with one another.

i


TABLE OF CONTENT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................i
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………ii
TABLE OF CONTENT……………………………………………………………....iii
LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………..vi
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………...…vii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS…………………………………………………...….viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….1
1. Statement of the research problem and rationale…………………………................1
2. Research questions…………………………………………………………………..2
3. Scope of the study…………………………………………………………………...2

4. Significance of the study…………………………………….……………………...3
5. Research methodology………………………………………………………...…….4
5.1.

Data collection method and procedures…………………………….……4

5.2.

Data analysis methods and procedures……………………………….….4

6. Organization of the paper…………………………………………………….………4
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND………………………………….6
1. Language and culture………………………………………………………….…….6
2. The concepts of individualism and collectivism……………………………………6
2.1.

Individualism and collectivism in history….…………………………….6

2.2.

Individualism and collectivism in the paper……………….…………….8

2.3.

Interpretations of individualism and collectivism from the perspectives of

American and Vietnamese cultures and languages…………………………………10
2.3.1.

Individualism in American culture and language……….……………...10

2.3.2.

Collectivism in Vietnamese culture and language………….…………..13

2.3.3.

Some reasons to explain the values of individualism and collectivism in

American and Vietnamese cultures and languages………………………….……15

ii


3. Some manifestations of the reflections of individualism and collectivism in
American and Vietnamese verbal communication styles……………..……….……...16
3.1.

Direct and indirect verbal communication styles……………...…….….16

3.1.1.

Low context and high context communication…………………………16

3.1.2.

Directness and indirectness………………………………………….….17

3.2. Informal and formal communication styles……………………………..……..19
4. Speech acts of request, complement and complaint…………………….…………..21

4.1.

Requesting………………………………………………………………21

4.2.

Complementing……………………………………………………..…..21

4.3.

Complaining……………………………………………………….……22

5. Summary of previous studies……………………………………………………….22
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY…….…………………………………………….23
1. Research design……………………………………………………………………..23
2. Data collection method……………………………………………………….….....23
3. Discussion of the survey questionnaire content…………………………………….24
4. Informants and data collection procedures………………………………….……...25
5. Data analysis methods and procedures…………………………………….…….…26
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION…………………………...……….27
1. The concepts of individualism and collectivism……………………………….…...27
2. Manifestation of individualism and collectivism in verbal communication
styles……………………………………………………………………………...…31
2.1.
2.1.1.

Directness and indirectness………………………………...…………...31
In the English survey questionnaire…………………...………………..31

2.1.1.1. In requesting……………………………………………………….……31

2.1.1.2. In complimenting………………………………………………...……..32
2.1.1.3. In complaining………………………………………………...………..32
2.1.2.

In the Vietnamese questionnaire……………………….……………….33

2.1.2.1. In requesting………………………………..……….……………….….33
iii


2.1.2.2. In complimenting……………………….………………………..….….33
2.1.2.3. In complaining………………………….………………………..….….33
2.1.3.
2.2.
2.2.1.

Similarities and differences……………………………………….…….34
Informality and formality………………………………………….........35
In the English survey questionnaire…………..…………………….…..35

2.2.1.1. In requesting…………………………………………………...…….….35
2.2.1.2. In complimenting……………………………………….…..……….….36
2.2.1.3. In complaining……………………………………….……..…………..36
2.2.2.

In the Vietnamese survey questionnaire……………....…………….….36

2.2.2.1. In requesting……………………………………….………..…….……36
2.2.2.2. In complimenting………………………………….……….…….….….37
2.2.2.3. In complaining…………………………………….……….…….….….37

2.2.3.

Similarities and differences………………………...…………….…….38

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION………………………………………………..….…39
1. Summary of the findings and concluding remarks…………………….………..….39
2. Recommendations for cross-cultural communication……………….……………..39
2.1. Directness and indirectness in American English and Vietnamese….…….…..39
2.2. Formality and informality in American English and Vietnamese…….……….40
3. Limitations of the study…………………………………………………………….40
4. Suggestions for further study……………………………………………………….41
REFERENCE LIST…………………………………………………………….…....42
APPENDICE…………………………………………………………………………46
Questionnaire (English version)…………………………….………………….…..….46
Questionnaire (Vietnamese version)…………………………….……………….……48

iv


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure

Page

Figure 1: Percentage of dominant value in America………………………….…..…..27
Figure 2: Defined characteristics of individualism in American culture……….….…28
Figure 3: Percentage of dominant value in Vietnam………………………………….29
Figure 4: Defined characteristics of collectivism in Vietnamese culture………….…30

v

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

Table 1: Individualism and collectivism over the years (adapted and rearranged from
Kagitcibasi et. al 1997)…………………………………………………………………8
Table 2: Summary of directness/indirectness in American English and Vietnamese...34
Table 3: Summary of formality/informality in American English and Vietnamese….38

vi


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
C: Collectivism
D: Directness
DCT: Discourse completion task
EFL: English as a foreign language
F: Formality
I: Individualism
ID: Indirectness
IF: Informality

vii


viii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This initial chapter outlines the research problem and rationale for the study
together with its methodology, the scope and the significance of the paper. Particularly,
it is in this chapter that two research questions are identified to serve as guidelines for
the whole study. Finally, the chapter concludes with a sketch of the organization of the
paper to orientate the readers throughout the paper.

1.

Statement of the research problem and rationale

It is well established that Hofstede’s (1983) pioneering research which mapped
53 countries on four cultural dimensions (power distance, individualism-collectivism,
masculinity-femininity and uncertainty avoidance) has “inspired a great deal of
research on related fields” (Singer & Voronov 2002, p. 461). The dimension of
individualism-collectivism has become, as some scholars fear, a “catchall default
explanation for cultural differences in human behavior” (Kagitcibasi 1997, p. 3).
Indeed, the constructs of individualism and collectivism were largely responsible for
the explosion of cross-cultural psychology over the past three decades and continued to
be theoretically and empirically the most prominent constructs in cross-cultural
psychology in the 1990s (Kashima et al. 1995, p. 925). Triandis (1988, p. 60) even
regarded individualism-collectivism as “the most important dimension of cultural
differences in social behavior”. What is more, Vandello and Cohen (1999, p. 279)
concurred that “one of the most useful and actively researched constructs to emerge
from cultural social psychology has been the dimension of individualism-collectivism”.
In Vietnam, the economic open-door policy pursued by the Government has
increased the demand for English-speaking people who are expected to acquire both
linguistic competence and sociocultural one to access the outside world, as it is

1


acknowledgeable about the significant interrelation between language and culture that
“to know another’s language and not his culture is a very good way to make a fluent
fool of one’s self” (cited in Nguyen n.d, p. 38). Nonetheless, no matter how growing
and special the need for cross-cultural/ intercultural communication is, the sad fact is
there are only a small number of Vietnamese EFL (English as a foreign language)
speakers who have a good command of cultural awareness and understandings,
accompanied by the target language. With the hope of contributing to a better
understanding of American culture whose individualistic index ranks the first
(Hofstede 1980) and Vietnam – a prominently collectivistic society, as well as their
deep reflections on verbal communication styles in the two languages, the researcher
attempted to investigate into the topic “The reflections of individualism and
collectivism on verbal communication styles in American English and Vietnamese”.

2.

Research questions

The study was done with an aim to answering the two following questions:
(1)

To what extent are the values of individualism and collectivism

understood by American and Vietnamese people?
(2)
How are the values of individualism and collectivism reflected in verbal
communication styles in American and Vietnamese cultures?
3.

Scope of the study
Firstly, the values of individualism and collectivism have wide effects on many
aspects of life. In this study, however, the focuses are just on their influences on verbal
language use in the light of directness and indirectness, informality and formality in
American English and Vietnamese.
Secondly, language carries with it a broad realm of reflection, thus in this paper,
the author attempts to investigate the manifestation of the dimension individualismcollectivism via three communicative acts, which happen popularly in the people’s
2


daily lives. They are requesting, complaining and complimenting. In other words, the
purpose is to find out how the speakers in each country response in supposedly
interactive situations in terms of directness and indirectness, informality and formality.
Thirdly, there are many groups of Americans coming from different parts of the
world as America has been a nation of immigrants for a long time. However, the
research only pays attention to the Americans who have their origins in Europe in order
to ensure the nativeness and representativeness of the findings.
Lastly, due to the limited time and resources, the samples of the study were
restricted to 20 European Americans in selected city areas in the United States and 20
Vietnamese people living in the city of Hanoi, all of whom are students from the age of
20 to 24. This choice of samples helps ensure the homogeneity in their contexts of
living and mature thoughts in the answers, thus, generates comparable findings.

4.

Significance of the study

This research would be of benefits for a number of European Americans in
America and EFL speakers in Vietnam, as well as the researchers who are interested in
the same field.

In detail, the researcher hopes that by understanding the natures of direct –
indirect and informal – formal communication styles as seen from the values of
individualism and collectivism, Vietnamese EFL speakers will better their performance
when communicating with European Americans and vice versa. Cross-cultural/
intercultural communication breakdowns, therefore, would be reduced to the least.
Besides, with regards to researchers who share the same interest in the topic,
they could rely on this paper to find reliable and helpful information to develop their
related studies in the future.

3


5.

Research methodology

5.1.

Data collection methods and procedures

Questionnaires in form of Discourse Completion Tasks (DCT) were employed
during the process of data collection. Specifically, there were two language versions of
the questionnaires, one in English and the other in Vietnamese. The English
questionnaires were delivered to the informants in selected city areas including Boston,
San Francisco, Stockton in California and Maryville, Kansas in Missouri, USA
whereas the Vietnamese questionnaires were for the ones living in the city of Hanoi, all
of whom are students from the age of 20 to 24. Twenty questionnaires with answers
from each country were then chosen to the data analysis process.

5.2.

Data analysis methods and procedures

The information collected from two language versions of questionnaires, was
transcribed as the primary source of data for the research. Relevant sections were
identified or underlined during the evaluation of each piece of data. The contents were
to be sorted into categories based on the two research questions.

6.

Organization of the paper
The rest of the paper includes the following chapters:
Chapter 2 (Theoretical background) provides the theoretical background of the
study, including discussions of the key concepts and summary of previous studies.
Chapter 3 (Methodology) describes the research setting, participants, the
instrument of data collection as well as the procedure employed to carry out data
analysis.

4


Chapter 4 (Findings and discussion) presents, analyzes and discusses the results
that the researcher found out from the collected data according to the two research
questions.
Chapter 5 (Conclusion) summarizes the answers to the two research questions,
several cross-cultural communication recommendations concerning the research topic,
the limitations of the research as well as some suggestions for further studies.
Following this chapter are the References and Appendices.

5

CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This second chapter sheds light on key concepts in the study. Afterwards, a brief
review of the related studies will reveal the research gaps and hence lays the concrete
foundation for this research paper.

1.

Language and culture

According to Longman learner’s dictionary (2005), language is “a system of
sounds, words, patterns, etc. used by humans to communicate thoughts and feelings”.
Indeed, it is “used to give factual information, supply the information about the
speaker’s feelings or serve to establish and maintain social relations between people”.
(Dao & Do 2005, p. 7). From those views, it can be seen that language and culture are
interwoven in such a way that culture affects expressions of language and language is
filled with cultural factors.

2.

The concepts of individualism and collectivism

2.1. Individualism and collectivism in history
In the Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol 3. Social behavior and
applications, p. 6, Kagitcibasi et. al exhibited a collection of definitions on
individualism and collectivism over the years, which was adapted and chronologically
rearranged as follows:

Hsu (1983)

Self

Individualism
reliance,

Collectivism
Low emotionality; seeking

competitiveness; aggressive

group

creativity;

interested in competition;

insecurity;

conformity;
large

military
6

protection;

low in creativity.

not

spending; prejudice toward
different racial and religious
groups;

unrealistic

Triandis

interpersonal
Individual is an end in

Emphasis on (a) the views,

(1990)

himself, and such ought to

needs, and goals of the

(after Gould

realize

and

(in)group; (b) social norms

&

cultivate his own judgement,

and duty defined by the

notwithstanding

social

group rather than pleasure

pressures toward conformity.

seeking; (c) beliefs shared

1964)

Kolb,

his

“self”

with the groups rather than
beliefs that separate self
from

group;

and

(d)

readiness to cooperate with
the

the group.
Emphasis on the group or

“building

community; the group as

block” of society “dignity,”

the source of value; the

of the individual; individual

interests of the group taking

as the primary source of

precedence over those of

value

the

Janzx

Human

beings

(1991)

fundamental

as

(ethical

individualism);
goals

collective

subsumed

personal
having

ones;
firm

under

individual

individual,

with

“commitment” as the moral
aspect

of

ideology;

individual not separate from

boundaries;

others,

but

“equality” of individuals (at

linked

with

least

and

embedded

“liberty” from interference

individual

of others.

“restricted” by the group.

in

principle);

7

inextricably
them
in

or

group;
freedom


Ho & Chiu

Value

of

(1994)

autonomy;

individual;

Value

of

individual

conformity;

responsibility (consequences

responsibility

of

(consequences

action

individual);
achievement;
(individual
security

affect

the

individual
self-reliance
interests;

in

individual’s

strength).

the

group;
collective

of

action

affect the whole group);
group

achievement;

interdependence

(group

interests; security in group
solidarity).

Table 1: Individualism and collectivism over the years (adapted and rearranged
from Kagitcibasi et. al 1997)
From the above synthesis, it could be seen that there existed some developments
in terms of the understandings of the two concepts in history. First was Hsu’s which
showed some negative ideas about individualism and collectivism such as “prejudice
toward different racial and religious groups” for the former or “low emotionality” for
the latter. This researcher, however, also shared some similarities with the others about
the self in individualistic cultures and the spirit of groups in collectivistic ones. Later,
Triandis (1990), Ho & Chiu (1994) seemed to support relatively the same descriptions
of the two values, mostly about individuals standing on their own (individualism) and
responsibilities towards the groups (collectivism). Prominently, Janzx (1991) gave
some additions to what are termed individualism and collectivism, respectively were
“building block of society dignity, equality, liberty” and group “commitment as the
moral aspect of ideology, individual freedom restricted by the group”.
2.2. Individualism and collectivism in the paper
In this paper, the definitions of individualism and collectivism given by
Hofstede (1991) were employed. According to him, “Individualism stands for a society
8


in which the ties between individuals are loose; everyone is expected to look after
himself or herself and his or her immediate family only,” and “collectivism stands for a
society in which people from birth onwards are integrated into strong, cohesive
ingroups, which throughout people’s lifetime continue to protect them in exchange for
unquestioning loyalty” (p. 260-261). These characterizations involve both interpersonal

and normative aspects of individualism and collectivism.
In an individualistic society, emphasis is put on the goals and accomplishments
of the individual. When conflicts arise over the benefits, one tends to set priority to
his/her own purposes instead of other members’ in the community (Singelis et al 1995).
In addition, independence from family as well as social and religious organizations is
commonly recognized; thus, privacy and the “self” are emphasized (Triandis 1995). As
a matter of fact, all the decisions are made from personal perspectives and for
individual sake without any concern about the groups. Personal values include personal
time, freedom, and challenge (Würtz 2005).
On the contrary, collectivistic cultures where solidarity, responsibility and
mutual help among members are always highly recommended prioritize group welfare
over the goals of the individual. The family's history often has an influence on the way
people see an individual whereas personal accomplishments play a minor role. When
the “we” outweigh the “I”, individuals in collectivistic cultures tend to be
interdependent with others and will usually have built a network of deep-rooted
relationships and personal, loyal ties (Triandis 1995). Lustig and Koetes (2010) also
shared the same opinion that in collectivistic cultures, groups are considered people’s
extended families and require them absolute loyalty. Besides, people appear to have
“in-group egoism” (Hofstede 1994) that they try to protect the benefits of their own
group’s members rather than those of other groups. Values in collectivistic cultures
include training, physical condition, and the use of skills (Würtz 2005).

9


According to Singelis et al (1995), Western modern industrial societies such as
America or Canada encourage individualism whereas Asian countries, Latin America
and Africa with tradition agricultural cultures prefer collectivism.
2.3.

Interpretations

of

individualism

and

collectivism

from

the

perspectives of American and Vietnamese cultures and languages
In this part, the researcher attempts to give evidences and explanations about the
manifestation of individualism and collectivism in American and Vietnamese cultures,
together with their corresponding language uses. As reported by Hofstede (1983),
America with 91 scores is classified into a group of the most individualistic countries
in the world. Meanwhile, Vietnam (-97) belongs to a group with the lowest
individualism index value scores, ranking only above Indonesia and Pakistan (-122) in
the South (East) Asia.
2.3.1. Individualism in American culture and language
The word “individualism” is often used by scholars and outside observers but
many Americans prefer to call it “individual freedom”, meaning “a climate of freedom
where the emphasis is on the individual”. Individual freedom is probably the most
basic of all the American values and the word “freedom” is perhaps one of the most
respected popular words in the United States today (Hoang et. al. 2005, p. 73).
American individualism takes its special place right in the country’s Declaration
of Independence (Jefferson 1776):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life,
liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Bellah et. al. (1985, cited in Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Vol 3)
wrote about American individualism:
10


self-reliance, independence and separation from family, religion and community;
hedonism, utilitarianism, and emphasis on exchange; competition; equity and fairness
in the distribution of rewards; trust in others; emphasis on competence; involvement in
community life (getting something in return); equality of people and the rejection of
arbitrary authority; the self as the only source of reality.

In his book American ways (1988, p. 8), Gary Althen emphasized Bellah’s very
last description and considered “devotion to individualism” as “the most important
thing to understand about Americans”. He also added that “they are not trained to see
themselves as members of a close-knit, interdependent family, religious group, tribe,
nation or any other collectivity”. In fact, people are effectively taught about their self
values, the responsibility for their own situations in life and their own destinies from
childhood. Dr. Benjamin Spock stated in his book which most of the American parents
refer to when raising their children that “We are raising them to be rugged
individualists” (1968, p. 7, cited in American ways by Gary Althen 1988). To
Americans, any social factor outside themselves that makes them just like everyone
else in important ways can offend their “sense of dignity” (Althen 1988, p.10). As a
matter of fact, every individual is equal in terms of biological and social aspects.
Therefore, each one deserves the opportunity to prove their abilities for others to
recognize. Interestingly, with his profound knowledge and keen sense of observation,
Gary Althen (1988) further compares “a Walkman dance” at a major university with

“epitomized American individualism” (p. 11), meaning that students assemble in a
large room where they all dance alone to whatever music they are playing on their own
Walkman.
It is an undeniable fact that American individual freedom is what no authority
can interfere. In the classroom, students are strongly recommended to give their own
opinions and ask questions. In public, freedom of speech is widely welcome. However,
there is a price for this: individuals must learn to rely on themselves or risk losing
freedom. De Tocqueville observed the Americans’ belief in self-reliance nearly 200
years ago in the 1930s:
11


They owe nothing to any man, they expect nothing from any man; they acquire the
habit of always considering themselves as standing alone, and they are apt to imagine
that their whole destiny is in their own hands.

(cited in Introduction to American Studies, Hoang et. al 2005, p. 74)
The illustration of individual freedom and self-reliance in American English can
be “free to make up your own mind”; “you made your bed, now lie in it”.
Also closely associated with the value they place on individualism is the
importance Americans assign to privacy and equality. “What are you doing?/ Where
are you going? – None of your business” or “One man, one vote” are some of their
manifestations in language. In reality, personal possessions are highly protected from
invasion and most Americans have great difficulty understanding people who always
want to be with another person, who dislike being alone since it shows weakness and
dependence. Additionally, the equality can be seen from the way Americans address
each other informally that they tend to use first name even with an elder person or their
professor/ boss except for some special formal situations. An example can be as
follows:
“Good morning, professor Jeff Mayor! My name is Katherine Boyle.

Hi Katherine! Just call me Jeff!”
Such way of addressing suggests that every individual is expected to be treated
equally no matter how old they are and what position they are in at work or in a family.
Another evidence of individualism in American culture is directness. With their
acknowledgement of personal identity, as well as respecting others’, Americans believe
that they should be direct, frank and open in their dealings with other people. This is
considered the standard social norms in citizens’ behaviors and those who possess the
qualities are highly respected. They usually assume that conflicts or disagreements are
12


best settled by means of forthright discussions among the people involved, or else, the
act of speaking indirectly is somewhat cowardly. Examples of sayings to illustrate this
fact are: “Let’s lay our cards on the table”; “Let’s stop playing games and get to the
point”. However, further elaboration on this point is delayed to another part of the
paper.
2.3.2. Collectivism in Vietnamese culture and language
In Vietnamese culture where humanism, community and an agriculturally based
economy are the main features, collectivism is popular. People usually make great
efforts to create and maintain harmonious relationships even though this may cost them
to take some steps backwards:
Một con ngựa đau cả tàu bỏ cỏ
(When a horse is sick, its whole pack will not eat)
Huu Dat (2000) added that in an agricultural-originated culture with strong
family bonds like Vietnam, social relations and their tight rules formulate personal
behaviors. Indeed, the Vietnamese consider the ties with family, relatives and neighbors
the closest and most direct interrelationship. Hence, community value requiring them
to sacrifice their private interests for the sake of the entire community and group
harmony is far more preferable than individualism in American culture. It is the
national community sense that creates a special, original and intimate cultural identity

which surprises any foreign visitor to the country.
A Vietnamese culture researcher – Tran Ngoc Them (2008) interpreted
collectivism in Vietnamese culture as the manifestation of hierarchy and order, as well
as the interlocutor sense of honor and tactfulness. Firstly, Vietnamese people are aware
of their surrounding relations. Consequently, everything said should be suitable to the

13


specific situations and to whom they are talking; whether there is consistency in
behaving and the communicator is in a higher position or lower. Some proverbs that
illustrate this fact are:
Có trên có dưới
(Before doing anything, consider your position in comparison with others)
Kính trên nhường dưới
(Show respect with the elderly, show tenderness with the young)
Ăn trông nồi ngồi trông hướng
(Sometimes take a look into the rice pot when you are eating and choose the
right direction for your sitting)
The way Vietnamese people address also reflects the characteristic. There is a
system of titles that shows the hierarchical reflection that everyone should strictly
adapt in each situation, for example, to whom he/she is talking, the senior or junior in
terms of age, social or physical power and relationship.
Collectivism in Vietnamese culture also has its mark in the way that the
Vietnamese people are frequently not as direct as the European Americans. The
tradition of showing concerns and saving the communicative partners’ face keeps them
being indirect as a sign of politeness. Historically, as living in communities, the
Vietnamese people valued the mutual help and concerns among the member in their
own and later expanded them to the bigger society. Thus, small talks, for example,
about the communicative partners’ family, work, health, age and marital status seem to

be regarded as the standard ways of starting the conversation and developing further
purposes.
14


2.3.3. Some reasons to explain the values of individualism and collectivism
in American and Vietnamese cultures and languages
Pham (2006) explained the existence of individualism in American society that
the salad bowl culture with the exodus of immigrants from all walks of life and of
different races brings about unquenchable desire for Americans to express oneself. On
one hand, to live in harmony with the others, each person needs to conform to
community regulations. On the other hand, he/she cherishes his/her identity, shows
respects for others’ cultures or individual interests and aspirations. Hence, American
individualism is considered as the suitable way to sustain a heterogeneous society. In
addition, the years of long-standing struggles for national success in overthrowing
British monarchical rule and gaining independence have taught people of the USA that
in order to make the USA flourish, there is no better way than to be self-reliant. Liberty
and above all, individualism enables them to exploit their potentials to the fullest.
About collectivism in Vietnam, it can be explained by the influence of an
agricultural society and Confucianism. In the past, the country’s economy largely
depended on agriculture, which in fact needed people to cooperate well to earn their
living (Tran 2008). They had to work with each other on the fields, share their
experiences about weather forecast and rice growing. These fostered close relations
among people in the community and nowadays, the closeness has been remained and
created what is termed as collectivism. Next, Kim (1995) suggested that a country
greatly influenced by Confucianism like Vietnam appears to favor group prosperity and
harmony, which again, lead to collectivism.

15

Nonetheless, it is noted that American individualism and Vietnamese
collectivism being discussed in this paper have relative meanings only because there is
no absolute individualism in America, nor absolute collectivism in Vietnam. As a
matter of fact, the values of individualism and collectivism exist in both societies,
ranging from situations to situations, regions to regions. However, it is widely
recognized that in America, individualism is far more dominant than collectivism and
vice versa in Vietnam.

3.

Some manifestations of the reflections of individualism and

collectivism in American and Vietnamese verbal communication styles.
3.1. Direct and indirect verbal communication styles
3.1.1. Low context and high context communication
First and foremost, the reflections of individualism and collectivism on
directness and indirectness communication styles are related to Hall’s concepts (1970)
including “high context” and “low context” communication. “High-context” refers to a
culture where internal meaning is usually embedded deep in the information and the
listener is expected to be able to read between the lines to understand the unsaid,
thanks to his/her background knowledge. Therefore, communication is, according to
Gudykunst and Ting-Toomey (1988, p. 35), indirect, ambiguous, harmonious, reserved
and understated. The authors also added that the primary purpose of communication in
high context is to form and develop relationships.
On the contrary, a “low context” culture is where the messages are delivered
explicitly through the language; thus, communication is direct, precise, dramatic, open
and based on feelings or true intentions (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey 1988, p. 36). The
primary purpose of communication here is the exchange of information, facts and
opinions. In fact, as said by Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey (1988, p. 40) low-context

communication is popular in individualistic societies, whereas high-context
communication is preferred in collectivistic societies.
16


Hall (1970) also claims that high and low context are not a dichotomy, but rather
two poles of a continuum and on this continuum, America is placed towards the “low”
end. Communication in the country is defined as the low-context one in which the
speaker expresses his/her intention in explicit ways, the listener is able to interpret the
verbal message quite directly and clearly and “in which mass of the information is
vested in the explicit code” (Hofstede 1991, p. 79). American interlocutors are
supposed to get the point straightforward without taking pains to figure out the context.
They respond to others more on the basis of personal characteristics and situational
need, less on the basis of group affiliation. This typical American low-context
communication is partly assigned to its own individualism and that emphasizes the idea
to speak one’s mind along with the personal goal: “low context people expect
themselves and others to be self-reliant, low context cultures are ego-oriented or
individualist” (Cornelius & Willa 1999, p. 2).
On the other hand, Vietnam is among the collective cultures “where most of the
information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very
little in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message” (Hofstede 1991, p. 79).
Speaker and listener are involved in a specific context and this is the clue to understand
their conversation.

3.1.2. Directness and indirectness
Indeed, individualism and collectivism are clearly reflected in the way people
express themselves directly or indirectly. With the purpose of asserting personal
identity, those from individualistic countries prefer directness in communication while
those from collectivistic nations are in favor of the opposite tendency. Mentioning
about the American in particular, Levine and Adelman concluded that “compared with

other languages, American English strongly emphasize directness in verbal interaction”
(1982, p. 20). Many expressions in English reinforce this argument including: “Let’s
17