MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY M.A THESIS A STUDY OF ENGLISH POLITENESS STRATEGIES FOR EXPRESSING ANNOYANCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS (NGHIÊN CỨU CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ BÀY TỎ SỰ KHÓ CHỊU TRONG TIẾNG ANH LIÊN HỆ VỚI TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TIẾNG VIỆT) LÊ THỊ TUYẾT HƯỜNG Hanoi, 2016 LÊ THỊ TUYẾT HƯỜNG ENGLISH LINGUIAGE 2014 - 2016 MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HANOI OPEN UNIVERSITY M.A THESIS A STUDY OF ENGLISH POLITENESS STRATEGIES FOR EXPRESSING ANNOYANCE WITH REFERENCE TO THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS (NGHIÊN CỨU CHIẾN LƯỢC LỊCH SỰ BÀY TỎ SỰ KHÓ CHỊU TRONG TIẾNG ANH LIÊN HỆ VỚI TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG TIẾNG VIỆT) LÊ THỊ TUYẾT HƯỜNG Field: English Language Code: 60220201 Supervisor: Dr MAI THỊ LOAN Hanoi, 2016 CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled A study of English politeness strategies for expressing annoyance with reference to the Vietnamese equivalents submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master in English Language Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the thesis Hanoi, 2016 Le Thi Tuyet Huong Approved by SUPERVISOR (Signature and full name) Date:…………………… ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis could not have been completed without the help and support from a number of people First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr Mai Thi Loan, my supervisor, who has patiently and constantly supported me through the stages of the study, and whose stimulating ideas, expertise, and suggestions have inspired me greatly through my growth as an academic researcher A special word of thanks goes to teachers and students in Faculty of English at Hanoi Open University and many others, without whose support and encouragement it would never have been possible for me to have this thesis accomplished Last but not least, I am greatly indebted to my family for the sacrifice they have devoted to the fulfillment of this academic work ABSTRACTS Cross-communication has been proved to be one of the most intriguing issues that attracts the attention of many experts and researchers in Vietnam The fact that there are more studies conducted in almost all aspects of crosscommunication is the best evidence Speech act, to be specific, is the matter of interest that receives a distinguishable concern from many researchers Therefore, this study focused on the use of politeness strategies for expressing annoyance in English with reference to the Vietnamese equivalents, based on the solid theoretical background of pragmatics and cross-cultural pragmatics The author hopes that the similarities and differences in strategies for expressing annoyance in English with reference to the Vietnamese equivalents will contribute to the avoidance of cultural conflicts Data used for analysis in this study were collected through survey questionnaires which consist of main parts The first part is to collect informants’ parameters (age, gender, occupation and foreign language acquisition) The second part consists of situations given by the author to collect the idea and attitude of Vietnamese and English informants when expressing their annoyance according to their communicate partner (close friend, acquaintance, colleague, boss and stranger) The author has made this research with great interest and hoped that it will be effective to the learners However, mistakes and errors are unavoidable, all comment and suggestions are highly appreciated LIST OF TABLES page Table 1: Realization of strategies used by Vietnamese and English informants according to their age…………………………………………………………… 45 Table 2: Realization of strategies used by Vietnamese and English informants according to their gender …………………………………………………… 47 Table 3: Realization of strategies used by Vietnamese and English informants according to their occupation………………………………………………….….48 Table 4: Realization of strategies used by Vietnamese and English informants according to their language acquisition ……………………………………… 50 Table 5: Realization of strategies used by Vietnamese and English informants according to their communicative partners ………………………………………52 TABLE OF CONTENTS Certificate of originality i Acknowledgements ii Abstract iii List of tables iv CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Rationale Aims and objectives of the research Scope of the research .4 Methods of the research .5 Significance of the research Structure of Thesis CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Review of the previous related studies Culture and Communication 2.1 Culture 10 2.2 Communication .11 2.3 Culture- Communication correlation 13 Cross- cultural pragmatics 14 Speech acts 15 4.1 4.2 Notions of Speech Acts 15 Classification of Speech Acts 16 4.3 Direct and Indirect Speech Acts 18 4.4 Expressing annoyance as a speech act 19 Politeness .20 5.1 The notions of Politeness 20 5.2 Politeness Strategies 22 5.2.1 Bald-on- record 23 5.2.2 Positive politeness 23 5.2.3 Negative politeness 29 Summary 35 CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 36 Research questions 36 Data collection technique 36 2.1 The questionnaire 36 2.2 The informants 37 Data analysis techniques 38 Summary 38 CHAPTER IV: FINDING AND DISCUSSION 40 Realization of the strategies .40 1.1 Bald-on record .40 1.2 Hedging opinion 42 1.3 Avoid giving opinion 43 1.4 Joking 43 1.5 1.6 Telling a white-lie 44 Give (or ask for reason) .45 Data analysis 46 2.1 Use of the strategies as seen from informants’ parameters 46 2.2 Use of strategies in terms of communicative partners 52 Major cross-cultural similarities and differences between the English and the Vietnamese 55 3.1 Similarities and differences as seen from informants’ parameters 55 3.2 Similarities and differences in terms of communicative partners 58 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION 61 Recapitulation 61 Concluding remarks 61 Limitations of the current research 64 Suggestions for a further research .65 REFERENCES 66 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION Rationale Language is very important for international communication nowadays An emphasis on language as a communication system is really necessary in an age of globalization Not only does it help uncover principles underlying social interactions, but it also enables us to gain an access to ways of thinking, belief systems, and world views of people from various cultural backgrounds and thus enhances empathy and mutual understanding Investigating issues concerning cross-cultural communication is especially momentous in today’s time, when national boundaries are becoming less visible, and more and more people are engaging in intercultural communication Understanding social conventions and attention to such concepts as politeness, and face, which are important to members in a particular culture, will certainly enable us to better comprehend the different ways of speaking by people from different cultures, thus helping eliminate ethnic stereotypes and misunderstandings Cross-cultural communication based on knowledge of many factors It describes the ability to successfully form, foster, and improve relationships with members of a culture different from one’s own We can realize cross-cultural communication’s factors such as the other culture’s values, perceptions, manners, social structure, decision-making practices An understanding of how members of the group communicate- both verbally and non- verbally, in person, in writing or in any other kind of communication is also its factor Nevertheless, miscommunication is a very broad area, and with the world becoming smaller and more diverse, miscommunication seems to be happening males use this strategy It is the same with the females, 25% English females want to express their annoyance by “Give or ask for reasons” but just 5% of Vietnamese females favor to it Occupation: Similarities: There is a surprising similarity in how to express annoyance of informants who work in scientific and social fields “Hedging” strategy is popular for both Vietnamese and English informants regardless of their occupation Whereas, “Telling a white-lie” is maybe the least used strategy at two working fields Differences: Biggest difference can be seen in the choice of strategy “Give or ask for reasons” While 7% of English informants who work in scientific field indicate their feeling by giving or asking for reasons , 11 % of Vietnamese informants are inclined to choose this strategy Whereas, while 33% of informants who work in social field choose “Give or ask for reasons” strategy, the figure stands at 14% of Vietnamese informants Another difference can be recognized is in “Avoid giving opinion” strategy, while 22% of English informants who work in scientific field and 13.5% of English informants who work in social choose it, the figures just stand at 7.5% and 9% of Vietnamese informants Language acquisition: Similarities: 57 There are not many similarities when comparing and contrasting the use of politeness strategies to express annoyance between English and Vietnamese informants We can see that most of five sub-groups not use all the strategies but just only some of them when expressing their annoyance Among them, “Hedging” strategies seem to be the most popular used strategy Differences: English informants with excellent knowledge of foreign language would like to use “Hedging” (80%) and “Joking” (20%) strategies while 100% Vietnamese informants use “Joking” strategy English informants with good, fair, poor knowledge of foreign language favor to use “Give or ask for reasons” (about 50%), meanwhile, Vietnamese informants express their annoyance by “Hedging” (about 40%), especially the figure stands at 60% of Vietnamese informants with poor knowledge A big another difference can be seen from Table is in non-foreign language group, English informants tend to use “Joking” (40%) and “Avoid giving opinion” (35%) and ignore “Bald-on record” and “Telling a white-lie”, meanwhile, Vietnamese informants often use “Give or ask for reasons” (88%) and ignore the other strategies except “Joking” strategy 3.2 Similarities and differences in terms of communicative partners In this part, the author would like to compare and contrast the major similarities and differences between the English and Vietnamese informants in terms of communicative partner: Close friend, acquaintance, colleague, boss and stranger Some conclusions may be made based on the author’s personal point of view 58 Similarities: There are not many similarities when contrasting in term of communicative partner We can see that “Bald-on record” strategy is ignored by both English and Vietnamese informants when they want to express their annoyance to their boss And no one chooses “Avoid giving opinion”, “Telling a white-lie” and “Joking” to express their indignation to the stranger When communicating with partners, English and Vietnamese informants like to use “Hedging” as their best choice of expressing annoyance English informants tend to use “Bald-on record” and “Give or ask for reasons” strategies (with 29% and 27%) , it is the same with Vietnamese people, however, the figure reaches 60% and 31% of Vietnamese informants Besides that, “Give or ask for reasons” is not popular with informants when they want to indicate their indignation towards their acquaintance, colleague and boss It is just popular when they communicate with the strangers Differences: There are many differences in terms of choosing the strategy to express annoyance towards partners between Vietnamese and English informants When they want to express their annoyance with their close friend, some of the English informants choose “Avoid giving opinion” (7%), “Telling a white-lie” (14%) and “Joking” (5%), but none of the Vietnamese informants use these strategies There is a slight difference between English and Vietnamese informants when they communicate with their acquaintance and colleague, with 59 English informants, they would like to use strategy “Telling a white-lie” (30% and 32%), meanwhile, Vietnamese informants prefer “Hedging” strategy (32% and 35%) Moreover, when communicating with the bosses, English people tend to tell a white-lie (50%) but Vietnamese people tend to avoid giving opinion (32%) and joke (26%) 60 CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION Recapitulation Regarding the theoretical background of speech act, politeness and the light of cross-cultural communication, an investigation into English informants’ choice of strategies has been conducted to express annoyance with reference to the Vietnamese contexts The investigation shows that there are some similarities and differences in cultural and linguistic behavior in terms of expressing annoyance in two groups of informants The particular features and different culture, and the politeness norms and communication styles have result in the differences of the two languages On the other hand, several similarities can be demonstrated through several common things This lays initial foundation for cross- cultural communication as well as for cultural exchange and integration Concluding remarks In this research, the author have investigated the choice of communicative strategies that English and Vietnamese informants make in expressing their annoyance based on the theory of speech act and politeness The findings from data analysis show that the two groups of informants have both similarities and differences in their cultural and linguistic behavior towards annoyance expressions Similarities: When the data are analyzed, there are some detailed similarities between the two groups according to their personal parameters (age, gender, occupation and language acquisitions) For example, both English and Vietnamese young 61 informants tend to express their indignation in a more direct way than older informants This may be because of their living experience, older informants want to express their feeling politely and meaningfully so they can calm down in an easier way and know how to avoid making others uncomfortable Similarly, in the aspect of gender, the research indicates that both Vietnamese and English males would like to express their annoyance in a more direct way (Give or ask for reasons and Bald-on record) while both Vietnamese and English females are more inclined to a more indirect strategy (Hedging) There is a similarity like that because females are often softer and more flexible in communication than males When the data are analyzed based on the communicative partner, we can see that “Bald-on record” strategy is ignored by both English and Vietnamese informants when they want to express their annoyance to their boss And no one chooses “Avoid giving opinion”, “Telling a white-lie” and “Joking” to expressing their indignation to the stranger When communicating with partners, English and Vietnamese informants like to use “Hedging” as their best choice of expressing annoyance English informants tend to use “Bald-on record” and “Give or ask for reasons” strategies, it is the same with Vietnamese people Besides that, “Give or ask for reasons” is not popular with informants when they wants to indicate their indignation towards their acquaintance, colleague and boss It is just popular when they communicate with the strangers Differences: By collecting the data in two following aspects: their personal parameters (age, gender, occupation and language acquisition) and communicative partner (close friend, acquaintance, colleague, boss and stranger), the findings have shown 62 a number of differences in the strategies used by the English informants and the Vietnamese informants to express their indignation towards the situations given Firstly, when comparing the strategies used by Vietnamese and English informants based on their parameter, we can realize that 17% of English informants of the age 21-35 choose strategy “Avoid giving opinion”, 9% of them choose strategy “Telling a white-lie” and other 8% choose strategy “Joking”, there are 9.5% of Vietnamese informant of this age range choose strategy “Avoid giving opinion”, 15% of them choose strategy “Telling a white-lie” and 5% choose strategy “Joking” With people from 35-50 years old, we can also see a slight difference in how they show their annoyance, especially in strategy “Telling a white-lie” When 25% of English informants choose this strategy, just 8% of Vietnamese informants use it to express their indignation Other differences between the two groups can be seen when the data are analyzed based on their language acquisition English informants with excellent knowledge of foreign language would like to use “Hedging” strategy while 100% Vietnamese informants use “Joking” strategy English informants with good, fair, poor knowledge of foreign language favor to use “Give or ask for reasons”, meanwhile, Vietnamese informants express their annoyance by “Hedging”, especially, the figure stands at 60% of Vietnamese informants with poor knowledge A big another difference which can be seen is in non-foreign language group, English informants tend to use “Joking” and “Avoid giving opinion” and ignore “Bald-on record” and “Telling a white-lie”, meanwhile, Vietnamese informants often use “Give or ask for reasons” and ignore the other strategies except “Joking” strategy Secondly, according to the findings, the strategies used by Vietnamese and English informants which are analyzed and compared based on their communicative partner (close friend, acquaintance, colleague, boss and stranger) 63 have many differences When they want to express their annoyance with their close friend, some of English informants choose “Avoid giving opinion”, “Telling a white-lie” and “Joking”, but none Vietnamese informants use these strategies There is also a slight difference between English and Vietnamese informants when they communicate with their acquaintance and colleague, with English informants, they would like to use strategy “Telling a white-lie”, meanwhile, Vietnamese informants prefer “Hedging” strategy Moreover, when communicating with the bosses, English people tend to tell a white-lie but Vietnamese people tend to avoid giving opinion and joke However, it can be said that the choice of strategies in dislike expression is not only decided by the social or cultural factors informants (age, gender, occupation, knowledge of foreign languages) and the communicating partners but also depends on the communicative situations, the purpose of communication and the nature of specific speech act Limitations of the current research Although, there was a great attempt to conduct the study on “The English politeness strategies for expressing annoyance with reference to the Vietnamese equivalents”, there are still some drawbacks exist First of all, necessary data and information is limited and seem to be very difficult to contact and collect them from English informants As a result, the interviews could not be fully conducted or only in small scale that cannot show the fulfill results Secondly, the research only focuses on politeness, negative strategies and directness/ indirectness in expressing annoyance Still some other major fields in terms of cross- cultural communication need to be taken into consideration in further study 64 Suggestions for a further research Many aspects that are related to this thesis still remain uninvestigated, some suggestions for further studies would be promising to be interesting such as: - Researching the kinship between the informants (speakers) and the communicative partners (hearers) and how they express their annoyance to each other - Researching the extra linguistic factors when expressing annoyance such as body language, setting - Researching the paralinguistic factors when expressing annoyance such as pitch, vocal quality 65 REFERENCES In English: Austin, J.L (1975) How to things with words Oxford University Press American Psychological Association (1999) Controlling anger before it controls you Retrieved June, 15, 2016 from http://www.apa.org/topics/anger/control.aspx Bach, K & Harnish, R.M (1979) Linguistic communication and speech acts Cambridge Bell, R.T (1991) Translation and Translating Theory and Practice New York Longman Birtwhisle, H (1970) An effective and experienced executive leader and communications specialist seeking new challenges London Blum-Kulka, S (1987) Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal of Pragmatics, ii, 131-146 Brown, P and Levison, S (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage Cambridge University Press Brown, P (1997) Language, culture and cognition: The view from space Cambridge University Press Brown, R and Gilman, A (1962) The Pronouns of Powe and Solidarity America Anthropologists 10.Contrill, L (1991) Face, Politeness and Indirectness University of Canberra 11.Cutting, J (2002) Paragmatics and Discourse London and New York: Routledge 12.Crystal, D (1992) An encyclopedia Dictionary of Language and Languages England Blackwell 66 13 Downnes, W (1984) Language and Society UK: Cambridge University Press 14.Flowerdew, J (2013) Discourse in English language education London, England: Routledge 15 Fraser, B (1990) Perspectives on politeness Journal of Pragmatics 14: 219-236 North-Holland 16.James, P (2010) Globalization and Culture London 17.Jessica B Casey (2015) How to express anger without hurting people Retrieved June, 15, 2016 from http://www.wikihow.com/Express-AngerWithout-Hurting-People 18.Jonathan, C (1992) Oxford advanced learner’s encyclopedic dictionary” Oxford University Press 19.Geis, M.L (1995) Speech acts and conversial interaction CUP 20.Goddard, A and Patterson, L.M (2000) Language and Gender London and New York: Routledge 21.Green, G.M (1989) Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding New Jersey: LEA 22.Grundy, P.(2000) Doing Pragmatics London: Arnold 23.Hybels, S & Weaver, R L (1992) Communicating Effectively McgrawHill College 24.Hatim, B and Marson, I (1990) Discourse and the Translator New York: Longman 25.Hervey, S and Higgins, I (1992) Thinking Translation New York: Longman 26.Holliday, A: Hyde, M and Kullman, J (2004) Intercultural Communication London and New York: Routledge 27.Holmes, J (1995) Women, Men and Politeness New York: Longman 67 28.Hymes, D (1964) Language in Culture and Society Harper and Row New York 29.Ivona, B (2008) Politeness strategies in cross-cultural perspective Olomouc 30.Kramsh, C (1998) Language and Culture Oxford University Press 31.Lakoff, R (1977) What can you with works: Politeness, pragmatics and perfomatives In Roger, Andy, Wall, Bob and Murphy, John (Eds), Proceedings of the Texas Conference 32.Larsen, D Freeman (2002) Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching OUP 33.Larson, M.L (1984) Meaning-based traslation University Press of America, Inc 34.Leech, G (1983) Principles of Pragmatics London and New York: Longman 35.Levinson, S.C (1983) Pragmatics UK: Cambridge University Press 36.McKenzie, W (1997) The Virtual Republic: Australia’s Culture Wars of the 1990s Sydney: Allen & Unwin 37.Morris, J Andrew (2005) Managing Emotions in the Workplace Retrieved June, 15, 2016 from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-20355980/managingemotions-in-the-workplace 38.Olshtain, E & Weinbach, L (1993) Interlanguage Features of the Speech Act of Complaining Oxford University Press 39.Samovar, L.A & Porter, R E (1985) Intercultural communication: A Reader Wadsworth Pub Co 40.Sari (2009) Directness and Indirectness: Speech Acts Wordpress 68 41.Searle, J.R (1976) The classification of illocutionary acts Language in Society 42.Searle, J.R (1976) Indirect Speech Act New York Academic Press 43.Searle, J.R (1979) Expression and Meaning Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 44.Rogers, E.M & Steinfatt, T.M (1999) Intercultural communication Waveland Press 45.Richard, N (2016) Politeness Strategies Grammar.about.com 46.Thomas J (1995) Meaning in Interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics Longman 47.Tiedens LZ (2001) Anger and advancement versus sadness and subjugation: the effect of negative emotion expressions on social status conferral Retrieved June, 15, 2016 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ uids=11195894&dopt=Citation 48.Tylor E.B (1974) Primitive Culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom New York: Gordon Press 49.Watts, R.J (2003) Politeness Cambridge university press 50.Wierzbicka, A (1987) English Speech Act Verbs Academic Press 51.Wierzbicka A (1992) Semantics, Culture ang Cognition Oxford University Press 52.Wikipedia Annoyance Retrieved July, 10, 2016 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annoyance 53.Yule, G (1995) The study of Language UK: Oxford University Press 54.Yule, G (1996) Pragmatics Oxford University Press 69 In Vietnamese: Bùi Khánh Ly (2012) A study on cognitive metaphors of negative emotions in English and Vietnamese Đại học Đà Nẵng Đinh Trọng Lạc (2005) 99 phương tiện biện pháp tu từ tiếng Việt NXB Giáo dục Đỗ Hữu Châu (1994) Đại cương ngôn ngữ học (Tập hai) NXB Giáo dục Đỗ Kim Liên (2005) Giáo trình Ngữ Dụng học NXB Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội Đỗ Thị Hồng Thùy (2010) A cross- cultural communication study on joking between friends and relatives in Vietnamese and English cultures Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội Nguyễn Thiện Giáp (2000) Dụng học Việt Ngữ NXB Đại học Quôc gia Hà Nội Nguyễn Thị Thùy Linh (2013) A cross- cultural study on expressing satisfaction in American English and Vietnamese Đại học Quốc gia Hà Nội Nguyễn Văn Độ (2004) Tìm hiểu mối liên hệ Ngơn ngữ-Văn hóa NXB Đại học Quôc gia Hà Nội Nguyễn Quang (2002) Giao tiếp giao tiếp giao văn hóa NXB Đại học Quôc gia Hà Nội 10.Nguyễn Quang (2004) Một số vấn đề giao tiếp nội văn hóa giao văn hóa NXB Đại học Qc gia Hà Nội 11.Phạm Minh Thảo (1996) Nghệ thuật ứng xử người Việt Nam Hà Nội 12.Trần Ngọc Thêm (1999) Cơ sở văn hóa Việt Nam NXB Giáo dục 13 Ưng Thị Thu Quyên (2010) A cross- cultural study on AmericanVietnamese verbal expressions in offering a gift and responding to a gift offer Đại học Quốc gia Hà nội 70 14.Võ Đại Quang (2004) Một số vấn đề cú pháp, Ngữ nghĩa, Ngữ dụng Âm vị học Hà Nội: Phòng quản lý nghiên cứu khoa học 15.Võ Đại Quang (2004) Lectures on Pragmatics CEL-VNU, Hanoi 71 ... The thesis aims at helping Vietnamese learners of English to have a better understanding of the strategies expressing annoyance and be able to use them in daily communication With this aim, the. .. on the use of politeness strategies for expressing annoyance in English with reference to the Vietnamese equivalents, based on the solid theoretical background of pragmatics and cross-cultural... pragmatists are doing, namely to study the interrelation of the structure of language and the principles of the usage of language A further definition already comes quite close to the real meaning