Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HANOI - 2010
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION
HANOI - 2010
ACCEPTANCE
Signature
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Last but not least, I am indebted to all those who have kindly advised
and helped me towards the completion of my research.
ABSTRACT
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale………………………………………………………………...1
1.2. Aims of the study and research questions………………………………2
1.3. Significance of the study…………………………………………….….3
1.4. Scope of the study………………………………………………………3
1.5. Organization of the study……………………………………………….4
2.1. Culture…………………………………………………………………..6
2.2. Communication…………………………………………………………7
2.2.1. Cross-cultural communication…………………………………….8
2.2.2. Communication at workplaces…………………………………….9
2.3. Politeness………………………………………………………………10
2.3.1. Definition of politeness…………………………………………..10
2.3.2. Politeness strategies……………………………………………..11
2.4. Speech acts…………………………………………………………….14
2.4.1. Definition of speech acts…………………………………………14
2.4.2. Classification of speech act………………………………………15
2.4.3. Complaint as a speech act………………………………………..17
2.5. Complaint strategies…………………………………………………...19
2.5.1. The directness level of complaint………………………………...19
2.5.2. Complaint strategies……………………………………………..20
2.5.3. Internal modifications……………………………………………24
2.5.4. External modifications…………………………………………...25
2.6. Conclusion……………………………………………………………..26
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………27
3.2. Research design……………………………………………………… 27
3.3. Selection of subjects…………………………………………………..27
3.4. Data collection instrument…………………………………………….28
3.5. Data collection procedures……………………………………………30
3.6. Data analysis procedure………………………………………………30
3.7. Conclusion……………………………………………………………..31
4.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………32
4.2. Findings and discussion……………………………………………….32
4.2.1. Research question 1……………………………………………...32
4.2.2. Research question 2……………………………………………...39
4.3. Conclusion……………………………………………………………..48
5.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………50
5.2. Summary of the research………………………………………………50
5.2.1. Similarities and differences in the advisability of making
complaints………………………………………………………………….50
5.2.1. Similarities and differences in the choice of complaint strategies 51
5.3. Implication for Vietnamese officers - Research question 3…………...51
5.5. Suggestions for further study………………………………………….53
5.4. Limitations of the study………………………………………………..53
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………….54
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………...57
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
Although English has been taught in Vietnam for many years, learners
of English mostly obtain linguistic competence rather than the socio-
linguistic one. They often find it difficult to communicate appropriately in
English although their reading or writing skills are quite good. With an effort
to improve the communicative competence of Vietnamese, many cross-
cultural studies has been carried out on the usage of common used speech
acts such as inviting, thanking or requesting. Among them, complaining is
considered as a socially complex and culturally specific act for the fact that
it is one of the face threatening acts. Some previous studies have been
focused on the speech act of complaining, and in most of them, the
researchers view complaining as a routined act in general settings such as at
home, at school and in public places. Others concentrate on the relationship
of politeness and indirectness in Anglo and Vietnamese’s complaint.
However, in this paper, the researcher would like to have a more detailed
view on the complaint made by a specific group of people in a particular
setting, who are white collar workers at workplaces. As mentioned above,
because complaining is a complex act so when, where, and how to complain
are some difficult questions to answer. Especially, in an environment which
requires high level of communicative skills like the workplace, the way to
complain politely and effectively is very essential for the workers to obtain.
Those reasons have urged the researcher to conduct “A cross-cultural study
on complaints made by Vietnamese and Anglicist in the workplace”.
After being finished, this research could bring about some noticeable
benefits. Firstly, the research can highlight some major similarities and
differences between the verbal complaints made by Vietnamese and Anglo
people in the workplace. Thus, it can helpfully contribute to mutual
understanding between people from different countries working in a multi-
cultural working environment. Second, the study suggests some strategies
which would help Vietnamese and Anglicist deal with unwanted situations
in their working office. Moreover, the research is expected to serve as a
previous reference for any cross-cultural studies on speech acts in general
and studies on complaints in particular.
Chapter I describes the rationale to carry out the study, the aim and
the research questions of the study, scope, significance and organization of
the study.
The following parts are the Appendices and Bibliography of the whole
research.
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Culture
Meanwhile, sharing the idea that culture is closely related to the sense
of community, both Riddell (1989) and Fernando (1996) concluded that
“Culture includes all aspects of human life that are learned and shared by
members of a society” and “Culture is everything that people have, think and
do as a member of a society” respectively.
It can be seen that there are many elements that culture contains, but
not all of them are easily to recognize. Therefore, sometimes, culture is
compared with an iceberg which has a visible section above the waterline
and a larger, invisible section below the water line. Similarly, culture has
some aspects that are observable but the rest which occupy a larger part can
only be suspected, imagined, or intuited.
(Levine - 1993)
In conclusion, it can be said that culture is what people from the same
social groups create themselves, then learn from each other and share with
each other. Its elements are various, from the way people eat or dress, to
how they think and believe. It is also what helps to differentiate people of
one society from another and human from animals.
2.2. Communication
For the fact that a large part of our life is spent working, there is no
doubt that communication at workplaces is extremely essential in
everybody’s life. Communication at workplaces, or also called business
communication has been the topic for discussion of experts both in
linguistics and in business industry. According to Harcourt, Krizan and
Merrier (1991: 3), business communication can be defined as “the
transformation of information within the business environment.” In the same
opinion with these authors, R. Rudlow (cited in Kushal, 2009:4) defines
business communication as process of transfer of information and
understanding between different parts and people of a business organization.
He thinks that it consists of various modes and media involved in
communication interchanges. Meanwhile, as quoted by Dr Heinz Goldmann
(Kushal, 2009:4), "business communication is an effective communication
which needs to be built around a simple foundation and realization.
Communication is a dialogue between two people and not a monologue. In
fact, communication is more concerned with a dual listening process."
2.3. Politeness
In language study, many studies have been carried out to concern the
concept of politeness. It is defined as “(a) how languages express the social
distance between speakers and their different roles in their relationships; (b)
how face work, that is, to attempt to establish, maintain, and save face
during conversation, is carried out in a speech community” in “New
interchange” by Richards, J.C. (1997). While in Brown and Levinson’s
viewpoint, the model of politeness is based on the redress of potentially
threatening acts. Different degrees of politeness in terms of their directness
and some of the factors affecting politeness are discussed in the theory. In
this theory, they also proposed the notion of face, which they referred to as
“the public self image that every member wants to claim for himself”
(1987:61). Face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be
lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in
interaction. It consists of both positive and negative face, which gives rise to
different politeness strategies. Generally speaking, positive face is the
positive self-image of the interactant, including the desire that this self-
image be appreciated and approved of by others. Negative face is the desire
for autonomy, the basic territorial claim of the individual and his or her
“freedom to action and freedom from imposition” (1987:66). Thus,
politeness becomes a means to address the interactant’s need to maintain or
remove threat to positive and negative face.
In the context of the mutual vulnerability of face, the Speaker has two
options: He/she may seek to avoid the face threatening act (Don’t do the
FTA) or may decide to “Do the FTA”. If the Speaker decides to do the FTA,
he/she can either go off record in which case there is more than one
ambiguously attributable intention so that the Speaker is seen not to commit
him/herself to his/her particular intent, or the Speaker can go on record,
expressing his/her intention clearly, unambiguously. In the latter case, the
Speaker may express his/her intentions without redressive action, i.e. baldly
on record, entailing at doing the most clear, unequivocal; or the Speaker may
choose to employ strategies to minimize the face threat referred to as
redressive action, “giving face” to the Hearer in an attempt to counteract the
face damage of the FTA with some modifications or additions. Redressive
strategies may involve either Positive Politeness or Negative Politeness.
The theory of speech acts has been studied and defined by many
experts in pragmatics such as Austin (1962), Grice (1975), Searle (1969),
Levinson (1983), Yule (1996) and others. All of them share a common idea
that speech act is a unit of speaking and each unit performs certain functions
in interaction such as request, invitation, complaint, compliment, prohibition,
etc.
The first one is the act of producing an utterance, actually the act of
articulating a recognizable grammatical utterance in the language, e.g. “How
many times do I have to tell you to clean your room?” In addition, mostly,
we form an utterance with some kind of function in mind, which is the
second dimension, the illocutionary act. It is performed through the
communicative functions of an utterance. For instance, by saying “How
many times do I have to tell you to clean your room?” (1), the Speaker
means that “I am complaining about your dirty room”. Also, the intention of
complaining in this act is termed as the illocutionary force. What is more,
we do not simply create an utterance with a function without intending it to
have an effect on the Hearer. This is the third dimension, the perlocutionary
act. Depending on the circumstances, by saying (1), the Speaker wants the
Hearer to recognize the effect the Speaker intended: to clean the room.
Declaratives are illocutionary acts that bring about the state of affairs
or the changes in the world through their utterance they refer to, such as
declaring, blessing, and arresting. For instance, “You are fired”, “I now
pronounce you man and wife”.
Representatives are illocutionary acts that undertake to represent a
state of affair, such as stating, claiming, hypothesizing, describing, telling, or
swearing that something is the case. For instance, “It’s a rainy day”, “No one
makes a better cake than me”.
Directives are illocutionary acts that the Speaker uses to get the Hearer
to do something or carry out some actions, like requesting, inviting, pleading,
prohibiting and so on. For example, “Could you lend me your pen?”, “Clean
your room!”
S = Speaker ; X =
Speech Act Type Direction of fit
Situation
Anne Wierzbicka (1987:241) claims that the act of complaint has the
following meaning:
She also believes that complaint has a close relation with other
expressive acts like moaning or exclaiming though they differ from each
other by the fact that complaining often calls for either sympathy or actions,
or both. A lone person might moan or exclaim by himself but would be
unlikely to complain. It is for the fact that there is no one there to hear and
sympathize with him so it is no point for him to complain.
(Nguyen, 2003:12)
When those preconditions are met, and complaints are made, they also
can be expressed at different levels of directness, from hints and mild
disapprovals to severe challenges in which the Hearer is explicitly held
responsible or declared incompetent and irresponsible (Trosborg, 1995:314).
Trosborg also claims that by choosing a particular stage of directness, the
Speaker (the complainer) is able to decide on the conflict potential of the
complaint. To decide the level of directness of a complaint, there are three
criteria to be taken into consideration: the Propositional content
(complainable), the Complainer, and the Accused (the complainee).
Together with these criteria, five factors determining the directness level of
complaint have been established by Trosborg as follows:
1. The complainable is or is not expressed directly
(Trosborg, 1995:315)
COMPLAINT STRATEGIES
No explicit reproach
Category I
Strategy 1. Hint
Expression of approval
Category II Strategy 2. Annoyance
Strategy 3. Consequences
Accusation
Category III Strategy 4. Indirect accusation
Strategy 5. Direct accusation
Blame
Strategy 6. Modified blame
Category IV
Strategy 7. Explicit condemnation towards Action
Strategy 8. Explicit condemnation towards Person
Directive acts
Category V Strategy 9. Request for repair
Strategy 10. Threat
* Strategy 1. Hint
In order to avoid conflict, the complainer may not mention the SUA.
However, as the complainer does not indirectly inform that something is bad,
the complainee does not know about the offence and whether he/she holds
responsibility or not. E.g: “All right, don’t see much of you these days, do
I?” (Trosborg, 1995: 339)
* Strategy 2. Annoyance
* Strategy 3. Consequence
The complainer can also avoid hurting the complainee by showing the
ill consequences resulting from an offence for which the complainee is
regarded implicitly responsible. E.g: “It will take hours to rearrange these.”
(Author’s data)
* Strategy 4. Indirect accusation
The complainer can ask the Hearer questions about the situation or
assert that the Hearer was in some aspect concerned with the offence. By
doing this, the complainer tries to declare the Hearer as a potential agent of
the complainable source. E.g.: “You borrowed my car last night, didn’t
you?” (Trosborg, 1995: 319)
An explicit statement is given about the bad action for which the
complainee is held responsible. E.g: “Oh, no. Look at what you have done!”
(Author’s data)
Apart from those complaint strategies above, there are some elements
that can soften or strengthen the impact of the utterance on the Hearer.
Those are called internal modifications. According to Trosborg (1995), there
are two main categories of internal modifications: downgraders and
upgraders.
Downgraders
Upgraders
Preparators
Disarmers
Providing evidence
2.6. Conclusion
METHODOLOGY
3.1. Introduction
In the previous chapters, the aims and objectives of the study have
been described as well as the literature on the research topic has been briefly
reviewed. For this chapter, the methodology applied in the study will be
discussed in more details. The participants, the instruments and the
procedure of data collection and analysis which are all aimed at achieving
the major aims of the study will be introduced.
To address the three research questions that are mentioned in the first
chapter of the study, a comparison study concerning the phenomenon is
supposed to be conducted. This kind of design is suitable for this research
for two main reasons. Firstly, when there are two or more situations studied,
a comparison design is considered one of the best choices. Secondly, the
nature of this study suggests that a comparison one is preferred as it would
help discover the similarities and differences between the complaints
produced by Anglo and Vietnamese.
The data for the study is conducted from the sample of 60 participants
from both Vietnam and Anglo-American countries. They are chosen
randomly with the age ranged from 22 to 59. In terms of gender, 30 people
are male and 30 are female. In terms of nationality, there are 30 Vietnamese
and 30 Anglicist people participating in the survey. For the Anglo people,
they come from different residential areas like Britain, USA, Australia, etc.
Some of them are working in their own country and the rest are working in a
multicultural environment here in Vietnam. Much alike, most of the
Vietnamese participants have often interaction with their foreign colleague
while the minor of the group do not.
In addition, to make the collected data valid and reliable enough, those
white-collar workers are chosen from different occupations, from
businessman, journalists, executive directors to teachers.
3.7. Conclusion
4.1. Introduction
4.2.1. Research question 1: What are the major similarities and differences
in the advisability of making complaints as perceived by Anglicist and
Vietnamese in the workplace?
1
For the convenience of data analysis, “keeping silence” is called strategy No. 0
4.2.1.1. The advisability of making complaints in lower power settings
In Sit.1, Sit.2 and Sit.3, the Anglo subjects and the Vietnamese
subjects differ in their advisability of making complaints to their bosses or
superiors. Table 2 gives the results of the decisions of both groups for 3
situations.
The results show that when the Complainer is of lower power than the
Complainee, most of the Anglo subjects think they should complain to their
bosses. In the first situation, the majority of Anglicists (56.7%) find it
advisable to complain, while the rest think it is unadvisable. On the contrary,
only 13.3% of Vietnamese have the same idea with the majority of the first
group, while 66.7% think the opposite way. In the next two situations, the
proportion of Anglo American people agreeing to make complaint even gets
higher with 76.7% and 70% of them respectively. On the other hand, the
Vietnamese participants seem hesitant to complain to their boss as most of
them choose to keep silence.
As can be seen in the result for Sit.2, twenty three out of thirty Anglo
subjects (76.7%) decide to complain to their boss for an unfair review,
twenty six out of thirty Vietnamese subjects (86.7%) think complaining is
unadvisable. Meanwhile, Situation 2
Anglicist Vietnamese
pattern with the first two
situations is
repeated. Figure 2: The advisability of making complaints in Sit.2
70% Anglo participants
find they can complain with the boss about their salary while only 23.3%
Vietnamese ones think so. In both groups, 10% of the subjects are unsure
about whether they should complain or not.
Thirteen out of thirty Anglo people doing the survey (43.3%) think
that they should complain to their colleague for being late for the meeting
(Sit.4) while the proportion of people choosing not to complain and being
unsure about their choice are quite equivalent with 30% and 26.7%
respectively. For the Vietnamese subjects, most of them think that it is not
appropriate to complain to their colleagues in such cases since sixteen out of
thirty (53.3%) choose to keep silence. The subgroup with least percentages
in this situation consists of only two subjects (6.7%) who think it is fine to
complain. In situation 5, many Anglo-American subjects (73.4%) assume
the colleague should be complained for spilling ink on their important
document while the rest are divided into two groups of ‘being not sure’ and
‘keeping silence’ with 13.3% in each group. Meanwhile, it is interesting to
notice that the numbers of Vietnamese subjects choosing the three options
are approximately equal with one another. The group which has the highest
proportion (43.3%) consists of the ones who cannot make up their mind
whether to complain yet, while 20% think they should complain and 36.7%
who find it unadvisable to make any complaints in such situation.
Situation 6
As can be seen in Figure
3, for situations 6, the
60.00%
majority of Anglo
50.00%
subjects (56.7%) still
40.00%
choose to complain
30.00%
while the majority of
20.00%
10.00%
Vietnamese ones
0.00%
(36.7%) are unsure
Advisable Yes & no Unadvisable
about the decision. Only
Anglicist Vietnamese
ten out of thirty
Figure 3: The advisability of making complaints in Sit.6 Vietnamese subjects
(33.3%) want to raise
their voices when their colleagues making noises when they need to work
while nine out of thirty (30%) think they should keep silence and continue to
do the work despite the noise made by their coworkers. Having the same
idea with those nine Vietnamese ones are seven Anglo American people,
making up 23.3%.
0.00%
belongs to the latter Advisable Yes & no Unadvisable
4.2.2. Research question 2: What are the major similarities and differences
in the choice of complaint strategies made by Anglicist and Vietnamese in
the workplace?
0 0 0 0 0 3.3% 0
1 0 16.7% 23.4% 10% 3.3% 13.3%
2 13.4% 3.3% 13.3% 16.7% 46.7% 60%
3 3.3% 0 16.7% 6.7% 6.7% 3.3%
4 13,3% 0 0 0 6.7% 0
5 46.7% 6.7% 6.7% 3.3% 6.7% 0
6 6.7% 60% 33.3% 43.3% 16.7% 6.7%
7 3.3% 0 0 20% 6.6% 16.7%
8 0 0 3.3% 0 3.3% 0
9 10% 0 3.3% 0 0 0
10 3.3% 13.3% 0 0 0 0
For the next situation when the assistant spills the juice on the new
suit of the speaker, the choice of complaint strategies by both groups of
speakers is nearly similar. As can be drawn from Table 7, the majority of
both groups opt for Modified blame to express their complaints in Sit. 11c
with similar expressions like “Be careful next time” or “Ph?i c?n th?n
ch?!” (You should be more careful.”) None of both groups choose to Keep
silence or to Threat and only a small number of two groups (from one to five
people) use Str.3, 5, 8 and 9. Though they have the same choice in complaint
strategies, the frequencies which they use them are not really similar as
33.3% of Anglicists choose Str.6 while 43.3% of Vietnamese share the
agreement. There are also 23.4% Anglo American subjects who use Hint,
whereas only three out of thirty (10%) Vietnamese choose this strategy.
For the last situation of the survey, the two groups of participants once
again share their agreement as the majority of them choose to employ the
second strategy Annoyance. In addition, there are also a number of Anglo
merican subjects tend to use Str.6 and 7, namely Modified blame and
Explicit condemnation towards Action with some downgraders and
disarming strategies and as illustrated in “Could you lower your voice a little
bit?” or “Why you are making noise? Look, I can’t focus on my work.”
Meanwhile the Vietnamese also use these strategies but without those
“softening” devices, e.g. “Tr?t t? d? ngu?i khác làm vi?c, gi? này là gi? nói
chuy?n à?” (Keep silence to let others work, this is not time for chatting).
4.3. Conclusion
5.1. Introduction
The present study highlights the similarities and the differences in the
complaints Vietnamese and Anglo-American officers made during their
working time. With the careful analysis of the data, the research reveals the
following major findings:
The study also suggests some strategies that can make a complaint
more polite and effective. For the fact that Vietnamese officers often either
keep silence or employ some strategies with high level of directness, it is
necessary for them to be aware that in making complaints, the complainer
appears the less face-threatening the better. Also, while being less face-
threatening, the complainer also tries to be more indirect, which reflects the
idea of giving more way out to the complainee. The suggested strategies for
Vietnamese officers here are some indirect ones like Hint or Annoyance.
Also, the use of internal modifications like downgraders and external
modifications like preparatory and disarming strategies are also encouraged
in order to “soften” the complaints.
My name is Vu Th? Ng?c Qu?nh. I am currently taking the degree of Bachelor of Arts
(TEFL) offered by the English Department, Hanoi University of Languages and
International Studies, Vietnam National University (HULIS-VNU). My graduation paper
is titled “A Cross-cultural study on complaints made by Vietnamese and Anglicist in
the workplace”. I am conducting this study in order to identify the major similarities as
well as differences in complaints made in workplace by Anglicist and Vietnamese. This
questionnaire will only be used for the purposes of the research. Should you take part in
this study, your confidentiality is ensured in any circumstances.
Your age: 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 - 60
10. How would you verbally complain to the following person when he/she came late for
the appointment?
a. Your boss
c. Your assistant
11. How would you verbally complain to the following person when he/she spilled juice
on your new suit?
a. Your boss
b. Your colleague
c. Your assistant
12. How would you verbally complain to the following person when he/she is making
noise while you need to finish an important work in quietness?
a. Your boss
b. Your colleague
c. Your assistant
Chúng tôi l?p b?n kh?o sát này nh?m ph?c v? cho d? tài “Nghiên c? u giao van hóa v?
l?i phàn nàn c?a ngu?i Vi?t và ngu?i Anh-Mi noi công s?”. Xin quý v? b?t chút th?i
gian tr? l?i giúp chúng tôi nh? ng câu h?i này. Chúng tôi xin b?o d?m r?ng s? không ti?t
l? danh tính c?a quý v? trong b?t c? hoàn c?nh nào. Chúng tôi xin chân thành c?m on.
Nhóm tu?i: 20 - 30 30 - 40 40 - 50 50 – 60
II. Theo quý v?, trong nh? ng tru?ng h?p sau dây, có nên dua ra l?i phàn nàn hay
không? Xin hãy dánh d?u (v ) t?i ô mà quý v?cho là phù h?p
III. Quý v?hãy d?c nh? ng tình hu?ng sau dây và dua ra nh? ng l?i phàn nàn phù
h?p:
10. Quý v?s? phàn nàn nhu th? nào n?u có ngu?i d?n mu?n bu?i h?p?
11. Quý v?s? phàn nàn nhu th? nào n?u có ngu?i d? nu?c trái cây lên b? qu?n áo m?i
c?a quý v??
12. Quý v?s? phàn nàn nhu th? nào n?u có ngu?i làm ?n trong khi quý v?c?n yên tinh d?
làm vi?c?