Khóa luận Politeness strategies applied in making a bargain in english and vietnamese - Nguyễn Thị Thu Huyền

Nội dung text: Khóa luận Politeness strategies applied in making a bargain in english and vietnamese - Nguyễn Thị Thu Huyền

1. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HAI PHONG PRIVATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES    ISO 9001:2008 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH POLITENESS STRATEGIES APPLIED IN MAKING A BARGAIN IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE. (Sử dụng cỏc chiến lược giao tiếp lịch sự trong cỏch thức mặc cả giữa tiếng Anh và tiếng Việt) By: Nguyễn Thị Thu Huyền, M.A. Haiphong, December 2010 1
2. Abstract Based on the theoretical background of speech act, politeness in the light of cross-cultural communication, this study investigates the similarities and differences in making a bargain in Vietnamese and American language and culture. Data used in this study are collected via questionnaires. To investigate the dimensions thoroughly, we take informants’ social parameters such as age, sex, marital status, occupation, living area, and knowledge of foreign languages into consideration. The findings of all the investigated aspects are presented and cross-culturally compared. The common belief is reassured that the American with their Western cultural features prefer negative politeness strategies whereas the Vietnamese with their Asia Eastern ones prefer positive politeness strategies. The social distance among various communicating partners has more influence on the Vietnamese than on the American, which induces them to apply different appropriate strategies. However, interactions with communicating partners of different social distance still remain the American to be more negative politeness oriented. This study, hopefully contributes to helping interlocutors avoid communication breakdowns in Vietnamese-American cross-cultural communication. Then, several activities in teaching English, particularly English for Business at Hai Phong Private University with the situations of sales and price negotiation are suggested. 2
3. Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the following people for their great supports during my completion of this scientific research. First and foremost, I would like to express my deep gratitude Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Quang, my supervisor, for his clear guidance, insightful comments and dutiful supervision. I would like to give my sincere thanks to all the lectures of Foreign Languages Department- Hai Phong Private University for their knowledge, sharing teaching experiences and their comments on my initial draft, from which I have acquired valuable knowledge and inspiration to fulfill this research. I would like to express my gratitude to my family, to many of my friends and colleagues, for their valuable sharing and encouragements. My special thanks go to Mr Adrian Wurr, the American educator; Mr David Bouchard, the Fulbright scholar for their comments and their help with the collection of questionnaire in American English. I wish to acknowledge the important contributions of both Vietnamese and American informants, whose names I cannot mention here for the completion of this study. Nguyễn Thị Thu Huyền 3
4. Table of contents Abstract i Acknowledgements ii Table of contents iii List of tables v List of figures vi Abbreviations vii PART 1: INTRODUCTION I. ration ale 1 II. Aims of the study 2 III. Scope of the study 2 IV. Methodology 3 V. Design of the study 3 Part 2: Development Chapter 1: Language and culture in communication 4 1.1. Language and culture 4 1. 2. Communication, communicative functions of language, cross-cultural communication 6 Chapter 2: Making bargain as a speech act 8 1. Pragmatics, cross-cultural pragmatics 8 2. Speech act 9 2.1. Theory of speech acts 9 2.2. Classification of speech acts 10 2.3. Making bargain as a speech act 11 Chapter 3: Politeness strategies in making bargain 12 1. Theory of politeness 12 1.1. Politeness and face 12 1.2. Politeness principles 13 1.3. Positive politeness and positive politeness strategies 15 1.4. Negative politeness and negative politeness strategies 17 2. Sociological factors: Social distance (D), Relative power (P), and Ranking of imposition (R) 4
5. as politeness determinants 22 3. Realization of strategies in making bargain 23 Chapter 4: data collection, data analysis and discussion 1. Methodology 27 1.1. Research instrument 27 1.2. Procedure of data collection 27 1.3. Procedure of data analysis 28 2. data analysis and discussion 29 2.1. Use of strategies as seen from informants’ parameters 29 2.1.1. Politeness Strategies 29 2.1.2. Major cross-cultural similarities and differences 35 2.2. Use of strategies as seen from communicating partners’ parameters 36 2.2.1. Politeness Strategies 37 2.2.2. Major cross-cultural similarities and differences 41 3. Concluding remarks 43 Part 3: Conclusion 1. Overview of the findings 44 1.1. Politeness strategies in making a bargain 44 1.2. Effects of the communicating partners on informants in choosing politeness strategies when making a bargain. 45 1.3. Informants’ status parameters. 46 2. Implications for cross- cultural communication 46 3. IMPLICATIONS FOR ELT 47 3.1. Cross cultural negotiation in business field 47 3.2. Activities of sales and price negotiation for learners, particularly for those of English for Business 49 References 63 Appendix 1: Vietnamese survey questionnaire VIII Appendix 2: English survey questionnaire X APPENDIX 3: Summary Table of utterances collected from Informants XII 5
6. List of tables Table 1: The five general functions of speech acts (following Searle 1979) Table 2: Realization of strategies in making a bargain Table 3: Distribution of informants with their status parameters Table 4: Number of utterances collected from survey questionnaire Table 5: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of age Table 6: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of gender Table 7: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of marital status Table 8: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of occupation Table 9: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of living area Table 10: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of knowledge of FL 6
7. List of figures Figure 1: Possible strategies for doing FTAs ( Brown and Levinson, 1987) Figure 2: Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Nguyen Quang, 1999:130) Figure 3: Politeness strategies in making a bargain to acquaintance Figure 4: Politeness strategies in making a bargain to friend Figure 5: Politeness strategies in making a bargain to neighbor Figure 6: Politeness strategies in making a bargain to stranger Figure 7: Politeness strategies in making a bargain to different communicating partners 7
8. Abbreviations Am : American FSA : Face Saving Act FTA : Face Threatening Act H : Hearer NOR : Nonverbal Off-record PPO : Negative Politeness Oriented NPS : Negative Politeness Strategies NPS+NPS : Negative Politeness Strategies+ Negative Politeness Strategies NPS+PPS : Negative Politeness Strategies+ Positive Politeness Strategies NPS+VOR : Negative Politeness Strategies+ Off-record OR : Off-record PPS+NPS : Positive Politeness Strategies+ Negative Politeness Strategies PPS+PPS : Positive Politeness Strategies+ Positive Politeness Strategies PPS+VOR : Positive Politeness Strategies+ Off-record S : Speaker SNPS : Single Negative Politeness Strategies SPPS : Single Positive Politeness Strategies Vie : Vietnamese VOR : Verbal Off-record 8
9. Part1: introduction 9
10. x i. Rationale Any creatures on this earth, when forming a community, share their same language to survive and to develop. Each type of animal has its own so-called language so that they can recognize its specie. Language of bird is the sound of singing, of dog is the sound of barking, of ocean animals such as dolphin, seal is the sound of lapping. Human being, the supreme animal, by each ethnic group, territory has its own language of sounds, signs or symbols to communicate, to support each other. It is also noted that language is the basic tool by which humans make society function. In its most basic form, language is a tool humans have utilized, sometimes effectively, sometimes not so effectively, to communicate their ideas, thoughts, and feelings to others. Saville-Troike (in Samovar, L.A and Porter, R.E, 1991: 166) furthers this notion by saying: ‚At the level of individuals and groups interacting with one another, the functions of communication are related to participants’ purposes and needs. These include such categories of functions as affect (conveying feelings or emotions), directive (requesting or demanding), poetic (aesthetic), phatic (empathy and solidarity), and metalinguistic (reference to language itself).‛ Language also permits you to pool knowledge and to communicate with others who are beyond the reach of your voice in space and time so that you need not rediscover what others have already discarded. This capability is a key in making progress possible because it allows us to learn from the past, and to communicate through time. Language serves a number of cultural, communal, and societal functions. First, from the cultural perspective, it is the primary means of preserving culture and is the medium of transmitting culture to new generation. In Vietnamese families, parents talk with their children to teach them the traditional family values such as the respect, the patriotism, the virtue of worshipping their ancestors. In America, children learn the values of individualism and freedom as the Americans’ identity from generation to generation. Second, it helps establish and preserve community by linking individuals into communities of shared identity. Third, at the societal level, it is important to all aspects of human interaction. As you can see, language is a multifunctional tool that helps you satisfy a variety of needs. Of which, conversation, therefore, is the most fundamental form of communication in daily interaction because it provides you with the means of conducting human affairs. In such a kind of human daily interaction, making a bargain is a subtle speech act. Different ethnic groups have different ways to perform their daily interactions. The Western people, namely the American, to certain extents, have different spoken language, different behaviors from those of Eastern people, such as Vietnamese. In the field of cross- cultural communication, the degree of politeness x
11. xi strategies applied is a significant factor. Therefore, an investigation into how to make a bargain will partially contribute to raising communicative competence of language learners and their better mutual understanding of an aspect of cultures. It is hoped that findings from the study will help learners of English avoid potential cultural shock and communication breakdown. II. Aims of the study This research aims to: - Investigate the specific situations of making a bargain with the degree of politeness strategies applied by Vietnamese and American people. - Compare and contrast strategies on how to make a bargain in the two languages and cultures in order to clarify similarities and differences in the ways the Vietnamese and Americans make a bargain in their daily life. - Test the validity of the following hypotheses: a. The Americans are more interested in negative politeness strategies, while the Vietnamese in positive politeness strategies. b. The Americans tend to be more direct in communication than the Vietnamese. - Contribute to raising awareness of cross-cultural differences in communication among English learners and potential interactants of international communication. - Then suggest supplementary activities applied in teaching English, particularly for the learners of English for Business in sales and price negotiation. III. Scope of the study - The study especially focuses on the degrees of politeness strategies used in making a bargain in Vietnamese and American languages and cultures. - The study focuses totally on the verbal aspect of the speech act. Paralinguistic and extra- linguistic factors, though important, go beyond the scope of this study. - In this sort of communication, making a bargain, the sociological factors such as ‚ranking of impositions‛ and ‚relative power‛ are kept neutral while the factor ‚social distance‛ is taken into consideration to investigate the degrees of the politeness strategies in this study. xi
12. xii IV. Methodology The research project is based on both theoretical discussion and data analysis. The theoretical background was selected with reference to both Vietnamese and foreign publications. Data were collected and analyzed for the aim of comparing and contrasting the similarities and differences between the two languages and cultures. The ‘Quantitative’ and ‘Contrastive analysis’ are the main methods applied to pursue the objectivity in a cross- cultural research. All the interpretations, comments, and conclusions are drawn from: - Relevant references - Survey questionnaires - Statistics, description and analysis of the collected data - Personal observations and experience - Discussion with colleagues, students - Consultation with the supervisor V. Design of the study The study consists of three main parts: Part 1: Introduction outlines the general background, the rationale, the methodology, the aims, the scope and the design of the study. Part 2: Development presents the theoretical background and discusses the data analysis and findings. This part includes the following chapters Chapter 1. Briefly presents language and culture in communication Chapter 2. Briefly presents and discusses the theory of pragmatics, cross cultural pragmatics, speech acts and making a bargain as a speech act. Chapter 3. Politeness strategies in making a bargain Chapter 4: Data collection, data analysis and discussion Part 3: Conclusion summarizes the major findings of the study, suggest implication in teaching English at HPU, particularly for the students of Business Administration. xii
13. xiii Part 2: Development In this part, language, culture and its relationship, the important factors in communication are discussed briefly basing on the various perspectives of linguists. One may consider language by the concept of systems, system of sounds, of signs, of symbols, or of rules, others may consider language by its function. Culture is also regarded as a system, basic belief system, shared background or as patterns of communicative behavior. Furthermore, theoretical background of cross-cultural pragmatics, politeness strategies ( including 17 positive politeness strategies and 11 negative politeness strategies) is presented to see making a bargain as a speech act in the light of cross-cultural communication. The last chapter in this part deals with the data analysis and findings. Implications for the teaching and learning of English by Vietnamese learners will also be presented. Chapter 1: Language and culture in communication 1.1. Language and culture: Language is described as ‚the human faculty that enables us to exchange meaningful messages with our fellow human beings by means of discourses and texts, which are structured according to the rules and conventions of the particular language that we share with them.‛ by Jackson and Stockwell (1996: 2). Another linguist, Widdowson (1996: 4) states that language is so uniquely human, and it distinguishes us so clearly from other animals. He also claims that what is particularly striking about language is the way it is fashioned as systems of signs to meet the elaborate cultural and communal needs of human societies. ‚A language is distinctively human‛, in Delahunty and Garvey’s words (1994: 15). Language is not only our main link with the outside world, it is also a marker that distinguishes us from the other animal creatures we share the world with. According to Crystal (1992: 212), language is ‚the systematic, conventional use of sounds, signs, or written symbols human society for communication and self- expression.‛ Delahunty and Garvey (1994: 11) share the idea of a language as a system of rules. Mc Arthurs (1996: 523) asserts that language as a system of communication which users structured vocal sounds and its embodiments in other media are writing, print and physical signs. Language, supported by Schimidt and Richard’s point of view (1980: 161), is used ‚to build bridges, to consolidate political regimes, to carry on arguments, to convey information from one person to another, to entertain- in short, to communicate.‛ xiii
14. xiv Culture, according to Fay (1996), ‚is a complex set of shared beliefs, values, and concepts which enables a group to make sense of its life and which provides it with directions for how to live‛. (in Holliday, A et al. (2004: 60)) This set might be called a basic belief system, such a belief system can include items which are fully explicit and others which are not, and can include matters of feeling and deportment as well as discursive claims about the world. Culture, in relation to language, is emphasized by Richards et al. (1985: 94) as ‚the total set of beliefs, attitudes, customs, behaviors, social habits, of the member of a particular society ‛; by Levine and Adellman (1993) as ‚a shared background, e.g. national, ethic, religious, resulting from a common language and communication style, customs, beliefs, attitudes and values‛; and is evaluated and clarified by Nguyen Quang in ‘Intercultural Communication‛ (1998: 3). Goodenough (1975) in Wardhaugh (1986: 217) describes ‚a society’s culture consists of whatever it is one has to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members‛ Basing on such perspectives, we should be fully aware of the link between culture and communication. Culture is a set of human-made objective and subjective elements that in the past have increased the probability of survival and resulted in satisfaction for the participants in an ecological niche, and thus became shared among those who could communicate with each other because they had a common language and they lived in the same time and place. Culture includes the ‚subjective‛ elements- elements such as ‚values, attitudes, beliefs, orientations, and underlying assumptions prevalent among people in a society. We can see that all the subjective cultural beliefs and values you hold influence your interpretation of the world and interactions in it. The relationship of language and culture can be obviously derived because language functions as the principal means whereby we conduct our social lives. As Federico Fellini claims ‚A different language is a different view of life‛ (in Samovar, L.A and Porte, R.E , 1991: 164)‚A society’s language is an aspect of its culture The relation of language to culture is that of part to whole‛ has been acknowledged by Goodenough (1957) (in Hudson, 1980: 83). Kramsch (1998: 3) identifies this correlation by three aspects of language and culture as follow: (1) language expresses cultural reality; (2) language embodies cultural reality; (3) language symbolizes cultural reality. Language usage and style reflect the personality of a culture in much the same way they reflect the personality of an individual. Philipsen supports this view, xiv
15. xv Cultural premises and rules about speaking are intricately tired up with cultural conceptions of persons, agency, and social relations- that is, rules and beliefs about speech articulate with a larger cultural code defining the nature of persons, whether and how it is that humans can act efficaciously in their world of practice, and what are the possible and appropriate ways in which individuals are linked together in social units. (cited in Samovar, L.A and Porter, R.E 1991: 168). Such relationship between language and culture is further emphasized because there is no doubt, however, that there is a correlation between the form and content of a language and the beliefs, values, and needs present in the culture of its speakers. From recognizing this relationship, it is noted that language and culture are inseparable, language and culture have the power to maintain national or cultural identity. The link between language and culture is evident because language is the primary means of instructing members of a society in culturally acceptable practices and behaviors for social interaction, in the appropriate relationships to the physical environment. The sharing of a common or similar worldview and system of values that only results in a shared ability for verbal communication but also possible other forms of culturally determined ways of communication. Nguyen Quang highly appreciates this correlation between language and culture: There is an obvious correlation between cultural factors, language and communicative competence, which requires an appropriate consideration. People are aware that one cannot master a language without understanding of its cultural background, and that a strong impinge on any communicative behavior, either verbal or non-verbal communication.) (Nguyễn Quang 2002: 10) 1. 2. Communication, communicative functions of language, cross-cultural communication Communication is defined as ‚the exchange of ideas, information, etc. between two or more persons‛ (Richards et al., 1992: 64). To our observation, communication can take place in many different ways. Generally speaking, two categories of communication can be identified. The first is verbal communication; that is communication using language and speech to share or exchange information. The second is non-verbal communication; that is communication without use of language but depending rather on other channels such as body language, eye contact, physical appearance, attitude distance and physical contact. In our daily situations, we apply different ways, either verbal or non-verbal communication, however in many cases both, to different partners. xv
16. xvi Certainly, each human language is a system for communication. If communication is to be successful, the people involved need to share the same referential meaning of the words they are using. To communicate effectively the speakers share the linguistic knowledge, interaction skills and cultural knowledge. Samovar, L.A and Porte, R.E (1991: 12) hold that human communication is the process through which symbols are transmitted for the purpose of eliciting a response. The importance of communication on human behavior is dramatically underscored by Keating when she writes ‚Communication is powerful: It brings companions to our side or scatters our rivals, reassures or alerts children, and forges consensus or battle lines between us‛ (cited in Samovar, L.A and Porter, R.E, 1991: 12). What she is mentioning is that communication- your ability to share your beliefs, values, and feelings- is the basis of all human contact. The fact that language is the primary means people use to communicate with one another may seem patently obvious. Yet, the relational dynamics between language and communication are such a part of your everyday life and behavior that you probably do not consciously recognize them. Our talking is the primary means of interactions between people. Speakers use language to convey their thoughts, feelings, intentions, and desires to others. It links interlocutors in a dynamic, reflexive process. We learn about people through what they say and how they say it; we learn about ourselves through the ways other people react to what we say; and we learn about our relationships with others through the give- and- take of communicative interactions. xvi
17. xvii Chapter 2: Making a bargain as a speech act 1. Pragmatics, cross-cultural pragmatics By the most widely-known definitions, pragmatics were: meaning in use and meaning in context. By distinguishing pragmatics with semantics, pragmatics is approach to studying language’s relation to the contextual background features. Semantics is the study of the words meaning by themselves, out of the context, as they are in a dictionary. Many linguists, namely Leech (1983: 6), Levinson (1983: 32) hold the view that pragmatics concentrates on aspects of meaning with the consideration of physical and social factors as contextual background features, speakers or hearers. According to Leech (1983: 6), meaning in pragmatics and meaning in semantics distinct by the way ‚Meaning in pragmatics is defined relative to speaker or user of the language, whereas meaning in semantics is defined purely as property of expressions in a given language, abstraction from particular situations, speakers, or hearers‛. In the words of Levinson (1983: 32), pragmatics, ‚a theory of language understanding that takes context into account, in order to complement the contribution that semantics makes to meaning‛ As Crystal (1992: 310) shares his perspective of pragmatics, ‚Pragmatics is the study of language from the point of view of the users- especially of the choices they make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction, and the effects their use of language has on the other participants in an act of communication ‛. Richards et al. (1992: 248) points out the fields which pragmatics studies: 1. How the interpretation and use of utterances depends on knowledge of the real world. 2. How speakers use and understand speech acts. 3. How the structure of sentences is influenced by the relationship between the speaker and the hearer. Therefore, sharing the same point of view, Fairclough (1989), in the third extract, says that the study of speech acts is a centre part of pragmatics, as well as cross-cultural pragmatics. He refers to the multi-functionality of speech acts, and then focuses on the way they are related to the co-text, the inter-textual context, and the situational and cultural background context. He sees the social factors that influence the use of indirect speech acts in terms of power relations, and the xvii
18. xviii discourse type dictates the conventions for speech acts, and that the conventions reflect the participants’ ideology and social relationship. (cited in Cutting, J, 2002: 119) In the words of Yule, cross- cultural pragmatics is ‚the study of ‚differences in expectations based on cultural schemata‛ and ‚the ways in which meaning is constructed by speakers from different cultures‛ (Yule, 1996: 87). Wierzbicka (1991: 26) believes in the idea of ‚different cultures, different languages, different speech acts‛ because different cultures find expression in different systems of speech acts, and that different speech acts become entrenched, and, to some extent, codified in different languages. What is seen as more remarkable today is the field of cross-cultural pragmatics, the extent of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural differences in ways of speaking. Wierbicka emphasizes that ‚Today, it is increasingly accepted that those diversities in ways of speaking and interacting are not superficial at all and that they can be accounted for, above all, in terms of different cultural attitudes and values; and the cultural relativity in the field of interaction is increasingly seen as a reality and an important subject for investigation‛. (Wierbicka 1991: vi) 2. Speech acts 2.1. Theory of speech acts Austin (1962) defined speech acts as the actions performed in saying something. Speech act theory said that the action performed when an utterance is produced can be analyzed on three different levels. The first level of analysis is the words themselves. This is the locution, ‘what is said’, the form of the words uttered; the act of saying something is known as the locutionary act. The second level is what the speakers are doing with their words. This is the illocutionary force, ‘what is done in uttering the words’, the function of the words, the specific purpose that the speakers have in mind. The last level of analysis is the result of the words. This is known as the perlocutionary act, ‘what is done by uttering the words’; it is the effect on the hearer, the hearer’s reaction. The three acts are closely related because when uttering ‚S says something to H; in saying something to H, S does something; and by doing something, S affects H‛(Bach & Harnish, 1979: 3) As Blum-Kulka evaluates, ‚Speech acts have been claimed by some (Austin, 1962; Searl, 1962, 1957) to operate by universal principles, and claimed by others to vary in conceptualizations and verbalizations across cultures and languages (Green, 1975; Wierzcika, 1985). Their modes of performance carry heavy social implications (Ervin-Tripp, 1976) and seem to be ruled by universal principles of cooperation and politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1978; Leech, 1983). And yet, cultures have xviii
19. xix been shown to vary drastically in their interactional styles, leading to different preferences for modes of speech act behavior. Culturally colored interacional styles create culturally determined expectations and integrative strategies; and can lead to breakdowns in intercultural and interethnic communication (Grumperz, 1978)‛ (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989: 1) 2.2. Classification of speech acts Austin (1962: 151) classifies speech acts by their five functions namely: verdictives (e.g. assess, appraise, ) exercitives (e.g. command, direct, ), commissives (e.g. promise, propose, ), behabitives (e.g. apologize, thank, ), and expositives (e.g. accept, agree, ). Searle’s (1976) solution to classifying speech acts was to group them in the five following macro- classes (clarified in Cutting, J, 2002: 16-17): Declarations These are words and expressions that change the world by their very utterance, such as ‘I bet’, ‘I declare’ ‘I resign’ Representatives These are acts in which the words state what the speaker believes to be the case, such as ‘describing’, ‘claiming’, ‘hypothesizing’, ‘insisting’, ‘predicting’. Commissives This includes acts in which the words commit the speaker to future action, such as ‘promising’, ‘offering’, ‘threatening’, ‘refusing’, ‘vowing’ and ‘volunteering’. Directives This category covers acts in which the words are aimed at making the hearer do something, such as ‘commanding’, ‘requesting’, ‘inviting’, ‘forbidding’, ‘suggesting’ and so on. Expressives This last group includes acts in which the words state what the speaker feels, such as ‘apologizing’, ‘praising’, ‘congratulating’, ‘deploring’, and ‘regretting’. Sharing the same view on such classification by Searle (1979), Yule (1997: 55) summarizes those five fundamental functions of speech acts as follows: Speech act type Direction of fit S= speaker X= situation Declarations Words change the word S causes X Representatives Make words fit the world S believes X Expressives Make words fit the world S feels X Directives Make the world fit words S wants X Commissives Make the world fit words S intends X Table 1: The five general functions of speech acts (following Searle 1979) 2.3. Making a bargain as a speech act xix
20. xx Basing on Searle’s classification (1976), as a speech act, making a bargain belongs to the type of directives, i.e. ‚those kinds of speech acts that speakers use to get someone else to do something. They express what the speakers want. And in using a directive, the speaker makes the world fit words‛ (G.Yule, 1996:53). Bargaining is considered to be one of the universals of interpersonal communication, in realization of the politeness principle. Bargaining exchanges is regarded as an illocutionary act performed by a speaker to express their want of purchasing goods at cheaper price. Buyer (S) employ appropriate communication strategies, in particular, politeness strategies, to achieve a successful bargain to their expectations. Exchanging bargain is a complex act, potentially involving both positive as well as negative feelings on the part of the buyer (S) and the seller (H). Therefore, making a bargain is a face-threatening act, which may appear to either speaker or hearer. In a certain society of highly appreciated male, women were more likely to look at bargaining as a manifestation or sign of one's housekeeping skills and that their more extensive use of insisting strategies of bargaining is seen as a daring act of assertiveness. Meanwhile, men feel that such strategies could be face threatening and reduce their inherited social power and superiority. The act of making a bargain is universal as a daily life activity. However, in cross-cultural communication, this speech act, like any others, is affected by the culture to which the language belongs and it may differ from one society to another. Basing on this assumption, a way of bargaining, which is required in Vietnamese culture, may be more or less appropriate in American culture. The different aspects of the act of bargaining in the two cultures, in particular situation, will be discussed in detail in this study. Chapter 3: Politeness in making a bargain xx
21. xxi 1. Theory of politeness 1.1. Politeness and face Many linguists share their understanding and their concern on the concept of politeness. Brown and Levison (1990: 2), in their introduction to ‚Politeness- Some Universals in Language Usage‛, emphasize that ‚the issues of politeness raise sociological speculations of this scale, they also touch on many other interests and many other fields.‛ Cutting (2002: 44-45) views that ‚in pragmatics, when we talk of politeness, we do not refer to the social rules of behavior, we refer to the choices that are made in language use, the linguistic expressions that give people space and show a friendly attitude to them‛. It is true to say that politeness is a pragmatic phenomenon. Politeness lies not in the form and the words themselves, but in their function and intended social meaning. Politeness, in terms of cultural aspect, is defined as ‚a fixed concept, as in the idea of ‘polite social behavior’, or etiquette, within a culture‛ (Yule, 1996: 60). Richards (1985:281) identifies politeness as ‚the attempt to establish, maintain, and save face during conversation‛. Brown and Levinson (199) analyze politeness and say that in order to enter into social relationships, we have to acknowledge and show an awareness of the face. ‘Face’, the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects: Negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non- distraction- i.e. to freedom of action and freedom from imposition Positive face: the positive consistent self-image or ‘personality’ (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants. We should be aware of the fact that it is a universal characteristic across cultures that speakers should respect each other’s expectations regarding self-image, take account of their feelings, and avoid face threatening acts. Cutting (2002: 45) analyzes the view of Brown and Levinson (1990) of politeness and face: ‚ When face threatening acts (FTAs) are unavoidable, speakers can redress the threat with negative politeness (which does not mean being impolite) that respects the hearer’s negative face, the need to be independent, have freedom of action, and not be imposed on by others. Or they can redress the FTA with positive politeness, that attends the positive face, the need to be accepted and liked by others, treated as a member of the group, and to know one’s wants are shared by others‛. xxi
22. xxii 1.2. Politeness principles In this section, politeness rules by Lakoff (1973b), and politeness principles by Leech (1983) are taken into consideration so that any potential face threat involving in interpersonal interactions might be mitigated to the lowest extent. Lakoff (1973b, in Green, 1989: 142-144) describes three different rules a speaker might follow in choosing to be polite. Rule 1: Don’t impose is appropriate to situations where there is an acknowledged difference in power and status between participants. According to this rule, S who is being polite will avoid, mitigate or ask permission, or apologize for making A do anything which A does not want to do. Rule 2: Offer options, a more informal politeness rule, is appropriate to situations in which the participants’ status and power are approximately equal but not socially close. It refers to expressing oneself in such a way that one’s opinion or request can be ignored without being contradicted or rejected. Rule 3: Encourage feelings of camaraderie, appropriate to intimates or close friends, attaches to the governing principle that participants not only show an active interest in the other, by asking personal questions and making personal remarks, but also show regard and trust by being open about details of one’s own life, experiences, feelings, and the like. According to Leech (1983: 132), there is a politeness principle with conversational maxims. He lists six maxims: tact, generosity, approbation, modesty, agreement and sympathy as follows: 1. Tact maxim (in directives [impositives] and commissives): minimize cost to other; [maximize benefit to other] 2. Generosity maxim (in directives and commissives): minimize benefit to self; [maximize cost to self] 3. Approbation maxim (in expressives and representatives [assertives]): minimize dispraise of other; [maximize praise of other] 4. Modesty maxim (in expressives and representatives): minimize praise of self; [maximize dispraise of self] 5. Agreement maxim (in representatives): minimize disagreement between self and other; [maximize agreement between self and other] 6. Sympathy maxim (in representatives): minimize antipathy between self and other; [maximize sympathy between self and other] It should be noted that in conversation, self will normally be identified with the speaker (S), and other will be typically identified with the hearer (H). To a certain extent, those six maxims reveal their ranks to each other by the observation of Cutting (2002: 49-50). xxii
23. xxiii The first and second form a pair, as do the third and fourth. With the maxims of tact and generosity, the tact maxim (‘perhaps the most important kind of politeness in English-speaking society’, Leech 1983:107) focuses on the hearer, and says ‘minimize cost to other’ and ‘maximize benefit to other’. The first part of this maxim fits in with Brown and Levinson’s negative politeness strategy of minimizing the imposition, and the second part reflects the positive politeness strategy of attending to the hearer’s interests, wants and needs. The maxim of generosity, is the flip-side of the tact maxim since it focuses on the speaker, and says ‘minimize benefit to self’ and ‘maximize cost to self’. Moving to the second pair: approbation (other) and modesty (self). The first part of the maxim of approbation, ‘minimize dispraise of other’, is somewhat similar to the politeness strategy of avoiding disagreement. The second part, ‘maximize praise of other’, fits in with the positive politeness strategy of making other people feel good by showing solidarity. Modesty is possibly a more complex maxim than the others, since the maxim of quality can sometimes be violated in observing it. The last two maxims do not form a pair and Leech gives them less importance than the others. The maxim of agreement is in line with Brown and Levinson’s positive politeness strategies of ‘seek agreement’ and ‘avoid disagreement, to which they attach great importance. The sympathy maxim includes such polite speech acts as congratulate, commiserate and express condolences. This small group of speech acts is already taken care of in Brown and Levinson’s positive politeness strategies of attending to the hearer’s interests, wants and needs. Brown and Levinson (1990: 69) suggest five possible strategies for avoiding face threatening acts (FTAs) or for mitigating the face threat, which are illustrated in the Figure 1 below. xxiii
24. xxiv Lesser 1.without redressive on record 2.positive politeness Do the FTA with redressive action 4.off record 3.negative politeness 5. Don’t do the FTA Greater Figure 1: Possible strategies for doing FTAs ( Brown and Levinson, 1987) Brown and Levinson number those five strategies to prove that the greater the face threat is, the greater the numbered strategy should be employed. Brown and Levinson implicitly consider negative politeness to be ‚more polite‛ than positive politeness. This can be seen from the diagram when they number the former and the latter 2 and 3 respectively. Nguyen Quang (1999: 129) analyzes that it is this point of view of Brown and Levinson that more or less decreases their diagram’s universal value, and he proposes another (see Figure 2) FTA encounter 4. Don’t do the FTA Do the FTA 3. Off record On record 2. With redressive action Positive Negative politeness politeness Without redressive action Figure 2: Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Nguyen Quang, 1999:130) 1.3. Positive politeness and positive politeness strategies Brown and Levinson (1990: 70) define positive politeness ‚is oriented toward the positive face of H, the positive self-image that he claims for himself‛. Nguyen Quang (2005: 27) considers the notion of positive politeness, basing on the concern of the solidarity between interactants, as ‚ xxiv
25. xxv any communicative act (verbal and/ or nonverbal) which is appropriately intended to show the speaker’s concern to the addressee, thus, enhancing the sense of solidarity between them‛ Positive politeness utterances are used as a kind of metaphorical extension of intimacy, to imply common ground or sharing of wants to a limited extent even between strangers who perceive themselves, for the purposes of the interaction, as somehow similar. Positive techniques are usable not only for FTA redress, but in general as a kind of social accelerator, where S, in using them, indicates that he wants to ‘come closer’ to H. Therefore, Brown and Levinson (1987) sketch 15 positive politeness strategies applied by speakers in communication as follows: Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (his interests, wants, needs, goods) Goodness, you cut your hair! By the way, I came to borrow some flour. Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H) What a fantastic garden you have! Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H ( by (i)‘making a good story’, (ii)involving switching back and forth between past and present tenses, (iii)using directly quoted speech rather than indirect reported speech, (iv)using tag question, expressions of cajolers, appealers or (v)exaggerating facts) Black I like. I used to wear it more than I do now; I very rarely wear it now. I wore a black jumper, and when I wear it my Mum says ‘Ah, she said. But Len likes it, he thinks it looks ever so nice and quite a few people do. But when my Mum sees it she said, ‘Oh, it’s not your color, you’re more for pinks and blues.’ Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers (usages (i) of address forms, (ii) of language or dialect, (iii) of jargon or slang, and (iv) of ellipsis.) Bring me your dirty clothes to wash, honey. Strategy 5: Seek agreement (by the safe topics, repetition or minimal encouragers) A: I had a flat tyre on the way home. B: Oh God, flat tyre! Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement (instances of ‘token agreement’, of ‘pseudo-agreement’, of ‘white lies’, of ‘hedging opinions’) A: Have you got friends? B: I have friends. So-called friends. I had friends. Let me put it that way. Strategy 7: Presuppose/ raise/ assert common ground (with (i) gossip, small talk; (ii) point-of- view operations of personal-centre switch, of time switch, of place switch; (iii) presupposition manipulations.) xxv
26. xxvi A: Oh this cut hurts awfully, Mum. B: Yes dear, it hurts terribly, I know. Strategy 8: Joke How about lending me this old heap of junk? (H’s new Cadillac) Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants I know you can’t bear parties, but this one will really be good- do come! Strategy 10: Offer, promise Take it easy! I’ll help you. Strategy 11: Be optimistic Look, I’m sure you won’t mind if I remind you to do the dishes tonight. Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity Let’s get on with dinner, eh? Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons Why not lend me your cottage for the weekend? Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity I’ll come with you if you tell me the truth. Strategy 15: Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation) Nguyen Quang (2003: 78-85), adds two more strategies, namely: Strategy 16: Comfort and encourage You have my whole-hearted support. Strategy 17: Ask personal questions Are you married or single? 1.4. Negative politeness and negative politeness strategies According to Brown and Levinson (1990: 70), ‚Negative politeness, is oriented mainly toward partially satisfying (redressing) H’s negative face, his basic want to maintain claims of territory and self-determination. Negative politeness, thus, is essentially avoidance-based, and realizations of negative-politeness strategies consist in assurances that the speaker recognizes and respects the addressee’s negative- face wants and will not (or will only minimally) interfere with the addressee’s freedom of action‛ Nguyen Quang, refers to negative politeness as ‚any communicative act (verbal or nonverbal) which is appropriately intended to show that speaker does not want to impinge on the addressee’s privacy, thus enhancing the sense of distance between them.‛ (2005:30). Generally xxvi
27. xxvii speaking, negative politeness avoids imposing on the addressees and remains the distance between interlocutors. Brown and Levinson (1990:30) identify politeness in Western culture: ‚When we think of politeness in Western culture, it is negative-politeness behavior that springs to mind. In our culture, negative politeness is the most elaborate and the most conventionalized set of linguistic strategies for FTA redress‛ 10 negative politeness strategies are pointed out by Brown and Levinson (1987, 1990) as follows Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect Why for God’s sake are you asking me? Strategy 2: Question/ Hedge Could you possibly by any chance lend me your car for just a few minutes? I rather think it’s hopeless Strategy 3: Be pessimistic I don’t suppose there’d be any chance of you doing me a favor. Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition I just want to ask you if you could lend me a single sheet of paper. Strategy 5: Give deference Did you move my luggage? Yes, sir, I thought perhaps you wouldn’t mind and Strategy 6: Apologize (for doing an FTA with at least 4 ways to communicate regret or reluctance to do an FTA: (i) admit the impingement, (ii) indicate reluctance, (iii) give overwhelming reasons, (iv) beg forgiveness) I’m sorry for the late delivery. I beg your indulgence Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H (avoiding pronouns ‘I’ and ‘you’ by using (i) performatives, (ii) imperatives, (iii) impersonal verbs, (iv) passive and circumstantial voices, (v) replacement of the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘you’ by indefinites, (vi) pluralization of the ‘you’ and ‘I’ pronouns, (vii) address terms as ‘you’ avoidance, (viii) reference terms as ‘I’ avoidance, (ix) point-of-view distancing ) (I ask you to) Rewrite this report. (To you) it is necessary to meet her at the airport! It’s regretted that you’re not the successful applicant for this job. xxvii
28. xxviii Hey, don’t park your car here, mate. Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule (S doesn’t want to impinge but is merely forced to by circumstances, is to state the FTA as an instance of some general social rule, regulation, or obligation) Passengers are requested to submit tickets. Strategy 9: Nominalize (the facts of syntax suggest a ‘continuum’ from verb through adjective to noun (Ross 1972). Degrees of negative politeness run hand in hand with degrees of nounness.) Your good performance on the examination impressed us favorably. Strategy 10: Redress other wants of H’s I’ll never be able to repay you if you accept our staying for one more week. Nguyen Quang (2003: 183), from his observation of cross- cultural communication, adds one more negative politeness strategy: Strategy 11: Avoid asking personal questions In the positive politeness strategy- oriented communities, ‘asking personal questions’ is a considerably effective strategy to show concern to H. Meanwhile, this is considered to interfere with H’s privacy. Therefore, avoiding asking such private questions as: ‚How much do you earn a month?‛, ‚How nice your skirt is. How much is it?‛ is another negative politeness strategy. We have mentioned 17 positive politeness strategies and 11 negative politeness strategies, which are mainly used in communication. However, it is expected that a clear-cut distinction between positive politeness strategies and negative politeness ones is hardly reached and completely relative. In one utterance, we may find both negative politeness and positive politeness strategy applied: Honey, wait for me for just a second? (‘positive politeness’: in group identity marker- honey- and ‘negative politeness’: minimizing the imposition- just a second-) 1.5. Why politeness? In order to enter into social relationship, we have to acknowledge and behave in a polite way towards each other. Therefore, we have to show an awareness of the face, the public of self- image, the sense of self, of the people that we address. To achieve this, they may apply politeness strategies, both positive and negative in their social interactions. As a result, a smooth interaction, social harmony would be reached. Jonh J.Gumperz ( in Bown & Levinson, 1990: xiii) appreciates Brown and Levinson’s view on politeness as ‚basic to the production of social order, and a precondition of human cooperation‛. xxviii
29. xxix Nguyen Quang (2003) illustrates vividly the foundations of human social harmony (see Figure 3). He identifies the human being by the inseparated social being and conscious being. As the social being, he communicates with others to expose self-concept and other concept with the aim of being recognized as a member of the community. As the conscious being, he thinks of himself (self-concept) and about others (other-concept) to be respected his individuality. Being a member, he maintains positive face by employing 17 realized positive politeness strategies, which is led to satisfying membership. In order to save negative face for himself and his partners, he employs 11 negative politeness strategies. Then, his individuality is satisfied. Social harmony is founded on the basic of such satisfying membership and individuality. xxix
30. xxx Why politeness? Human being Social being Conscious being Communicating Thinking Self and other-concept Being members Being individuals Positive face Negative face Positive politeness Negative politeness Mechanism Mechanism Mechanism Mechanism Mechanism Mechanism Mechanism Mechanism I II III I II III IV V S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Satisfying membership Satisfying individuality Social harmony [CCC - Nguyen Quang] Figure 3: WHY POLITENESS (Nguyen Quang, 2003) xxx
31. xxxi 2. Sociological factors: Social distance (D), Relative power (P), and Ranking of imposition (R) as politeness determinants The importance of the three factors: relative power (P), social distance (D), ranking of imposition (R) in determining politeness assessment is underanalyzed by many researchers such as Lakoff (1977b), Lakoff and Tannen (1979) and Leech (1980,1983). Brown and Levinson (1990:15) give prominence to the same three factors: ‚In broad terms, research seems to support our claim that three sociological factors are crucial in determining the level of politeness which a speaker (S) will use to an addressee (H): these are relative power (P) of H over S, the social distance (D) between S and H, and the ranking of the position (R) involved in doing the face- threatening act (FTA).‛ More specifically, Brown and Levinson (1990: 76, 77) describe these factors as follows: D is a symmetric social dimension of similarity/ difference within which S and H stand for the purposes of this act. In many cases (but not all), it is based on an assessment of the frequency of interaction and the kinds of material or non-material goods(including face) exchanged between S and H (or parties representing S or H, or for whom S and H are representatives). An important part of the assessment of D will usually be measures of social distance based on stable social attributes. The reflex of social closeness is, generally, the reciprocal giving and receiving of positive face. P is asymmetric social dimension of relative power. That is, P (H, S) is the degree to which H can impose his own plans and his own self-evaluation (face) at the expense of S’s plans and self-evaluation. In general there are two sources of P, either of which may be authorized or unauthorized- material control (over economic distribution and physical force) and metaphysical control (over the actions of others, by virtue of metaphysical forces subscribed to by those others). In most cases an individual’s power is drawn from both these sources or is thought to overlap them. R is culturally and situationally defined ranking of impositions by the degree to which they are considered to interfere with an agent’s wants of self-determination (his negative- and positive- face wants). In general there are probably two such scales or ranks that are emically identifiable for negative-face FTAs: a ranking of impositions in proportion to the expenditure (a) of services (including the provision of time) and (b) of goods (including non-material goods like information, as well as the expression of regard and other face payments). It is appropriate to assess that P,D,R determine the level of politeness S may employ for a particular FTA. Brown and Levinson (1990: 80) claim that D, P, R are all relevant and independent. We can illustrate their independence and relevance by the following examples. Considering first the D variable, we can take two cases where P and R are constant and have small values in the estimate of S- in other words, where the relative power of S and H is xxxi
32. xxxii more or less equal, and the imposition is not great. With P and R held constant and small, only the expression of D varies in the following two sentences: (1) Excuse me, would you by any chance have the time? (2) Got the time, mate? Our intuitions are that (1) would be used where (in S’s perception) S and H were distant (strangers from different parts, say), and (2) where S and H were close (either known to each other, or perceptibly ‘similar’ in social terms). D, then, is the only variable that changes from (1) to (2). The first option (1) is a linguistic realization of the negative-politeness strategy, and the second (2) is a realization of the positive-politeness strategy. P and R are similarly proved to be independent variables, which serves as the basis for this study. The effects of D are investigated on the speech act of making a bargain when P and R are kept neutral. 3. Realization of strategies in making a bargain Our investigation into the ways of making a bargain conducted by both Vietnamese and American informants uncovers that most of them are one-utterance responses, accounting for 67%. The two-utterance responses make up 31 % and the rest 2% of informants do not bargain. On the basis of the politeness theory suggested by Brown and Levinson (1990) and Nguyen Quang (2003), the researcher classified politeness strategies employed by the informants in their making a bargain into 7 sub-strategies as follows: STRATEGIES VIE AM Single positive politeness strategies (SPPS) 33.78% 8.72% Positive politeness strategies+ Positive politeness strategies 13 26% 0.00% (PPS+PPS) Positive politeness strategies+ Verbal off-record (PPS+VOR) 18.03% 4.81% Positive Positive politeness Strategies (PPS) Single negative politeness strategies (SNPS) 16.57% 57.25% Negative politeness strategies+ Negative politeness strategies 3.30% 15.38% (NPS+NPS) Negative politeness strategies+ Verbal off-record (NPS+VOR) 5.01% 5 54% Negative Negative politeness Strategies (NPS) Verbal off-record (VOR) 10.05% 0.56% O R Table 2: Realization of strategies in making a bargain xxxii
33. xxxiii 1. Single positive politeness strategies (SPPS) All the one-utterance responses used at least one of the 17 positive politeness strategies suggested by Brown and Levinson (1990) and Nguyen Quang (2003). When making a bargain, SPPS is employed by the Vietnamese informants at the highest proportion (33.78%). Below are the common utterances of this kind. - Bu để cho con giá 500 nghìn nhé. (Accept 500,000VNĐ, dear Mom) - Chị ơi, chị bớt cho em một chút đi. (Lower the price a bit, sister) - Bác ơi, khyến mại cho cháu 20% nhé. (Give me 20% discount, dear) - Mày, giảm cho bạn tí. (Lower the price a bit, mate) - Ng•ời nhà mà bớt nữa đi. (Lower the price, dear.) - The lowest price, mate/ guy 2. Positive politeness strategies + Positive politeness strategies (PPS+PPS) This is one of the strategies to which two-utterance responses are collected. When using PPS+PPS, buyer (S) also gives the reason/ promise, or seek agreement with the doing speech act of bargaining. This strategy is found only in the Vietnamese data. - Hàng xóm láng giềng với nhau mà. Em bớt tí đi. (We are good neighbors. Lower the price a bit, sister?) - Bạn bè với nhau mà. Mày giảm cho bạn một ít. (We are old friends. Lower the price a bit, mate) - Điện thoại cũ mà đắt thế. 1 triệu chú nhé. (It’s a used cell phone. Accept 1 million VND, dear) - Vậy thì em trả 300 nghìn. Anh em mình còn lấy chỗ đi lại. (Then, I’ll have it at 300,000VND. I would be your regular customer.) 3. Positive politeness strategies+ Verbal off-record (PPS+ VOR) Buyer (S) tries to make a bargain with a PP strategy, then followed with verbal off-record strategy. The second utterance is usually found with a reason. PPS+ VOR is employed by the Vietnamese at the high rate (18.03%) and rarely by the American (4.81%). - Mày ơi, 1 triệu 2 nhé. Đợt này tao đang kẹt tiền.(S2) (Accept 1.2 million VND, mate. I am short of money, at this time) - Cậu bớt cho mình tí đi. Điện thoại này vỏ x•ớc nhiều thế này mà. (A bit lower, mate. It’s such a scratched cover!) - Chị gái giảm nữa đi, chị nói thách quá. Cái này là đồ cũ mà.(S2,3) (Lower the price, sister. It is just the second hand one.) xxxiii
34. xxxiv - Cậu bớt đi. ở bên hàng kia cũng có cái này, không đ•ợc giá thì mình đi. (S3). (Lower the price, mate. There is another same one in the next stall, or else I’ll leave it) - Lower the price, mate. It looks like it’s very old and it might not work that well. 4. Single negative politeness strategies (SNPS) Another strategy found in one-utterance response is SNPS, which is commonly a direct bargaining. The Vietnamese make the largest use of this strategy in all the investigated situations accounting 16.57 %, whereas the American mostly make use of this strategy in the situation three, accounting for 57.25 %. The following examples are the typical ones in our collected data. - Chị xem lấy cái áo này giá 500 nghìn đ•ợc không? (Would you accept 500, 000 for this one?) - Chị giảm giá thêm 10% đ•ợc nữa không? (Would you reduce the price by 10%?) - Giảm cho anh xuống giá gốc đ•ợc không em? (Could I have the lowest price?) - Bác có thể giảm bớt chút cho cháu không ạ? (Could you lower the price a bit?) - Anh có thể bán đúng giá nữa cho em không? (The right price, please) - Không biết chị còn giảm giá thêm cho em được nữa không? (S1,2) (I don’t suppose there would be any chance of you giving me some more discount) 5. Negative politeness strategies+ Negative politeness strategies (NPS+NPS) NPS+ NPS is a combination of two utterances, the first of which is usually the quality hedges. They may stress buyer’s (S’s) commitment to the truth of his utterance or they may disclaim the assumption that the point of S assertion to the inform seller (H). The second utterance is usually a direct bargaining. - Thực ra, em cũng ch•a thích cái màu áo này lắm. Chị giảm bớt đi thì em mua. (S1) (To be honest, I don’t really like its color. Could you lower the price, then I’ll have it?) - Anh thấy đấy, em thiện chí mua, anh cũng thiện chí bán đi. Anh để cho em giá 1 triệu đ•ợc không anh? (S2) (As you know, I am quite willing to have this. Would you accept the price 1million VND?) - Thực ra, cái này trông cũng không còn mới. Chị ơi, chị có bớt đ•ợc thêm nữa không? (S2) (Obviously, this cell phone looks like it’s old. Could you lower the price?) - ‚Are you sure this is as nice as you say it is? It looks like it’s very old. Can you lower the price a bit?‛ (S3) 6. Negative politeness strategies+ Verbal off-record (NPS+VOR) Buyer (S) goes on record with the first utterance in the form of NP then further an off- record utterance. As in PPS+VOR, the VOR is commonly a reason added when bargaining. xxxiv
35. xxxv - Em xem giảm đ•ợc thì chị mua. Quầy bên cạnh có cái đẹp hơn (S3) (Perhaps, you would lower the price a bit? There is better one in another shop) - Anh giảm giá đi, 500 nghìn nhé. Giá đấy đắt hơn bạn em mua 100 nghìn. (S1) (Would you accept 500,000 VND. Your price is 100,000 higher than that of my friend could afford) - Is there a discount for paying cash? Is it likely to go on sale in the near future?(S1) 7. Verbal off-record (VOR) Brown and Levinson (1990: 211) clearly point out that ‚A communicative act is done off record if it is done in such a way that it is not possible to attribute only one clear communicative intention to the act. Thus if a speaker wants to do an FTA, but wants to avoid the responsibility for doing it, he can do it off record and leave it up to the addressee to decide how to interpret it‛ In our collected data, off record strategy used in making a bargain appears in both Vietnamese and American cultures. The data reveals that Vietnamese informants use this strategy more than the American do, mainly to bargain with their communicating partners as mother’s friend, neighbor or an old friend (10.05% vs 0.46%). The selected utterances of this type are as follows: - Bác à, chiếc áo này đẹp quá nh•ng tiếc là nó hơi đắt. (This is such a beautiful coat. What a pity! It is so expensive) (S1) - Mình cũng rất thích chiếc Nokia này nh•ng giá mà nó rẻ hơn một chút. (I like it so much, but if only it were cheaper.) (S2) - Bác ơi, chiếc này đẹp quá nhỉ, nh•ng đắt quá cháu không đủ tiền mua rồi. (It is such a nice one, but it is so expensive that I cannot afford). (S3) - Sao lâu rồi không gặp đã quên bạn rồi à, bán đắt thế. (Don’t you remember me? It is so expensive.) (S1,2) - Đồ cũ mà cậu bán đắt nh• đồ mới vậy? (How could you sell the second hand one at the price of a new one?) (S3) - I compared prices available at different stores and the lowest price I had found was $15 (S1) xxxv
36. xxxvi Chapter 4: data collection, data analysis and discussion 1. Methodology 1.1. Research instrument This is a cross-cultural investigation into some noteworthy Vietnamese-American similarities and differences in making a bargain. Sufficient data for the study were collected from the two types of questionnaires: one in English and the other in Vietnamese consisting of real life situations in two places: in a shop and at flea market. Then they were delivered and collected directly or by email. Such data was then analyzed in the light of cross-cultural communication under the theories of politeness. The questionnaire includes two parts: - Part 1 is designed for general information about the informants - Part 2 is designed for American and Vietnamese people to find out how they would make a bargain in the following situations: + Situation 1: In the shop: How would you verbally make a bargain to buy a new coat. + Situation 2: In the cell phone shop: How would you verbally make a bargain to buy a second-hand cell phone. + Situation 3: In the flea market: How would you verbally make a bargain to buy an old French-styled lamp. The survey questionnaires were designed into two types: one in English and one in Vietnamese. The sequences of this conversation, making a bargain, include: the last utterance of the buyers to make a bargain and the next utterance is supposed that the seller will accept. 1.2. Procedure of data collection The procedure of collecting questionnaire data can be described in brief: Data were collected from two groups of informants. The first group who administered the questionnaires in Vietnamese consists of 50 Vietnamese. The second group includes 50 American English native speakers. Since some of the informants’ personal parameters are believed to be useful in analyzing their relationship in communication, informants were requested to provide the following parameters: - Age - Occupation - Gender - Area where they spent most of their time - Marital status - Acquisition of language(s) other than their mother tongue Below is the table which shows the number of informants with their status parameters. Status parameters Informants xxxvi
37. xxxvii Vietnamese American Age Above 40 13 14 Below 40 37 36 Gender Male 22 23 Female 28 27 Marital status Married 26 21 Single 24 29 Occupation Techno-scientific 15 16 Social 35 34 Where they spent Rural 32 11 most of their time Urban 18 39 Acquisition of Without knowledge of foreign languages 16 17 language(s) With knowledge of foreign languages 34 33 Table 3: Distribution of informants with their status parameters 1.3. Procedure of data analysis In this section, cross-cultural similarities and differences between two cultures, Vietnamese and American ones, will be discussed basing on the detailed quantitative analysis of both Vietnamese and American data seen from informants’ parameters and communicating partner’s parameters. Analyzing and discussing data, the utterances of informants, buyers, are taken into consideration by the above mentioned parameters: age, gender, occupation, residence and acquisitions of foreign language(s) whereas the responses of the sellers are not targeted in this study. As stated in the part ‘scope of study’, the influence of D on the way people making a bargain is investigated in the given situation. Therefore, the informants’ communicating partners were intended to keep other parameters such as P and R neutral to put D in focus. The communicating partners are: - the informant’s mother’s friend - the informant’s old friend at high school - the informant’s neighbor - a stranger The two group of informants were requested to write their utterances when making a bargain to their communicating partners in each situation. The number of utterances conducted by 100 informants, both Vietnamese and American, is illustrated in Table 4. xxxvii
38. xxxviii situations Communicating Numbers of utterances collected partners Vietnamese American Situation 1: making a Mother’s friend 50 50 bargain to buy a new Old friend at high school 50 50 coat at a shop. Neighbor 50 50 Stranger 50 50 Situation 2: making a Mother’s friend 50 50 bargain to buy a second- Old friend at high school 50 50 hand cell phone at the Neighbor 50 50 phone shop. Stranger 50 50 Situation 3: making a Mother’s friend 50 50 bargain to buy an old Old friend at high school 50 50 French-styled lamp at Neighbor 50 50 the flea market Stranger 50 50 Total: 600 600 Table 4: Number of utterances collected from survey questionnaire 2. data analysis and discussion 2.1. Use of strategies as seen from informants’ parameters 2.1.1. Politeness Strategies As can be seen in Table 3, Vietnamese informants use all the seven strategies in making a bargain to communicating partners, whereas American informants use six out of seven. Different parameters of the informants present the variety of distributions of these strategies hereafter. 1. Age (STRA= Strategies; INF.P= Informants’ parameters) STRA PPS NPS OR INF.P SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR VIE Above 40 28.82% 15.18% 14.85% 17.35% 9.74% 8.35% 5.71 % Under 40 27.78% 8.16% 9.02% 19.72% 14.98% 15.89% 4.45% AM Above 40 12.64% 2.35% 64.42% 14.96% 4.97% 0.66% Under 40 13.72% 0.52% 65.51% 16.34% 3.34% 0.57% Table 5: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of age Vietnamese findings Informants above 40 and those under 40 made use of all seven strategies, of which SPPS ranked the first (28.82% and 27.78% respectively). Next comes SNPS: the older group employed xxxviii
39. xxxix 17.35% and the younger 19.72%. However, differences can be seen when PPS+PPS and PPS+VOR were more favored by the older group (15.18% and 8.16%, respectively), meanwhile NPS+NPS and NPS+VOR were preferred by the younger group (14.98% and 15.89%, respectively). Generally, the older tended to be more positive politeness-oriented (PPO), whereas the younger were negative politeness-oriented (NPO) American findings None of the informants, neither the older nor the younger group refered to PPS+PPS. Apart from that, the two groups showed relatively similar tendency towards the rest strategies. They made the largest proportion of using SNPS (64.42% for those above 40 and 65.51% for those under 40 years of age), the second largest use of NPS+NPS (14.96% and 16.34% respectively). They were both NPO. In brief, the Vietnamese, whether above or under 40, showed their preference in applying SPPS, while the American showed their interest in SNPS. It is noted that age did not affect the American in choosing strategies, whereas, it happened to the Vietnamese. Both the older and younger American informants were NPO and employed rather equivalent proportion of each strategy. Meanwhile, older Vietnamese informants were PPO and the younger NPO. 2. Gender (STRA= Strategies; INF.P= Informants’ parameters) STRA PPS NPS OR INF.P SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR VIE Male 24.95% 2.83% 1.72% 47.80% 8.56% 6.96% 7.63% Female 36.67% 9.05% 4.97% 28.17% 9.29% 6.31% 5.54% AM Male 9.88% 0.06% 59.98% 23.33% 6.75% 0.00% Female 19.11% 6.97% 46.14% 20.37% 6.87% 0.54% Table 6: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of gender Vietnamese findings The two genders showed some differences in their choices of strategies to make a bargain. For males, SNPS accounted for the largest percentage of 47.80%, followed by SPPS, which made up 24.95%. For females, these two strategies took the reversed places. SPPS ranked the first at 36.67% and SNPS the second accounting for 28.17%. While males tended to be obviously NPO with 63.32% of NPS compared with 29.50% of PPS, females tended to be a bit PPO. Nevertheless, the disparity between PPS and NPS employed by females was not enormous: 50.69% vs 43.77% American findings It can be seen from the table 5, beside PPS+PPS, American males neither used PPS + VOR nor VOR. Though, American females employed VOR rather than male ones, they resorted to xxxix
40. xl VOR at a rather low rate. Yet, the two sexes gave their top priority to SNPS (males: 59.98% vs females: 46.14%), the second largest proportion came to NPS+NPS (23.33% vs 20.37% respectively). Both groups were NPO. It is obviously to see that SNPS was the most commonly chosen by males in making a bargain from the two cultures and females from American as well. Vietnamese females, on the other hand, showed their widest interest in SPPS. Another point of contrast is that American males found it was no use to apply VOR strategies; however, their Vietnamese counterparts employed it at a rather high percentage. In a broad sense, Vietnamese males and the American of the two sexes were NPO, meanwhile Vietnamese females seemed to be more PPO. 3. Marital status (STRA= Strategies; INF.P= Informants’ parameters) STRA PPS NPS OR INF.P SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR VIE Married 30.06% 12.26% 11.54% 27.08% 5.26% 7.03% 6.77% Single 26.42% 7.77% 3.14% 42.24% 8.15% 8.80% 3.48% AM Married 12.19% 4.03% 48.75% 25.85% 8.39% 0.79% Single 20.32% 3.74% 56.16% 18.03% 4.76% 0.00% Table 7: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of marital status Vietnamese findings Married people tended to be PPO, but the disparity between the proportions of SPPS and SNPS is not very great: 2.98%. SPPS, SNPS and PPS+PPS were the three most favored strategies, accounting for 30.06%, 27.08% and 12.26% respectively. In contrast with the married, the single were NPO (NPS: 59.19% compared with PPS: 37.33%). Single people were most interested in SNPS, making up 42.24%, followed by SPPS (26.42%). They made less use of VOR compared with the married: 3.48% vs 6.72%. American findings Obviously, both American married and single people were NPO. They employed a relatively high rate of NPS at 82.99% and 78.95% respectively. As found in the utterances of the two groups, SNPS was the most widely chosen found in the utterances of the two groups. Next came NPS+NPS on the part of the married group, constituting 25.85% and SPPS on the part of the single, accounting for 20.32%. The single also resorted to NPS+NPS at a rather high rate: 18.03% meanwhile they did not resort to VOR. Overall, Vietnamese single people were similar to the American single and married in the aspect that they all preferred SNPS and other NPS to others. Nonetheless, the Vietnamese single were less NPO than American. The American single did not resort to VOR, whereas the xl
41. xli Vietnamese single used VOR at the higher percentage of 3.48%.Vietnamese married people, however, were PPO and they were the only group to apply a rather high proportion of VOR in making a bargain. 4. Occupation (STRA= Strategies; INF.P= Informants’ parameters) STRA PPS NPS OR INF.P SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR VIE Tech-sci 17.87% 3.59% 4.35% 48.00% 13.14% 7.88% 5.16% Social 33.45% 7.69% 6.78% 30.34% 5.26% 7.28% 9.20% AM Tech-sci 8.56% 0.07% 67.77% 18.43% 5.17% 0.00% Social 16.15% 1.40% 52.06% 22.97% 7.28% 0.14% Table 8: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of occupation Vietnamese findings Both of the occupational groups made use of all the strategies, however the frequency of their choice of each strategy varies. For the techno-scientific group, SNPS was the most favorite, constituting a proportion of 48.00%. This group also preferred to use SPPS (17.87%) and NPS+NPS (13.14%). Although the social group was towards using SPPS with the highest percentage (33.45%), they used SNPS quite often (30.34%). Moreover, they were more in favor of VOR than the techno-scientific (9.20% compared to 5.16%). American findings The techno-scientific group did not resort three strategies (PPS+PPS, PPS+VOR and VOR) when bargaining, whereas the social did not take one strategy, PPS+PPS, into consideration. However, VOR was employed by the social at the very low proportion (0.14%). The first group employed SNPS at the maximum rate of 67.77%. The second most common strategy came to NPS+NPS, accounting for 18.43%. Likewise, the latter group, the social, was most inclined to SNPS (52.06%), followed by NPS+NPS (22.97%). In general, Vietnamese and American techno-scientific groups shared common preference in using NPS. The American group was, however, more NPO than the Vietnamese one. The American techno-scientific did not apply VOR. Another difference between two groups was that as many as three strategies were ignored in the American’s choice. With regard to social groups, there are two considerable differences between two cultures. First, the Vietnamese group used VOR more than the American. Second, while the American group was highly NPO, the Vietnamese one was relatively lower NPO. 5. Living area (STRA= Strategies; INF.P= Informants’ parameters) STRA PPS NPS OR xli
42. xlii INF.P SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR VIE Rural 33.75% 8.54% 6.06% 29.90% 7.93% 7.46% 6.36% Urban 21.86% 5.43% 4.09% 43.38% 14.52% 4.81% 5.91% AM Rural 15.71% 0.95% 51.90% 24.76% 6.19% 0.49% Urban 10.12% 0.93% 60.74% 21.90% 6.31% 0.00% Table 9: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of living area Vietnamese findings SPPS was the most widely used by people from rural areas (33.75%) meanwhile, SNPS by people from urban areas (43.38%). However, country folks were towards PPS and tended to be a little bit PPO (48.35% of PPS compared to 45.29% of NPS). On the contrary, city dwellers were highly NPO (62.71% of NPS and 31.38% of PPS). As for off-record strategies, the country group employed VOR a bit higher than that of the city (6.36% and 5.91%). American findings The two groups shared a common tendency in choosing strategies to make a bargain, except for VOR, to which city dwellers did not incline to at all. Both countryside and urban dwellers gave their first priority to SNPS (51.90% and 60.74% respectively). Their second priority was given to NPS+NPS (24.76% and 21.90%), next was SPPS (15.71% and 10.12% respectively). Similar to American counterparts, Vietnamese city dwellers were more favored of NPS than PPS and were most concerned to SNPS. Another point to be noted is that Vietnamese country folks differed from their American counterparts in the tendency of being more positively polite and the American more negatively polite. 6. Knowledge of foreign languages (STRA= Strategies; INF.P= Informants’ parameters; NEFL= no European foreign languages; WEFL= with European foreign languages; NOFL= no Oriental foreign languages; WOFL= with Oriental foreign languages) STRA PPS NPS OR INF.P SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR VIE NEFL 34.56% 10.86% 8.82% 24.40% 4.90% 3.71% 11.75% WEFL 21.19% 5.77% 4.75% 42.53% 10.08% 8.47% 7.21% AM NOFL 8.64% 0.29% 64.79% 19.65% 6.64% 0.00% WOFL 21.16% 9.25% 47.61% 17.09% 5.60% 0.28% Table 10: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of knowledge of FL xlii
43. xliii Vietnamese findings Vietnamese informants without European foreign languages tended to use more PPS, of which SPPS accounted for the highest proportion of 34.56% and PPS+PPS was the second highest, at 10.86%. However, they were inclined to SNPS with a relatively large percentage of 24.40%, VOR with a proportion of 11.75%. Those with European foreign languages applied SNPS the most (42.53%), then SPPS at the rate of 21.19% and NPS+NPS at 10.08%. American findings The American without Oriental foreign languages mainly used NPS to their bargaining. These strategies constituted as much as 91.08% compared to 8.93% of PPS. Particularly, SNPS was listed the top priority (64.79%), next comes NPS+NPS (19.65%). Neither PPS+PPS nor VOR was used by this group. Although those knowing Oriental foreign languages were inclined to SPPS with a percentage of 21.16%, they were more favored of NPS with the use of SNPS at the maximum proportion of 47.61% and NPS+NPS with 17.09%. Basing on the data analyzed above, it is clearly revealed that knowledge of either European or Oriental foreign languages has influences on informants in their choice of strategies in bargaining. Vietnamese informants knowing European foreign languages, like the American without Oriental ones, tended to be NPO. The American with Oriental foreign languages acquisition and the Vietnamese with European ones shared a similar tendency in applying PPS. xliii
44. xliv 2.1.2. Major cross-cultural similarities and differences a> Similarities There are 6 out of 7 listed strategies used by all the different groups of informants from both Vietnamese and American cultures. They were SPPS, PPS+VOR, SNPS, NPS+NPS, NPPS+VOR, and VOR. Both SNPS and SPPS were often given the top priority by all the groups. The younger groups (both Vietnamese and American) employed more NPS than PPS and were inclined to NPO. Similar to American males, Vietnamese males were NPO and SNPS was the first choice of their utterances. SNPS ranked the first strategy which Vietnamese and American single groups applied. They were both NPO, but the American group was more negatively polite than the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese techno-scientific groups, similar to the American counterparts, employed more NPS than PPS and SNPS was the most favored. Furthermore, they were both more NPO than the social ones (Vie. Tech-sci: NPS: 69.02%; Am. Tech-sci: NPS: 91.37% vs Vie. Social: NPS: 42.88%; Am. Social: NPS: 82.31%). Vietnamese and American city dwellers showed more favor in NPS than country folks (Vie: urban: 62.71% vs rural: 45.29%; Am: urban: 88.95% vs rural: 82.85%). The Vietnamese group with European foreign languages and the American group without Oriental foreign languages showed their first priority to SNPS and their second priority to SPPS. b> Differences Vietnamese informants used all the seven listed strategies, American informants of all different groups did not resort to PPS+PPS. American informants made less use of VOR than the Vietnamese did. Age almost had no influence on American choice of strategies but it did on the Vietnamese. The Vietnamese group under 40, like both of the American groups (under or above 40), was NPO, meanwhile, Vietnamese informants above 40 were a bit PPO. Vietnamese informants, both males and females, applied all the seven strategies while American males did not use two strategies (PPS+PPS and VOR). Another difference is Vietnamese females preferred PPS to NPS (PPS: 50.69% and NPS: 43.77%) while the American females had a reversed tendency (NPS: 73.38% and PPS: 26.08%). xliv
45. xlv The Vietnamese groups, both married and single ones, employed all seven strategies, whereas the American single group did not resort to VOR. American informants, both married and single, put SNPS at the top priority (48.75% and 56.16% respectively). The Vietnamese married informants used more SPPS, VOR than the American counterparts. Moreover, in aspect of marital status, it was the only of the four groups, which tended to be PPO, while American married informants were inclined to NPO (Vie. PPS: 53.86%; NPS: 37.33% and Am. PPS: 16.22%; NPS: 82.99 %.). The Vietnamese informants from the techno-scientific group made use of seven listed strategies but American counterparts did not resort to two strategies (PPS+PPS and VOR). With regard to the social groups, the Vietnamese group used SPPS and VOR at the greater proportion than the American although both of them were NPO. Vietnamese country folks tended to be positively polite, whereas American counterparts were NPO. American city dwellers made no use of VOR. On the contrary, Vietnamese city dwellers applied VOR with a relatively high rate: 5.91%. The Vietnamese group without European foreign languages and the American group without Oriental foreign languages display some obvious differences. Firstly, the American group employed NPS at a higher rate than the Vietnamese corresponding one (91.08% and 33.01%). In contrast, the Vietnamese group used PPS considerably greater than the American did (54.24% and 8.93%). One more difference is that the American group left VOR out of consideration while the Vietnamese resorted to VOR at relatively high percentage: 11.75%. 2.2. Use of strategies as seen from communicating partners’ parameters The data analysis from Section IV.2.1. shows that informants’ different parameters have influences on their choice of politeness strategies in making a bargain, resulting in intra-cultural and cross-cultural differences. However, their communicating partner, to some certain extents, is another factor for their applying appropriate strategies. xlv
46. xlvi 2.2.1. Politeness Strategies 1. Communicating partner as a mother’s friend (an older acquaintance) 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% Vie 30.00% Am 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR 16.99% 7.34% 6.33% 44.67% 10.34% 8.33% 6.00% 0.32% 0.00% 0.00% 67.13% 18.28% 14.27% 0.00% Figure 4: Politeness strategies in making a bargain to acquaintance Vietnamese findings With communicating partner as a mother’s friend VOR (as an older acquaintance), Vietnamese 6.00% PPS 30.66% PPS informants resorted to NPS at the higher percentage than PPS (63.34% and 30.66% NPS NPS respectively). SNPS is the most commonly applied 63.34% VOR strategy, constituted of 44.67%. NPS+NPS ranks the second with rather high frequency (10.34%). - Cô có thể giảm bớt chút cho cháu không ạ? (Could you lower the price a bit?) (S1,2) (SNPS) - Bác ơi, cái này cháu thích lắm rồi, bác bớt cho cháu có đ•ợc không ạ? (Actually, I like it so much. Could you lower the price?) (S1,2) (NPS+NPS) xlvi
47. xlvii American findings There were 4 out of 7 strategies, which the VOR 0.00% American used to bargain to acquaintance, PPS 0.32% including SPPS, SNPS, NPS+NPS and PPS NPS+VOR. Regarding the NPS, SNPS NPS accounted for the largest proportion of 67.13%, NPS VOR 99.68% followed by NPS+NPS, then NPS+VOR, making up 18.28% and 14.27% respectively. SPPS was resorted to, though at a very low percentage (0.32%) 2. Communicating partner as an old friend 50.00% 45.00% 40.00% 35.00% 30.00% 25.00% Vie 20.00% Am 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 0.00% SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR 47.69% 10.85% 9.82% 11.65% 5.30% 6.03% 8.66% 28.53% 3.36% 2.74% 48.04% 9.00% 8.33% 0.00% Figure 5: Politeness strategies in making a bargain to friend Vietnamese findings When communicating partner was a friend, Vietnamese informants employed PPS at the highest rate, of which SPPS accounted for up to 47.69%. Next comes SNPS, making up 11.65%. VOR was another strategy they might resort to, at 8.66%. - Cậu để cho tớ giá thấp hơn tí đi! (Sell it at a bit lower the price, mate.)(S1,2,3) (SPPS) - Này, bạn bè cũ với nhau mà. (Hey, we are such old friends) (S1,2) (VOR) xlvii
48. xlviii Generally, Vietnamese informants VOR 8.66% preferred making a bargain with PPS to NPS 22.98% PPS NPS: the proportion of PPS was roughly NPS three times greater than that of NPS PPS 68.36% (68.36% vs 22.98%). VOR American findings The American were not inclined to VOR. They gave their top priority to SNPS VOR 0.00% PPS 34.63% (48.04%), followed by the SPPS (23.29%). PPS However, the proportion of NPS was much NPS higher than that of PPS (65.37% and NPS 65.37% VOR 34.63% respectively). 3. Communicating partner as a neighbor 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% Vie Am 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR 42.65% 6.33% 5.69% 28.33% 7.31% 5.02% 4.67% 17.32% 3.33% 4.01% 56.67% 13.79% 4.88% 0.00% Figure 6: Politeness strategies in making a bargain to neighbor Vietnamese findings The most widely- applied strategy that Vietnamese informants employed to bargain with their neighbor was SPPS, accounting for 42.65%. They also resorted to SNPS (28.33%) as the second choice. Overall, Vietnamese informants were PPO towards this communicating partner. However, the disparity between PPS and NPS was not very great (54.67% and 40.66% respectively). xlviii
49. xlix - Chỗ hàng xóm láng giềng, chị bớt tí lấy PPS VOR 4.67% may! (S1,2) (We are next door; would you NPS give me some discount for luckiness.) VOR NPS 40.66% PPS 54.67% (PPS+PPS) American findings American informants were not inclined VOR 0.00% to VOR at all. Their priority went to PPS 24.66% PPS NPS, of which SPPS was given the NPS highest proportion of 56.67%. Added to NPS 75.34% the proportions of other NPS, the VOR American obviously tended to be NPO (75.34%) 4. Communicating partner as a stranger 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% Vie 30.00% Am 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% SPPS PPS+PPS PPS+VOR SNPS NPS+NPS NPS+VOR VOR 35.65% 13.44% 12.19% 16.58% 8.51% 7.29% 6.34% 1.08% 0.00% 0.00% 66.36% 28.59% 3.69% 0.28% Figure 7: Politeness strategies in making a bargain to stranger xlix
50. l Vietnamese findings Vietnamese informants resorted to much higher percentage of PPS than that of NPS with their communicating partner as a stranger (61.28% and 32.38% respectively), of which SPPS was the most widely used (36.65%). Their second priority was SNPS, accounting for 16.58%. - On the whole, Vietnamese informants VOR have an obvious tendency of PPO when 6.34% bargaining, despite the greater the social NPS 32.38% PPS distance. PPS NPS - Chú bớt cho anh chút đi.(S,2,3) (Offer me 61.28% a bit lower price, brother.) (SPPS) VOR - Thôi, bu lấy con tròn 500 nhé! (S1,3) (Accept the price 500,000, dear mum!) (SPPS) American findings On the contrary, American informants proved to be more negative polite in bargaining to those with greater social distances. With stranger, the American might use SPPS or VOR, though at very low percentage (1.08% and 0.28% respectively). None of PPS+PPS, PPS+VOR was employed in their utterances. SNPS constituted the highest rate (66.36%), NPS+NPS the second (28.87%), however, NPS+VOR represented rather low at 3.39%. - Could you lower the price a bit? (S2,3) PPS 1.08% (SNPS) VOR 0.28% - The lowest price I had found in other PPS stores is $22.(S1)(VOR) NPS NPS 98.64% VOR 2.2.2. Major cross-cultural similarities and differences a> Similarities Mother’s friend (older acquaintance) - Both Vietnamese and American groups mainly used NPS (Vie:63.34% vs Am: 99.68%), of which SNPS constituted the highest rates (Vie: 44.67%; Am: 67.13%). l
51. li Friend: The America group used NPS+VOR at the rate of 8.33%, likewise, Vietnamese informants used NPS+VOR at the roughly same proportion of 6.03%. Neighbor: Both of the groups employed NPS+VOR at the nearly same rate (5.02% vs 4.88% respectively). Stranger: They were oriented towards negative politeness. Obviously, the America group was negatively polite towards their communicating partners. b> Differences Mother’s friend (older acquaintance) - The American did not apply PPS+PPS, PPS+VOR and VOR to their bargaining - Vietnamese informants used SPPS at the relatively greater than the American did (16.99% compared with 0.32%). - Vietnamese informants used VOR at the rate of 6.00% whereas, the American did not apply it at all. - American group was highly NPO with the total proportion of NPS: 99.68%. Friend - For the Vietnamese, SPPS and SNPS were the first and second priority. For the American, the positions of two strategies reversed. - The Vietnamese resorted to VOR at rather higher percentage (VOR: 8.66%), while the American did not. - The Vietnamese were PPO meanwhile the American were NPO. Neighbor - The Vietnamese group applied SPPS at the highest rate (42.65%) and SNPS the second (28.33%). In contrast, the American group was mostly in favor of SNPS (56.67%), followed by SPPS (28.33%). - Overall, the American group was highly NPO, while the Vietnamese was slightly PPO. Stranger - The American did not resort to two strategies PPS+PPS and PPS+VOR, however the Vietnamese used all the seven listed ones. - The Vietnamese used VOR at the rate of 6.34%, while American only applied it in this case at very low rate (0.28%) - The American favor SNPS (66.36%) the most, then NPS+NPS (28.87%) - The Vietnamese employed SPPS at the highest rate of 35.65%, though the American resorted to it at very low proportion of only 1.08%. li
52. lii 3. Concluding remarks In conclusion, the choice that the informants employed politeness strategies when making a bargain, more or less, is decided by the investigated parameters. Different groups of social parameters use different strategies at different proportions. Of these parameters, gender and knowledge of foreign languages are the factors having greatest influences. The pressure of the parameters on the range of choices of politeness strategies of Vietnamese informants is wider than that of American. The two figures below would illustrate some points, which should be taken into consideration: 100 100 90 90 80 80 70 70 60 60 PPS PPS 50 NPS 50 NPS VOR VOR 40 40 30 30 20 20 10 10 0 0 Acq Fri Nei St Acq Fri Nei St (Vietnamese informants) (American informants) Figure 8: Politeness strategies in making a bargain to different communicating partners Vietnamese informants are much more PPO towards acquaintance and stranger while American is a little bit PPO. American informants use PPS towards friend and neighbor at roughly two times lower proportion than that of Vietnamese do. NPS is widely applied by American informants towards most of their communicating partners, while Vietnamese informants resort to PPS towards acquaintance (older) and neighbor at higher rate than towards friend or stranger. VOR is applied by Vietnamese informants towards most of their communicating partners when bargaining whereas their American counterparts only tend to be a little bit off- record towards stranger. Part 3: conclusion lii
53. liii 1. Overview of the findings We have conducted an investigation into Vietnamese and American informants’ choice of politeness strategies in the act of making a bargain basing on the theoretical background of speech act and politeness in the light of cross-cultural communication. The investigation reveals that the two groups of informants have certain similarities and differences in cultural and linguistic behavior towards bargaining. The differences are resulted from the specific features of the two languages and cultures and politeness norms as well. The similarities underneath the two cultures prove an idea that the cultural exchange can be reached and the cultural barrier can be lifted. The data collected from questionnaires measure the effect of informants’ parameters such as age, gender, marital status, occupation, living area and knowledge of foreign language on their employing various politeness strategies. Below is an overview of major findings 1.1. Politeness strategies in making a bargain Positive politeness is mainly used to narrow the distance between S and H, and enhance their solidarity. Following are some Positive politeness strategies used in making a bargain, which are quite common to Vietnamese: - Claim in- group solidarity - Bu để cho con giá 500 nghìn nhé. (Accept 500,000VNĐ, dear Mom) - Offer, promise - Vậy thì em trả 300 nghìn. Anh em mình còn lấy chỗ đi lại. (Then, I’ll have it at 300,000VND. I would be your regular customer.) - Give (or ask for) reasons - Cậu bớt cho mình tí đi. Điện thoại này vỏ x•ớc nhiều thế này mà. (A bit lower, mate. It’s such a scratched cover!) - Assert reciprocity - Cậu bớt đi. ở bên hàng kia cũng có cái này, không đ•ợc giá thì mình đi. (S3). Lower the price, mate. There is another same one in the next stall, or else I’ll leave it) Negative politeness is understood as a concern not to impose upon others or restrict their freedom, but remain distant. While positive politeness narrows the distance between interlocutors, negative politeness keeps a distance between them, and the realizations of negative politeness strategies consists in assurances that S recognizes and respects H’s negative face wants and will not or only minimally interfere with H’s freedom of action. liii
54. liv Negative politeness strategies mostly used by the American informants when making a bargain (or alternatively by Vietnamese informants) include: - Question/ Hedge - Are you sure this is as nice as you say it is? It looks like it’s very old. Can you lower the price a bit?‛ (S3) - Bác có thể giảm bớt chút cho cháu không ạ? (Could you reduce the price a bit?) - Thực ra, em cũng ch•a thích cái màu áo này lắm. Chị giảm bớt 10% đi thì em mua. (S1) (To be honest, I don’t really like its color. Could you increase the discount by 10%, then I’ll have it?) - Minimize the imposition - Anh thấy đấy, em thiện chí mua, anh cũng thiện chí bán đi. Anh để cho em giá 1 triệu đ•ợc không anh? (S2) (As you know, I am quite willing to have this. Would you accept the price of 1million VND?) - Pessimistic - Không biết chị còn giảm giá thêm cho em được nữa không? (S1,2) (I don’t suppose there would be any chance of you giving me some more discount?) The common belief that the American with their Western cultural features prefer NPS is expressed more clearly when the American informants investigated make use of NPS at the greater rate than PPS (91.70% and 13.53% respectively). The two groups of informants show different interest in OR strategies. The Vietnamese employ VOR (verbal off-record) with rather high proportion (10.05%), whereas the American informants rarely resort to it (0.56%) in making a bargain. A conclusion can be drawn that VOR is generally inappropriate for the American to apply when making a bargain. The finding also supports the generalization that Vietnamese people, with subtle manner in communication, usually tend to be indirect while Westerners more straight to the point. 1.2. Effects of the communicating partners on informants in choosing politeness strategies when making a bargain. The social distance among various communicating partners such as acquaintance, friend, neighbor or stranger has more influence on the Vietnamese than on the American and induces the two groups to apply different appropriate strategies. While Vietnamese informants use more PPS than NPS to make a bargain to most of their interactants, the American commonly resort to PPS to friend at relative proportion. The highest percentages lie in NPS in the American liv
55. lv utterances. Therefore, another generalized assumption that the American are more individualistic while the Vietnamese are more collectivistic is reaffirmed through this analysis. In the case of communicating partner stranger, the Vietnamese apply VOR with a rather higher rate than the American do (6.34% compared to 0.28%). Does this mean that the Vietnamese are less polite than the American because of being more off-record? According to Nguyen Quang (2002:113), such comment is subjective because we cannot rely on the value system and communication style of one language and culture to make any remarks on another. In communication, ‚appropriateness‛ is the most important factor although the interactants choose different strategies (positive politeness or negative politeness), different channels (verbal or non- verbal, direct or indirect). ‚Appropriateness‛ is a very dynamic notion and highly culture-specific (ibid: 114). 1.3. Effects of informants’ status parameters. The results of data analysis show that all the investigated status parameters, such as age, gender, marital status, occupation, living area and knowledge of foreign languages have difference influences on both Vietnamese and American informants in their linguistic politeness behavior. Except for those Vietnamese groups being PPO, including those above 40, the female, the married, the rural and without European foreign languages, all the rest (both Vietnamese and American) are NPO. However, this does not mean that the status parameters have no impacts upon American informants. Of the American groups, the male group is more NPO than the female (NPS: 90.06% and 73.92% respectively); the married is more negatively polite than the single (NPS: 83.78% and 78.95%);the techno-scientific is more negatively polite than the social (NPS: 91.28% and 82.315); the urban is more NPO than the rural ( NPS: 88.95% and 82.85%); and the group without Oriental foreign languages is far more in favor of NPS than the one with Oriental foreign languages (91.08% and 69.76%). Age almost have no impacts upon the American. 2. Implications for cross-cultural communication Understanding and appreciating intercultural differences ultimately promotes clearer communication, breaks down barriers, builds trust, and strengthens relationships. The prime purpose of any foreign language learners is to master that language and communicate successfully with the native speakers. English learners are not an exception, they do hope that they can use English effectively in different fields for their work, their business transactions, meetings, study or simply for their daily interactions. Making a bargain is considered a universal daily activity. Although you are either Vietnamese or American, your aim when negotiating price lv