Telephone conversation openings in english and vietnamese (from a language cultural perspective

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
HA NOI COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
DEPARTMENT OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES

TRAN THI THANH HUONG

TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OPENINGS
IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
(FROM A LANGUAGE-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE)

Mở đầu hội thoại qua điện thoại trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt
(Nhìn từ góc độ ngôn ngữ và văn hóa)
M.A. MINOR THESIS

Major: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15

HANOI - 2009


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY
HA NOI COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
DEPARTMENT OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES

TRẦN THỊ THANH HƯƠNG
M.A. MINOR THESIS

TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OPENINGS
IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
(FROM A LANGUAGE-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE)

Mở đầu hội thoại qua điện thoại trong tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt
(Nhìn từ góc độ ngôn ngữ và văn hóa)

Major: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof.Dr. Nguyễn Văn Độ

HANOI - 2009


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ...................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................ ii
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. iii
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1. Rationale ................................................................................................................ 2
2. Aims of the study ................................................................................................... 2
3. Scope of the study .................................................................................................. 3
4. Theoretical / practical significance of the study ...................................................... 3
5. Methodology .......................................................................................................... 3
DEVELOPMENT..................................................................................................... 4
Chapter 1: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND . 4
1.1. Language and culture ........................................................................................... 4
1.2. The historical development of telephone conversations ........................................ 5
1.3. Conversation Analysis and Telephone Conversations ......................................... 6
1.4.Culture and telephone conversations ..................................................................... 8
Chapter 2: TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OPENINGS AS COMMUNICATIVE
ACTS ........................................................................................................................ 11

2.1. General structure of telephone conversation openings .......................................... 11
2.1.1. Conversation opening structure .................................................................. 11
2.1.2. Telephone conversation openings ............................................................... 12
2.2. Cross-cultural Communication and Telephone Openings ..................................... 17
2.2.1. Opening sequence in other cultures ............................................................ 17
2.2.2 Telephone openings in other cultures .......................................................... 18
Chapter 3: COMPARISON BETWEEN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OPENINGS ..................................................... 21
3.1. The receiver’s first turn - individual moves .......................................................... 21
3.1.1. Summon-answer sequence .......................................................................... 21
3.1.2. Identification-recognition sequence ............................................................. 23
3.1.3. Greeting sequence ....................................................................................... 26
3.1.4. How-are-you sequence ................................................................................ 27


v

3.2. The caller’s first turn - individual moves .............................................................. 29
3.2.1. Summon-answer sequence .......................................................................... 29
3.2.2. Identification-recognition sequence ............................................................. 30
3.2.3. Greeting sequence ....................................................................................... 32
3.2.4. How-are-you sequence ................................................................................ 33
CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................... 35
1. Recapitulation ........................................................................................................ 35
2. Concluding remarks................................................................................................ 35
3. Implications for teaching English telephone conversation openings ........................ 37
4. Suggestions for further research .............................................................................. 38
REFERENCE ........................................................................................................... I
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................... IV

1

INTRODUCTION
The beginning of conversations has received much attention in the fields of
sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and conversation analysis. Conversation analysis of telephone
conversations is a fairly well established area of investigation, beginning in the late 1960s
with Schegloff dissertation on conversational openings. Since that time, a numerous
researchers have advanced the study on telephone conversations (Godard, 1977; Schegloff,
1979; Schegloff, 1986; Sifianou, 1989; Lindström, 1994; Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1991;
Hopper, 1992). The study of conversation openings, particularly on the telephone, has
become prominent for the following particular reasons:
a) Openings are interactionally compact and brief (Schegloff, 1986:112).
b) Generally, at the beginning of a conversation, participants may utilize conversational
strategies or “routines” to negotiate interpersonal relationships (Gumperz, 1982:142;
Schegloff, 1986:113). This also counts for the beginnings of conversations on the
telephone, as co-participants have resources available to them to manage identification and
recognition of one another.
c) Schegloff (1972, 1979, and 1986) describes telephone conversation openings in
American English in terms of an ordered set of four core opening sequences: (1) the
summons-answer sequence; (2) the identification-recognition sequence; (3) the exchange
of greeting tokens (Hi/Hi), and (4) the how-are-you sequence. Accomplishing these tasks
or “routines” is the focus of the first utterances in telephone conversation openings.
d) Another important feature of telephone conversation openings is that they have a
"perfunctory" character (Schegloff, 1986:113). In other words, in opening a telephone
conversation, participants go through these routines in a rather automated manner.
However, in all the studies I have examined Vietnamese is absent in the literature.
Gumperz (1982:166) notes that while speech activities exist in all cultures, there might be
differences in the ways particular activities are carried out and signaled. Using
Conversation Analysis (CA) as the methodology, this study illustrates the cultural

characteristics of the format and interactional routines of opening conversations on the
telephone in Vietnamese and English languages to determine to what extent this data fits
within Schegloff‟s theoretical model of sequencing in telephone openings. At the same
time it will illustrate how the cultural differences within telephone conversation openings
may interfere with speaker‟s intentions and expectations when talking on the phone.


2

Finally, the relevance of my investigation for second language teaching and learning will
be highlighted.
1. Rationale
The telephone is the primary electronic medium for interpersonal communication and
telephone communication has an indispensable element of everyday life. Due to the lack of
visual communication, at least in the normal use of this medium, linguistic information is
foreground. Thus, telephone conversation is a challenge to anybody learning a foreign
language and remains a sensitive area in intercultural encounters, even for those who have
mastered the basics of a foreign language and culture.
Inexperience in dealing with live interactive telephone conversations in the target language
can also be a serious problem for some second language learners. They need opportunity to
listen to, interpret and sum up what they hear in a series of authentic recorded phone
conversations. Their listening can be greatly facilitated if they are exposed to authentic
telephone conversations and also taught the conversational structures and options as well
as formulaic expressions.
Telephone call openings represent an ideal object of study for cross-cultural pragmatics
research. Since these social encounters are very specific and strongly constrained by
technology, the range of actions that can be performed in them is limited so that one can
thus observe how different cultures and languages vary in their realization of the same
interactional routine. That is why this paper chooses telephone conversation openings for
the study.

2. Aims of the study
The study aims:
1) To find out standard formulas used in beginning telephone conversations among English
and Vietnamese speakers as suggested by Schegloff.
2) To discover how culture affects the ways English and Vietnamese start their telephone
conversations
3) To draw an implication in English teaching for Vietnamese students.
3. Scope of the study
I restrict my study on formal business telephone conversation openings and informal
personal ones which are used by people doing different jobs and at different ages.
4. Theoretical / practical significance of the study


3

In general, telephone conversation openings in both English and Vietnamese follow the
same routine as Schegloff suggested. However, there is slight difference between English
and Vietnamese. In English telephone openings there is higher formality, but Vietnamese
language has more variants which depend on age, power and relationship between speakers
and people from different backgrounds have different ways to start a telephone
conversation.
5. Methodology
The research presented in this paper is based on data in English textbooks and 50
questionnaires on telephone conversation openings. All questionnaires were made by 20
English and 30 Vietnamese speakers, ranging in age between 18 to over 60 years old. The
telephone calls include conversations between acquaintances, colleagues, relatives and
friends. In doing so, the participants were asked to fill in the questionnaires sent to them by
e-mail and given in person. I also did interview some of them.
The first descriptive stage of analysis led to the identification of recurrent patterns in the
data and the recognition of the most evident cross-cultural differences.

In a subsequent phase, systematic comparison across languages was carried out by a
quantitative analysis based on the core sequences framework presented above. It is through
such cross-cultural comparisons that the great relevance to second language learning will
be realized.
Statistics is also used for this study to find out the differences between English and
Vietnamese languages using in telephone conversation openings.
For a better understanding of how the ritual “how are you” sequence in English and
Vietnamese telephone conversation openings, Conversation Analysis (CA) is used as
the appropriate method for investigation of foreign language interaction. The English
translation is provided next to the original talk.


4

DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. Language and culture
Language can be included in our primary needs. It seems that we can not live without a
language, because it can make our life easier. Talking about a language we have to connect
it with communication, because by uttering language we have made communication with
other people.
„Language is the most sensitive indicator of the relationship between an individual and a
given social group; it permeates our thinking and way of viewing the world‟ (Kramsch
1998: 77). Language can be defined as form of individual competence, in actual dialogues
or discourses, among groups or individuals, as a cultural system, and in numerous other
ways (Humphrey Tonkin, Language and Society, No 178 2003- 2004). According to
Levinson (1977; 22), language helps us to express our emotion and attitudes, to get
information, to build relationship with other people, to complain, to give solution, etcetera.
There are many interpretations of culture. It can be examined from a point of view of many
disciplines: anthropology, linguistics, sociology, communication, fine arts, etc.

The term culture refers to the customs and expectations of a particular group of people;
particularly it affects their language use. Tylor defined culture as „that complex whole
which include knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, customs and other capabilities and
habits acquired by man as a member of a society‟ (Tylor 1871:1 in Heather Joan Bowe,
Kylie Martin 2007: 2).
The relationship between language and culture has long been a major concern in both
anthropology and applied linguistics. The work of North American anthropologists Edward
Sapir (e.g. 1947), and later Benjamin Whorf (1956), and their stories of how the languages
of particular language communities mirror their particular views of reality, have wielded,
and in many quarters continue to wield, considerable influence on debates in the social
sciences on the nature of such a relationship. There have been questions on whether and to
what extent language reflects and determines the world-view of a particular culture. Later,
Gumperz writes that speakers of the same language may find themselves separated by deep
cultural gaps, while others who speak distinct languages share the same culture (Holliday,
Hyde, Kullman; 2005: 74-75)


5

„Language and culture do not drive each other, but co-evolve in the same relationship‟ (M.
K Halliday 1992: 11). Each language is adapted to a unique cultural and social
environment, with striking differences in usage patterns (Bauman & Sherzer 1974).
Through language culture affects the way we think (Gumpezs and Levison, 1996: 1).
Language is the principle means whereby we conduct our social lives. When it is used in
contexts of communication, it is bound up with culture in multiple and complex ways.
First, the words people utter refer to common experience. They express facts, ideas or
events that are communicable as they refer to knowledge about the world that other people
share. Words also reflect their authors‟ attitudes and beliefs, their points of view. But
members of a community or social group do not only express experience; they also create
experience through language. They give meaning to it through the medium they choose to

communicate with each other, for example, speaking on the telephone or face-to-face,
writing a letter or sending an e-mail message, reading the newspaper or interpreting a
graph or a chart. The way in which people use the spoken, written, or visual medium
creates meanings that are understandable to the group they belong to, for example, through
a speaker‟s tone of voice, accent, conversational style, gestures and facial expressions.
Language is also a system of signs that have a cultural value. Speakers identify themselves
and others through their use of language; they view their language as a symbol of their
social identity (Kramsch 1998: 3). In other words, there is a strong relationship between
language and culture.
1.2. The historical development of telephone conversations
Robert Hopper states in his book “Telephone conversation” (1992: 25) that the history of
the telephone is tied to our rediscovery of human speaking. During the first decade of the
twentieth century, Ferdinand de Saussure, based on previous philologists and
grammarians‟ research on ancient written texts, found a new science describing facts of
speech. And today we reverse Saussure‟s lectures as a turning point in the history of
thought, a moment of rediscovery.
The basic technology of human speaking may not have changed very much since we
became humans. We discovered speech communication a very long time ago. But the
certain features of telephone experience remained mysterious to us until 1960s, when the
founders of conversation analysis combined the telephone with the tape recorder.


6

There are reflexive relationships between our understanding of speech communication and
developments in telephone technology. Telephone experience creates a new consciousness
about spoken language and the telephone teaches us that communication happens when
speech travel between pairs of individuals (Hopper, 1992: 24).
1.3. Conversation Analysis and Telephone Conversations
Historically, conversation analysis began in the late 1960s and early 1970s as a sub

discipline of sociology. CA researchers focused on describing the organizational structure
of mundane, ordinary conversations, which may be defined as the kind of casual, social
talks that routinely occurs between friends and acquaintances, either face-to-face or on the
telephone (Markee, 2000: 24).
Conversation analysis is the study of talk. More particularly, it is the systematic analysis of
the talk produced in every day situations of human interactions or talk-in-interaction. It is
to discover how participants understand and respond to one another in their turn at talk,
with a central focus being on how sequences of actions are generated (Hutchby Ian and
Wooffitt Robin, 1998: 13-14)
Conversation analysis describes and explains the ways in which conversations work to
answer the question “how is it that conversational participants are able to produce
intelligible utterances, and how are they able to interpret the utterances of others?”
Analysis of conversations is the interest of many scholars as conversation is probably the
basic form of communication. According to Levinson (1983: 282), „conversation is clearly
the prototypical kind of language use, the form in which we are all first exposed to
language – the matrix for language acquisition.‟ (David Nunan: 84)
Conversation analysis is the outstanding empirical tradition in pragmatics, because its data
remain open to any investigator inspection. Any reader may test the claims by inspecting
the transcriptions and recordings used as exemplars (Hopper, 1992:10).
From the very beginning, conversation analysis has been closely linked to the analysis of
telephone conversations. Conversation analysis focuses on the common, everyday
competencies that make everyday social interaction possible. The general strategy in
conversation analysis is to examine actual verbal interactions and recorded telephone
conversations were much used (Holtgraves, 2001: 92).
Conversation analysis is especially applicable to the study of telephone speech and
telephone conversation is among the easiest interaction to tape record. The participants


7

stay at one location and speak into a device that can be easily connected to a tape recorder.
Conversation analysts describe empirical details by participants to one another. Evidence
for analyses includes details displayed in recordings and transcriptions. Recordings and
transcriptions are incomplete copies of actual talk but they are relatively rich and
replayable representations of many speech details. Recordings of telephone conversations
therefore are audible and available. The current volume‟s descriptions of telephone
conversations follow the paradigm and method of conversation analysis. This method is
particularly appropriate for telephone speaking (Hopper 1992: 18-22).
Telephone call openings have been the object of a considerable amount of cross-cultural
and intercultural pragmatic research. The first systematic investigation in this area dates
back to Schegloff‟s (1968) analysis of telephone calls openings in the United States. This
and much of subsequent research was carried out within the Conversation Analysis (CA)
paradigm, which implies careful observation of the details of interactions in order to
uncover how social order is created and reproduced in everyday life. The fundamental
analytic units are moves and sequences.
Schegloff‟s interest was in how participants coordinate their entry into interaction at the
very beginnings of telephone calls. He studied 500 examples of telephone openings. He
found the organization of telephone openings in which „answerer speaks first‟. However
one case in his collection of 500 did not fit this pattern because the caller spoke first:
(Police make a call. Receiver is lifted and there is a one-second-pause)
1

Police:

Hello

2

Answerer:

American Red Cross

3

Police:

Hello, this is Police headquarters ... er, Officer Stratton ...

(Schegloff, 1968 in Hutchby Ian and Wooffitt Robin, 1998: 95-96)
Schegloff then concludes that openings of telephone conversations have a form of
adjacency pair called summon-answer sequences. He suggests that whatever the answerer
says in their first turn is an answer to the summons issued by the telephone‟s ring, and it is
therefore the caller‟s first turn (that is, the second utterance of the call) that, typically,
represents a first greeting.
1.4. Culture and telephone conversations
Researchers have shown that conversational dynamics and the performance of speech acts
differ from language to language and culture to culture. Also people from different cultures


8

have different types of background knowledge, and this can impede communication. In
addition to different speech acts, there are cultural differences in conversational
management. Politeness, levels of formality, and the acceptability of stretches of silence all
vary from culture to culture, and may have an important influence on the success or
otherwise of a particular interaction (David Nunan: 94-96).
Different cultures have different degrees of tolerance for silence between turns, overlap in
speaking, and competition among speakers (Hoang Van Van: 113).
Some cross-cultural studies on telephone conversation openings in various speech
communities (France, Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Taiwan) have addressed the

question of what is universal and what is culturally specific in such openings (Godard,
1977; Levinson, 1983; Sifianou, 1989; Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1991; Lindström, 1994;
Pavlidou, 1994; Hopper & Chen, 1996). Some of these studies use the telephone opening
sequences in American English described by Schegloff (1972, 1979, 1986) as a template in
order to explore how telephone conversation openings in other cultures are carried out
(Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1991; Lindström, 1994; Pavlidou, 1994; Hopper & Chen, 1996).
Their analysis illustrates that although there are similarities in the opening sequences of
telephone conversation, some cultural variations exist as well.
Godard (1977) explored the organization of telephone openings in French and suggests that
some differences exist between summons-answer sequences in French versus American
telephone openings. According to Godard, Americans interpret the answer to summons as
an indication that the channel of communication is open; the French see it as an indication
of the answerer's availability to be interrupted in the middle of what s/he was doing, not of
her or his availability as a partner in the conversation. French callers thus provide an
apology in the opening sequence.
Levinson (1983) agreed that in telephone calls we can recognize the typical components of
an opening section: the telephone rings, and upon picking up the receiver, the person at the
receiving end almost invariably speaks first, either with station identification (name of the
firm, telephone number, etc), or a plain Hello, whereupon the caller produces a Hello, with
a self-identification. If the call is between two close friends or acquaintances we may
expect the exchange of How are you. Then at that point we expect some announcement
from the caller of the reason for the call. Thus telephone conversations have recognizable
openings.


9

In an investigation of Greek telephone openings, Sifianou (1989) found that there is a
greater variety of linguistic options for answering the phone in Greek. In choosing a
particular response type, Greeks can develop a personal style in answering the telephone.

Thus, the answer to a summons may provide the caller with resources for identifying the
answerer.
Houtkoop-Steenstra (1991) found that in Dutch telephone openings, Dutch speakers
overwhelmingly self-identify by name in answering the phone. The caller in the
subsequent turn also overwhelmingly self-identifies. Furthermore, the callers use a voice
sample alone only if the caller is the spouse or a close relative of the person called. In
doing so, the callers display intimacy. Houtkoop- Steenstra also suggests that in Dutch
society not self-identifying in answering the home telephone is considered impolite.
In her study of Swedish telephone conversation openings, Lindström (1994) describes how
Swedes use a variety of responses when answering the phone. According to Lindström, the
most common answer to summons in the Swedish data is self-identification followed by a
phone number. Swedes self-identify by first and/or last name, greeting and selfidentification, station identification (i.e. phone number) and "hello". In Swedish telephone
conversation openings, greetings are closely linked to the identification-recognition issue.
Pavlidou (1994) compared Greek and German telephone conversation openings, in
particular the utterances occurring between summons-answer sequence and the first topic.
Her study suggests that Greeks and Germans use the expression “how are you” in different
ways. This expression in Greek telephone conversation serve the purpose of enhancing the
interpersonal relationship aspect of communication, whereas Germans seem to use the
expression “how are you” to reduce a face threat that is connected with the reason for
calling.
Hopper and Chen (1996) investigated telephone conversation openings in Taiwan. They
explain that summons/answer, identification/recognition, and greeting sequences in
telephone conversation in Taiwan seem to be similar to the American English. However,
there seems to be some cultural variation in the greeting. In general, Hopper and Chen
suggest that speakers in Taiwan use three distinctive greeting tokes and relative formality
of address terms for family members. In doing so, speakers display their orientation to their
interpersonal relationship.


10

The preceding overview suggests that, speakers in the studied cultures go through the
telephone opening sequences described by Schegloff (1986) and that there are some
cultural variations.

Chapter 2: TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OPENINGS AS COMMUNICATIVE
ACTS
2.1. General structure of telephone conversation openings
2.1.1. Conversation opening structure
Conversations are opened in socially recognized ways. Before beginning their first
conversation of the day, we normally greet each other, as two office workers meet in the
morning.
Jeff:

Morning, Stan!

Stan: Hi. How‟s it going?
Jeff:

Oh, can‟t complain, I guess. Reading for the meeting this afternoon?

Stan: Well, I don‟t have much choice.
Greetings exemplify openings sequences, utterances that ease people into a conversation.
They convey a message “I want to talk to you.”
Greetings are usually reserved for acquaintances, who have not seen each other for a while,
or as opening sequences for longer conversations between strangers. Some situations do
not require a greeting, as with a stranger approaching in the street to ask for the time:
Excuse me, sir, do you know what time is it? The expression Excuse me, sir serves as an
opening sequence appropriate to the context. Thus, greetings are not the only type of
openings sequences.

Very few conversations do not begin with some type of opening sequences, even as
commonplace as the following:
Eric:

Guess what.

Jo:

What?

Eric:

I broke a tooth.


11

Conversationalists also use opening sequences to announce that they are about to invade
the personal space of their interlocutors. Here, two friends are talking on a park bench next
to a stranger; at a pause in their conversation, the stranger interjects:
Stranger:

Excuse me, I didn‟t mean to eavesdrop, but I couldn‟t help hearing

that you were talking about Dayton, Ohio. I‟m from Dayton.
(Conversation then goes on among the three people.)
It is not surprising that opening sequences take the form of an apology in such situations.
Finally, opening sequences may serve as a display of one‟s voice to enable the interlocutor
to recognize who is speaking, especially at the beginning of telephone conversations. Here,
the phone has just rung in Alfred‟s apartment.

Alfred:

Hello?

Helen:

Hello!

Alfred:

Oh, hi, Helen! How you doin?

In the second turn, Helen displays her voice to enable Alfred to recognize her. In the third
turn, Alfred indicates his recognition and simultaneously provides the second part of the
greeting adjacency pair initiated in the previous turn (Finnegan, 2004:312)
2.1.2. Telephone conversation openings
Hatch (1992:8) states that in all communication, there must be ways to show that
communication is about to begin and then begins and this also happens in telephone
conversations. These channel open signals will differ according to the channel (e.g., phone
calls, letters, meetings, classrooms).
Telephone conversation openings are different from other kinds of openings because the
caller knows whom they are calling, although they actually may not know the person who
actually answers. Because the answerer does not know who is calling, they both have the
problem of identifying each other, as well as producing some means for each to achieve a
possible recognition of the other (George Psathas; 1995:27).
Telephone conversations have quite formalized openings:
(phone ringing)
Marcia:

Hello.

Tony:

Hi Marcia,

Marcia:

Yeah?

Tony:

This is Tony


12

Marcia:

Hi Tony

Tony:

How are you?

Marcia:

OHhhh hh I‟ve got a paper b-the yearly paper due tomorrow.

Tony:

How about that.

Marcia:

heheheh hh I can tell you a lot ab(h)out th(h)at . .

This example shows the four basic parts of phone conversation openings described by
Schegloff (1968) which are stated in Hatch (1992) and Hopper (1992):
1) Summons – answer sequence, consisting of the telephone ring and the first thing said by
the answerer indicating that the communication channel is open;
2) Identification – recognition sequence, i.e. parties identify themselves and/or recognize
each other;
3) Greeting sequence, which can be produced by one party or both; consisting of an
exchange of greeting token „Hi‟;
4) How-are-you sequence and their answer, which may constitute themselves the main
object of the conversation or may be preliminaries leading to the „reason for call‟.
Summons-answer:
Telephone calls begin not with speech, nor with visual pre-beginning, but with a summonsnoise such as a ring. The telephone summons repeat every few seconds until somebody
answers, or till the caller gives up. The summons should be answered by a brief item such
as “Hello”. If the person answering know ahead of time to expect a call, the response may
be a “hi” or “yeah” Self-identification responses such as “Acme Computers” or “Dr.
Jones‟s office” more often mark the communication as business rather than personal. If
you were trained to answer the phone as “Smith residence” or whatever, you will object to
this last statement. But, if you monitor your calls, you will find that the preceding
generalizations are true for most American phone calls. Summons-answer sequences are
necessary to telephone conversation openings because of the blind character of the
medium.
Identification – recognition:
We speak mainly to those persons whom we recognize. Therefore, we mutually display
recognition at the beginning of each encounter (Hopper, 1992: 58). In telephone openings

recognition and identification work cannot precede the summons-answer, and parties must
identify each other within speech. The answerer, by saying „Hello‟, announces that he or


13

she is possible called. When the caller answers with second „Hello‟, this is not a greeting,
but an answer to the summons, establishing their availability for interaction.
Hatch (1992: 9-10) argues that we are often able to identify the caller or the answerer from
minimal voice samples. A caller who recognizes the answerer by the initial „hello‟ may
show that recognition has taken place to invite a reciprocal recognition by simply
answering „hi.‟
(phone ringing)
E:

Hello

S:

Hi,

E:

Hi, Sue.

If the answerer and the caller are both recognized from such minimal voice samples, all is
well. However, there are sequences when the names of answerers and callers are given in
the identification sequence:
(phone ringing)
E:

Hello:,

C:

Dr. Hatch?

(phone ringing)
E:

Hello

S:

hhMom?

Sometimes the intonation is exclamatory or given with falling intonation.
(phone ringing)
E:

Hello

S:

MOM-my, you‟re home.

Caller may give an immediate self-identification
(phone ringing)
E:

Hello

S:

Hi mom, it‟s me.

According to Schegloff (1979), these resources for identification are graded in American
phone conversations so that identification from the voice sample aloe is “preferred.” If a
name is given, a first name rather than first and last name is “preferred.” It appears that the
less information needed for identification, the better. When identification falters even for
an instant, however, self-identification is forthcoming, often in the second turn.


14

(phone ringing)
S:

hhHello,

D:

Hi Sue,

S:

Hi.

D:

It‟s Dennis.

S:

ohh HI, Denis.

Greeting sequence:
Greetings are usually the first utterances in face-to-face encounters. If somebody says
„Hello‟ to you, you return the greeting immediately with a similar greeting. However,
telephone greetings, unlike face-to-face ones, are not first utterances. Summons- answer
and identification / recognition speech pushes the greeting back into the encounter. This
perhaps helps explain the durability of „Hello‟ as a telephone answering turn. An initial
“hello” may retain some greeting function or survive as a vestige of beginning an
encounter with a greeting token (Hopper, 1992: 60).
Hatch (1992) also agrees that much of the work of the identification sequence can be
accomplished by an exchange of greetings. However, these opening exchanges do not
necessarily constitute a greeting. In the following exchange, the first set is part of the
identification sequence, and the second set forms the greeting.
(phone ringing)
E:

Hello?

S:

Hi,

E:

Hi, Sue.

S:

Hi, Mom.

The one distinguishing characteristic of a “hi” as a greeting versus that of identification is
that greetings are not repeated. However, one “hi” can serve both purposes – recognition
and greeting.
In telephone talk, greetings are relevant to previously-acquainted parties. However,
telephone calls between strangers may omit greetings; and telephone openings between
intimates omit almost everything but greetings. Therefore greetings in telephone openings
still perform their traditional function of indicating previous acquaintance (Hopper, 1992:
60).
How-are-you sequence


15

Finally, the opening many include a “how-are-you” sequence. The default response is
usually “okay” or “fine”. A neutral response allows the caller to conclude the openings and
provides and anchor point for introduction of the topic or reason for the call. If the default
is not used, the how-are-you sequence expands and may become the first topic of
conversation if it was not the reason for the call.
(phone ringing)
E:

Huh-lo?

S:

He-LO!

E:

Hi Sue, How are yuh.

S:

Fine, how‟re you.

E:

hhh Oh, not so good. I had a run-in with B.

These inquiry-response exchanges do not carry heavy literal content, but they set the
direction for a telephone call. In other words, the how-are-you gives the answerer the
opportunity to capture the first topic of conversation. In some instances, the answer to the
question leads to a multitude of sequences and to a closing before the caller gets around to
the real reason for the call (Hatch, 1992:11).
These four basic parts of telephone conversation openings can be seen in the following
extract:
J: (rings)

(Summons)

M: Hello

(Answer)

J: Hi, Mary. This is John.

(Greeting + identification)

M: Oh, hi John. How‟s everything?

(Greeting + How-are-you)

J: I‟m in a very good condition. How are you?

(How-are-you)

After this very adjacency pairs, sequences of identification (self- and other- identification,
either by name or telephone number), greeting and counter-greeting usually follow.
Sometimes, when the caller and called already know each other, ritual inquiries like „How
are you?‟ may appear before the partners proceed the main section of the call. In other
words, the opening sections of a telephone call comprises a number of basic or constitutive
sequences, which, however, may vary in their realization from context to context (e.g.
workplace versus home setting, business call versus private call, etc.) and from culture to
culture (Helen Spencer-Oatey, 2000: 124)
2.2. Cross-cultural Communication and Telephone Openings


16

2.2.1. Opening sequence in other cultures
English conversations are often started with the conventional phrase „How are you?‟ which
is a greeting, not a question. However, in fact „How are you?‟ is a kind of cross between a
greeting, a question, and an invitation for the addressee to say something about their
current state – something that is expected to be short and „good‟ rather than long and „bad‟.
While „How are you?‟ is considered as a conventional conversational opening in English

language, there are also expressions such as „Good morning‟, „Hello!‟ and „Hi!‟ The
responses to these phrases are not similarly conventionalized (Wierzbicka, 2003:132-134).
In many cultures, the opening sequence appropriate to a situation in which two people
meet after not having met for a while is an inquiry about the person‟s health, as in the
American greeting „How are you?‟ Such inquiries are essentially formulaic and not meant
literally. Indeed, most speakers respond with a conventional upbeat formula „I‟m fine or
Fine, thanks‟ even when feeling terrible. In other cultures, the conventional greeting may
take a different form. Traditionally, Mandarin Chinese conventionalists ask „Have you
eaten rice yet?‟ When two people meet on a road, they ask „Where is your going directed
to?‟ These greetings are as formulaic as „How are you?‟
In formal contexts, or when differences of social status exist between participants, many
cultures require a lengthy and formulaic opening sequence. In Fiji, when an individual
visits a village, a highly ceremonial introduction is conducted before any other interaction
takes place. This event involves speeches that are regulated by a complex set of rules
governing what must be said, and when, and by whom. This ceremony serves the same
purpose as opening sequences in other cultures (Finnegan, 2004: 313).
In Vietnamese conversation openings differ depending on whom you are addressing. Chào
(said with a falling tone); Xin chào (polite); Chào anh (hello to boy/brother); Chào chị
(hello to girl/sister); Chào ông (hello to man/old grandfather); Chào bà (hello to
woman/old grandmother); Chào con (hello child/son/daughter); Chào cháu (hello
neice/nephew/grandchild); Chào em (hello to one younger than yourself); Chào bác (hello
aunty/uncle)... However, on the telephone or loudspeaker Vietnamese do say 'Allo, Allo‟.
To greet a partner it is important to use use an appropriate greetings depending on the
relationship between the speakers.
2.2.2 Telephone openings in other cultures


17

Alexander Graham Bell spoke through a wire to his colleague Thomas Watson in 1876.

"Come here," he said, the first command uttered on a telephone. Around the world,
different cultures have developed characteristic phone manners since Bell's day.
In telephone conversation in the United States, opening sequences serve primarily to
identify speakers and solicit the interlocutor‟s attention. In France, opening sequences for
telephone conversations normally include an apology for invading someone‟s privacy.
Person called:

Allô?

Person calling:

Allô? I‟m terribly sorry for disturbing you. Can I speak to

Marie-France?
In an American telephone conversation, an opening sequence is not customary. Thus, in
two relatively similar cultures, the role played by the opening sequence in a telephone call
is different. As a result, the French can find Americans intrusive and impolite on the
telephone, while Americans are puzzled by French apologetic formulas, which they find
pointless and exceedingly ceremonious (Finegan, 2004: 313).
No people open a call with more effusive hospitality than the Arabs. Arabs greet each other
with profuse politeness. Whatever the subject of the conversation, it begins with what
seems like five minutes of generally meaningless but absolutely essential greetings.
A ringing phone is answered:
"May your morning be good."
"May your morning be full of light," the caller responds.
"Praise God, your voice is welcome."
"Welcome, welcome."
"How are you?"
"Praise God."
"Praise God."

"What news? Are you well? Your family well?"
"Praise God. How are you?"
"All is well. All is well. Welcome. Welcome."
Only then might the reason for the call be mentioned. And the goodbyes will take almost
as long and are again excruciatingly polite.


18

Compared to the Arab world, responses elsewhere are the soul of brevity: Britons and
Americans generally say "Hello," although the latter sometimes simply say "Yes," and if
they're in business or the military they may just answer with their surnames: "Smith."
French want to know who is calling. The French answer their phones with the
familiar "Allo," and they often add their name and the phrase "Qui est a l"appareil?" that is,
"Who is on the phone?"
In Brazil, after slowly and patiently dialing a number, if you are lucky enough to
get an answer, the respondent will say: "Who's talking?" not to be rude but to make sure
the right number has been reached.
In a number of countries, calls are answered with a touch of suspicion or curiosity, a
reluctance to talk until it is clear who the caller is.
Italians answer "Pronto," or "Ready," and then it's the caller who demands "Chi
parla?" "Who's speaking?" assuming the right to know the identity of the person at the
other end.
Germans tend to answer the phone by barking their last names: "Schmidt" or
"Mueller," even the women -- and even if they have titles, like Herr Doktor, which in other
circumstances they would insist upon.
In Copenhagen, Danes will answer with both first and last names, even women:
"Karen Andersen."
In Spain, the response to a ringing telephone is: "Diga," or "Speak." "Diga" is also a
common response in Mexico, but Mexicans usually answer "Bueno," meaning "Good" or

"Well." Like the Italians, the Mexicans will demand: "Where am I calling?" And if they
have the wrong number, they'll indignantly hang up, sometimes with a curse, as if it were
the respondent's fault. Because of a cultural tendency to speak cautiously with strangers,
callers must clearly identify themselves and state their purpose. Even then, the respondent
may become vague and evasive. "Is this the Mexico State Justice Department?" a caller
might ask. "I wouldn't know what to tell you," is the answer. Business people and
government officials commonly refuse to speak to strangers on the phone even if it
concerns simple inquiries like "Where can I buy one of your vacuum cleaners?" The train
system will not divulge ticket fares or schedules on the phone; you must go to the station
and ask in person.


19

In Russia, "Da" or "Yes" and "Slushayu vas" or "I am listening to you" are common
telephone openings.
In Japan, the person answering will customarily say, "Moshi moshi," the equivalent
of "Hello," or perhaps "Hai," that is, "Yes." If he or she has the right connection, the caller
may say something like "Osewa ni natte imasu," or "I am indebted to you for your
kindness." Sometimes people bow over a phone, although the other party cannot see the
bow. Many older Japanese, who never saw phones until the era of the 1964 Tokyo
Olympics, continue to use ceremonial phrases and bows over the telephone - as if it weren't
there. The standard goodbye is "Ja, mata" -- "See you later" -- with the word "Sayonara"
reserved only for occasions of a long or final parting.
Chapter 3: COMPARISON BETWEEN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION OPENINGS
3.1. The receiver’s first turn - individual moves
After the caller‟s summons, i.e. the phone ringing, the person at the other end of the line
picks up the phone and starts speaking. These are the very first words in the call and a
crucial interactional site, where several moves can be performed and social identities and

roles begin to be defined. As Schegloff (1979: 25) notes “The opening is a place where the
type of conversation being opened can be proffered, displayed, accepted, rejected,
modified – in short, incipiently constituted by the parts of it”.
Minimally, one may simply display that the communication channel is open and that the
conversation can proceed. However, it is often the case that other moves are produced in
the receiver‟s first turn, including greetings, self-identification, and offers of availability
and/or invitations to the caller to express the reason for the call.
The receiver orients to the routinised character of the event, sorting out all the matters that
need to be dealt with in the opening and rapidly proceeding to the core of the telephone
call. Although the same set of moves can be recognized in all languages, there are crosscultural differences in the frequencies of individual moves and in how they are sequentially
combined within the turn
3.1.1. Summons-answer sequence
Summon-answers are forms whose aim is uniquely to signal that the communication
channel has been opened, i.e. to provide a minimal answer to the summons represented by
the telephone ring.


20

The languages included in this study have simple, minimal tokens that can be uttered to
perform the basic action of showing that the communication channel is open, i.e. the two
speakers have established contact and they can proceed talking. There are, however,
important differences in the way such tokens are used.
First of all, the pragmatic meaning of these forms is not exactly the same.
English Hello performs discourse markers that can be used in the context of a telephone
call and only with the function of checking for an open channel.
Receiver:

Hello.

Caller:

Hello, Jenny?

Receiver:

Oh, hi Mark.

(Hutchinson Tom, 1999:122)
But Hello can also be used in other ways, most notably as a greeting, both in face to face
interactions and on the phone.
Answering the phone with a simple hello or hi is not at all infrequent in English, but is
strictly confined to the domestic space of personal interactions (Schegloff 1986).
The mother calls her daughter to make sure where she is after school.
Receiver:

Hello?

Caller:

Hi Mum, it‟s me.

Receiver:

Hi, where are you?

(Cunningham and Moor, 2005: 171)
Vietnamese use Alo, which is a French word, as an expression uttered in the receiver‟s
first turn only in the context of a telephone call, but not for greeting.
Receiver:

Alo?

Caller:

Alo. Tôi Đức nghe đây. (This is Duc speaking)

English summons-answers are usually „Hello‟ (88%); „Hello, this is (receiver‟s name)
speaking (12%). Business calls are often opened with „Hello, company‟s name and then
the receiver‟s name. The participants agreed that they regularly say „Hello‟ at the
beginning of the call, however it much depends on situations and who the caller is.
The receiver may answer in the caller‟s language if they know each other. I interviewed an
American and he said sometimes he said „Wei” which is a Chinese word as he worked with
Chinese people. And he opens telephone conversations in various ways which depend on
who calls him. To a friend or his family he would say „Hello. How are you? / How are you


21

doing?‟ or „What are you doing‟; to a colleague „What‟s up‟; to his boss „What‟s going on‟
or „What‟s up‟; and to a stranger it may be „Who is it?‟ English young people aged
between 18 and 25 may start their phone calls with „Hi, how‟s it going‟; „Hey, how are
you‟; „Hey, how you doing‟; „Hiya‟ with their family and friends.
Summons-answers in Vietnamese are different when using table telephones and mobile
phones. With table telephones the receiver usually says „Alo‟, and with mobile telephones
Vietnamese people address each other differently depending on their age and relationship:
„Mẹ à?‟ (Mom?); „Đây rồi‟ (this is me); „Mai đấy hả?‟ (Is that Mai?), Chị/ Anh à; or „Dạ‟
(yes).
„Alo‟ is the most used (53%); „Alo, tôi nghe đây‟ (Alo, I‟m listening) (23%). Some people
answer their telephone calls without summons: 13% starts with „Tôi nghe đây/ Tôi xin

nghe‟ (I‟m listening); „Ai đấy ạ‟ (Who is it?) is 11%.
Channel openers in different languages have different semantic and pragmatic meanings
producing certain restrictions on their position within the turn and implications for
sequential development. There is substantial cross-linguistic variation in frequency of
token usage, especially when they are the only expression uttered in the receiver‟s first
turn.
3.1.2. Identification-recognition sequence
Receivers often identify themselves upon answering the phone at the workplace. This
occurs in both English and Vietnamese.
Not providing one‟s identity at home can be a way of playing the game of mutual
recognition from small voice samples, which exhibits, confirms and reinforces the intimate
relationship among callers (Schegloff, 1986).
English
Receiver:

Hi darling, how are you?

Caller:

I‟m fine, but ... where are you? It‟s eight o‟clock.

(Cunningham and Moor, 2005: 171)
Vietnamese
Receiver:

Mẹ à, mẹ thế nào ạ? Mẹ khỏe không? (Mom? How are you)

Caller:

Hương à? Mẹ bình thường. Con ở đâu đấy? (Is that Huong? I‟m

fine. Where are you?)