Quan điểm của daniel hauer về phát âm tiếng anh của giáo viên việt nam và phản hồi của người việt nói tiếng anh về quan điểm đó

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF LINGUISTICS &
CULTURES OF ENGLISH SPEAKING COUNTRIES

GRADUATION PAPER

DANIEL HAUER'S ATTITUDES TOWARDS
VIETNAMESE ENGLISH TEACHERS’
PRONUNCIATION REPRESENTED ON YOUTUBE
AND
VIETNAMESE ENGLISH SPEAKERS’ RESPONSES
TO THEM

Supervisor: Hoàng Thị Hạnh (Ph.D)
Student: Hoàng Thị Hải Yến
Course: QH2014

HANOI – 2018


ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ
KHOA NGƠN NGỮ VÀ VĂN HĨA CÁC NƯỚC NĨI TIẾNG ANH

KHĨA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP

QUAN ĐIỂM CỦA DANIEL HAUER VỀ
PHÁT ÂM TIẾNG ANH
CỦA GIÁO VIÊN VIỆT NAM
VÀ PHẢN HỒI CỦA NGƯỜI VIỆT NÓI TIẾNG ANH

VỀ QUAN ĐIỂM ĐÓ

Giáo viên hướng dẫn: TS. Hồng Thị Hạnh
Sinh viên: Hồng Thị Hải Yến
Khóa: QH2014

HÀ NỘI – 2018


I hereby state that I: Hoang Thi Hai Yen, class QH2014.F1.E1, being a
candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts, Fast-track program accept the
requirements of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s
Graduation Paper deposited in the library.

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in
the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in
accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the
care, loan or reproduction of the paper.

Signature

Date


Acknowledgement
This work could have never been accomplished without guide and help
from Ms. Hanh Hoang, my dedicated supervisor. She has always been an
incredible mentor who was understanding and encouraging, which has motivated
me in the whole process of conducting this research. I want to express my most
sincere gratitude to her for the marvelous job she has done for me.

Also, I am deeply indebted to my dearest friend, Vinh Trong Nguyen, for
constantly providing me with technical and emotional support. He was the one
who coded the website to help me download comments from YouTube. Without
his help, collecting data would have been a far more daunting task to me. Besides,
Vinh has comforted me every time I got panic and anxious about my work. I am
grateful to him for helping me get through this tough time.
Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends, who have always
encouraged me to maintain my efforts to finish this dissertation. My parents,
despite the great distance, have regularly kept up with my progress and reminded
me to take good care of myself. My little sister, on the other hand, was the one to
help manage daily chores for me to totally focus on my thesis. In addition, my
gratitude is dedicated to my friends, especially those in class QH2014.F1.E1 along
with Tien Thuy Tran, Ngoc Hong Pham and Ngan Kim Hua. They have been such
an unending source of support and inspiration for me to continue my work.

i


Abstract
English is now regarded as an international language (EIL) with many
distinctive varieties; however, there remain diverse attitudes towards these
varieties, including their pronunciation. This research investigated the case of
Daniel Hauer, an American English teacher in Vietnam, who has recently stirred
up debates over standard pronunciation with his videos “When Americans listen to
English of Vietnamese people” and “Dirty competition?”. The researcher applied a
critical intercultural analysis to figure out what Hauer’s attitudes towards English
pronunciation were and how Vietnamese English learners responded to them
through their comments on the video. Results showed that despite his claims of a
fair test, Hauer seemed to prioritize his native English variety when adopting
methodology and employing testers to assess Vietnamese English teachers’

pronunciation. This reflected his position in the Minimization stage of
ethnocentrism. Meanwhile, in response to Hauer’s arguments, Vietnamese learners
showed their overgeneralization, stereotypes and prejudice against their own ingroup members, indicating cultural cringe in their ideology. In some cases, these
perceptions of Vietnamese learners were seen to be impinged by Daniel Hauer’s
opinions on the matter. These views revealed an agreement in setting native
pronunciation standards for Vietnamese English learners, which resisted the
commonly accepted attitudes towards English varieties in EIL context.

ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement

i

Abstract

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii

List of abbreviations

iv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background

1.1.1 English as an International Language
1.1.2 Pronunciation in communication
1.1.3 Daniel Hauer
1.2 Statement of research problem and questions
1.3 Scope of the study
1.4 Significance of the study
1.5 Organization

1
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
6

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Learners’ attitudes towards English as an International Language (EIL)
pronunciation
2.2 Intercultural communication theoretical background
2.2.1 Stereotypes and prejudice
2.2.2 Ethnocentrism and cultural cringe

7
7
8
8
10

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data collection
3.2 Data sampling
3.3 Data analysis

17
17
17
18

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
19
4.1 Daniel Hauer’s perspective of Vietnamese English teachers’ pronunciation and its
impacts on Vietnamese English learners’ viewpoints
19
4.1.1 Daniel Hauer’s perspective of Vietnamese English teachers’ pronunciation 19
4.1.2 Daniel Hauer’s influence on Vietnamese English learners’ viewpoints
23
4.1.3 Conclusion
26
4.2 Vietnamese English learners’ identities reflected through their responses to Daniel
Hauer’s opinions
26
4.2.1 Vietnamese English learners’ identities reflected through their responses to
Daniel Hauer’s opinions
26
4.2.2 Conclusion
36
CHAPTER 5:

CONCLUSIONS

38

References

42
iii


List of abbreviations
EIL

English as an International Language

WE

World Englishes

ELF

English as a Lingua Franca

DMIS

Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

SE

Standard English

iv


CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1

Background

1.1.1 English as an International Language
English diffusion has escalated so dramatically that people communicate in
English in many parts of the world. The language’s popularity contributes to
enhancing its position as an international language since it possesses most of the
requisite features. According to Smith (1976), a language is considered
international if it is the common means of communications among people from
different countries. McKay (2002) also supports that International English is the
language used by people from native and non-native backgrounds to communicate
in a cross-cultural context. In other words, an international language works as a
tool for people all over the world to exchange their culture. In this case, English
performs its role in global communication, indicating its significance as an
international language. Another way of defining the term is proposed by BruttGriffler (2002). She concludes four central features of the development of global
language in a relatively comprehensive and complete way, most of which are
satisfied by English. The first characteristic deals with econocultural function of
the language. It is the result of the world development in economy, science, and
culture. Regarding this requirement, English plays a significant part in proceeding
and facilitating economic and cultural exchange and vice versa. The next feature
of an international language refers to the coexistence of an international language
and the national language in each country. It means that the global language is part
of the multilingual system where citizens speak both the language and their mother

tongue. In this case, no language has been able to compete with English yet. In his
demographic estimate, Graddol (as cited in McKay, 2002) demonstrated that “the
balance between L1 and L2 speakers will critically change, with L2 speakers
1


eventually overtaking L1 speakers.” (p. 13). English would be spoken mostly by
people whose mother tongues are other languages, fulfilling the task of an
international language. The third characteristic involves the idea that a global
language is learned by people from different levels and classes in the society. A
little research has been dedicated to this aspect to demonstrate English’s
prevalence. Finally, an international language’s spread results from its speakers’
autonomy to learn the language instead of immigration of native speakers. In
terms of this criterion, McKay (2002) claims that the diffusion of English carried
out by native speakers’ immigration could only create some “monolingual
English-speaking communities” (p. 14) such as the United States, Australia and
New Zealand. Henceforth, taking the large number of English speakers, most of
whom are non-native, into account, it is safe to say that the spread of English
occurs mainly in Outer Circle and Expanding Circle countries where native
people’s immigration is not a stimulus. In a nutshell, considering all factors
mentioned above, English is an international language.
With the fast development of English speaking countries and its potentials,
English is now considered an international language (EIL) or a lingua franca
(ELF), “the common language of choice, among speakers who come from
different linguacultural backgrounds” (Jenkins, 2009, p. 200). The new terms
expose learners to a broader horizon from the World English to the World
Englishes (WE).
1.1.2 Pronunciation in communication
As stated above, language’s main function is to exchange knowledge and
culture. Besides, one of the most significant elements of language that affect

quality of communication is pronunciation. According to Gilakjani (2012),
misunderstanding would occur if the speaker and the hearer fail to convey their
message in a clear way with recognizable sounds. Consequently, the process of
2


encoding and decoding information would experience challenges and may even
collapse. Therefore, pronunciation plays a vital role in facilitating communication,
which is also applicable in speaking English. Along with EIL, there remain
various attitudes towards different varieties in pronunciation. Sobkowiak (2008)
shows his concern that accepting varieties in pronunciation will cause confusion in
English learners due to the lack of standards to follow. Therefore, achieving native
standards of pronunciation is considered targets of many language learners.
Meanwhile, Jenkins (2000) emphasizes that only some main features of
pronunciation can cause intelligibility such as consonants (except for “th” sound in
“thank” and “they”), consonant clusters in the first and middle syllables, nuclear
stress and differences between long and short vowels. Changes in other elements
can still assure clarity and understanding among speakers. This view is supported
by many EIL studies. Byram (1997) opposes the needs of native standards in not
only pronunciation but also values and behaviors of English learners. Sharing the
same opinion, Alptekin (2002) proclaims on the importance of intercultural
approach of EIL bilingual teachers. To these scholars, varieties in pronunciation
can still guarantee intelligibility in English communication. Apparently, in EIL
context, to serve the purpose of intercultural communication, native pronunciation
no longer commonly holds the predominant role.
1.1.3 Daniel Hauer
Daniel Hauer is an American English teacher in Vietnam. He has lived in
Vietnam since 2013 and become quite fluent in Vietnamese. Apart from running
English courses in his own center, Hauer has also made vlogs teaching English
and sharing about American and Vietnamese cultures on YouTube. These videos

appeal to a large number of Vietnamese English learners with the total number of
approximately 73 million views. Up until December 2017, his channel has gained
more than a million subscribers on YouTube, and roughly 97 thousand ones have
followed his Facebook account. Hauer’s products often receive a number of
3


positive feedbacks from Vietnamese followers, complimenting on his in-depth
knowledge of English language and Vietnamese culture as well as his clever
methods to deliver it. Without doubt, to many Vietnamese English learners, he is a
popular teacher. In August 2017, Daniel Hauer published two controversial videos
claiming his perception on Vietnamese English teachers’ pronunciation of English.
The videos went viral and attracted attention from English researchers, teachers,
and learners. Specifically, nearly 28 thousand comments were left on the videos on
YouTube. Different perspectives were exposed, initiating heated debates on the
issue. Though several people contradicted Hauer’s point of view on this matter, a
greater number of others supported it. A myriad of these advocates even indicated
that Hauer’s practical experiment and his revelation had enlightened them about
English speaking proficiency of Vietnamese teachers, especially when it came to
pronunciation. Henceforth, there identified a practical need to investigate the
validity and reliability of his argument on the issue to determine their applicability
in evaluating English speaking levels of Vietnamese teachers.
1.2

Statement of research problem and questions
With the diffusion of English, Crystal (1997) proclaims that nonnative

English speakers has outnumbered those who speak the language as their mother
tongue. In fact, English adopted in each country is modified by its culture, history
and acquisition regarding the language’s penetration into it (McKay, 2002, p. 54),

generating distinctive varieties. Since English is now considered an international
language, its varieties or Englishes deserve equal recognition from any English
speakers all over the world. Nevertheless, there remains confusion in attitudes
towards the existence of standard English among its speakers. Quirk (1985) firmly
upholds the idea of protecting English from any damages caused by national or
regional language adaptation. Meanwhile, Kachru (1985) argues that Englishes are
inevitable results and should be appreciated fairly. This implies that contradictory

4


arguments on standard pronunciation remain in perspectives of different English
speakers.
This research aims at investigating and analyzing a specific case study of
Daniel Hauer to clarify his viewpoint on the matter as well as Vietnamese English
learners’ responses to it. The goal is to address the two following questions:
Research question 1: What are Daniel Hauer's attitudes towards
Vietnamese English teachers’ pronunciation?
Research question 2: In what ways do Vietnamese English learners
respond to Daniel Hauer's judgements on Vietnamese
English teachers’ English pronunciation?
1.3

Scope of the study
This study applies critical analysis to Daniel Hauer’s statements about

Vietnamese English teachers’ pronunciation of English and Vietnamese English
learners’ reaction to his opinions. Therefore, only the two YouTube videos “When
Americans listen to English of Vietnamese people” and “Dirty competition?", and
Vietnamese learners’ comments related to the topic were taken into consideration.

Specifically, the researcher investigated the two videos along with 1000 first
comments by Vietnamese learners left on the former video, including subcomments in response to Hauer’s pinned remark and the next above 500
comments based on time stamps. Irrelevant statements that failed to show opinions
on the matter were excluded from the analyzed data. In total, 349 comments were
taken into consideration to reflect on Vietnamese learners’ attitudes towards
Daniel Hauer’s opinions of Vietnamese English teachers’ pronunciation.

5


1.4

Significance of the study
The research’s significance lies in its reflexivity values. The study findings

revealed

Daniel

Hauer’s

perspective

on

Vietnamese

English

teachers’

pronunciation in a globalization context with many English varieties. In addition,
Vietnamese English learners’ attitudes towards the matter were also exposed to
reflect how local learners responded to it. Generally, the research showcased
outstanding flows of opinions about Vietnamese teachers’ pronunciation of
English and their underlying cultural phenomena.
1.5

Organization
This research is divided into five chapters. The first one is Introduction,

which is assigned to provide background knowledge about the topic including the
current situation of EIL, the importance of pronunciation in communication,
especially in EIL context and an introduction of Daniel Hauer. In addition, the first
chapter also covers research problems along with its questions, scope, significance
and organization. The second chapter is Literature Review, aiming at introducing
theoretical backgrounds of both linguistics field (learners’ perspectives of EIL
pronunciation) and intercultural concepts such as stereotypes, prejudice,
ethnocentrism and cultural cringe. Next, methodology of collecting, sampling and
analyzing data will be clarified and explained, followed by the fourth section:
Findings and Discussion. In the fourth chapter, the researcher will reveal Daniel
Hauer’s cultural perception of Vietnamese English teachers’ pronunciation and its
influence on Vietnamese learners’ viewpoints on the matter. Besides, the cultural
identities of Vietnamese learners reflected through their comments will also be
showcased. The study ends with a Conclusion which summarizes the findings,
states research limitation and proposes direction for future studies.

6

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1

Learners’ attitudes towards English as an International Language
(EIL) pronunciation
Widdowson (1994) clarifies that English now belongs to all of its speakers

rather than just those who speak it as their mother tongue. English no longer exists
in the certain fixed forms of the Inner Circle; instead, many other varieties with
different sets of pronunciation are added. As a result, the role of Standard English
(SE) pronunciation is blurred and there exists a suggestion that all varieties should
be equally respected (Lick & Alsagoff, 1998). These changes attract a deal of
attention from both linguists and language learners. Some strongly discard EIL for
the reason that its application in pronunciation will ruin the language. Specifically,
allowing varieties in pronunciation will “bring the ideal [that is, Received
Pronunciation] down into the gutter with no checkpoint along the way”
(Sobkowiak, 2008, p. 141). To Sobkowiak and his supports, without SE, English

learners will confront difficulties when speaking English due to their lack of
standards to set targets and compare their performance to. Meanwhile, Lick and
Alsagoff (1998) believes all English varieties should receive the same respect
from any speakers. Jenkins (2000) also clarifies some phonology factors that can
be adjusted without harming the intelligibility of communication.
Besides linguists’ viewpoints, some studies have investigated learners’
attitudes towards varieties of English pronunciation. In this research, “Future
English teachers' attitudes towards EIL pronunciation” (Coskun, 2011) were
reviewed to reflect on how English learners, who are also preservice teachers,
perceive this matter.
The empirical study employs both questionnaire and interview as data
collection instruments for the sample size of forty-seven senior students at English

7


Language Teaching department in a Turkish university. Results show that these
preservice teachers are aware of the prominent EIL context and its emphasis on
equal varieties. They showcase a view of “International English” as “English
easily understood by everyone (intelligible English)” (Coskun, 2011). In a way,
the participants seem to hold an EIL viewpoint on English learning. However,
their definition of “intelligible” English still refers to English of the Inner Circle
with their learning goals being to achieve native pronunciation standards.
Additionally, these teachers do not seem tolerant to English varieties of the Outer
and Expanding Circles when refusing to adopt a variety in teaching pronunciation
and considering native teachers the most ideal to learn pronunciation with. On the
whole, even though the participants claim positive attitudes towards varieties in
English pronunciation, their underlying perception tends to favor native standards.
2.2

Intercultural communication theoretical background

2.2.1 Stereotypes and prejudice
2.2.1.1

Stereotypes
Stereotypes refer to the general judgments and opinions on a particular

individual or groups of people which reflect their oversimplified images.
Specifically, Herbst (1997, p. 212) defines stereotypes as “a generalization about
what people are like; an exaggerated image of their characteristics, without regard
to individual attributes”. It can be related to the process of forming impressions of
other individuals based on their appearance or membership of a certain ethnic

group. Stereotypes also reflect one’s perceptions of how they view members of
their in-group and those of the out-groups (Tajfel & Forgas, 1981; Triandis &
Vassiliou, 1967; Turner, 1987; Vassiliou, Triandis, Vassiliou, & McGuire, 1972,
as cited in Pittam, Kashima, & Iwawaki, 1990).

8


Baldwin, Coleman, González and Shenoy-Packer (2014) summarize some
common features of stereotypes. Specifically, stereotypes are basically the way
people perceive the world and each other. By generalizing attributes of some
individuals to the group level, people categorize and label others and even
themselves in cultural communities. These stereotypes can still depict one’s
characteristics in certain cases because they are established based on how
members of a mutual group tend to behave and express themselves to the world.
Nevertheless, due to their nature of overgeneralization, stereotypes cannot be
applied in all situations. Unfortunately, human beings are likely to stereotype each
other, especially when they do not have enough time to individuate their
counterparts (Devine & Sharp, 2009). However, Patricia Devine (as cited in
Baldwin, Coleman, González & Shenoy-Packer, 2014) concludes from her
research results that this phenomenon can be prevented if ones dedicate their time
and efforts to fighting the automatic stereotyping process and personalizing the
images of people they communicate with.
Devine and Sharp (2009) also propose a classification method of
information processing based on its formation in automatic and controlled
processes. The former refers to the preconscious process where information is
addressed and stereotypes are generated without intention. Meanwhile, active and
intentional involvement is a crucial factor of controlled processes.
2.2.1.2

Prejudice
Prejudice is viewed as the hostile attitudes against certain people because of

their native communities (Allport, 1979, as cited in Baldwin, Coleman, González
& Shenoy-Packer, 2014). Stephan and Stephan (1996) state that there can be a lot
of causes of prejudice, some of which are one’s personal characteristics including
authoritarianism, self-esteem, and ethnocentrism.

9


It is commonly believed that prejudice, in many ways, has a close
relationship with stereotypes. Nevertheless, research results reveal that it is not
always the case. Stephan et al. (1996) conduct a study in six different countries
about their people’s attitudes towards the superpowers (Japan, the Soviet Union,
and the U.S.A.) and correlation between the attitudes and stereotypes of these
countries. The outcomes show only five substantial correlations out of eighteen
potentials, failing to show a close or impressive relationship. Similar results are
found in the research of Brigham (1971) and Stephan and Stephan (1989) with
average proportion. In other words, in most cases, stereotypes of a group of people
do not entail prejudice against them. An explanation for this phenomenon can be
attributed to personal attempts to resist stereotypes. It is inevitable that prejudice is
established by the combination of one’s knowledge of stereotypes and his
endorsement of them (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1981; Billig, 1985, as cited in Devine
& Sharp, 2009). Generally, a person can possess many stereotypes about others
but whether they are applied to conceptualizing his perspective about other people
counts on the subject himself.
2.2.2 Ethnocentrism and cultural cringe
2.2.2.1

Ethnocentrism
Ethnocentrism is a cultural term which strikes itself as a type of prejudice,

which appears when people appreciate values of their in-group members more
than those of out-group ones. According to William Sumner (as cited in Baldwin,
Coleman, González & Shenoy-Packer, 2014), ethnocentrism is identified when
“one’s own group is the center of everything, and all others are scaled with
reference to it” (p. 119). Ethnocentric people possess a desire to spread their native
identities and apply them to other cultures to create their universal standards. They
view their in-group sets of values and behaviors as “unquestioned” standards
which people are all supposed to follow (Bennett, 2004, p. 62). Out-group

10


members who fail to meet the standards will be regarded as “contemptible and
inferior” (Axelrod & Hammond, 2003, p. 926). Language, accents, biological
characteristics and region are among the noticeable assessment criteria of
members in an ethnic community which are perceived as the root of ethnocentrism
(Sumner, 1906; Hirshfeld, 1996; Kurzban, Tooby & Cosmides, 2001, as cited in
Axelrod & Hammond, 2003). Barth (1998) indicates mutual norms and judgment
are shared by members of the same ethnic groups. As a result, people with
distinctive values and norms are likely to receive intolerance from these group
members and may even get isolated. In other words, ethnocentrism can be
attributed to a sign of in-group favoritism or out-group hostility.
Axelrod and Hammond (2003) summarize previous studies to clarify
outstanding features of the in-group/ out-group process as followings:
• Members of an ethnic group are identified by their mutual
distinctive sets of values (Oakes, Haslam & Turner, 1994, as cited in
Axelrod & Hammond, 2003) regarding social and economic interests

(Brewer, 1979a; Barth, 1969, as cited in Axelrod & Hammond, 2003);
hence, there exists a need to showcase these attributes to verify one’s
membership of that community. The boundaries become especially
“salient” when spatial distances among groups shrink (Taijfel, 1982, as
cited in Axelrod & Hammond, 2003, p. 927).
• In-group favoritism, which can be triggered by “the most
trivial and arbitrary distinction” (Ferguson & Kelly, 1964; Tajfel, 1970;
Tajfel et al., 1971, as cited in Axelrod & Hammond, 2003, p. 927) or
even without any intention (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1993; Lamont &
Molnar, 2002, as cited in Axelrod & Hammond, 2003), also entails
willingness to make more generous contribution to the community
(Brewer & Kramer, 1986; Kramer & Brewer, 1984, as cited in Axelrod
& Hammond, 2003).
11


• When outside dangers appear, both in-group favoritism and
out-group hostility tend to develop to confront the possible competition
(Sherif, 1961, 1996; Brown, 1988, as cited in Axelrod & Hammond,
2003). Nonetheless, the two phenomena do not necessarily co-exist and
empirically correlate with each other (Cashdan, 2001; Brewer, 1979a;
Turner 1978; Struch & Schwartz, 1989; Mummendey et al., 1992;
Hewstone, Rubin & Willis, 2002, as cited in Axelrod & Hammond,
2003) in cultural identities of a group.
These characteristics can also reflect ethnocentrism in ideology of a group
member. With its attempts to standardize attitudes and behaviors based on one’s
own native culture to create homogeneity, ethnocentrism can be depicted as a
specific way of “avoiding cultural difference” (Bennett, 2004, p. 63). In fact,
Bennett (2004) established a development process from ethnocentrism to
ethnorelativism called the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity

(DMIS) (Bennett, 2004). In DMIS, ethnocentrism in one’s reaction to cultural
differences goes through three stages, namely Denial, Defense, and Minimization.
The first stage, Denial, comes with people’s unawareness of cultural
differences and belief that their native culture with its identities and values is the
only existing in the world. Experiences of cultural differences almost do not arise
because other distinctive cultures are blind to these people or “associated with a
kind of undifferentiated other such as “foreigner” or “immigrant”” (Bennett, 2004,
p. 63). The two noticeable traits of ethnocentric people at Denial stage are their
disinterest in cultural differences and inability to differentiate other cultures.
Specifically, people with the former characteristic will show indifferent attitudes
towards cultural differences even if having to discuss them. Only when their
benefits chance to be impinged by this cultural element will they respond in an
aggressive and conservative way. In addition, people at this stage cannot recognize
the outstanding characteristics of other foreign cultures and tell them apart. What
12


to note is that this phenomenon does not specially occur in dominant cultures;
instead, any people from any culture can experience Denial stage if they hold
similar viewpoints to the above-mentioned traits. Generally, solution to this stage
is enlightening people about the existence of other dissimilar cultures apart from
their native one.
Once this realization is achieved, people can move to stage two of the
development scale, which is Defense. At this phase, cultural differences are
recognized, which means people have more experience with them than the
previous stage. However, ethnocentric in-group members at Defense stage
maintain their superiority to other out-group cultures. They suppose their cultures
are the most civilized and others should follow the same patterns and identities.
These in-group members even try to “help” other non-dominant groups’ members
by exposing them to the dominant cultures. This process helps non-dominant

individuals explore and shape their own independent identities in resistance to
imposition of the dominant groups (Banks, 1988; Parham, 1989, as cited in
Bennett, 2004). This phase is also where stereotypes of the in-group and out-group
identities are formed, originating the notion of “us and them” and the need to be
“like us” (Bennett, 2004, p. 65). A variation of Defense is called Reversal. It
distinguishes itself from the original term in a way that sees no threats from nondominant people. People at Reversal consider the adopted culture “superior to the
culture of one’s primary socialization” in the way that it is “going native” (Bennett,
2004, p. 66). A person can also be categorized into Reversal phase if he/ she
stereotypes his/ her native group as the causes of non-dominant cultures. The
resolution to the problems in Defense stage is to “establish commonality” and help
people recognize “the common humanity of people of other cultures” (Bennett,
2004, p. 66). Fulfilling this, one can move to the last stage, Minimization.
Minimization stage does not see cultural differences in a polarized
worldview as the two other stages. In fact, the dominant group members at this
13


stage expect universalism. The problem lies in their inability to be fully aware of
their own cultural identities. They do not view their distinct features as unique
values but believe that these traits appear in all other cultures. Therefore, they tend
to make judgments based on their own sets of values and try to imprint others to
achieve their standards and create homogeneity and universalism in the world.
“Minimization tends to mask recognition of their own culture (ethnicity) and the
institutional privilege it affords its members” (Bennett, 2004, p. 67). In other
words, in-group members can recognize their benefits and show better
appreciation of their own ethnic community. Actually, Minimization has only one
trait that keeps its experience ethnocentric which is one’s underlying notion
favoring their own native groups. Other than that, this stage manages to eliminate
the two ethnocentric features, namely the inabilities to view cultural differences in
a non-stereotypical way and “recognize the essential humanness of others”

(Bennett, 2004, p. 68). Hence, with better perception of their own culture as a
context of social communication and interaction, people can leave the very last
stage of ethnocentrism.
2.2.2.2

Cultural cringe
The term “cultural cringe” was first coined by an Australian scholar, Arthur

Phillips, in 1950 when describing Australian tendency to appreciate music and art
from overseas more than those composed by local artists. He refers “cultural
cringe” as the feeling of inferiority of in-group members in self-comparison with
out-group ones (Phillips, 1958, as cited in Mattar, 2009). This term suggests
another view on the in-group/ out-group relationship, contrasting with
ethnocentrism where one’s own native culture is perceived as dominant. Mattar
(2009) clarifies that “cultural cringe tends to operate on a holistic level, where
cultural discrimination, rather than meritocratic evaluation is applied to almost
every aspect of one’s own society” (p. 180). What he means is that this
phenomenon can originate from one’s own inferior perception of their own native
14


culture, leading to their overgeneralization that anything related to their group has
lower quality than that of foreign communities. This judgment can be attributed to
personal assumptions without any convincing and clear evidence. Simply speaking,
in-group individuals with cultural cringe would prefer identity traits or products of
the out-group just because they assume these features/ products are better than
their own ones.
Some researchers have investigated their own community to reflect on its
members’ cultural cringe levels, two of which reviewed in this study were
“Devaluing Achievement Within a Culture: Measuring the Cultural Cringe”

(Feather, 1993) and “Popular cultural cringe: Language as signifier of authenticity
and quality in the Singaporean popular music market” (Mattar, 2009) to compare
the results of cultural cringe in Australia and Singapore with Vietnam. Both the
researchers introduce a prevailing stereotype that Australian/ Singaporean people
have problems with cultural cringe, motivating them to conduct a study to verify
the fact. Feather (1993) implements his investigation in high school and university
students to figure out their perception of “national identity, identification with
Australia, attitudes towards high achievers (“tall poppies”), estimated past, present,
and future standing of both self and Australia, and global self-esteem” (p. 182).
Mattar (2009), on the other hand, particularly works on music patrons of various
retail outlets to see their perception of their native music and artists. While the
former is an empirical study carried out in Australia, the latter aims at Singaporean
people with a qualitative approach. In the first research, questionnaire is employed
as the main data collection method to get results from 570 subjects, compared with
observation and an interview of thirty-nine participants in Mattar’s study. Not only
do they differ from each other in subjects and methodology but the two studies
also reveal varying facts about cultural cringe in each country. To be more specific,
Feather’s results prove a counter to the initial assumptions that cultural cringe
remained an issue in Australian community. He finds out the subjects are critical
15


of their choices to consider the real quality of their domestic products instead of
devaluing them since the beginning. The participants show positive attitudes
towards their native cultures without a sense of inferiority as assumed. Feather
also notes that participants with a pure Australian background express a clearer
sign of bias for their in-group members than those from other cultural identities.
Basically, the research’s results contrast the stereotypes of Australian people with
cultural cringe and insecurity. Meanwhile, what Mattar (2009) concludes from his
study proposes an opposite situation. To Singaporean music patrons, their local

musicians are considered less authentic than native ones from “Anglo-Saxon
native-English speaking countries” (Mattar, 2009, p. 191), originating from the
fact that colloquial Singaporean English is placed in a lower position than English
of Anglo-Saxon countries. In this case, the in-group music patrons “imposed
Orientalist perceptions upon themselves as the result of conceptualizing the binary
Occident as a positive stereotype” (p. 192). With these perceptions and arguments,
the existing assumption about cultural cringe of Singaporean people is
demonstrated.

16


CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1

Data collection
The researcher watched the two videos “When Americans listen to English

of Vietnamese people” and “Dirty competition?” and transcribed them. Meanwhile,
YouTuber users’ comments on the videos were downloaded and put into Excel
documents using website />3.2

Data sampling
The researcher looked through comments of the two videos to have an

overview about their main contents and popular threads. Then she decided to
investigate those in the first clip “When Americans listen to English of
Vietnamese people” because it had more relevant remarks. These comments were
arranged based on their time stamps except for the pinned statements of Daniel
Hauer and their responses which were placed on top. Next, the researcher read

comments, noted down main arguments found in the data until there identified no
new reasons (saturated data) and decided the total number of remarks to research
more thoroughly (the first 1000 ones). Concerning this first sampling group of
data, she re-read the claims more carefully to omit those that were irrelevant to
attitudes towards Vietnamese English teachers’ pronunciation or failed to express
the commenters’ opinions or reasons for stance. These included such comments as
“I like it. Thank you.” (Kênh của Bi), “Poor Dan!” (GIN 90), “I have problems
with /z/ and /s/. Too difficult!” (Vy Thúy), and those discussing dirty competition,
Hauer’s competence in Vietnamese or just swearing. After filtering, the finalized
number of data was 349 comments.

17


3.3

Data analysis
Both qualitative and quantitative research approaches were adopted in data

analysis. First, the researcher reviewed the selected data to summarize and
synthesize Daniel Hauer’s standpoints based on his claims on the two videos and
comments on YouTube. Critical discourse analysis and English as an International
Language (EIL) frameworks were employed to analyze his opinions. The
researcher compared the purposes of producing videos he claimed with his
implementation of the experiment to review his perspective. After that, she
examined Vietnamese learners’ comments to figure out their perception of the
matter and imprints of Hauer’s arguments on it. The researcher categorized the
comments into different groups based on the phenomena she observed and
counted their frequency. Typical claims were picked out and quoted to illustrate
prevailing reaction to Hauer’s attitudes. Because of the availability and

accessibility nature of YouTube as a public forum of a social platform, the names
of samples were reserved instead of being encoded. In addition, most of the
comments were written in Vietnamese, so examples in this study were translated
into English by the researcher if necessary. The researcher also formatted some
words in bold and italics to highlight some outstanding expressions of the
commenters and added some explanation for the statements with italic notes in
parentheses. Next, she described what she had observed from the videos and
comments and compared it with background theories and research to find the
relationships among them. Afterwards, she drew some conclusions from the
phenomena identified and analyzed typical examples. The relationship between
attitudes towards EIL pronunciation and intercultural perception of Daniel Hauer
and Vietnamese learners was also clarified after the analysis process.

18