Ph.D. Thesis

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HANOI
COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES
DISAGREEING
IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE:
A PRAGMATICS AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE
By
KIEU, THI THU HUONG

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Supervisors: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hoang Van Van

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Phan Van Que
HANOI - 2006
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
I certify my authority of the study project report submitted entitled
DISAGREEING IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE:

A PRAGMATICS AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVE
In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Except where the reference is indicated, no other persons work has been used
without due acknowledgment in the text of the thesis.
Hanoi - 2006
Kieu Thi Thu Huong
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am indebted to many people without whose help the present thesis could not have been
completed. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hoang Van Van and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Phan Van Que for their invaluable
guidance, insightful comments and endless support.
I wish to express my deep indebtedness to Prof. Dr. Luong Van Hy, the chair of the
Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Canada for his brilliant scholarship,
demanding teaching and supervision. His unending help greatly encouraged me before
and during my one-year study at this university. I am most grateful to Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Sidnell, who worked at UCLA for some time with Schegloff, one of the founders of
conversation analysis, for his productive course of conversation analysis, his kindness
and generosity in providing naturally occurring data and responding literature.
I am deeply thankful to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Quang for his invaluable suggestions,
and helpful advice. I have greatly benefited from his scholarship, encouragement and
generosity. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Hoa for
his discerning comments, knowledgeable suggestions and kind-heartedness. My sincere
thanks go to all my teachers at CFL VNU for their profound knowledge and
outstanding teaching during my long study at the Department of Graduate Studies (DGS)
from 1998 to 2005.
My special thanks are due to Ms Sandra Harrison, the country director of ELI Vietnam
for her kind support and valuable correction of all this work in manuscript. But for her, I
would not have had any access to ELI teachers working in Vietnam.
My thanks are also extended to all my informants in Hanoi and North America, my
friends and students, my colleagues at Hanoi-Amsterdam High school, the school
principal Mr. Do Lenh Dien, and all the people who have assisted my research work,
especially Dr. Ngo Huu Hoang and the DGS staff. To Assoc. Prof. Dr. Le Hung Tien, the
chair of the DGS, I extend my enormous gratitude for his scholarship and sincerity.
I sincerely thank Dr. Vu Thi Thanh Huong at the Institute of Linguistics for her efficient
assistance, intellectual support and continual encouragement.
I especially express my heartfelt gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tran Huu Manh, who
supervised my MA thesis, which is considered the very first step to the present Ph.D.
dissertation, for his distinctive guidance, constant encouragement and benevolence.
Finally, I owe the completion of this dissertation to my parents and my siblings, my
husband and my two children, who have always given me their love, understanding and
encouragement throughout my study.
To all mentioned, and to many more, my heart extends the warmest thanks.
ii
ABSTRACT
This thesis takes as its main objective the description of the native perception and
realization of the speech act of disagreeing in English and Vietnamese within the
theoretical frameworks of pragmatics and conversation analysis and the help of SPSS,
version 11.5, a software program for social sciences. It aims at yielding insights into such
issues as politeness, its notions and relations with indirectness, strategies and linguistic
devices used to express disagreement tokens in the English and Vietnamese languages
and cultures. Linguistic politeness is carefully examined in its unity of discernment and
volition on the basis of the data obtained from elicited written questionnaires, folk
expressions, interviews and naturally occurring interactions. The meticulous and
miraculous methods offered by conversation analysis are of great help in describing and
exploring the structural organization of disagreement responses in preferred and
dispreferred format, the relationships between disagreements and the constraint systems,
and negotiation of disagreements by native speakers.
The findings exhibit that the differences in choosing politeness strategies to perform
disagreements by speakers of English in North America and speakers of Vietnamese in
Hanoi result from the differences in their assessment of socio-cultural parameters and
social situations. Although indirectness might be used in some contexts as a means to
express politeness, there is no absolute correlation between politeness and indirectness in
the two languages and cultures under investigation. Despite the English general
preference for direct strategies and the Vietnamese tendency to indirect strategies, the
former may be indirect in some contexts and the latter are prone to be direct or even very
direct from time to time. Consequently, the study of politeness should be conducted in
iii
close relation to the study of the speakers wider socio-cultural milieus with systems of
local norms, beliefs and values. In proffering disagreements to the prior evaluations or
ideas, native speakers not only deploy individually volitional strategies but also observe
socially determined norms of behavior, especially in the choice of formulaic expressions,
speech levels, address terms, deference markers etc. Therefore, the deployment of the
normative-volitional approach to politeness study is appropriate and reasonable.
Conversation analysis sheds light on disagreements as dispreferred seconds to first
assessments and opinions, and as preferred seconds to self-deprecations. English and
Vietnamese speakers adopt the same strategies in regards to preference organization,
compliment responses and negotiation of disagreements. On the whole, disagreements are
inclined to be hedged or delayed by a variety of softeners and/or other devices. However,
they tend to be overtly stated in responses to self-denigrations. It is of interest to explore
the conflicting effects caused by the correlation between preference organization and selfcompliment avoidance in responses to compliments. The English informants show a trend
towards compliment acceptance and appreciation, while the Vietnamese prefer to refuse
and negate prior complimentary tokens in spite of their similar strategies in adopting midpositions. The accounts for this phenomenon can be found in the Vietnamese communitybased solidarity and the Anglophone individualistic satisfaction. Conversation analytic
tools help highlight the use of address terms (in Vietnamese), intensifiers (in English and
Vietnamese) and other supportive means. By and large, the combined pragmatics and
conversation analysis perspective is strongly recommended to speech act study as this
integration maximizes the strengths and minimizes the weaknesses of each approach.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...............................................................................................I
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................III
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................V
LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS..................................................................................X
ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS..............................................................XIII
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1
1. RATIONALE.................................................................................................................1
1.1. NECESSITY OF THE STUDY.......................................................................................1
1.1.1. Problem statement.............................................................................................1
1.1.2. Society, culture and language............................................................................2
1.2. MERITS OF THE STUDY............................................................................................3
1.2.1. Academic merits................................................................................................3
1.2.2. Practical merits.................................................................................................4
2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND..................................................................................4
3. RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY.........................6
3.1. RESEARCH QUESTION..............................................................................................6
3.2. GROUNDS FOR RESEARCH HYPOTHESES................................................................6
3.2. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES.........................................................................................6
4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY..............................................................................................7
5. METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................9
5.1. METHODS.................................................................................................................9
5.2. PRAGMATICS AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS .......................................................10
5.2.1. Choice of conversation analysis......................................................................10
5.2.2. Combination of pragmatics and conversation analysis..................................10
5.2.3. Combination of pragmatics and CA in other studies.......................................11
6. CREATIVITY..............................................................................................................12
6.1. SYNTHETIC APPROACH PRAGMATICS AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS .............12
6.2. DATA FROM QUESTIONNAIRES AND NATURALLY OCCURRING CONVERSATION ..12
6.3. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN DISAGREEING .............................................12
7. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY.........................................................................13
CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................................................14
DISAGREEING A COMMUNICATIVE ILLOCUTIONARY AND SOCIAL ACT
...........................................................................................................................................14
1.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES...............................................................................14
1.1.1. Speech Act Theory...........................................................................................14
v
1.1.1.1. Speech acts and speech events..................................................................14

1.1.1.2. Three-dimension speech acts....................................................................15
1.1.1.3. Classification of speech acts.....................................................................16
1.1.1.4. Disagreeing a communicative illocutionary act....................................18
1.1.2. Conversation Analysis.....................................................................................20
1.1.2.1. Historical background...............................................................................20
1.1.2.2. Co-text and context...................................................................................22
1.1.2.3. Turn turn taking and adjacency pairs.....................................................24
1.1.2.4. Disagreeing a social act.........................................................................27
1.1.3. Summary..........................................................................................................29
1.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY..................................................................................................29
1.2.1. Aims and methodology....................................................................................29
1.2.1.1. Aims..........................................................................................................29
1.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents.................................................30
1.2.2. Assessment of socio-cultural parameters by respondents...............................37
1.2.2.1. Data results...............................................................................................37
1.2.2.2. Comments.................................................................................................43
1.2.3. Assessment of situations by respondents.........................................................44
1.2.3.1. Data results...............................................................................................44
1.2.3.2. Comments.................................................................................................48
1.2.4. Summary..........................................................................................................50
1.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS..........................................................................................51
CHAPTER TWO.............................................................................................................52
POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING...............................................................................52
2.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES................................................................................52
2.1.1. Notion of Politeness.........................................................................................53
2.1.2. Volitional Approach.........................................................................................55
2.1.2.1. Grices principle........................................................................................55
2.1.2.2. Lakoffs rules and Leechs maxims..........................................................56
2.1.2.3. Brown & Levinsons model......................................................................58
2.1.3. Normative Approach........................................................................................60
2.1.3.1. Chinese research.......................................................................................60
2.1.3.2. Japanese research......................................................................................62
2.1.3.3. Other non-Anglophone research...............................................................63
2.1.4. Normative-Volitional Approach.......................................................................64
2.1.4.1. Literature by Vietnamese researchers.......................................................64
2.1.4.2. Literature by other researchers.................................................................68
2.1.5 Summary...........................................................................................................69
2.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY..................................................................................................70
2.2.1. Aims and Methodology....................................................................................70
2.2.1.1. Aims..........................................................................................................70
2.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents.................................................70
2.2.2. Politeness Level Rated by Respondents...........................................................71
2.2.2.1. Data results...............................................................................................71
2.2.2.2. Comments.................................................................................................80
vi
2.2.3. Summary..........................................................................................................81
2.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS..........................................................................................81
CHAPTER THREE.........................................................................................................83
STRATEGIES OF POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING...............................................83
3.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES................................................................................83
3.1.1. Brown & Levinsons Model of Strategies........................................................83
3.1.2. Manipulation of Strategies..............................................................................84
3.1.2.1. Bald-on-record strategies..........................................................................84
3.1.2.2. On-record strategies..................................................................................86
3.1.2.3. Off-record strategies.................................................................................89
3.1.2.4. No FTA.....................................................................................................94
3.1.3. Indirectness in Disagreeing.............................................................................95
3.1.3.1. Notion of indirectness...............................................................................95
3.1.3.2. Factors governing indirectness.................................................................97
3.1.3.3. Indirectness and politeness.......................................................................98
3.1.4. Summary........................................................................................................102
3.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY................................................................................................103
3.2.1. Aims and Methodology..................................................................................103
3.2.1.1. Aims........................................................................................................103
3.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents...............................................103
3.2.2. Choice of Strategies by Respondents.............................................................104
3.2.2.1. Data results.............................................................................................104
3.2.2.2. Comments...............................................................................................115
3.2.3. Summary........................................................................................................115
3.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS........................................................................................116
CHAPTER FOUR..........................................................................................................118
STRATEGIES CONCERNING PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION......................118
4.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES..............................................................................118
4.1.1. Preferred Second Turns.................................................................................118
4.1.1.1. Markedness.............................................................................................118
4.1.1.2. Structural organization............................................................................119
4.1.1.3. Dispreferred second turns in disagreeing...............................................121
4.1.2. Preferred Sequences......................................................................................125
4.1.2.1. Repair apparatus.....................................................................................125
4.1.2.2. Repair apparatus in disagreeing..............................................................130
4.1.3. Summary........................................................................................................133
4.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY................................................................................................134
4.2.1.1. Aims........................................................................................................134
4.2.2. Strategies for Disagreements as Dispreferred Seconds................................137
4.2.2.1. English corpus........................................................................................137
4.2.2.2. Vietnamese corpus..................................................................................141
4.2.2.3. Comments...............................................................................................148
vii
4.2.3. Strategies for Disagreements as Preferred Seconds......................................149

4.2.3.1. English corpus........................................................................................149
4.2.3.3. Comments...............................................................................................157
4.2.4. Summary........................................................................................................157
CHAPTER FIVE...........................................................................................................160
STRATEGIES FOR CONSTRAINT SYSTEMS AND NEGOTIATION OF
DISAGREEMENTS......................................................................................................160
5.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES..............................................................................160
5.1.1. Constraint Systems........................................................................................160
5.1.2. Negotiation of Disagreements.......................................................................161
5.1.2.1. Insertion sequences.................................................................................162
5.1.2.2. Summons-answer sequences..................................................................162
5.1.2.3. Pre-sequences.........................................................................................163
5.1.2.4. Sequences in disagreeing........................................................................166
5.1.3. Some Frequently Used Devices in Disagreements........................................168
5.1.3.1. Intensifiers..............................................................................................168
5.1.3.2. Person referring terms.............................................................................170
5.1.4. Summary........................................................................................................174
5.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY................................................................................................175
5.2.1.1. Aims........................................................................................................175
5.2.2. Strategies for Constraint Systems..................................................................176
5.2.2.1. English corpus........................................................................................176
5.2.3. Strategies for Negotiation of Disagreements................................................181
5.2.3.1. English corpus........................................................................................181
5.2.4. Summary........................................................................................................190
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................193
1. MAJOR FINDINGS..................................................................................................193
1.1. POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN DISAGREEING........................................................193
1.2. NORMATIVE-VOLITIONAL POLITENESS AND INDIRECTNESS..............................194
1.3. STRATEGIES CONCERNING PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION.................................195
1.4. STRATEGIES FOR NEGOTIATION OF DISAGREEMENTS AND CONSTRAINT
SYSTEMS......................................................................................................................196
2. IMPLICATIONS.......................................................................................................197
2.1. EFL & VFL IMPLICATIONS.................................................................................197
2.2. PRAGMATICS AND CA PERSPECTIVE IN SPEECH ACT STUDY............................198
3. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH....................................................200
viii
APPENDIXES....................................................................................................................I
APPENDIX 1................................................................................................................... I
TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS........................................................................................I
APPENDIX 2................................................................................................................. III
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES..............................................................................................III
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................XIII
ENGLISH.....................................................................................................................XIII
VIETNAMESE........................................................................................................XXVIII
ix
LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS

Table 1-1: The five general functions of speech acts (Yule 1996: 55)...............................16
Table 1-2: Gender correlation between English and Vietnamese respondents..................33
Table 1-3: Age group correlation between English and Vietnamese respondents.............33
Table 1-4: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Age of co-conversants..........................37
Table 1-5: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Manner of communication...................38
Table 1-6: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Setting...................................................39
Table 1-7: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Gender of co-conversants.....................40
Table 1-8: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Social status..........................................41
Table 1-9: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Length of time you know your coconversants................................................................................................................42
Table 1-10: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A1. Praise on Nice-looking Spouse...44
Table 1-11: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A2. Self-praise on New Hairstyle......45
Table 1-12: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A3. Disparagement of New Italian
Shoes..........................................................................................................................45
Table 1-13: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A4. Miss X Is Getting Too Fat...........45
Table 1-14: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. B2. Bigger Pensions...........................46
Table 1-15: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. C1. Mr. Y's Promotion.......................46
Table 1-16: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. C4. Voting for Mr. X..........................47
Table 1-17: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. D1. Car Expert...................................47
Table 1-18: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. D2. Favorite Team's Failure...............48
Table 1-19: General Assessment of All Situations by Respondents..................................49
Table 2-1: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.1. 'She's all right, I suppose.'.....................71
Table 2-2: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.3. 'Fashions change, you know.'................72
Table 2-3: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.4. Were very much in agreement, but .'
...................................................................................................................................73
Table 2-4: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.5. 'Not me, I totally disagree. '..................74
Table 2-5: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.6. 'That's pretty good.'...............................74
Table 2-6: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.7. 'That may be so, but....'..........................76
Table 2-7: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.8. Really?................................................77
Table 2-8: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.9. 'No, grandpa, no, no, you're wrong.'.....77
Table 2-9: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.10. 'Boring people get bored.'....................78
Table 2-10: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4. 11. 'Do you really think so?'...................78
Table 2-11: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.12. 'Sorry, but I think it was interesting.'.79
Table 3-1: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Miss X is fat)
.................................................................................................................................104
Table 3-2: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Tax increase)
.................................................................................................................................105
Table 3-3: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Boring party)
.................................................................................................................................106
Table 3-4: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Miss
X is fat)....................................................................................................................107
Table 3-5: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Tax
increase)...................................................................................................................107
Table 3-6: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring
party)........................................................................................................................108
Table 3-7: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age &
gender (Miss X).......................................................................................................109
gender (Tax).............................................................................................................109
gender (Party)..........................................................................................................109
Table 3-10: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X
is fat)........................................................................................................................111
Table 3-11: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax
increase)...................................................................................................................111
Table 3-12: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring
party)........................................................................................................................112
Table 3-13: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat)
.................................................................................................................................112
Table 3-14: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase)
.................................................................................................................................113
Table 3-15: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Boring Party)
.................................................................................................................................114
Table 4-1: Correlations of content and format in adjacency pair second........................121
Table 4-2: The preference ranking of the repair apparatus (Based on Levinson 1983: 341)
.................................................................................................................................127
Table 5-1: Interrelatedness between acceptances/agreements and rejections/disagreements
.................................................................................................................................160
Chart 2-1: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.1. 'She's all right, I suppose.'.....................71
Chart 2-2: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.3. 'Fashions change, you know.'................72
Chart 2-3: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.4. 'We're very much in agreement, but ....' 73
Chart 2-4: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.5. 'Not me, I totally disagree.'...................74
Chart 2-5: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.6. 'That's pretty good.'...............................75
Chart 2-6: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.7. 'That may be so, but....'..........................75
Chart 2-7: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.8. 'Really?'.................................................76
Chart 2-8: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.9. 'No, grandpa, no, no, you're wrong.'.....77
Chart 2-9: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.10. 'Boring people get bored....................78
Chart 2-10: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.11. 'Do you really think so?'....................79
Chart 2-11: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.12. 'Sorry, but I think it was interesting.'.80
Chart 3-1: Possible strategies for doing FTAs...................................................................83
Chart 3-2: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Miss X is fat)
.................................................................................................................................104
Chart 3-3: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Tax increase)
.................................................................................................................................105
Chart 3-4: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Boring party)
.................................................................................................................................106
xi
Chart 3-5: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Miss
X is fat)....................................................................................................................106
Chart 3-6: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Tax
increase)...................................................................................................................107
Chart 3-7: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring
party)........................................................................................................................108
Chart 3-8: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age &
gender (Miss X).......................................................................................................108
Chart 3-9: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age &
gender (Tax).............................................................................................................109
Chart 3-10: Choice of Politeness to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Party)
.................................................................................................................................110
Chart 3-11: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X
is fat)........................................................................................................................110
Chart 3-12: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax
increase)...................................................................................................................111
Chart 3-13: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring
party)........................................................................................................................112
Chart 3-14: Choice of Disagreeing Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat)
.................................................................................................................................113
Chart 3-15: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase)
.................................................................................................................................114
Chart 3-16: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Boring Party)
.................................................................................................................................114
xii
ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS

#
Number
&
and
CA
Conversation analysis
CCSARP
Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project
CP
Cooperative Principle
Relative distance
DCT
Discourse Completion Task
EFL
English as a foreign language
FSA
Face saving act
FTA
Face threatening act
Hearer
Relative power
Rating/Raking of imposition
Speaker
SA
Speech act
S/F
Second or foreign
SA
Speech act
SDCT
Semi- Discourse Completion Task
Sig.
Significance (a term used in SPSS)
SPSS
Statistic Package for Social Sciences
VFL
Vietnamese as foreign language
xiii
INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
1.1. Necessity of the study
1.1.1. Problem statement
Humans are endowed with language, a very special gift, with the help of which they
communicate their ideas, feelings and transmit information. However, successful
communication requires not only pure linguistic competence but also knowledge of
social norms, social values and relations between individuals known as communicative
competence. Communicative competence presupposes ability to use the language
correctly and appropriately. This pragmatic competence seems as crucial as linguistic
competence. The lack of it may lead to impoliteness, misinterpretation, culture shocks
or even communication breakdown.
In the past few decades, the rapid development of technology and communication
systems has greatly shortened the distance between countries and offered more chance
for inter-cultural interactions besides intra-cultural interactions. It is English that has
become the most international and the most widely used language. Colleges and
schools in Vietnam have witnessed a sharp increase in the number of people teaching
and learning English. The evolving situation of Vietnamese economics and politics
demands a change in how to teach and learn foreign languages in general, and English
in particular. There is an urgent need to improve students communicative competence
besides grammatical knowledge. Recently, verbal communicative competence has been
taken into consideration in any English teaching program.
The emphasis on speaking, one of the early forms of mans communication, has
resulted in an awareness of developing a sense of socio-cultural factors in learners to
help them become successful in interaction. Thus, this study is conducted with the hope
of contributing to the socio-cultural aspects of spoken English-Vietnamese

communication for the avoidance, or at least, the reduction of pragmatic failures.
The speech act of disagreeing has been chosen for investigation in this study as it is of
great interest to the researcher and of great help to language teachers and learners. In
everyday life, native speakers talk to each other, exchanging ideas, evaluations or
assessments of things, events and other people. Their interlocutors may agree or
disagree with them. The way second speakers express their disagreement with prior
speakers is both language-specific and culture-specific. The differences in the ways in
which native speakers of English and Vietnamese realize disagreements seem to make
it problematic for cultural outsiders to say the right thing at the right time. Therefore, a
comparison of the ways used to realize disagreeing by native speakers of English and
Vietnamese is considered essential and valuable in the teaching and learning of English
by Vietnamese learners and Vietnamese by native speakers of English.
1.1.2. Society, culture and language
Social acts or speech acts (Austin, 1962) are thought to be performed via strategies
which are mainly the same in all cultures (Fraser, 1985). However, this universalistic
view is doubted and rejected by some researchers who contend that different cultures
conceptualize speech acts differently according to differences in cultural norms and
values as well as social constraints (Wierzbicka, 1990).
It has been said that language of a community is part or a manifestation of its culture,
which is viewed as the system of ideas and beliefs shared by members of a community
(Bentahila & Davies, 1989). Society, culture and language are closely related and
interact between themselves. Their relationship and interaction have been researched
into and focused on in prior papers. Sapir (1963: 166) states that language is a cultural
or social product. Consequently, the interpretation of the social meaning of a certain
linguistic expression should be done with reference to the bigger socio-cultural

background of the speaker. Due consideration of the socio-cultural values and
perceptions of the society and culture involved should be made to adequately
understand the way to realize speech acts in general, and disagreeing in particular, for
disagreeing is normal assumed an act that may cause negative reactions or feelings in
interpersonal communication.
To eliminate and/or to limit pragmatic transferences and inferences, language learners
should be provided with necessary knowledge of socio-cultural constraints and factors
governing the choice of strategies used to perform disagreements. These problems call
for a careful investigation of disagreeing and its related issues like politeness,
constraint systems, preference organization and negotiation of disagreements on the
basis of the analytic frameworks of pragmatics and conversation analysis.
1.2. Merits of the study
1.2.1. Academic merits
- To thoroughly study different dimensions of a specific speech act in light of

pragmatics and conversation analysis (henceforth CA). The meticulous methods of
CA carried out in excerpts of natural speech provide deep insight into the structural
organization of disagreement tokens in English and Vietnamese.
- To suggest a new way to investigate the similarities and differences of a speech act
across languages and cultures, using the combination of pragmatics and CA.
- To use SPSS (Statistic Package for Social Sciences) in data processing.
- To emphasize the importance of utilizing naturally occurring conversation in
research papers involving oral speech.
- To highlight the role of the socio-cultural factors and socio-cultural milieu with its
norms, values and beliefs in performing and interpreting verbal behaviors.
1.2.2. Practical merits
- To point out the similarities and differences in American/Canadian and Vietnamese

communication in the perception and realization of the speech act of disagreeing.
- To contribute to the study of communication between native speakers of Vietnamese
and American/Canadian English in light of cross-cultural pragmatics and CA.
2. Historical background
Conversing with each other, people frequently proffer evaluative assessments of things,
events or people they know. These assessments may include opinions, praises,
compliments, complaints, boasts or self-deprecations. Given that their interlocutors are
co-operative, they may support or reject prior assessments by either agreeing or
disagreeing.
Since the 1970s of the twentieth century, Pomerantz has paid attention to the way
second assessments are made. Her 1975 Ph.D. dissertation can be considered her first
step. In this paper, she carefully examines the major features of disagreeing and
agreeing.
Later
on,
she
takes
into
consideration
the
construction
of
disagreement/agreement (Pomerantz, 1984a). The main features in preference

organization like preferred and dispreferred turns used by second speakers to perform
disagreeing/agreeing are looked at with great care.
Pomerantz is also interested in the relationship between responses to prior
complimentary tokens and the system of constraints, in which disagreements are
structurally dispreferred but agreements may implicitly mean self-praise. In her work
on Compliment Responses (1978), Pomerantz finds out that native English speakers
tend to make compliment responses located somewhere between agreeing and
disagreeing. The in between-ness of compliment responses, according to Pomerantz
(Ibid.), can be the result of conflicting effects brought by the correlation between
preference organization and self-compliment avoidance. Other searches by Pomerantz

(1984), Levinson (1983) and Heritage (2002) come to the same conclusion.
Nguyen Q. 1998 Ph. D. dissertation is probably the most significant research into
compliments that has ever been done in Vietnam. Compliments and such related issues
as politeness and its strategies, lexico-modal markers and the addressing system are
thoroughly discussed and empirically examined to bring out their cross-cultural
similarities and differences. He has also brought out the safe/unsafe topics for giving
compliments and underlined the most frequently used strategies in responses to prior
complimentary attributes. It appears that while native speakers of English tend to utilize
direct strategies, their Vietnamese counterparts seem to exploit indirect strategies.
Disagreeing has long been an appealing pursuit of the present writer. It has been
described, and investigated in the framework of the theories of speech acts and
politeness in her M. A. thesis (Kieu T. T. H. 2001). The data obtained from written
questionnaires provide sufficient evidence for the hypotheses concerning perception
and performance of evaluative disagreements by speakers of American English and
Vietnamese. However, after a twelve-month study in the Department of Anthropology,
University of Toronto, Canada as a full-time graduate student, where she took a course
of CA, she herself has realized that it would be better to use the analytic framework of
CA together with that of pragmatics to thoroughly investigate the perception and
realization of disagreeing tokens, their structural organization, and bring out typical
linguistic devices commonly utilized by native speakers of English and Vietnamese in
their disagreements. The writer has been strongly impressed by the capacity of CA with
its rigorous principle of using mundane casual speech in natural settings. It is hoped
that the synthetic approach, in which CA and pragmatics are combined, will provide a
multi-dimensional study of the issues under investigation.
3. Research question and hypotheses of the study

3.1. Research question
The present study focuses on the description of the perception and realization of the
speech act of disagreeing in English and Vietnamese within the theoretical frameworks
of the theories of speech acts (henceforward SA) and politeness and CA.
3.2. Grounds for research hypotheses
To find out the answer to this research question, a number of hypotheses are proposed
on the basis of the assumptions and suggestions made by some prestigious
pragmaticians and conversation analysts. Brown & Levinson (1987[1978]) and Leech
(1986) propose that despite having the same strategies, cultures may differ in terms of
priorities and values given to each strategy. Blum-Kulka & House (1989: 137) believe:
members of different cultures might differ in their perceptions of social situations as
well as in the relative importance attributed to any of the social parameters.
Differences on both dimensions, in turn, might be linked to differences in behavior.
Both Levinson (1983) and Pomerantz (1978, 1984) agree that disagreements as
dispreferred seconds tend to be delayed while disagreements as preferred seconds to
self-denigrations are immediate and outright. Pomerantz (1978) investigates how
Americans reply to compliments and notices that many English compliment responses
are placed somewhere between agreements and disagreements because of the constraint
systems concerning preference organization and self-compliment avoidance. Agreeing
with the prior compliments may implicitly mean praising self, but disagreeing may lead
to the use of dispreferred format. Having compared the way native speakers of Japanese
and English negotiate their disagreements, Mori (1999: 138) comes to a conclusion:
An opinion-negotiation sequence develops until the participants find a middle
ground, acknowledge co-existing multiple perspectives, or change the topic to terminate
the discussion.
3.2. Research hypotheses
This study aims at testing the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1:
Native speakers of Vietnamese and English tend to differ in their use

of strategies to perform disagreements as a result of the differences in
their assessment of socio-cultural factors and social situations.
Hypothesis 2:
Politeness with its two constitutive elements volition and discernment

in relation to disagreeing is differently perceived and interpreted
across the English and Vietnamese languages and cultures, and there
seems to be no absolute correlation between politeness and
indirectness.
Hypothesis 3:
In regards to preference organization English and Vietnamese native

speakers are inclined to deploy the same set of strategies in order to
hedge or delay disagreements as dispreferred seconds and provide
immediate and outright disagreements as preferred seconds to selfdeprecations.
Hypothesis 4:
English and Vietnamese speakers seem to exploit similar strategies for

the negotiations of disagreements and mid-positions in responses to
compliments although the former may show a greater tendency to
accept prior compliments while the latter appear to often negate them.
Hypothesis 5:
Native speakers of English and Vietnamese seem to employ

intensifiers to highlight or lower the effect of disagreeing tokens, but
native Vietnamese speakers demonstrate a frequent usage of person
referring terms and particles.
4. Scope of the study

There are a range of reasons for second speakers to disagree with first speakers
assessment of people, things or events. The performance of disagreeing varies from
individual to individual within a culture or a subculture and from culture to culture. It

depends much on the speakers communicative intention, leading to his/her choice of
strategies to verbally express disagreement tokens.
However, the realization of disagreeing in particular and of other acts in general is
strongly affected and governed by indigenous socio-cultural norms, values and beliefs.
Naturally, the present study comes to treat disagreeing in relation to the wider sociocultural context of native speakers to provide an adequate description and perception of
the act. Such issues as politeness, its perception and interpretation are of great concern.
Most disagreements are structurally complicated and delivered with delay elements,
thus they are often dispreferred. On the contrary, disagreements with self-denigrations
are preferred due to their simple structure, and consequently prone to overtly be voiced.
Also, the doing of disagreeing is found to be influenced by the constraint systems in
which preference organization interacts with self-compliment avoidance, resulting in
the spreading of compliment responses all over the continuum ranging from
acceptances/agreements to rejections/disagreements (Pomerantz 1975, 1978, 1984a;
Levinson 1983; Heritage 2002). Therefore, the present study pays attention to the
realization of disagreements as regards preference organization and constraint systems.
Although disagreeing is present in English and Vietnamese, each language deploys
certain linguistic devices to realize it in conformity to locally accepted norms of
behavior. While intensifiers are empirically used by native speakers of English and
Vietnamese, person referring terms and particles seem to be pervasive in Vietnamese
disagreements. English speakers are inclined to exploit prefaces, delay tokens,
backchannels etc. to soften disagreements. The present study takes into consideration
the above mentioned items to highlight the most frequently used devices.
The database of this study consists of elicited written questionnaires and audio-tapings
of natural conversations. However, the investigation is mainly done on the basis of
vocalized disagreement tokens, and prosodic features and paralinguistic factors are
rarely referred to in spite of their importance.
This thesis is motivated and conducted within the frameworks of the theories of SA and
politeness (Austin 1962; Grice 1975; Hymes 1964; Searle 1969, 1975, 1979; Lakoff
1973, 1977, 1989; Levinson 1983; Brown & Levinson 1987 [1978]; Leech 1983; Mey
1993, 2001; Thomas 1995; Yule [1996] 1997 etc.) and conversation analysis (Sacks
1963, 1972a-b, 1984; Schegloff 1972, 1979a-b; Jefferson 1974, 1978, 1979; Pomerantz
1978, 1984a-b; Levinson 1983; Psathas 1995; Cameron 2002 etc.). In addition, the
empirical study in some chapters is carried out with the help of SPSS 11.5.
5. Methodology
5.1. Methods
Quantitative and qualitative methods are both used in this paper with priorities given to
the quantitative. In other words, all the conclusions and considerations are based on the
analysis of the empirical studies and statistics processed on SPSS 11.5, a software
program commonly used in social sciences. In addition, such methods as descriptive,
analytic, comparative and contrastive are also utilized to describe and analyze, to
compare and contrast the database so as to bring out similarities and differences in
expressing disagreements by English and Vietnamese speakers.
To collect data for the empirical study, the following methods are deployed:
- Written survey questionnaires
- Tape recording of naturally occurring talks
- Interviews with native speakers of English and Vietnamese
- Reference to publication
- Field notes and personal observations

5.2. Pragmatics and conversation analysis
5.2.1. Choice of conversation analysis
Conversation analytic approach has become most influential for its contributions to
provide deep insights that can unravel many linguistic problems (Levinson 1983: 364).
Its strictly data-centered principle may be the object of arguments among the
researchers, but no one can deny the magnitude of what it offers language study. The
helpful microscope (Cameron 2002: 89) of conversation analytic research reveals the
intricate patterns in the structural organization of mundane verbal exchanges. What
ordinary people use every day to express themselves and exchange information turns
out to be structurally complex and remarkable. The contingent nature and the
continuously shaped and reshaped development of talk by participants draw much
analytic attention.
The analytic studies of conversation seem to be quite relevant to the study of speech
acts and other issues in pragmatics. The orderly properties of speech acts are normally
unfolded in the process of meticulous analysis and conscientious observation offered by
conversation analysis. Also, the intensive studies of the sequential structure of
utterances can make significant contribution to the interpretation of utterance meaning.
Thus, Levinson (1983: 284) proposes the use of CA to the study of pragmatics:
It is not hard to see why one should look to conversation for insight into pragmatic
phenomena, for conversation is clearly the prototypical kind of language usage, the form
in which we are all first exposed to language - the matrix for language acquisition.
5.2.2. Combination of pragmatics and conversation analysis
Conversation analysis, in its strict sense, takes very little notice of such socio-cultural
parameters as age, gender, social status of co-conversants, or the relationship between
them, which have influence on interactions (Brown & Levinson [1978]1987), Blum-
10
Kulka et al. 1989, Yule 1996, Cameron 2002 among others). Its primary concern is the
discovery, description, and analysis of how conversation is produced and understood.
One of the weaknesses of a strictly CA-oriented approach is that those societal aspects of
conversation have no place to go in a framework that primarily studies co-text, and which
allows for the context to appear only as a function of the conversational interaction.
Cited from Mey (2001: 135)
Meanwhile, the theories of SA and politeness take into consideration the socio-cultural
parameters mentioned above, although they do not seem to pay enough attention to
mundane interactions in natural settings. Thus, the synthetic approach which combines
CA and theories of SA and politeness applied to the study of disagreeing helps to make
use of the advantages and limit the disadvantages of each perspective. In addition, the
use of more than one approach increases objectivity and reduces the risk of being
simple in examining cultures as in Maynards 1997 warning:
Defining cultures in simple terms is a trap one must avoid. Careless descriptions of
societies can and often do result in negative stereotyping. Overemphasizing differences
may breed ethnocentrism; ignoring them may lead to cultural colonialism.
Cited in Mori (1999: 15)
5.2.3. Combination of pragmatics and CA in other studies
CA with its strength of using data from naturally occurring talk has long been deployed
in combination with other theoretical perspectives. To investigate the realization of
thanking by Americans and learners of English, Eisenstein and Bodman (1993) use a
range of data types including written questionnaires and naturalistical exchanges, under
the impact of which differences between native and nonnative expressions of thanking
are set off. With the help of CA and pragmatics, Aston (1993) persuasively displays
how native and nonnative speakers negotiate comity, set up and maintain friendly
relationships in everyday mundane conversations. Impressed by the strength of
interactional sociolinguistics, Kasper & Blum-Kulka (1993: 13) advise combining
methods from this perspective with those from contrastive and interlanguage
11
pragmatics to identify cross-cultural and cross-linguistic pragmatics differences and

similarities as well as pragmatic failures.
Mundane everyday talk has been the database for research into the system of person
reference in Vietnamese by Luong V. H. (1990), politeness in modern Vietnamese by
Vu T. T. H. (1997) and language socialization by Nguyen T. T. B. (2001). In her study
of politeness and face in Chinese culture, Lee-Wong (2000) uses both written and
spoken data to identify the native strategies and conceptualization of politeness. Brown
(2002) and Snow & Blum-Kulka (2002) are successful in deploying naturalistic corpora
while examining the effect of context and culture on a childs pragmatic development.
All in all, there are a number of linguistic investigations in which methods of CA are
used in combination with those of pragmatics. The present paper is just different from
the aforementioned works in the degree and size to which each approach is applied so
as to sufficiently meet the requirements of the research question.
6. Creativity
6.1. Synthetic approach pragmatics and conversation analysis
This is the first study of a speech act conducted on the basis of pragmatics and CA in
English and Vietnamese. The combination of pragmatics and CA takes advantage of the
strengths and reduces the limitations of each approach.
6.2. Data from questionnaires and naturally occurring conversation
For the first time, a comparative study of disagreeing has been conducted on the data
collected from both written questionnaires and natural speech in English and
Vietnamese. Elicited data and recorded excerpts of mundane everyday talks have been
investigated and analyzed within the frameworks of pragmatic theories and CA.
6.3. Similarities and differences in disagreeing
Disagreeing has been examined, described, analyzed, compared and contrasted in

English and Vietnamese. And, for the first time, the similarities and differences
12
concerning its perception, performance, preference structure, and constraint systems

have been shown.
7. Organization of the study

This dissertation consists of three main parts:
Part one is the introduction to the study.
Part two contains five chapters, each of which begins with the theoretical
preliminaries, continues with the empirical study and ends with the concluding
remarks. Chapter 1 concerns the descriptive account of disagreeing from the viewpoint
of SA theories & CA and examines the evaluation of some social parameters and
situations. Chapter 2 reckons with notions of politeness across cultures and languages
and the synthetic approach to study politeness in its unity of volition and discernment.
Chapter 3 deals with strategies utilized to express polite disagreements and the
correlation between politeness and indirectness. Chapter 4 thoroughly analyzes
strategies deployed by native speakers of English and Vietnamese in terms of
preference organization pertaining to disagreements as dispreferred seconds and
preferred seconds. Chapter 5 investigates strategies in relation to the constraint systems
and negotiation of disagreements. It also studies such devices as intensifiers and person
referring terms. Part three, the conclusion, views major findings, puts forward
pedagogy implications, the deployment of pragmatics and CA perspective in SA study,
and suggestions for further study.
13
CHAPTER ONE
DISAGREEING A COMMUNICATIVE
ILLOCUTIONARY AND SOCIAL ACT
1.1. Theoretical Preliminaries
1.1.1. Speech Act Theory
1.1.1.1. Speech acts and speech events

Since its initiation by Austin a few decades ago, the notion of speech acts has become
one of the most compelling notions in the study of language use. Speech acts have been
central to the works by many other philosophers and linguists like Grice (1957, 1975),
Hymes (1964), Searle (1969, 1975, 1979), Levinson (1983), Brown & Yule (1983),
Mey (1993, 2001), Thomas (1995) and Yule ([1996] 1997). Their common assumption
is that when conversing people use grammatical and lexical units not only to produce
utterances, but also to perform actions. In saying something the speaker (S) does
something (Austin 1962). The utterance given below is more than a statement; it is a
pleasant and ear-pleasing compliment:
(1) You look so nice.
(Pomerantz 1978: 84)
Generally, the actions that are produced via utterances to communicate are called
speech acts (Yule 1996: 47). These SAs, considered the basic or minimal units of
linguistic communication.' (Searle 1969: 16), are performed in authentic situations of
language use. In English, SAs are specifically labeled as compliment, apology, request,
disagreeing or promise. These terms for SAs are used to name the S's communicative
intentions and the hearer (H) is expected to correctly interpret the S's intentions via the
process of inferences. The circumstances surrounding the utterances are of great help to
both the S and the H in successful communication. These circumstances are known as
14
the speech events. A speech event can be considered as an activity in which

conversational participants interact via language in a conventional way to achieve some
outcome (Yule, 1996: 57). SAs and speech events are said to be hierarchical
components of speech situations (Hymes 1972), and for an utterance to have been made
and to be successful as an act of communication, it is necessary that the process of
intention-and-inference be done on the basis of due consideration of the speech event.
1.1.1.2. Three-dimension speech acts

The classic distinction between the different aspects (or 'forces') of a SA is due to
Austin (in his How to Do Things with Words 1962). There are three related acts in the
action of performing an utterance. Let us consider the following example:
(2) G: Thats fantastic.
B: Isnt that good?
In uttering (2) the S performs a number of SAs (Austin 1962, Searle 1969): a phonetic
act, a linguistic act, a referring act etc. all of which together constitute a locutionary
act, an act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression. On the other hand, the act
of performing an utterance like (2) with a purpose is considered an illocutionary act. It
is clear that each utterance in (2) contains a 'force'. This force of the SA is known as its
illocutionary force. The force of the SA is what it 'counts as' (Yule 1996: 49). In the
above fragment, Gs token can count as an evaluative assessment or a compliment,
while Bs response is a scaled-down/weak disagreement with the prior evaluation.
In addition, the S normally intends to have an effect when producing an utterance with
a function. This third dimension of the SA is called perlocutionary act. Further effects
obtained by the S are termed perlocutionary effects of an utterance. These ultimate
effects, according to Mey (1993: 112), are dependent on the context of the utterance
15
and unpredictable. The H may correctly understand the S's intention and does what
his/her interlocutor wants, or he/she may deliberately ignore the S's want or desire. Of
the three acts the illocutionary act appears to be the most crucial and discussed. The
term 'speech act' is used to mean the same illocutionary act (Thomas 1995: 51), and
illocutionary act is 'the basic unit of human linguistic communication' (Searle 1976: 1).
In conclusion, an action created via an utterance is made of three acts or dimensions:
locution, illocution, and perlocution. The speech act theory, in fact, has focused on
illocutionary acts to such an extent that the term speech act has predominantly come to
mean illocutionary act, or communicative illocutionary act (Bach & Harnish 1979).
1.1.1.3. Classification of speech acts

Not being completely happy with Austin's original classification of illocutionary acts
into five basic categories of verdictive, expositive, exercitive, behavitive and
commissive, Searle (1976: 10-16) develops an alternative taxonomy of the fundamental
classes of illocutionary acts. The taxonomy consists of five categories or five types of
general functions performed by speech acts: (1) Declarations: e. g. declaring,
christening, (2) Representatives: e. g. asserting, disagreeing (my emphasis), (3)
Expressives: e.g. thanking, apologizing, (4) Directives: e.g. ordering, requesting, and
(5) Commissives: e. g. promising, offering. Following Searle, Yule (1996: 55)
summarizes the five general functions of speech acts with their key features in a table:
Speech act type
Direction of fit
S = speaker
X = situation
Declarations
Representatives
Expressives
Directives
Commissives
words change the world

make words fit the world
make words fit the world
make the world fit words
make the world fit words
S causes X
S believes X
S feels X
S wants X
S intends X
Table 1-1: The five general functions of speech acts (Yule 1996: 55)
16
Searle (1976), Hatch (1992), Mey (1993) and Yule (1996) point out that representative
SAs carry the true or false values, i.e. they can be judged for truth or falsity. In using
them the S makes words fit the world of belief, as Hatch (1992: 127) suggests:
Representatives may vary in terms of how hedged or aggravated the assertion might be.
'Darwin was partly correct' is, obviously, not as strong as 'Darwin was right' or 'Darwin
was
wrong.'
It is the lexical hedges like a little, a little bit, maybe, kind of/kinda, just,
approximately, very, almost, extremely, seem, appear, etc. that help strengthen or
weaken, qualify or soften the assertions, claims or statements. Hatch (1992: 127)
believes:
Hedges ... also serve as a ritual function. They may act like disfluencies in smoothing
over a disagreement with a conversational partner.
(My emphasis)
We can see this very clearly in his example (Ibid.) given below:
(3) Maybe she just feels kinda blue.
An act of disagreeing seems to be an almost exact opposite of an act of agreeing. The
person who disagrees responds to somebody else's expressed opinion or assessment.
Most of the time, an overtly expressed opinion or assessment can be considered as an
implicit expectation/invitation to get the same opinion or assessment from the
conversational partners. The person who performs an act of disagreeing does not take
care of the earlier S's expectation, saying that his/her opinion is different or opposite.
He/she may also say that he/she thinks the first S is wrong or that his/her opinion or
assessment is neither good nor right.
In everyday interactions, the same utterance, the same linguistic act can express
different illocutionary forces. Let us consider the following example by Pomerantz
(1978: 97):
17
(4) F: Thats beautiful.

K: Isn it pretty?
Judging from the structure, Ks reply is an interrogative, but is interpreted as a
disagreement token that is usually expressed in declarative form. In English there is a
recognizable relationship between the three structural forms (declarative, interrogative
and imperative) and the three communication functions (statement, question and
command/request). Actually, in Ks performing an act of disagreeing the relationship
between the structure and the function is indirect. A declarative is normally utilized to
make a disagreeing statement, but here, an interrogative is deployed to produce a weak
disagreement. In this case we have an indirect speech act. Whenever there is a direct
relationship between a structure and a function, we have a direct speech act. In Bs
disagreement in the example given below (Pomerantz 1978: 99), the structure and
function converge as a typical expression of a disagreement:
(5) A: Good shot.
B: Not very solid though.
In indirect SAs the S means more than or other than what is said. Indirect SAs are said
to be more polite in SAs like requesting, commanding, refusing, disagreeing etc.
(Brown & Levinson [1978]1987, Leech 1983 and Yule 1996 among others). The
relationship between structures and functions serves as another approach to dealing
with typology of SAs.
1.1.1.4. Disagreeing a communicative illocutionary act

According to Wierzbicka (1987: 128) disagreeing can be defined as a dual act, an act
of saying 'what one thinks' and indicating 'that one doesn't think the same as the earlier
speaker'. In the case of disagreeing, the act of showing that the second S does not think
18
the same or he/she has a different view or opinion seems to be much more important
than the prior. This can be seen in the utterance by Pomerantz (1978: 87) given below:
(6) H: Gee, Hon, you look nice in that dress.
W: Do you really think so? Its just a rag my sister gave me.
It is observable that the act of disagreeing, like any other SA, possesses both
illocutionary force and propositional content. These two properties of SAs are realized
syntactically, and the correct understanding of the intended illocutionary force is
inevitably dependent upon the context. In terms of syntax, there is no necessary
correlation between structural forms and illocutionary forces. Practically, disagreements
can be performed in declarative, interrogative and imperative forms respectively as in:
(7) Not very solid though.
(8) Do you really think so? Its just a rag my sister gave me. (Ibid. 87)
(9) No way!
(Blundell et al. 1996: 192)
It is normally easier to agree with the prior S than to disagree with him/her. Wierzbicka
(1987: 128) assumes, 'Disagreeing is a fairly forceful and self-confident act, more than
agreeing'. Let us consider the utterances below:
(10) J: Ts- tsuh beautiful day out isnt it?
L: Yeh its just gorgeous
(11) C: Well well haftuh frame that.
R: Yee- Uhghh its not worth fra(hh)mi(h)ng,
(Ibid. 98)
The recipient in (10) exhibits a strong display of agreeing with the proffered evaluation,
whereas the recipient in (11) seems to delay his/her disagreeing response by starting it
out with Yee. The use of agreement marker in (11) helps to frame the disagreement
token as a weak disagreement or partial disagreement (Pomerantz 1978, 1984a; Mori
1999), and mitigate its disaffiliative force. As a matter of fact, Ss need more stamina
19
and more self-confidence to express their disagreement than to express their agreement.
Especially in the case of Anglo-American culture, Ss are expected to express their
disagreement implicitly or tacitly, rather than to perform it explicitly or frankly, as they
would in the case of agreement. It is advisable that one should hedge one's
disagreement or avoid outright disagreement to maintain relationships with others.
Fraser (1990: 229) proposes that disagreeing is among those SAs (such as complaining,
criticizing, etc.) named FTAs (face threatening acts), as they are inherently threatening
to the Hs desire to be appreciated and approved of (Brown & Levinson 1987). When
faced with FTAs, Ss may choose between various strategies to reduce or eliminate the
seriousness of the threat by either softening their communicative tokens or implicitly
expressing them. The choice of politeness strategies is said to be affected by three
variables relative power (P), social distance (D) and ranking of imposition (R) (Ibid.).
By and large, from the view of SA theories, disagreeing which belongs to
representatives that make the words fit the world of fallacy or truth, and which is an
FTA that needs to be hedged to weaken the potential threat, is a communicative
illocutionary act.
1.1.2. Conversation Analysis
1.1.2.1. Historical background

The study of social interaction, known as conversation analysis (CA) or study of talkin-interaction has long been a phenomenon of great interest for researchers of a wide
range of fields. It takes as one of its subjects the study of mundane social interaction in
naturally occurring settings on the basis of rigorous and systematic methods. The
assumption that social actions are meaningful, and are produced and interpreted as
such, leads to the desire to discover, describe and analyze their natural organization or
order, which constitutes and constructs this orderliness.
20
Drawing upon and growing out of developments in such domains as phenomenology,

ethnomethodology (the study of ethnic, i.e. participants own methods), and language
philosophy, CA keeps on extending its fields of study, and has become interdisciplinary
interests of social psychology, communication, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics,
pragmatics and so on.
The early theoretical and methodological developments of this approach date back to
1950s and 1960s of the 20th century with Bales Interaction Process Analysis (1950),
Barker and Wrights Midwest and its Children (1955), Pittenger, Hockett, and Danehys
The First Five Minutes (1960), Soskin and Johns The Study of Spontaneous Talk
(1963), and Goffmans Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior (1967).
Audiotape technologies utilized to record naturally occurring actions in real-world
settings were combined with direct observation and notes by researchers in the field to
provide extensive analysis of the rules and orders of talk. At the same time, such
features of spontaneous speech like pronunciation, intonation, pace, volumes, the
location and duration of pauses, and tone could be captured and contribute to the
analytic process.
New approaches to the study of language and communication with respect to culture
focusing on meanings-in-context, natural classification systems by members of a
culture, their perceptions and conventions also brought about changes in CA. With the
names of researchers like Gumperz and Hymes (1964), Goodenough (1957), Sturtevant
(1964), Garfinkel (1967), Sudnow (1972), especially Sacks (1963, 1972a-b), Schegloff
(1972, 1979a-b), and Jefferson (1974, 1978, 1979), CA has been shaped as a science of
examining order as a social product constituted and achieved in and through various
empirical occurrences of interaction between ordinary members of society.
21
The descriptive nature of the field reflects its interests in studying of interaction itself,
discovering and depicting its structures and allowing occasional conceptualizations and
general theories. CA, at the onset, with the works by Sacks, Schegloff, Jefferson,
Pomerantz and others, tends to avoid preformulated theory construction. It examines
the details of the temporal organization and various contingencies of the unfolding
development of interaction. Recurring patterns found by essentially inductive methods
are the results of many records of naturally occurring interactional exchanges. Also,
intuitive judgments, which are assumed unreliable guides, are unlikely to resort to,
although it may be utilized in other fields of linguistics. The main strength of CA, as
Levinson (1983: 287) states, is in its ability to provide by far the most substantial
insight that has yet been gained into the organization of conversation.
As aforementioned in the introductory part, CA pays very little attention to the
contextual particulars commonly believed to have influence on interpersonal
interactions. Such personal characteristics of the participants as age, gender, social
status, their relationship, or the formality/ informality of the settings etc. are likely to be
neglected (Levinson 1983: 295; Psathas 1995: 36, 49-50). Their primary concern, as
mentioned, is the discovery, description, and analysis of how social conduct, including
interactional practice, is accomplished and perceived.
1.1.2.2. Co-text and context

The mundane human conduct, in the view of conversation analysts, is meaningful, as
well as intelligibly produced and understood on shared rules and methods. The
interpretation of meaning depends on the contemporary context of its production. This
immediate context, or co-text as it is often called in CA, is continually shaped by
individual contributions of the parties (Pomerantz 1997). In other words, the current
context is resulted from what the prior S does, and the current Ss action creates a new
22
context for the next action. Thus, co-text is constantly shaped and renewed by parties
within interactional activities (Heritage 1989). Co-text is significant in that it provides
Ss with a local resource upon which they draw to design their utterances, and
correspondently, it gives Hs sufficient clues necessary to interpret what is said.
However, the immediate local co-text in CA seems to be a restricted framework for
such a wealth of data obtained from naturally occurring interactions. To understand
peoples linguistic behaviors, it is necessary to look further, and go beyond the co-text
of the talk by extending the limited border of the conversational co-text, and taking into
account the whole societal environment, relevant and surrounded the language
production. It is believed that the very desire to look at the SA of disagreeing from the
pragmatics and CA perspective is found here. CA purist stance (Cameron 2002: 88),
based on the data and nothing but the data seems to be insufficient in providing
adequate grounds for the proper and all-sided interpretation of interactions. The
meaning of a social action could not adequately be understood without consulting the
on-going context within which the action takes place: who talks with whom, in what
setting, when, in what language(s), on what topic, as well as the wider socio-cultural
context of which interactional talk is considered and analyzed as part and parcel. As
Cameron (2002: 53) puts it:
Any given instance of language use is analysed as part of a whole social situation; more
generally, ways of using and understanding language are analysed in relation to the wider
culture in which they occur.
The wider cultural context in which mundane interactions occur involves a range of
cultural beliefs, practices, and values. What is assumed to be good in one culture may
not count as such in other cultures. As aforementioned, social parameters like social
status, gender, age etc. of co-participants are generally of little interest in conversation
analytic studies. Seldom do conversation analysts pay a close attention to them,
23
providing they are made explicit issues by participants in the data (Ibid. 88). Some
analysts, however, argue that cultural factors affect natural interaction. Zimmerman &
West (1975) and Fishman (1983), for instance, suggest that men seem to dominate talk
involving both genders.
All in all, it is high time CA adopted an interdisciplinary approach, and went beyond its
traditionally strict border by considering social actions in relation to the wider sociocultural environment in which they take place. This is suggested as a way of refining
conversation analytic processes to compensate their having no place for societal factors
to go in the framework that primarily study co-text (Mey 2001: 135).
1.1.2.3. Turn turn taking and adjacency pairs

In everyday life, people use language to converse with their interlocutors, and this is a
typically social way of doing things with words. They talk, exchange information, or
express their ideas. The kind of talk is various in terms of contents and contexts where
it is produced. The structural organization, however, is always the same: I speak you
speak I speak you speak. As Crystal (2003: 477) puts it:
[C]onversation is seen as a sequence of conversational turns, in which the
contribution of each participant is seen as part of a co-ordinated and RULE-governed
behavioural interaction.
(My emphasis)
The finding of turn, considered the basic unit of conversation (Sacks 1995), is one of
the important discoveries in the development of this analytic approach. Interactive talk
is assumed prototypically a joint enterprise that involves more than one S (Cameron
2002: 87). Studying recorded interchanges, Sacks (1995: II, 223) recognizes that in
normal, civilized interactions, conversationalists follow a certain kind of rules: they
take turns to speak rather than speak in overlap. A central feature [of conversation]
is that exactly one person at lease one and no more than one talks at a time (Sacks
1995: II, 223).
24
Simultaneous speaking (two or more speakers speak at the same time) is calculated as
little as five per cent, and there is very little gap between one co-conversant talking and
another starting (Ervin-Tripp 1979, Levinson 1983). Speaker changes occur normally at
certain points called transition relevant places (TRPs). The initiation and completion
of a TPR can syntactically, semantically and intonationally be projected or predicted.
Consequently, the conversant that currently has the right to speak, or the floor, may
choose the next S, as well as self-select or any other party may self-select (Sacks,
Schefloff, and Jefferson 1974, 1978; Levinson 1983).
In some cases, a S may ignore an upcoming TRP and hurry past it, leaving no space for
other parties to jump in. Herein, overlap and interruption may take place as in excerpts
by Sacks et al. (1978: 16) given below:
(12)
A: Uh you been down here before // havenche.

B:
(13)
Yeah.
C: We:ll I wrote what I thought was a a-a

rea:sn//ble explanatio:n
F:
I: think it was a very rude le :tter
Detailed study reveals it is a prevalent fact that turn taking is structurally organized
(Sacks et al. 1974, 1978). And in most cases, one party speaks at a time, although the
turn order and turn size vary, and speakership transfer as well as overlap occur. Also,
the turn-taking organization is assumed to be both context-free and context-sensitive
(Sacks et al. 1978: 10). It may remain unaffected by variations parties bring into talk on
the one hand, and partly and locally changed under the influence of social facets on the
other. The one party talking rule, for example, may be invariant in almost all contexts,
and the speaker change rule could relatively be sensitive with some social aspects of
contexts.
25
The existence of turn-taking phenomenon is obvious, although there are still

controversial arguments about the mechanism organizing it. Levinson (1983: 301), for
instance, mentions the hierarchical pre-allocation of turn taking of the Burundi, the
African people, in which high-status persons have preference over the others. He
indicates that in such settings as classrooms and courtrooms in Anglo-American culture
turns follow the pre-allocated principle too. In addition to this, some psychologists and
conversation analysts (Duncan 1974; Duncan & Fiske 1977; Goodwin 1981, 1984)
show that the turn taking works on the basis of signals like gazes. This view appears to
be implausible when applied to telephone talks, which go quite smoothly with very
little gap and overlap in spite of the absence of visual contact. The projectability and
repair work, as proposed by Sacks et al. (1974, 1978) seem to be wrong in Levinsons
critical analysis. Consequently, the present problem leads to more searches to discover
an adequate mechanism for the organization of turn taking within and across languages
and cultures.
Interactional exchanges, often composed of two subsequent utterances, are called pairs
or adjacency pairs. The production of the first-turn action provides the relevance for
the appearance of the second-turn action. And the second cannot exist without the first.
They recur in pairs. Everyday casual conversations are full of such pairs as invitationacceptance, greeting-greeting, assessment-agreement and assessment-disagreement.
Below is one example of assessment-disagreement by (Pomerantz 1984a: 74):
(14)R: well never mind. Its not important.
D: Well, it is important.
Paired utterances, viz., adjacency pairs are pervasive in natural language use. On the
basis of the adjacency pair assumption, a second pair part is relevant and necessary,
once the first pair part is produced. The delay or absence (in case of silences) of a
26
second part may lead to the repetition of the first part by the prior S (Schegloff 1972a).
The painful silence, as it is in Meys wording (2001: 158), on the part of the
sequential S may sometimes make the prior feel totally embarrassed. A question raised
here is that the so-called painful silence would differently be interpreted in intracultural and across-cultural interactions by different identities. As a result, first Ss
would have a variety of subtle nuances of feelings when facing second Ss silences, not
just embarrassment.
1.1.2.4. Disagreeing a social act

Conversation that is considered the prototypical kind of language usage (Levinson
1983: 284) is normally assumed the first language form that every human being
engages in. Conversationalists actually do things (Austin 1962) with their words by
informing each other of news, telling stories, making requests, invitations, offers to do
things, expressing evaluations or assessments, and their co-participants respond to
them, either accept/agree or reject/disagree. These acts are not only linguistic acts, but
they are social acts as well. Naturally, CA, which explicates how social conduct is
produced, recognized as intelligible and sensible, pays close attention to all acts of this
kind.
All initial assessments or evaluative tokens of people, things or events are produced in
first turns of adjacency pairs. The proffering of assessments by the first Ss makes
relevant the recipients assessments in response. As a rule, second assessments by the
responders should be subsequent to the prior and made in the second turns. The first
assessments act as invitations for the second to come, especially if they are given in
interrogatives or interrogative tags, as in the excerpt by Pomerantz (1984a: 68):
(15)E: e-that Pa:t isnshe a do://:ll?
M:
iYeh isnt she pretty,
27
The first Ss evaluative comments, which are considered their claims of certain
knowledge about the referents, can trigger and engender second assessments by the
recipients who may want to demonstrate their access to the same referents, as below:
(16)A: God izn it dreary.
(0.6)
A: //Yknow I dont thinkB: .hh- Its warm though,
(17) B: I think everyone enjoyed just sitting around talking.

A: I do too.
(Pomerantz 1984a: 67)
CA practitioners like Pomerantz (1978, 1984a) and Sacks (1987) point out that second
assessments subsequent to the first in form of agreements tend to immediately be
delivered, as in (17), and sometimes, in some overlap with the prior. On the contrary,
disagreements seem to be withheld, delayed or mitigated by pauses, hedges, prefaces
and other non-linguistic devices to downplay the seriousness of the opposing stance, as
in (16). In this extract, Bs withholding an answer leads to As self-selecting to continue
the turn. Bs in-breathing before speaking and her using though downgrade the
contrast between the two assessments, making hers sound like a weak disagreement.
In most cases, the producers of the initial assessments probably want their evaluations
or opinions to be approved of. Disagreements on the part of the recipients would upset
them. In addition, it might not be easy for the second Ss to forthrightly disclose their
opposition. Hence, the softening or hedging of disagreements becomes a matter of
common experience. A quick and outright answer might make the disagreement token
too explicit and unpleasant, causing undesired tensions. Thereby, the first Ss wish to be
indirect by prefacing their disagreements with agreement tokens or/and downgrading
them as in excerpt (15) given above, or they may choose to tacitly imply their different
28
ideas, or be silent altogether. However, when it comes to responding to selfdeprecations, disagreements are likely to be direct and explicit. Conversely, agreements
seem to be variously softened or muted, as they may sound critical. Pomerantz clearly
illustrates this point in her 1984a work. Below is one of her examples (Ibid. 74):
(18) L: Im so dumb I dont even know it hhh! heh!
W: Y-no, y-youre not du:mb,
In short, most disagreement turns tend to be structured so as to minimize occurrences of
overtly stated disagreements, but the organization of turns seems to work in the
opposite direction in self-denigrations so as to maximize immediate and explicit
disagreements.
1.1.3. Summary
Disagreeing as a communicative illocutionary and social act is theoretically examined
within the speech act theories and CA in this part. The key notions of each approach are
re-examined, applied to and highlighted by disagreeing tokens. In socio-communicative
interactions, disagreements are often seen to be softened by means of hedges to qualify
the negative force of the act on the one hand, and tend to be strengthened to intensify
overt disagreements with prior self-deprecation tokens on the other.
The assessment of socio-cultural parameters and some social situations by the English
and Vietnamese informants is investigated in the following part.
1.2. Empirical Study

1.2.1. Aims and methodology
1.2.1.1. Aims
This empirical study aims at getting the sufficient proof for the following hypotheses:
29
1. Native speakers of English and Vietnamese may differ in assessing such sociocultural parameters as age, length of time (familiarity), manner, occupation,
setting, gender, and social status, which affect interactive talk.
2. Speakers of English and Vietnamese may have different assessments of social
situations.
1.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents

Sampling
To guarantee the validity and reliability of the research results, it is of great importance
to strictly follow the sampling procedures and select an appropriate sample. According
to Drnyei (2003), each sample is actually a subset of the population and the sampling
should be carried out in such a way so as to ensure this representativity. After giving a
detailed description of sampling procedures that consist of (1) defining the sampling
universe, (2) constructing sample stratification, and (3) fixing the sample size, Sankoff
(1974: 22) clarifies Hymes notion of speech community as regards the sample size:
A speech community sample need not include the large number of individuals usually
required for other kinds of behavioral surveys. If people within a speech community
indeed understand each other with a high degree of efficiency, this tends to place a limit
on the extent of possible variation, and imposes a regularity (necessary for effective
communication) not found to the same extent in other kinds of social behavior. even
for quite complex speech communities, samples of more than about 150 individuals tend
to be redundant, bringing increasing data handling problems with diminishing analytical
returns.
In the same vein, Drnyei (2003: 74) suggests:

From a purely statistical point of view, a basic requirement is that the sample should have
a normal distribution the sample should include 30 or more people. From the
perspective of statistical significance certain multivariate statistical procedures require
more than 50 participants; for factor analysis, for example, we need a minimum of 100
but preferably more subjects.
Selection of regions
30
The empirical data were selected in two places: North America and Vietnam. These two
places were deliberately chosen due to the present researchers ability to access the
respondents, which saved her a considerable amount of time, energy and expenses.
North America is internationally known as a region with rapid development in the
domains of economy, science and technology. It includes Canada and Northern States
of the USA. Although English and French are legitimated official languages of Canada,
the Canadian respondents are native speakers of English, either living in Toronto or
coming there for their research or study. Toronto is the biggest city in Canada and
belongs to Anglophone cultures. Some respondents of English are from other cities of
Canada and US Northern states. North America is assumed a complex speech
community that belongs to less hierarchical societies where status is allegedly far less
marked in verbal and non-verbal interaction (Bargiela-Chiappini 2003: 1463) and
where individualism is assumed to be the basis of all interaction (Ide 1989: 241).
Hanoi, the political, economic and cultural center of Vietnam, situated in the North of
Vietnam, has been famous for its historical and cultural traditions. From the sociocultural point of view, Hanoi with its one thousand years of history, feudalist dynasties
followed by communist regime, and the present open-door policy offers abundant
corpora for any researcher who attempts to go further afield the pure linguistic
boundary to examine linguistic issues in relation to the wider socio-cultural context.
Having undergone great socio-cultural and economic changes, the social structure of
the Vietnamese has still been vertically hierarchical with emphasis on moral conduct
and community-oriented solidarity (Nguyen D. H. 1995, Vu T. T. H. 1997, among
others). As the home for many people coming from different parts of the country, Hanoi
can be considered a conjunction of or meeting place for cultures and sub-cultures, and
an ideal place to obtain data in terms of socio-linguistic representativeness.
31
Selection of respondents
The respondents, native speakers of English and Vietnamese, either indigenous
inhabitants or permanent/life-time residents, are assumed to share the same sets of local
socio-cultural norms, values and beliefs. They all have tertiary education and are
ranked as middle-class citizens in regards to socio-economic conditions. This study
takes as its chief objectives the perception and realization of disagreeing by native
speakers of English and Vietnamese in their speech communities, therefore, the sample
should be balanced and comparable in terms of age, gender and level of education, as
Bauman & Sherzer (1974: 17) insist,
Linguistic descriptions must achieve both psychological and sociological validity. They
must reflect the perspective not only of single individuals but also of social groups,
networks or communities.
Individualism and privacy seem fundamental in Anglophone cultures, and native

speakers are in favor of freedom from imposition and of actions. Thus, gaining assess
to them appears to be problematic, let alone asking them to complete written
questionnaires or recording their mundane casual conversation. To collect sufficient
data for this study, the researcher spent ample time wandering around Toronto,
especially the spacious campus of University of Toronto, its libraries and athletic
centers meeting people. Among the respondents were ELI (English Language Institute)
teachers coming from some US Northern States to Vietnam for their teaching. There
was less complexity and trouble in administering the questionnaires among the
Vietnamese respondents, interviewing them and recording their real-life interaction
thanks to friendly or/and kinship networks.
Sample size
The elicited data were obtained from 100 English respondents (40 male and 60 female)
and 100 Vietnamese respondents (50 male and 50 female). The respondents are
32
supposed to belong to two homogeneous speech communities and possess the same sets
of shared social norms, beliefs and values (Hymes 1974a-b, 1995), and be comparable
and balanced in terms of education, economic condition, age, and gender. All of them
have tertiary education or higher, MA or PhD, and they are ranked as middle-class
citizens, aged from 18 to 72.
GENDER
First Language
English Count
English %
Male
40
40.0%
Total
Female
60
60.0%
100
100.0%
Vietnamese Count
50
50
100
Vietnamese %
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
Table 1-2: Gender correlation between English and Vietnamese respondents
The age groups were divided into two: Less than 30 and 30 or above, with the former
consisted of 62 English and 50 Vietnamese, and the latter contained 38 English and 50
Vietnamese. The audio-taping data were gained from 8 tapes by 30 speakers of
Vietnamese, and 6 tapes by 16 speakers of English. In addition, a number of English
excerpts of mundane everyday speech used in this study are taken from the second
source available in the literature owing to their availability and convenience.
AGE GROUP
Total
First Language
English Count
English %
Less than 30
62
62.0%
30 or above
38
38.0%
100
100.0%
Vietnamese Count
50
50
100
Vietnamese %
50.0%
50.0%
100.0%
Table 1-3: Age group correlation between English and Vietnamese respondents
Even though the researcher is aware of the ideal balance as for gender and age group
among the two groups of respondents, she should be satisfied with the present sample
as after all it has offered a set of valid and reliable corpora for the empirical studies.
Written questionnaires
Written questionnaires have effectively been used in linguistic research by researchers
like Ervin-Tripp (1969), Blum-Kulka (1982, 1989), Bayraktaroglu & Sifianou (2001),
33
Bharuthram (2003) etc. as they help to collect a significant amount of data of controlled
manner in rather a short time. The questionnaire in the form of Discourse Completion
Task (DCT) used in the Cross-Cultural Speech Act Realization Project (CCSARP) has
been chosen and modified (called Semi-Discourse Completion Task - SDCT) to adjust
the purpose and limitation of the paper. The present author also makes use of the
written questionnaire developed by Nguyen Q. in his 1998 Ph.D. dissertation (in
Vietnamese). The English elicited data were obtained in Toronto, Canada in 2003, and
the Vietnamese data were collected in Hanoi, Vietnam in 2003-4.
Like any other kind of written questionnaires, DCTs have the disadvantage of being
unable to capture variables like hesitation, pauses, fillers, etc., which are typical
features of spoken discourse responses. In addition, the respondents have more time to
consider and reconsider their replies in writing than in spontaneous speaking, and they
may provide more elaborate responses than those made in natural speech. Last but not
least, it does not always seem to be an easy task to check the accuracy of elicited data,
for people may wish to be seen and judged in a good light (Ackroyd & Hughes 1981:
83). Audio-taping data are used to make up for the drawbacks of written questionnaires.
Audio-taping
Some researchers tend to overestimate the advantages and underestimate the
disadvantages of approaches or methods to explain their preference for the one, which
they believe the most appropriate. However, the present researcher proposes to deploy
more than one approach, i.e., to combine several approaches and methods so as to make
good use of the advantages and minimize the disadvantages (Nguyen D. H. 1995,
Cohen 1996, Gass 1996, Vu T. T. H. 1997, Lee-Wong 2000). By so doing the database
used in this research can be considered quite sufficient for the empirical studies. It
consists of the data collected from SDCTs, audio-taping of natural interactions by
34
native speakers of English and Vietnamese, and excerpts from the recorded data
deployed in the works by Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson (1974, 1978); Schegloff,
Jefferson, and Sacks (1977); Sacks & Schegloff (1979), Heritage & Drew (1979),
Pomerantz (1975, 1978, 1984a-b), Levinson (1983), Goodwin & Goodwin (1987),
Heritage (1997, 2002, forth.), Maynard (2003) and others. When necessary, the field
notes taken by the researcher on the spot are referred to in order to make up for the
inability to use videotaping.
One of the advantages of CA is that conversation analysts can use data from any
available source to describe and analyze social actions provided that they are naturally
occurring data. Analysts can deploy other researchers recordings together with their
original for specific purposes of study. Psathas (1995: 53) asserts:
Because the researchers must make available, in transcripts and published extracts, the
data on which their studies are based, other researchers may then examine the same, as
well as additional, materials, and either replicate or extend the analyses first presented.
Confidentiality
The database used in CA is recordings, whether audio or video, and may be collected
from any available source, provided that they should be mundane everyday talks
occurring in natural settings. Protection of privacy and participants identities is
essential, and as a result, permissions for recording should be obtained, and
conversationalists anonymized (Psathas 1995, Drnyei 2003). Aware of confidentiality
as an important criterion in audio-taping and questionnaire administration, the
researcher has used a different name or a letter to replace the Ss real name to
anonymize all the respondents and coded the excerpts chose from the recorded data.
Data analysis
Central to this research is the speech act of disagreeing, its perception and linguistic
realization. Hence, the data analysis methods are chosen to highlight issues involving
35
disagreeing and its construct of form, function and meaning. The data analysis focuses
on: (i) the structure of disagreeing and the use of honorifics, address terms, and other
particles (form); (ii) the use of strategies in correlation with politeness (function); and
(iii) (combination of (i) & (ii) in essence) contextual interpretation of disagreeing in
relation to social variables and local cultures (meaning). As aforementioned, two
theoretical frameworks have been adopted: pragmatics and CA. The extent to which
each framework is utilized varies according to the purpose and size of the immediate
issue under investigation. Generally speaking, the recorded data is examined on the
basis of CA to clarify (i); (ii) is investigated on the basis of Brown & Levinsons model
concerning politeness strategies, theories of politeness as regards indirectness and
elicited data processed on SPSS; and (iii) is studied within volition-discernment
integration and SPSS outputs. CA has long been proved to be of great help in
discovering, describing and analyzing organizational structure of conversation. It
focuses on the expression of disagreements in preference organization. To provide
intelligible information of what and how co-interactants speak in everyday occasions,
the excerpts from transcripts in this study are given on the basis of the transcriptionnotation system originally suggested and evolved by Jefferson, and later elaborated by
Maynard (2003). Emphasis, for instance, is displayed by underscoring, and sound
stretching/latching is marked by colon (::::). A question mark (?) expresses rising
intonation while a comma (,) indicates continuing intonation. The system in full detail
is given in Appendix 1.
The database for the assessment of socio-cultural parameters by English and
Vietnamese informants in this chapter is from mini-questionnaire #1, and the data for
the assessment of social situations are obtained from mini-questionnaire #2. All the
questionnaires are given in Appendix 2.
36
The English corpus is examined and processed on SPSS 11.5 in comparison to and
contrast with the Vietnamese. The outputs of data-processing are carefully investigated
and only those, whose significance of chi-square results (sig. henceforth) is below 0.05,
i.e. they are statistically worth noting, are selected and taken into further consideration.
1.2.2. Assessment of socio-cultural parameters by respondents
1.2.2.1. Data results

The informants were asked to rank 7 socio-cultural parameters age, length of time,
manner, occupation, setting, gender and status in order according to their importance
on a scale of 7, which represents the continuum of importance, where 01 is the most
important and 07 is the least important. Below are the most significant cases.
Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Age
60
50
40
30
20
Count
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
1.00
Greatest
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Importance
7.00
Least
Chart 1-1: Assessment of Socio-cultural factors: Age of Co-conversants

Importance
First language
English - Count
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Greatest
Least
1.00
11
13.3%
2.00
16
19.3%
3.00
24
28.9%
4.00
12
14.5%
5.00
12
14.5%
49
12
10
62.8%
15.4%
12.8%
5.1%
6.00
Total
7.00
7
8.4%
1
1.2%
83
100.0%
78
1.3%
2.6%
.0%
100.0%
Table 1-4: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Age of co-conversants
Age: A close look at chart 1-1 and table 1-4 reveals the striking difference between the
respondents of the two languages and cultures under study. Among 78 Vietnamese
37
respondents who consider Age as a factor having influence on conversation, 49

(constituting 62.8%) rate it the most important. The rest also attach much weight to this
factor: 12 rank it second, 10 rank it third and 4 rank it fourth. On the contrary, only 11
native Ss of English, accounting for 13.3%, give Age the greatest importance, 16
informants rank it second, 24 rank it third and 12 rank it fourth.
The very high percentage among the Vietnamese informants reflects their socio-cultural
perception of Age as a substantial value in social communication: old-aged people are
respected and properly addressed to. In addition, Age is essential in choosing the right
form of address terms in conformity to social norms of interactions, where the wrong
use of person reference might be the potential source of misunderstanding or conflicts.
Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors:
Manner of Communication
40
30
20
First Language
Count
10
English
0
Vietnamese
1.00
2.00
Greatest
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Importance
7.00
8.00
Least Other
Chart 1-2: Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Manner of Communication

Importance
Greatest
Least
Other
First Language
English - Count
English - %
1.00
31
36.5%
2.00
21
24.7%
3.00
9
10.6%
4.00
14
16.5%
5.00
4
4.7%
6.00
4
4.7%
7.00
1
1.2%
8.00
1
1.2%
85
100.0%
19
13
17
12
75
12.0%
25.3%
17.3%
22.7%
16.0%
5.3%
1.3%
.0%
100.0%
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Total
Table 1-5: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Manner of communication
Manner & Setting: Native Ss of English in North America are inclined to prefer
factors Manner (chart 1-2, table 1-5) and Setting (chart 1-3, table 1-6) more than native
38
Ss of Vietnamese in Hanoi: 31 mark Manner #1, 21 mark it #2, and 9 mark it #3, which
accounts for more than 70%; and in regards to factor Setting, 19 rate it the most
important, 18 rate it the second, and 15 rank it third, which constitute a high percentage
of nearly 60.
Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Setting
20
Count
10
First Language
English
Vietnamese
1.00
2.00
3.00
Greatest
4.00
5.00
6.00
Importance
7.00
Least
Chart 1-3: Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Setting

Importance
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Greatest
2.00
18
22.5%
3.00
15
18.8%
4.00
11
13.8%
5.00
11
13.8%
10
14
4.8%
9.7%
16.1%
22.6%
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Least
1.00
19
23.8%
6.00
Total
7.00
4
5.0%
2
2.5%
80
100.0%
11
15
62
17.7%
24.2%
4.8%
100.0%
Table 1-6: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Setting
In contrast, about 50% of the Vietnamese informants rank Manner first, second and
third in the continuum of importance (vs. 70% of the English rating), and about 30%
attach importance to Setting (vs. 60% of the English rating). It is also worth explaining
that 08 in charts 1-2, 1-4 and tables 1-5, 1-7 (and in chart 1-5, table 1-8) represents
other factors suggested by the respondents themselves such as education, topic,
religion belief, relationship, intimacy, attractiveness and intellectual ability.
Importance
First Language
English - Count
Greatest
1.00
1
Least
2.00
1
3.00
7
4.00
8
5.00
7
6.00
14
7.00
19
Other
8.00
1
Total
58
39
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
1.7%
1.7%
12.1%
13.8%
12.1%
24.1%
32.8%
1.7%
100.0%
10
14
13
60
8.3%
16.7%
23.3%
11.7%
21.7%
6.7%
11.7%
.0%
100.0%
Table 1-7: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Gender of co-conversants
Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Gender

20
10
Count
First Language
English
0
Vietnamese
1.00
Greatest
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Importance
7.00
8.00
Least Other
Chart 1-4: Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Gender of Co-conversants
Gender: The informants in chart 1-4 and table 1-7 seem to differ greatly in their
evaluation of the role of Gender in social interactions. Whereas almost 50% of the
Vietnamese respondents abide by columns 1, 2, and 3, only 15% of the English
respondents opt for these columns. Presumably, it is not necessary for them to pay
attention to Gender of their interlocutors when they disagree with the prior evaluative
opinions. They would probably proffer the same disagreeing tokens to their interactants
regardless of their gender. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese seem to take notice of this
factor. I would be less aggressive in my expressing of disagreement if I talked with
representatives of the opposite gender, said one of the Vietnamese respondents.
Importance
First Language
Greatest
1.00
Least
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Other
Total
8.00
40
English - Count
English - %
6
9.5%
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
9
14.3%
7
11.1%
9
14.3%
9
14.3%
9
14.3%
14
22.2%
0
.0%
63
100.0%
17
16
11
68
25.0%
23.5%
8.8%
16.2%
11.8%
5.9%
7.4%
1.5%
100.0%
Table 1-8: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Social status
Social Status: Chart 1-5 and table 1-8 show a really considerable difference in the
respondents estimating Social Status. The majority of the Vietnamese informants (50
out of 68) adhere to the first four columns, constituting almost 70%. Contrary to this
high proportion, only 31 English informants (almost equal 40%) mark these columns. It
is worth taking notice of the Vietnamese consistent tendency to rate Status first and
second in the continuum of importance. On the other hand, the high percentage among
the English informants choosing columns 6 and 7 (14.3% and 22.2%, respectively) may
reflect the low incidence of Status in social communication in Anglo-American culture.
Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Status

20
10
Count
First Language
English
0
Vietnamese
1.00
Greatest
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
Importance
6.00
7.00
8.00
Least Other
Chart 1-5: Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Social Status
41
Assessment of Socio-cultural Factors: Length

of time you know your co-conversants
40
30
20
First Language
Count
10
English
0
Vietnamese
1.00
2.00
Greatest
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
Importance
7.00
Least
Chart 1-6: Assessment of Socio-cultural factors: Length of time you know your co-conversants
Length of Time: Chart 1-6 and table 1-9, which demonstrate the output of the
respondents assessment of factor Length of time (you know your co-conversants, i.e.
familiarity), are intentionally selected although the sig. is 0.208, which is not worth
paying attention to as regards statistics. Except for the difference in column 1, where
41.3% of the rating belongs to the group of English informants and the Vietnamese
informants constitute only 22.5%, the total percentage of the first four columns shows a
slight difference with 93.5% of the English respondents versus 87.4% of the
Vietnamese respondents marking them. It is suggested that Ss of two languages and
cultures are almost similar in their considering the influence of this factor, concerning
the familiarity with their co-conversants when expressing negative responses to the first
evaluations.
Importance
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Greatest
1.00
38
41.3%
Least
2.00
23
25.0%
3.00
18
19.6%
4.00
7
7.6%
5.00
6.00
3
3.3%
Total
7.00
1
1.1%
2
2.2%
92
100.0%
16
21
15
10
71
22.5%
29.6%
21.1%
14.1%
5.6%
4.2%
2.8%
100.0%
Table 1-9: Assessment of socio-cultural factors: Length of time you know your co-conversants
42
1.2.2.2. Comments
The respondents of English and Vietnamese give almost the same weight to factor
Length of time (you know your co-conversants), and this might be a manifestation of
the same psychological feature in human beings. People seem to be more relaxed when
talking with someone they know for long, and they often have a feeling of inhibition
conducting talk with strangers, let alone having to state their disagreements.
The empirical results also exhibit remarkable differences pertaining to factors Age,
Status, Manner and Setting. The Vietnamese respondents attach great importance to
Age (with 62% of the informants rating it #1) and Status (with 25%), while their
English counterparts highly value Manner and Setting (with 36.5% and 23.8%,
respectively). The Vietnamese significant preference for the socio-cultural determinants
Age and Status can be a reflection of the strictly hierarchical order of the Vietnamese
socio-cultural life, where old-aged people are socially given respect to, and social
subordinates are subjected to superior personae. On the contrary, factors Manner and
Setting are estimated of primary concern by the English informants. This result has
testified the assumption that native Ss of English in North America live in a less
hierarchical society, where Age and Status are recognized but slighted in interpersonal
communicative interactions.
All in all, the native Ss of English and Vietnamese are empirically proved to differ in
terms of the relative weight given to socio-cultural parameters governing their
linguistic choice in expressing disagreeing responses. In the following section, the data
results concerning the informants assessment of social situations are examined to bring
out the shared or unshared features between the two languages and cultures under
investigation.
43
1.2.3. Assessment of situations by respondents

Four groups of social situations, each contained four sub-situations, are introduced to
the respondents to see if they are differently conceived by the native Ss under study.
The informants consider the situations and decide how to construct their disagreements
on the continuum ranging from Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Not Sure, Implicitly
Disagree, and Silent. The most significant cases are taken for further discussion.
A substantial difference in how to display disagreeing tokens by native Ss of English
and Vietnamese is found in table 1-10. While 85% of the English informants choose to
insinuate their disagreement by either implicitly disagreeing (15%) or being silent
(70%), only 56% of the Vietnamese informants are inclined to do so (32% and 24%,
respectively). Only 5 English Ss prefer to directly assert their negative evaluations,
whereas 30 Vietnamese Ss overtly claim their disagreements.
Sit. A1. Nice-looking
Spouse
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Strongly
disagree
3
3.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
2
10
15
2.0%
10.0%
15.0%
Total
Be silent
70
70.0%
100
100.0%
11
19
14
32
24
100
11.0%
19.0%
14.0%
32.0%
24.0%
100.0%
Table 1-10: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A1. Praise on Nice-looking Spouse
In contrast with the Vietnamese tendency to be direct in objecting to the prior Ss (5%
strong disagree and 28% disagree), 33 % of the English respondents in Sit. A2 (table
1.11) avoid sounding too critical in their proffering disagreements (vs. 31% of the
Vietnamese respondents) by adhering to Implicitly disagree and 35% of them opt for
silence (vs. Vietnamese 24%), and only 10% of them provide apparent disagreements.
It is clear that the Vietnamese informants in situations A1 and A2 appear to be more
direct than their English counterparts in performing the act of disagreeing.
44
Sit. A2. Self-praise on

New Hairstyle
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Strongly
disagree
2
2.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
8
22
33
8.0%
22.0%
33.0%
Total
Be silent
35
35.0%
100
100.0%
28
12
31
24
100
5.0%
28.0%
12.0%
31.0%
24.0%
100.0%
Table 1-11: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A2. Self-praise on New Hairstyle
Sit. A3. New Italian
Shoes
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Strongly
disagree
19
19.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
44
16
10
44.0%
16.0%
10.0%
Total
Be silent
11
11.0%
100
100.0%
17
27
30
21
100
17.0%
27.0%
5.0%
30.0%
21.0%
100.0%
Table 1-12: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A3. Disparagement of New Italian Shoes
The output of situation A3 is given in table 1-12 reveals a reverse trend of expressing
disagreements compared to that of the two previous ones. While over 60% of the
English informants overtly exhibit their claim of disagreement with 19% strong
disagree and 44% disagree, only 17% of the Vietnamese strongly disagree with their
interlocutors and 27% disagree. The Vietnamese informants seem to minimize
occurrences of explicitly articulated disagreements by frequently abiding by the last
two columns: Implicitly Disagree and Be Silent: 30% and 21%, respectively.
Sit. A4. Miss X Is
Getting Too Fat
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Strongly
disagree
36
36.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
40
8
11
40.0%
8.0%
11.0%
Total
Be silent
5
5.0%
100
100.0%
13
42
20
16
100
13.0%
42.0%
9.0%
20.0%
16.0%
100.0%
Table 1-13: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. A4. Miss X Is Getting Too Fat
Despite having similarity in column 3 of table 1-13, the two groups of informants
display a great difference in their ways of proffering disagreements. 76 out of 100
English informants make explicit their disagreeing tokens, while only 55 Vietnamese
informants choose to do so. However, it is worth noting that 36 of the English
45
informants boldly assert their opposite stance, whereas only 13 Vietnamese Ss strongly
exhibit their disagreements. The number of those who soften their disagreeing or cancel
doing the act verbally is greater in the Vietnamese group (20 and 16 informants,
respectively) than in the English group (11 and 5 informants, respectively).
Sit. B2. Bigger
Pensions
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Strongly
disagree
22
22.0%
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
46
18
10
46.0%
18.0%
10.0%
Total
Be silent
4
4.0%
100
100.0%
20
32
13
13
22
100
20.0%
32.0%
13.0%
13.0%
22.0%
100.0%
Table 1-14: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. B2. Bigger Pensions
A high distribution of directness in expressing disagreements is found in both two

groups in situation B2. Bigger Pensions, fluctuating from 20% to 46%. The number of
Ss delivering negative and outright answer in English and Vietnamese is almost the
same: 22% and 20 % respectively. The percentage slightly rises in the second column
with 46% in English and 32% in Vietnamese. The low level of difference between the
two groups of informants in Not Sure and Implicitly Disagree is statistically negligible.
However, the striking difference is in Be Silent: the number of Vietnamese Ss who
refuse to perform the act of disagreeing is almost 6 times greater than that of English
Ss. Silence on the part of second Ss may provide a hint of implicit disagreement (Yule
1996; Mey 1993, 2001).
Sit. C1. Mr. Y's
Promotion
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Strongly
disagree
15
15.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
32
28
9
32.0%
28.0%
9.0%
Total
Be silent
16
16.0%
100
100.0%
14
32
12
24
18
100
14.0%
32.0%
12.0%
24.0%
18.0%
100.0%
Table 1-15: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. C1. Mr. Y's Promotion
Table 1-15 exhibits similarities between the informants in columns 1, 2 and 5. The
distinction in percentage is clearly seen in columns 4, where 9% of the English
46
informants choose to indirectly provide their disagreements in contrast with 24% of

their Vietnamese counterparts. Possibly, this is the consequence of the high percentage
of the English informants who are not sure of how to deliver the disaffiliative force of
their disagreeing responses. The situation, involving the promotion of the Ss inferior to
a higher position than his/hers, is considered quite sensitive and subtle. By and large,
the informants can be reported to act in nearly the same way in this situation in spite of
the difference found in column 4.
Sit. C4. Voting for
Mr. X
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Strongly
disagree
28
28.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
32
20
9
32.0%
20.0%
9.0%
Total
Be silent
11
11.0%
100
100.0%
21
29
10
25
15
100
21.0%
29.0%
10.0%
25.0%
15.0%
100.0%
Table 1-16: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. C4. Voting for Mr. X
The informants in C4 (table 1-16) show the same trend as in C1. They seem to act in
almost the same ways in columns 1, 2, and 5. Although more English Ss choose to
strongly disagree with their interlocutors (28 English Ss vs. 21 Vietnamese Ss), the total
number of those who tend to overtly deliver their disagreements (concerning columns 1
& 2) in the two languages is the same: 50 and 50. The high percentage of Vietnamese
implicit disagreements may be the result of the low percentage in column 3.
Sit. D1. Car Expert
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Strongly
disagree
2
2.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
12
40
27
12.0%
40.0%
27.0%
Total
Be silent
19
19.0%
100
100.0%
16
27
17
17
23
100
16.0%
27.0%
17.0%
17.0%
23.0%
100.0%
Table 1-17: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. D1. Car Expert
Table 1-17, presenting the output of Sit. D1. Car Expert, displays a striking difference
between the two groups: 42% of the Vietnamese informants are in favor of the direct
expression of disagreements (with 16% strongly disagree and 27% disagree), whereas
47
only 14% of the English informants prefer overt disagreeing responses (with 2%
strongly disagree and 12% disagree). Even though more English informants choose to
implicitly disagree rather than be silent (27% vs. 19%) and more Vietnamese
informants prefer silence over implicit disagreement (23% vs. 17%), the distinction in
the informants choice of Implicitly Disagree and Be Silent appears to be
inconsiderable.
Sit. D2. Favorite
Team's Failure
First Language
English - Count
English - %
Vietnamese - Count
Vietnamese - %
Strongly
disagree
24
24.0%
Ways of Disagreeing
Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
37
24
9
37.0%
24.0%
9.0%
Total
Be silent
6
6.0%
100
100.0%
31
35
11
17
100
31.0%
35.0%
6.0%
11.0%
17.0%
100.0%
Table 1-18: Assessment of Social Situations - Sit. D2. Favorite Team's Failure
To defend their favorite teams, the respondents in Sit. D2. Favorite Teams Failure act
in the same way. Half of each group chooses to forthrightly disclose their opposition to
the prior critical opinion: 24 English and 31 Vietnamese strongly disagree, 37 English
and 35 Vietnamese disagree with the prior Ss. In addition, they are similar in their ways
of expressing disagreements in columns 4 and 5 in spite of the Vietnamese higher
percentage, which can be explained by the greater number of Not Sure English Ss.
1.2.3.2. Comments
As aforementioned, the 12 sub-situations concerning several fields of socio-cultural life
are assessed and evaluated by the informants and 8 of them are selected for further
investigation to highlight the common and specific features in the ways to perform
disagreeing tokens.
The English and Vietnamese Ss under study exhibit similarities in the direct expression
of their opposite stances by either strongly disagreeing or disagreeing in 3 situations:
B2- Mr. Ys Promotion, C4 - Voting for Mr. X and D2- Favorite Teams Failure. On the
48
other hand, the English Ss show a high consistency in the avoidance of sounding too
direct by implicitly disagreeing or being silent in such situations as A1- Praise on Nicelooking Spouse, A2- Self-praise on New Hairstyle, and D1- Car Expert. On the
contrary, the Vietnamese Ss tend to overly manipulate their disagreements as regards
these situations. The converse tendency occurs in situations A3- Disparagement of New
Italian Shoe and A4- Miss X Is Getting Too Fat. While the Vietnamese abide by
implicitly disagreeing or being silent, the English demonstrate their forthright
disclosure of disagreements.
All in all, the informants provide quite a rich set of ways to voice their disagreeing
responses. They seem to act in a similar way in some social situations, but they are
observed to be greatly different in their demonstration of disagreements in other
situations. In some cases, the English respondents overtly state their negative
evaluations. In others, however, they avoid being too aggressive by either alluding to
their opposite stances or canceling performing the act with words altogether. To obtain
an overall view of how the respondents express their disagreements in all situations
chosen for the database, the empirical findings are represented in chart 1-7 and table 119 below.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Strongly
disagree
3
3.0%
Ways of Expressing Disagreeing

Implicitly
Disagree
Not sure
disagree
2
10
15
2.0%
10.0%
15.0%
Total
Be silent
70
70.0%
100
100.0%
11
19
14
32
24
100
11.0%
19.0%
14.0%
32.0%
24.0%
100.0%
Table 1-19: General Assessment of All Situations by Respondents

Chi-Square Tests
SUMSI
Pearson Chi-Square
N of Valid Cases
Value
47.660(a)
df
4
Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
.000
200
49
General Assessment of All Social Situations

80
60
40
First Language
Count
20
English
0
Vietnamese
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Not sure
Be silent
Implicitly disagree
SUMSI
Chart 1-7: General Assessment of All Situations
The sig. in the chi-square .000 indicates that the difference between the two groups of
informants is of paramount importance. Almost all of the English informants do not
deliver outright disagreements: 3 of them choose column #1 and 2 column #2.
Instead, 70% of them opt for silence and 15% abide by implicitly disagreeing. Quite
conversely, 24% of the Vietnamese Ss are silent and 32% of them would rather imply
their disagreements. The percentage of Vietnamese choosing Strongly disagree and
Disagree is 11% and 19% respectively, much higher than that of English.
1.2.4. Summary
The findings in this section have empirically proved the hypotheses of differences
between native Ss of English and Vietnamese in assessing socio-cultural parameters
and social situations and confirmed Brown & Levinsons hypothesis (1987[1978]) that
cultures may differ in the relative weight given to social factors in determining
behavioural variation.
While the English attach significant importance to Manner, Setting and Length of time
the Vietnamese highly value Age, Status and Length of time. The Vietnamese focus on
Age and Status might be a manifestation of the social ideology in the target culture
50
which appreciates ethics and hierarchy. Anglo-American culture which places greater
emphasis on freedom from intrusion may provide good grounds for its stress on
Manner and Setting. Length of time is of almost the same importance to the English and
Vietnamese respondents, which suggests the existence of some shared features in
human psychology.
The English are inclined to implicitly disagree when the Vietnamese may resort to
overt/less overt disagreements and vice versa. The differences in the Ss assessment of
social factors and situations may lead to the differences in their choice of strategies.
1.3. Concluding Remarks

In this chapter, disagreeing is examined on the basis of SA theories and CA. In most
cases, disagreement attributes are inclined to be hedged to minimize the seriousness of
the act, but in self-deprecations they tend to overtly be stated to intensify the positive
impact. The empirical findings have proved the hypotheses of the differences in the
native Ss assessing socio-cultural parameters and social situations. The reasons for all
these differences are supposed to lie in the differences in the two cultures and societies
with their own socio-cultural systems of norms, values and beliefs. Besides the main
concern of disagreeing in regards to politeness, its notions, research approaches and
linguistic realization, Chapter 2 takes as one of its objectives the evaluation of
politeness level of disagreement tokens performed by native Ss of English and
Vietnamese.
51
CHAPTER TWO
POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING
Linguistic politeness, or politeness for short, has become central to a great many of
searches for examining the right way to get successful in interaction. Pioneering works
on politeness by Lakoff (1973), Grice (1975), Searle (1975), Brown & Levinson
(1987[1978]), Back and Harnish (1979), Leech (1983) have given impetus for a number
of publications on the same issue such as Hill et al. (1986), Blum-Kulka (1987, 1989,
1990, 1992), House (1981, 1989), Wierzbicka (1985), Ide (1982, 1987, 1989, 2001),
Lee-Wong (2000) among others. Researchers are interested in the interpretation of
politeness, its linguistic realization in different cultural frameworks, and the
universality of the politeness theory.
Personal strategies or volition is observed to be preferable in the West (Leech 1983,
Brown & Levinson 1987[1978], Yule 1996 among others), where individualism is the
main concern, whereas discernment seems to be emphasized in those cultures where
group or community solidarity is central (Doi 1973, Wierzbicka 1985, Matsumoto
1988, Gu 1990, Ide ibid., Blum-Kulka 1987, 1992). However, it is not necessary for
one and the same kind of politeness to be utilized in every language or culture. The
emphasis on discernment or/and volition differs across languages and cultures, and
across speech acts in a given culture. When studying verbal politeness some researchers
tend to focus just on one of its compositional elements (cf. Brown & Levinson
1987[1978], Leech 1983, Yule 1996, Doi 1973, Masumoto 1988, Gu 1990, Blum-Kulka
1992 among others), and very often, they are criticized by their abiding by the onesided picture of politeness (Held 1992, Nguyen D. H. 1995, Vu T. T. H. 1997, Lee-
52
Wong 2000). The co-existence of two different approaches to linguistic politeness

seems to be quite problematic as there might be difficulty choosing the right approach.
Socio-cultural norms, which may affect individuals on the one hand, might be
considered the outcomes of frequent usage by individuals on the other. In other words,
collective norms of a community are both resources and consequences of individual
choice and usage, and politeness comprises both common rules of social behaviors and
strategies of individual manners. It is on the basis of this assumption that a synthetic
approach to politeness is proposed, taking as its components discernment and volition
(Hill et al. 1986, Kasper 1990, Held 1992). The eclectic approach, according to Hill et
al. (Ibid.), is essential in dealing with politeness as the phenomenon of politeness
predominantly manifests itself in discernment and/or volition. Kasper (Ibid.)
emphasizes the study of politeness in its unity of discernment and volition, and points
out the non-correlative relationship between them. However, this synthetic perspective,
which seems to offer a panorama of politeness, still needs to be empirically investigated
and examined across languages and cultures.
2.1.1. Notion of Politeness

Being polite is defined as 'having, showing the possession of good manners and
consideration for other people' (Hornby 1988: 646). Ide (1988) assumes that linguistic
politeness encompasses the use of appropriate language and successful communication:
We speak language not only to transmit information, but also to establish the appropriate
interactional relationship. In speaking, we think of the content of what is to be
conveyed, and at the same time of the linguistic expressions that will make the utterance
appropriate to the given situational context. Appropriate speech establishes smooth
communication. The language use associated with smooth communication is what is
referred to as linguistic politeness.
Cited from Ide (1988: 371)
The appropriateness of smooth communication should be interpreted on the basis of

socio-cultural beliefs and values that differ across cultures. Sometimes, what is
53
considered polite in one language and culture is not comprehended as such in other
languages and cultures. Let us have a look at the two requests (Mum to son):
(1)
Could you turn the radio down?
(2)
Turn the radio down.
The former is often believed polite in the Anglo-American context as it provides an

option, and the latter is impolite as it creates imposition. However, the latter is
considered polite in Vietnamese culture as the former in its literal interpretation Con
c vn ci i nh li khng? implies criticism or even threat (Vu T. T. H.
2000: 202).
Lakoff (1990: 34) understands politeness as a set of interpersonal relations employed to
facilitate human interaction via the process of reducing and smoothing the potential
conflict and confrontation. Also, politeness can be considered one of the constraints on
behavior helping humans in their gaining effective social living (Watts et al. 1992: 2).
By effective social living is meant anticipation of others actions, consideration of costs
and gains, and predication of final results of ones own behavior (Goody 1978: 1). On
the basis of the cultural viewpoint which suggests that politeness is culturally and
linguistically specific, Yule (1996: 60) states,
It is possible to treat politeness as a fixed concept, as in the idea of 'polite social
behavior', or etiquette, within a culture.
Vu T. T. H. (1997, 2000) assumes that the notion 'lch s' in Vietnamese culture
contains four aspects 'l php', 'ng mc', 'kho lo' and 't nh',
which are interwoven. While 'l php' (respectfulness) and 'ng mc'
(propriety) are understood as social norms that should be followed to show respect to
interlocutors hierarchy, status, age etc., 'kho lo' (tact) and 't nh' (delicacy)
can be interpreted as individual strategies chosen to please co-participants in order to
gain the highest effects in communication.
54
In the Vietnamese language 'lch s' appears to be the closest equivalence to English
word 'politeness'. It is defined in A Vietnamese Dictionary as: '...having elegant manners
and observing properness in conformity with social rules and expectations in
interactions' (Hoang P. et al. 1988. Translated by Nguyen D. H. 1995).
The issues of politeness are so crucial and thrilling that much effort has been made by
philosophers, linguists, socio-linguists, and anthropologists to establish universal
research framework for investigating the key problems in politeness. The main
approaches are now briefly discussed.
2.1.2. Volitional Approach

Understood as the aspect of politeness which allows the speaker a considerably more
active choice, according to the speakers intention (Hill et al. 1986: 348), well-known
as the strategic or instrumental view (Kasper 1990), indirectness perspective (Held
1992), second-order approach (Watts et al. 1992) and the modern view (Werkhofer
1992),
this
approach
encompasses
two
different
sub-perspectives,
namely,
conversational-maxim view with the works by Lakoff (1973) and Leech (1983), and the
face-saving view postulated by Brown & Levinson (1987[1978]). Apart from some
methodological
differences,
the
two
sub-perspectives
are
similar
in
their
comprehension of politeness phenomena as individual strategies to avoid or minimize

frictions or conflicts between interlocutors. Fundamental to both perspectives are
Gricean co-operative principle and implicature (1975) and Goffmans notion of face.
2.1.2.1. Grices principle

Gricean Cooperative Principle (CP) is considered the basis of this approach to
politeness. The CP (Grice 1975: 45) runs as follows:
Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it
occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of talk exchange in which you are engaged.
55
Grice's 1975 article 'Logic and Conversation' is deserved to be credited the starting
point in almost all of the works concerning the questions of politeness. The fact that
Gricean paper had been circulating among many linguists and philosophers in its
manuscript form long before it was finally published suggests that his ideas had certain
effects on the works by Lakoff (1973, 1977, 1989), Leech (1983), Brown & Levinson
(1987[1978]) and others. Grice associates with the CP a set of maxims and sub-maxims
that are named as Quantity, Quality, Relation and Manner. The CP is claimed to govern
most human conversational interactions and rational participants abide by the maxims
in so far as they are able in the process of the efficient conveying of messages.
When Ss observe all the maxims, saying precisely what they want, obviously, there is
no difficulty in getting the intended meaning of the utterance. But there are many
occasions when people fail to observe the maxims. Conversation normally works on the
assumption that Ss, being co-operative, adheres to the maxims as far as they can and do
not break the maxims by lying, sarcasm, etc. Therefore, any violation of the maxims
can be a signal for the H to seek a suitable interpretation of the utterance by a sequence
of inferences.
(3)
A. Is Jane good at French?

B. She sings beautifully.
In B's reply, the Maxim of Relation is intentionally flouted. B expresses his/her

assessment indirectly and politely by providing irrelevant information, so the second S
can convey more than what is said. The mechanism used to convey more than it is
literally said is known as conversational implicature or just implicature. It is worth
noting that in general, the implicated information cannot effectively be transmitted if
the S and the H do not share the same background knowledge.
56
2.1.2.2. Lakoffs rules and Leechs maxims

Based on Grice's construct of Conversational Principles, Lakoff (1973) suggests three
rules of Pragmatic Competence and Sub-maxims or sub-rules, each of which is oriented
to make the H 'feel good'. The maxims are adapted as follows: (1) Don't Impose (Used
when Formal/Impersonal Politeness is required), (2) Give Options (Used when
Informal Politeness is required) (3) Make A Feel Good (Used when Intimate Politeness
is required). Not imposing (1) means avoiding reference to personal problems, habits,
taboo topics and the like. Offering options (2) means expressing oneself in such a way
that one's opinion or request can be ignored without being rejected. It is suggested that
these three rules can be combined to one with the overall function of 'Making A Feel
Good'.
In addition, the rules seem to be central to Western notions of politeness, which
emphasizes non-imposition and freedom of actions. Thus, they are difficult to be
considered universal rules of politeness. In non-Western cultures, including the
Vietnamese culture, where community and group solidarity is highly appreciated,
impersonalization is not always perceived as a polite strategy.
Adopting the framework initially set out by Grice, Leech (1980 [1977] and 1983) opts
to treat politeness within the domain of a rhetorical pragmatics and his account of goaldirected linguistic behaviors. He considers politeness a crucial factor in explaining 'why
people are so often indirect in conveying what they mean' and (1983: 80) 'a rescue for
the CP'. He raises two concepts: ambivalence and pragmatic principles. By making an
utterance ambivalent one can remain polite when performing some inherently impolite
speech acts. Leech's Politeness Principle (PP) (1983) runs as follows:
Minimize (all things being equal) the expression of impolite beliefs; Maximize (all
things being equal) the expression of polite beliefs.
Cited in Fraser (1990: 225)
57
PP, according to Leech, 'rescues' Grice's CP by explaining why Ss do not always

observe the Gricean maxims (however, as mentioned above, Grice himself also
discusses the violation of his maxims). In addition, Leech introduces a number of
maxims that explain the relationship between sense and force in conversations. Leech
claims that his model could be applied universally across cultures, and in the English
speaking context, the Tact Maxim seems to be the most important.
Although Leech's maxims allow us to make specific cross-cultural comparisons and to
explain cross-cultural differences in understanding politeness and the use of politeness
strategies, they fail to account for contextual factors like roles of participants, their
gender and the setting of talk. In addition, the model seems to best be applied to AngloAmerican cultures where social distance is valued.
2.1.2.3. Brown & Levinsons model

The face-management view on politeness, put forth by Brown & Levinson (1978 and
revised in 1987), is recognized as the most articulated and the most influential and
successful theory of politeness. They propose a Model Person capable of speaking a
language fluently and endowed with both rationality and face understood as a feeling
of self-worth or self-image that can be damaged, maintained, enhanced or even lost in
conversation. Face is compounded of positive aspect concerning the desire to be
appreciated and approved of, and negative aspect concerning the freedom from
imposition and of action. These two facets of face are regarded as two wants. By
rationality is meant the ability to select linguistic strategies to satisfy communicative
and face-oriented ends.
Generally, in English-speaking contexts, people expect their public self-image, or their
face wants to be respected in interactions. If Ss say something that potentially threats
another's self-image, they are said to perform a face threatening act (FTA). An act of
58
uttering something to lessen the potential threat is called a face saving act (FSA).
Brown & Levinson work on how to reduce FTAs, and suggest a set of strategies said to
be exploited in conversation by Ss in regards to the degree they want to preserve their
interlocutors face, and in some cases, their own face.
It is the notion of face, commonly thought to be originated in the Chinese and
American Indian concepts of face, developed by Brown & Levinson on the basis of
Goffmans 1967 elaboration and reference to Durkheims 1915 work that generates a
great number of debates among politeness researchers as to its Western individualistic
and ethnocentric assumptions. It is argued that the dualistic notion of face with negative
and positive politeness does not find correspondence in Goffmans or Durkheims
work. According to Bargiela-Chiappini (2003), their concept of face and the rational
person radically departs from Goffmans understanding of interaction in which not the
individual and his psychology, but rather the syntactical relations among the acts of
different persons mutually present to one another (Ibid. 1967: 2). In addition, in spite
of Brown & Levinsons statement of their borrowing the distinction between negative
and positive politeness from Durkheims distinction between negative and positive
rites (Brown & Levinson 1987: 43), there seems to be no such similarity between
them. Durkheims negative cult is one means in view of an end: it is a condition of
access to the positive cult (Ibid, 1915: 309), and further on, he submits that normally,
the negative cult serves only as an introduction and preparation for the positive one
(Ibid. 311). However, Brown & Levinsons negative politeness and positive politeness
are mutually exclusive, and their ideal rational Model Person is mostly concerned with
the protectiveness of his personal territory from face-threatening interpersonal contact.
The individualistic comprehension of face and the model of a predominantly rational
actor with face-threatening intentions engender further resistance in research in many
59
non-Anglosaxon cultures (Matsumoto 1988, Ide 1989, Mao 1994, de Kadt 1998,
Rathmayr 1999, Hernndez-Flores 1999, to name just a few), leading to the need to
seek for a version of politeness that accommodates both strategic and socially
prescribed norms of behavior.
2.1.3. Normative Approach

Considering politeness a manifestation of etiquette and the socially defined norms, this
approach is called the social norm view (Fraser 1990), the first order approach (Watts
et al. 1992) and the traditional view (Werkhofer 1992). The basis of this approach is the
assumption that every culture, every community possesses a system of social
conventions and norms of appropriate behavior that require its members to strictly
follow. Despite being capable of describing socially ritualized behavior like greetings,
thankings etc., this approach with its sets of prescriptive rules fail to deal with the
dynamic, highly contextualized nature of polite behavior. Its limitation of explanatory
power as regards interpersonal verbal behavior is due to its being culture/group
specific. In contrast to the indifference on the part of Western researchers, there has
been an increasing interest in the social-norm/normative approach among politeness
researchers in non-Anglophone languages. Their attitudes and arguments are viewed in
the following section.
2.1.3.1. Chinese research

The closest Chinese equivalent of English politeness, in Lee-Wongs 2000 view is
limao, which comprises li (ceremony, courtesy or etiquette) and mao (appearance) and
constitutes part of normative politeness expected of individual in social interactions.
Brown & Levinsons politeness reduced to pure redressive strategies does not seem to
fit into Chinese concern about ethics and morals. Hsien (1944) suggests lien and mien
be equivalents to face and points out,
60
[T]he latter by far the older, being found in ancient literature. Mien had acquired a
figurative meaning referring to the relation between ego and society as early as the
fourth century B. C. Lien is a more modern term, the earliest reference cited in the
Kang-shi Dictionary dating from the Yuan Dynasty (1277-1367).
Cited from Hsien (1944: 45)
Li, the notion of which was formulated by Confucius (511 B. C. - 479 B. C.), is used in
at least nineteen compound nouns involving the concept of politeness as part of
extensive and elaborate rituals in ancient China (Lee-Wong ibid.). The rich lexicon of li
in Chinese displays the crucial role of rituals in Chinese culture and society of the old
days. Limao (manners, courtesy and politeness) should be construed in a cultural milieu
where rituals were both socially and ethically motivated and encoded in fossilized
linguistic expressions of gestures to be used in visits, funerals or weddings.
Focusing on the extended-family structure of the old China, Shih (1975: 31) points out,
China was traditionally a family-based society the principle holding the family
peacefully together was also the principle behind the social order. In his view, Chinese
society today is still distinctly hierarchical and vertically structured, and this basic
principle is deeply embedded in the mind and social life of the Chinese despite the
changes in their social structure. According to Lee-Wong (2000: 24), the Chinese
modern day dictionary provides mianzi (face, reputation, and prestige) as the closest in
meaning to Hsiens mien. The rich vocabulary of the notional construct of mianzi such
as ai mianzi (love face), you mianzi (to have face), gei mianzi (give face) etc. in
Chinese reflects an overt concern with face maintenance. As social members, Ss should
avoid face loss and try to maintain face if they love their face, and it is necessary that
they look after others face while looking after their own. All in all, Chinese limao is
apprehended as socially determined etiquette of behavior expected of social members
who share the same conventions of politeness in the speech community.
61
Gu (1990: 242) considers Chinese politeness a phenomenon which belongs to the level
of society, which endorses its normative constraints on each individual and is mainly
deployed to enhance social harmony, and to defuse interpersonal tensions and
conflicts.
Searches by other Chinese scholars (Ho 1994, Chang 1999, Ji 2000) come to the same
conclusion of a more public and more positive concept of face firmly embodied in
interpersonal relations and applicable to such cultures belonging to the so-called
Confucian Civilization as Japanese and Vietnamese.
2.1.3.2. Japanese research

Brown & Levinsons politeness model has met with a quite a few objections raised by
such Japanese researchers as Nakane (1972), Doi (1973), Matsumoto (1988), Ide
(1989), Nwoye (1992), Agha (1994), Bargiela-Chiappini (2003) in the last few decades.
Although the notion of Model Person who desires to protect his own territory from the
outside invasion has long been appreciated in Anglo-American culture, it has been
regarded with suspicion in relation to Japanese culture and society. It is the individuals
position in relation to the others in the group and his/her acceptance by other social
members that is of paramount concern in Japan. Matsumoto (1988: 405) assumes:
A Japanese must acknowledge his/her dependence on the others. Acknowledgement
and maintenance of the relative position of others, rather than preservation of an
individuals proper territory, governs all social interaction.
Nakane (1970) believes that Japanese people are hierarchically related and mainly
concerned about how to become and remain accepted in the group or community. Thus,
Japanese wishes to maintain face as a dynamic governing politeness do not appear to be
consistent with Brown & Levinsons claim of the universality of face. Ide (1989: 241)
says,
In a Western culture where individualism is assumed to be the basis of all interactions,
it is easy to regard face as the key to interaction. On the other hand, in a society where
62
group membership is regarded as the basis for interactions, the role or status defined in
a particular situation rather than face is the basis of interaction.
Discernment, the English translation from Japanese Wakimae (meaning practice of

polite behavior in accord with social norms), requires strict observance of the sociocultural norms prescribed for each speech event. Ss are said to passively adhere to
discernment when making a choice of certain address forms, formulaic expressions,
etiquettes, honorifics or speech levels to produce a polite behavior. And nowhere else is
it more important to know how to use honorifics than it is in Japanese, where honorifics
act as relation-acknowledging devices (Matsumoto 1988: 414) to recognize ones
relative position in the context and maintain the social ranking order. By and large, the
overemphasis on rational use of strategies fails to account for the deployment of
linguistic devices like honorifics, address terms, conventionalized formulas etc. in
politeness realization in non-Anglophone languages and cultures (Ide 1989).
2.1.3.3. Other non-Anglophone research

Since the appearance of Matsumotos article in 1988 and Ides paper in 1989, there
have been a number of searches into non-Anglophone languages to re-examine the
cultural variability of Brown & Levinsons definition of polite behavior. Apart from
those mentioned above some extant papers seem to exhibit a discrepancy between
Brown & Levinsons assumption and their local socio-cultural conventions.
The Korean che-myon (face), the image of the sociological self given to individuals by
society, is quite different from that posited by Brown & Levinson (Lim & Choi 1996).
Korean speakers hold che-myon important and attach a high value to social
relationships and spend much time and energy on establishing and maintaining them.
Bharuthram (2003: 1523-44) finds out that while politeness is also fundamental to
human relationships within the Hindu sector of the South African Indian English
speaking community, it places more emphasis on the face pertaining to the collective
63
image of the group. Consequently, as a group member, the S has to follow the norms of
behavior defined by the group/community. The concept of politeness in the target
culture, which is claimed to be more appropriately portrayed from the normative
perspective, seems to deviate from Brown & Levinsons model, which focuses upon the
individual self-image.
In formal interactions, native Ss of Russian take into account their interlocutors status
for it is considered a basic societal norm existing alongside the Russian politeness or
authentically Russian politeness coming from the heart (Rathmayr 1999: 76, BargielaChiappinis translation from French original 2003: 1462).
Although face is observed to operate in Spanish casual interactions, its contents are
not the same as those polarized by Brown & Levinson. Such notions as selfaffirmation (similar to positive face) and confianza - sense of deep familiarity
(similar to negative face), which refer to the acceptance of the individual inside the
group, are actually independent elements in Spanish socio-communicative talks
(Hernndez-Flores 1999: 41).
A close look at volitional and normative approaches reveals that each focuses on a
different aspect of one and the same notion commonly termed as politeness. Politeness
with its two structuring components volition and discernment calls for a synthetic
approach which integrates personal choices and conventional practices into an
adequately theoretical framework capable of highlighting the study of politeness
considered both a socially prescriptive and personally motivated phenomenon.
2.1.4. Normative-Volitional Approach
2.1.4.1. Literature by Vietnamese researchers

One cannot fully comprehend politeness in modern Vietnam without reaching back to
its past, when the whole societal structure was regarded to be strongly influenced by
64
Confucianism, the dissemination of which from China to Vietnam dated back more than
2,000 years ago. Fundamental to Confucianism is L (rituals), which required people
to behave in accordance with their places in the social hierarchy, as Quang Dam (1994:
149) states:
L requires people to follow exactly all the rituals and principles advocated by
Confucianism . If one does not do so, one does not have l. If one does not have l,
one has no right to look, to hear, to talk or do things. Speaking, greeting, eating, etc. all
need to be done in accordance with rites.
Cited in Vu T. T. H. (1997: 47-48)
The combination of Confucianism with its L, Buddhism, and Taoism are

believed to have constituted the basis of Vietnamese politeness (Nguyen D. H. 1995,
Nguyen V. D. 1996). Apart from Confucianism, Vu T. T. H. (1997) mentions
community-based solidarity as a typical characteristic of the target culture. The sharing
of community-oriented solidarity by Vietnamese Ss may be the basis of the speech
responsibility for taking notice of interlocutors face/welfare so as to please them, as
reflected in the saying, La li m ni cho va lng nhau (Choose the right
way to talk so as to please each other).
The contemporary socio-cultural life of the Vietnamese has still been affected by
Confucian ideology despite the big changes resulted from the contact with French
culture (1858-1954), the active spread of communist egalitarian ideas in human
relationships, and the strong impact of modern technology and communication (Luong
1988, Nguyen D. H. 1995, among others).
Hanoi Ss of Vietnamese, who are the informants of the interviews and elicited
questionnaires used in the research into politeness by Vu T. T. H. (1997), are inclined to
attach notions of politeness with socially institutionalized rules of behavior (according
to its cultural and moral values) on the one hand, and underline the manipulative
strategies in regards to communicative goals on the other. These two aspects of
65
politeness
in
Vietnamese
culture,
namely,
normative/social
politeness
and
strategic/personal politeness, are inextricably interwoven and linguistically realized by

means of address terms, particles and indirectness under the influence of the S-Hs
status and solidarity relationships and such
social attributes as age, gender and
occupation.
The face in Vietnamese culture, according to Vu T. T. H. (Ibid.), thought as an
integration of the personal side consisting of the internal self and the social side
covering the relationships between self and alters, suggests a deviation of the
universality of Brown & Levinsons notion of face (interpreted as a self-image of the
personal self), and proposes an investigation of cultural variations in the notion of face
and its underlying socio-cultural values on the basis of non-Western languages and
cultures. Nguyen D. H. (1995), who is in favor of using volition-discernment as the
analytic framework for his examining politeness markers in Vietnamese, also argues the
concept of negative face in Brown & Levinsons model and emphasizes the social
aspect of face, and hence politeness, in Japanese and Chinese cultures, which he thinks
identical to that in Vietnamese culture.
The empirical results in section 1.2.2.1 of the present study show that social attributes
like age and status are of paramount concern in the Vietnamese socio-cultural
environment, and Vietnam belongs to the so-called hierarchy-based societies in which
interpersonal relationships are hierarchically stratified. However, the vertical
relationships in Asian cultures in general and Vietnamese culture in particular, seem to
be distinctive and specific in the sense that they are collectively oriented, reciprocal and
interdependent. Younger or lower-status people are supposed to show respect to older
or higher-status people in conformity to the maxim knh trn (respect super-
66
ordinates), and meanwhile, the superiors should take good care of the inferiors, which
is relevant to the maxim nhng di (yield to subordinates).
Vietnamese politeness theorists, deploying the synthetic approach, arrive at the same
assumption that the notion of face connoting negative and positive face-wants seems to
have no counterpart in the Vietnamese socio-cultural milieu, which orients itself to
hierarchy, solidarity and interdependence in upward-downward relationships, and that
both personally strategic politeness and socially conventional politeness do exist in this
culture. The co-existence and interplay between these two kinds of politeness are
distinctive and complex, and so is the degree to which each operates. Normative
politeness or discernment, which is reflected in Ss passive adherence to the social
norms and practices, is mainly manifested in the exploitation of address terms,
particles, formulaic expressions, etc. As discussed earlier, volition or volitional
politeness, which tends to conceptualize politeness as individual strategies to avoid
social conflicts or/and achieve communicative goals, is subjected to personal choices.
And although group/community norms are socially institutionalized, they are optional
and open to Ss strategic manipulations. It is Ss that decide to abide by certain
conventions to be polite or impolite.
In addition, social norms of behavior may be the ultimate consequences of long-term
repetition of strategic choices. For instance, quite a few honorific expressions whose
deployment is said to implicitly comply with conventions/discernment might be
originally strategic manipulations (Brown & Levinson 1987: 23). Therefore, it is
logically deduced that politeness is both normative and volitional. Stated otherwise,
discernment and volition are the two sides of one unity, i.e. politeness, and one cannot
be thoroughly analyzed or fully understood without taking the other into careful
consideration. Along this line and for this very reason, came into being the synthetic
67
approach to politeness which takes as its analytical framework volitional and normative
approaches.
2.1.4.2. Literature by other researchers

Having realized the strength as well as the limitation of each approach to politeness, a
number of researchers show a tendency to regard politeness as having two structuring
elements volition and discernment. Hill et al. (1986: 349) overtly states the desire to
have a system for polite use of a particular language that will exhibit two major
aspects: the necessity for speaker Discernment and the opportunity for speaker
Volition. Kasper (1990) emphasizes the need of investigating politeness in its unity of
individual strategies and social norms, the interrelationships of which are culturally and
situationally specific.
Werkhofer (1992) compares politeness with money, and although politeness socially
and personally characterized, the social restrictions on it are much stronger than
personal intents. Focusing on the finding of a more efficient analytic model for the
study of linguistic politeness, Ide (1993) underlines the task of describing and
analyzing linguistic politeness in Western and non-Western languages and cultures on
the basis of integrating the strategic view and the social-norm view.
In an attempt to combine individual choices with social constraints on behavior,
Frasers 1990 Perspective on Politeness treats politeness as appropriate language use
and links it to the terms and conditions of conversational contract, as posited below:
Being polite does not involve making the hearer feel good, la Lakoff or Leech, nor
with making the hearer not feel bad, la Brown & Levinson. It simply involves getting
on with the task at hand in light of the terms and conditions of the conversational
contract.
Cited from Fraser (1990: 233)
To shed light on the notion of politeness in Chinese culture and society, Lee-Wong
underlines the significant difference between the Western concept of the individual as a
68
social unit and the Chinese focus on society as a social unit, which has long been
proved in cross-cultural studies (Nakane 1970, Doi 1973, Matsumoto 1988 among
others). Her research, which is conducted within the framework of normative-volitional
approach and on the basis of data from questionnaires, interviews and naturallyoccurring interaction, confronts the Western concepts of politeness with great emphasis
on non-imposition with the Chinese concept with intense focus on ethics.
2.1.5 Summary
This section looks at different views on and research into politeness by Western and
non-Western scholars. Theoretical concepts or rules of politeness put forth by Grice,
Lakoff, Leech, as well as Brown & Levinson seem incomplete and universally
inapplicable because they do not sufficiently accounts for discourse behaviors in
cultures other than Anglo-American where group or community solidarity, not
individualism, is of prime importance. Politeness can only be properly interpreted and
explored on the basis of the larger socio-cultural structure, the matrix of
institutionalized norms of behavior within the framework of normative-volitional
approach. Politeness involves socio-cultural norms can be observed in linguistic forms
and analyzed on the basis of linguistic data, as these norms affect language and leave
behind traces visible in the lexicon and grammar systems.
To achieve their goals, Ss show deference and respect to others through behavioral
conventions and petrified formulae that reflect value judgments and beliefs of a given
culture and society. However, Ss do not passively adhere to native socio-cultural
contexts. As creative representatives of a language community they are prone to deploy
contextually defined strategies to ease the process of interpersonal communication.
Collective norms/discernment, and individual strategic manipulations/volition are
found to exist, to different extents, in almost all languages and cultures (Hill et al. 1986,
69
Ide 1987, 1989, among others). The degree to which discernment or volition is focused
on varies greatly from culture to culture and from language to language.
In the following section, politeness is empirically examined by means of elicited data in
disagreeing by English and Vietnamese speakers processed on SPSS.

2.2.1. Aims and Methodology
2.2.1.1. Aims
This empirical study tends to yield findings to testify:
1. If there are any differences in the assessment of politeness level of disagreement
responses by native speakers of English in North America and Vietnamese
speakers in Hanoi.
2. If these differences are manifestations of the differences underlying the systems
of socio-cultural norms, values and beliefs which determine local perceptions of
politeness.

Written mini-questionnaires # 4 filled by 200 native speakers of English and
Vietnamese contain 12 evaluative expressions of disagreeing (given in detail in
Appendix 2, numbered from 4.1 to 4.12) carefully chosen from the corresponding
literature and 20 pre-questionnaires conducted before the official SDCTs. The
respondents are asked to mark politeness level of each utterance on the continuum
ranging from polite, neutral to impolite. A total number of 2,400 disagreeing tokens
(1,200 in English and 1,200 in Vietnamese) are rated and they construct the database
for this empirical study. The outputs are examined and those which are statistically
significant (i.e. the significance, or the sig. for short, offered in the chi-square is below
0.05) are selected for further investigation.
70
2.2.2. Politeness Level Rated by Respondents

The output of the disagreeing response to Grandma Shes all right, I suppose (Chu
thy c y bnh thng) depicted in chart 2-1 and table 2-1 exhibits a striking
difference between the two groups of speakers. While 58 English respondents
(accounting for 58%) consider it polite and 38 of them (making up 38%) rate it neutral,
22 Vietnamese respondents mark it polite and 78 of them regard it neutral. This
contrary trend could result from the absence of deference particle conventionally
used in Vietnamese upward interaction to show inferiors respect to superiors. However,
there seems to be no substantial difference in the respondents rating impoliteness of the
utterance.
4.1.
Level of Politeness
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Polite
58
58.0%
Neutral
38
38.0%
Total
Impolite
4
4.0%
100
100.0%
22
76
100
22.0%
76.0%
2.0%
100.0%
Table 2-20: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.1. 'She's all right, I suppose.'
Assessment of Politeness Level

4.1. To Grandma, "She's all right, I suppose."
80
60
40
First Language
Count
20
English
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-1: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.1. 'She's all right, I suppose.'
71

4.3. "Fashions change, you know."
(To Colleague, same age & gender)

60
50
40
30
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-2: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.3. 'Fashions change, you know.'
4.3.
Level of Politeness
Total
First Language
Polite
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
27
27.0%
Neutral
52
52.0%
Impolite
21
21.0%
100
100.0%
57
40
100
3.0%
57.0%
40.0%
100.0%
Table 2-21: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.3. 'Fashions change, you know.'
The negative evaluation Fashions change, you know (Mt i ri.) (to a colleague,
same age and gender) yields a big contrast in columns #1 (polite) and column #3
(impolite) between the Ss of the two languages under investigation. 27% of the English
Ss assume it to be polite compared to 3% of their Vietnamese counterparts, and 21% of
the first group see it as impolite opposed to 40% of the second. The low percentage in
politeness and the high percentage in impoliteness rated by the Vietnamese can be the
result of zero-address form usage. Address terms are normatively deployed to express
solidarity and deference in the corresponding culture. Without it, the Vietnamese
version may insinuate some sarcasm or/and threat. The proportion of neutralization
reveals a marginal difference that is worth taking no notice of.
4.4
Level of Politeness
Total
72
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Polite
72
72.0%
Neutral
18
18.0%
Impolite
10
10.0%
100
100.0%
45
50
100
45.0%
50.0%
5.0%
100.0%
Table 2-22: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.4. Were very much in agreement, but .'
The native speakers of English substantially differ from their Vietnamese counterparts
in evaluating 4.4. Were very much in agreement, but. (Vng, nhng.), a
negative assessment to older boss. The majority of the English Ss (70%) take it polite
and some of them (18) get it neutral, whereas 45% and 50% of the Vietnamese find it
polite and neutral. This suggests that the former attach greater importance to
indirectness in expressing such FTAs as disagreeing, while the latter do not seem to
share the same assumption. In spite of the particle/deference marker Vng and the
sentence incompleteness, the version in Vietnamese is not judged as polite as the
English version. This is possibly due to the weightiness of two factors age and status,
assessed in section 1.2.2.1 as the most influential socio-cultural parameters governing
interpersonal communication in Vietnamese society.
4.4. "We're very much in agreement, but...."
(To Older Boss)
80
60
40
Count
First Language
20
English
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-3: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.4. 'We're very much in agreement, but ....'
73

4.5. To Father, "Not me, I totally disagree."
70
60
50
40
Cou
nt
30
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-4: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.5. 'Not me, I totally disagree.'
The impact of age and status on the Vietnamese addresser can also be seen in
disagreeing attribute 4.5. Not me, I totally agree (Khng, con hon ton phn
i), where the addressee is Father. In such less hierarchical societies as the northern
European and the North American these factors might be considered as far less
marked in verbal and non-verbal interaction (Bargiela-Chiappini, 2003: 1463). As a
result, the percentage observed in the English column Polite is much higher than that in
the Vietnamese: 34% vs. 11%.
4.5
Level of Politeness
First Language
English Count
English %
Polite
34
34.0%
Neutral
53
53.0%
Impolite
13
13.0%
100
100.0%
11
66
23
100
11.0%
66.0%
23.0%
100.0%
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Total
Table 2-23: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.5. 'Not me, I totally disagree. '
4.6
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Level of Politeness
Polite
43
43.0%
Neutral
40
40.0%
Total
Impolite
17
17.0%
100
100.0%
27
60
13
100
27.0%
60.0%
13.0%
100.0%
Table 2-24: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.6. 'That's pretty good.'
74

4.6. "That's pretty good."
(To someone you dislike)
70
60
50
40
30
First Language
Cou
nt
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-5: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.6. 'That's pretty good.'
Chart 2-5 and table 2-5 unravel a sensitive nuance of socio-communicative interaction
by Ss of English and Vietnamese. The disagreement to the person the S hates, Thats
pretty good (Ci kh hay y), which may sound diplomatically pleasing, is
marked considerably different: 43 and 40 English informants find it polite and neutral
in comparison to 27 and 60 Vietnamese. The slight difference between the two groups
of informants in column # 3 is statistically negligible.
4.7. "That may be so, but...."
(To Older acquaintance)
70
60
50
40
30
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-6: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.7. 'That may be so, but....'
The careful consideration of the negatively evaluative token to an older acquaintance,

That may be so, but. (Cng c th nh th y , nhng.) demonstrates a
75
distinctive feature in Vietnamese assumption of linguistic politeness. Whilst the

difference in English and Vietnamese rating columns Polite & Neutral is noteworthy
with 66% and 33% in English vs. 40% and 48% in Vietnamese, the proportion
presented in Impolite draws the most attention. The striking imbalance of percentage
(English 1% vs. Vietnamese 12%) again implies the inconsistent correlation between
indirectness and politeness in non-Anglophone cultures where community-based
solidarity is the central locus of concern.
4.7
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Level of Politeness
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
66
33
1
66.0%
33.0%
1.0%
Total
100
100.0%
40
48
12
100
40.0%
48.0%
12.0%
100.0%
Table 2-25: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.7. 'That may be so, but....'
The non-correlation between politeness and indirectness is clear looking at the results
in chart 2-7 and table 2-7, where status affects the Ss saying Really? (Tht th
sao?) to his/her younger boss. Obviously, indirectness in Vietnamese is not always
rated polite.
4.8. To Younger Boss, "Really?"
60
50
40
30
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-7: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.8. 'Really?'
While the informants appear to be similar in their marking column #3, estimating the
disagreeing evaluation No, grandpa, no, no, youre wrong (Khng, ng i,
76
khng, khng, ng nhm ri .) (41% in English and 36% in Vietnamese), they

keep exhibiting their different attitudes toward what is assumed polite in their local
socio-cultural milieus. More English Ss consider the utterance polite (36 vs. 17),
whereas more Vietnamese Ss find it neutral (47 vs. 23). The use of deference maker
and the kin-term ng does not seem to completely save the Ss face when proffering
such a negative token to grandfather. Here, again, can be clearly observed the various
influences of age and status on understanding and realizing politeness across cultures
and societies.
4.8
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Polite
Level of Politeness
Neutral
Impolite
47
43
10
47.0%
43.0%
10.0%
Total
100
100.0%
16
53
31
100
16.0%
53.0%
31.0%
100.0%
Table 2-26: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.8. Really?

4.9. "No, Grandpa, no, no, you're wrong."
(To Grandfather)
50
40
30
Count
First Language
20
English
10
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-8: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.9. 'No, grandpa, no, no, you're wrong.'
4.9
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Level of Politeness
Polite
Total
36
36.0%
Neutral
23
23.0%
Impolite
41
41.0%
100
100.0%
17
47
36
100
17.0%
47.0%
36.0%
100.0%
Table 2-27: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.9. 'No, grandpa, no, no, you're wrong.'
77

4.10. "Boring people get bored."
(To Close Friend)
70
60
50
40
30
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Sit. 4.3. Boring Party
Chart 2-9: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.10. 'Boring people get bored.
4.10.
First Language
English Count
English %
Level of Politeness
Polite
14
14.0%
Neutral
31
31.0%
Impolite
55
55.0%
100
100.0%
17
65
18
100
17.0%
65.0%
18.0%
100.0%
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Total
Table 2-28: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.10. 'Boring people get bored.'
The difference in the findings demonstrated in chart 2-9 and table 2-9 might be the
consequence of non-equivalence of the English and Vietnamese versions (cf. Boring
people get bored and Ngi bun thy g chng t). While most of the
Vietnamese rate it as neutral or polite, more than half of the English (55%) see it as
impolite. In English the response may allude to certain irony, mockery or even disgrace.
Thus, indirectness is not always equal to politeness, even in the Anglo-American
culture.
4.11
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Level of Politeness
Polite
43
43.0%
Neutral
56
56.0%
Total
Impolite
1
1.0%
100
100.0%
24
67
100
24.0%
67.0%
9.0%
100.0%
78
Table 2-29: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4. 11. 'Do you really think so?'

4.11. "Do you really think so?"
(To Colleague, same age, different gender)
80
70
60
50
40
30
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-10: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.11. 'Do you really think so?'
Unlike utterance 4.10, the disagreeing token in 4.11 (to colleague, same age different
gender) is believed to be linguistically equivalent in the two languages (cf. Do you
really think so? Cu ngh th tht ?). The assessment of politeness level is,
however, apparently dissimilar. The English preference for indirectness as a polite
means of behavior is reflected in columns Polite with 43%, Neutral with 56% and
Impolite with 1%. The Vietnamese resort more to Neutral with 67%, Polite with 24%
and Impolite with 9%, which is in conformity to the local trend towards solidarity and
intimacy. The reason for the low degree of politeness in Vietnamese may lie in the
implication of the interrogative form which seems to question the reliability and
truthfulness of the prior assessment, and thus, might allude to first Ss inability.
4.12
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Level of Politeness
Polite
54
54.0%
Neutral
39
39.0%
65
65.0%
Total
Impolite
7
7.0%
100
100.0%
30
100
30.0%
5.0%
100.0%
Table 2-30: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.12. 'Sorry, but I think it was interesting.'
79
The negative assessment to the prior evaluation Sorry, but I think it was interesting
with its Vietnamese version Xin li, nhng ti/ thy n hay is chosen on
purpose despite its statistic insignificance (its sig. is 0.283). First, it has high percentage
of politeness in both English and Vietnamese: 54% and 65% respectively. Second, the
rating of impolite level is almost the same, 7% in English and 5% in Vietnamese. In
addition, the English and the Vietnamese versions are quite similar in terms of wording
and meaning. This means that the use of an apology token as a mitigation device for
disagreement appears to work well in both languages and cultures.
4.12. "Sorry, I can't share the same idea."
(To Younger Acquaintaince)
70
60
50
40
30
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Polite
Neutral
Impolite
Chart 2-11: Assessment of Politeness Level. 4.12. 'Sorry, but I think it was interesting.'
2.2.2.2. Comments
The English informants seem to considerably differ from the Vietnamese informants in
their assessment of politeness level. The English rating of politeness is much higher in
10 tokens (4.1, 4.2, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11) in comparison with the
Vietnamese. In several English disagreements indirectness seems to correlate with
politeness, except for 4.10 Boring people get bored, where indirectness may imply
irony. The important role of markers vng and , and appropriate address terms in
expressing politeness in Vietnamese is noteworthy. Also, it is of interest to see the
80
interactions and interrelationships of such socio-cultural parameters as age and status in

the linguistic realization of disagreements in Vietnamese.
The last token 4.12 exhibits the similarity of using apology as an effective means to
convey politeness in the two languages and cultures under study.
2.2.3. Summary
Of 2400 disagreeing tokens assessed by 200 English and Vietnamese Ss and processed
on SPSS, 2200 are selected for further study. Except for 200 tokens of utterance # 4.12,
which yield identical usage of apologies in English and Vietnamese as softeners, 2000
tokens display striking differences in the respondents evaluating and perceiving
politeness. The rating of politeness level by English and Vietnamese Ss seems to go in
reverse directions in almost all cases. Impoliteness marking by the Vietnamese Ss can
be traced to the absence of deference markers like , vng, or appropriate address
terms or other formal semantic items. The deployment of politeness devices in
Vietnamese should be made in compliance with and negotiation of such determinants as
age and status which have strong impact on interactive communication. The English Ss
are inclined to see strategic indirectness as a primary means to express politeness,
whereas the Vietnamese Ss tend to attach higher level of politeness to such disagreeing
expressions in which deference markers, addressing terms, etc. are deployed in
interrelation to socio-cultural factors (age, status, etc.). This is similar to the finding by
Nguyen D. H. (1995) concerning the Vietnamese frequent use of discourse indirectness
vs. the Australian extensive exploitation of form indirectness.

This chapter deals with disagreeing as regards politeness, its perception and realization.
Politeness is culturally colored in the sense that different societies have different
cultural beliefs and values that determine and restrict its linguistic realization.
81
Politeness is also personally manipulated as individuals are free to choose to behave in

accordance with indigenous social conventions and norms. Thus, quite naturally and
logically, politeness should be perceived and interpreted in its unity of volition and
discernment in relation to the wider socio-cultural milieu. The empirical findings
exhibit the differences in politeness level assessment by native speakers of English and
Vietnamese. These differences are considered manifestations of deeper-level
differences in socially institutionalized norms of the target cultures. Anglo-American
culture in North America lays great emphasis on individualism and non-imposition
while Vietnamese culture, like other Asian cultures, highly values collectivism and
community-oriented solidarity.
The following chapter investigates linguistic manipulation of disagreeing within the
framework of Brown & Levinsons model of politeness strategies. Also, the choice of
strategies to realize disagreeing by the respondents is empirically testified.
82
CHAPTER THREE
STRATEGIES OF POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING
Brown & Levinsons 1987 model of politeness strategies for speech act realization is
adopted for the examination of disagreeing in this chapter. The first part of the chapter
discusses the main theoretical points of the model concerning such issues as individual
strategies and the relationship between politeness and indirectness. The second part
empirically investigates these issues as regards disagreeing tokens by native Ss of
English and Vietnamese.
3.1.1. Brown & Levinsons Model of Strategies

In communicative interaction Ss often deploy different kinds of strategies and devices
to minimize face risk to their interlocutors and maintain the harmony of their
interrelations. The possibility of threat to an act may be reduced via certain strategies.
Below is a series of possible strategies for performing FTAs, numbering from greater to
lesser risk of face losing (Ibid. 1987: 69).
Lesser
1. without redressive action, baldly
on record
2. positive politeness
Do the FTA
with redressive action
4. off record
3. negative politeness
5. Don't do the FTA
83
Greater
Chart 3-12: Possible strategies for doing FTAs
In Brown & Levinsons view, when facing an FTA, Ss can choose from five
possibilities which constitute three sets of on-record strategies: producing the FTA
without any redress (bald-on-record), producing the FTA using positive politeness,
producing the FTA using negative politeness) and one set of off-record strategies. It is
the Ss assessment of the size and weightiness of the FTA in relation to the three
parameters P, D & R (mentioned in 2.1.2.3.) that forms the basis of their appropriate
strategy choice. If the weightiness of the FTA is too great they may decide not to
perform the FTA at all. However, as mentioned in Chapter 2, the notion of negative face
raised in Brown & Levinsons model is quite controversial and does not seem to fit into
non-Anglophone socio-cultural contexts. Consequently, the series of strategies adopted
and deployed in this study encompasses: (i) bald-on-record strategies, (ii) on-record
(with redress) strategies, (iii) off-record strategies, and (iv) no FTAs. Each type of
strategies is in turn explored on the basis of disagreeing tokens.
3.1.2. Manipulation of Strategies
3.1.2.1. Bald-on-record strategies

Bald-on-record strategies are reflected themselves in direct linguistic forms and
clarified as strategies without redress. Ss are in full conformity to the Gricean maxims
(mentioned in 2.1.2.1.) to explicitly express what they want to mean as in (Pomerantz
1978: 87):
(1)
H: Gee, Hon, you look nice in that dress.

W: .Its just a rag my sister gave me.
This kind of strategy is preferred and used mostly in emergencies, military, in

interaction between close friends/ family members or other intimate contexts where Ss
84
seem to focus on the maximum efficiency of the message. In other cases, Ss are socially
expected to hedge their disagreeing. There are, however, many striking examples of
bald-on-record utterances falling into none of the categories mentioned by Brown &
Levinson. The S then intentionally chooses to be maximally offensive, as in:
(2) Mr. Tam Dalyell, M. P., in the British House of Common (referring to the then Prime Minister,
Margaret Thatcher)
'I say that she is a bounder, a liar, a deceiver, a crook.'

(Cited in Thomas 1995: 171)
Vietnamese society is a solidarity-oriented society with strict hierarchy where emphasis

is put on the social role of an individual, not his personality (Nguyen D. H. 1995 &
Nguyen Q. 1998 among others). Bald-on-record strategies on the part of superiors are
acceptable, but in upward speech from a social inferior to a superior they are
conventionally accompanied with honorifics of some kind. The following excerpt is
between a teacher and her former 12-grade student, who has just taken the college
entrance exam:
V03.4.13
(3)
C: Vic thi rt kh s chn c nhn ti thc s vo

i hc
(Difficult exams will help select really gifted students for colleges)
A: Khng c u . Tiu cc vn cc nhiu lun .

(No, they arent. There are still a great many secret deals.)
Although the disagreeing token is forthrightly disclosed in upward speech by A, Cs

inferior, it gives no offence to her teacher C thanks to the repeated use of honorific .
The absence of deference markers in similar contexts would be treated as an
intentionally blatant break of socially determined norms which are supposed to be
followed by every member of the community. An old-aged and/or high-status person
85
has to be obeyed and respected, and social subordinates are expected to show deference
and respect to superiors in accordance with the social constraints of polite language use.
Particles like no, g, u, bo, c, c, lm, sao, ch... and so on,
used to differentiate the speech acts (Nguyen D. D. 1998: 16), may combine with one
another to express an opposite assessment or view to the prior.
Interestingly, disagreeing is not always seen as an act that threatens the Hs face
(Levinson 1983, Pomerantz 1984, Sacks 1987, Nofsinger 1991). Conversely, it is
considered a face saving act that takes care of the H. This happens when the first
assessment contains a self-deprecation, and the speaker abases himself/herself, or
underestimates his/her belonging. The bald-on-record disagreement on the part of the
second S in (4), found in my tape-recorded data, is surely a FSA, whereas the
agreement token given in (5), taken from Nofsinger (1991: 75), is assumed an FTA:
(4)
L: ng T h cng mt phn do mnh.

(That Mr. T has been spoilt is partly my mistake.)
(T is Ls husband)
B: Khng phi l ti b m vn l ti thc ca tng ngi.
(It is not your mistake, and the problem is in each individuals consciousness.)
(5)
A: ... Do you know what I was all that time?

B: (No)
A: Pavlov's dog. (2.0)
B: (I suppose),
Pomerantz (1974, 1984a), Sacks (1987) and Nofsinger (1991), among other
researchers, discover and discuss this interesting point of disagreeing. The case when
the S humbles himself/herself on purpose to wait for the H's disagreement is known as
a strategic self-deprecation. If he abases himself/herself without any intention we have
a genuine self-deprecation (Nofsinger ibid.).
86
3.1.2.2. On-record strategies

Generally speaking, in face-to-face communication, disagreeing is often hedged and
minimized via on-record and off-record strategies, especially in the Anglo-American
context, where the primary concern is the individual. Some of the strategies suggested
by Brown & Levinson can work well in disagreeing, namely:
1. Intensifying interest to H:
S exaggerates his interest, approval, sympathy toward H. This can be seen clearly in
the case of self-deprecation as in the example by Pomerantz (1984a: 85) exhibited
below, the disagreement token is combined with a complimentary evaluative attribute:
(6)
A: I feel like uh her and I play alike hehh

B: No. You play beautifully.
2. Giving (or asking for) reasons:

S wants to include H in the activity, to test H and see if he is cooperative; in case S is,
the context may be enough to perform another speech act, the speech act of arguing:
(7)
A: A new educational system will work well.

B: Why do you think this way?
Aiming at maintaining the harmony Vietnamese Ss can make their disagreement less
offensive by asking for reasons or source of information:
V03.9.56.
(8)
B: Ci kim tin ca thng N y (0.5) t thy khng phi l tt.

(I dont think the way N makes his money is good.)
H: . Sao li khng tt.

(Yeah. Why isnt it good.)
V03.8.45
(9)
T: Cn bn l khi A nm nay kh hn.
87
(Essentially, group A is more difficult this year.)
L: Ai bo th?
(Who said that)
3. Hedges:
In terms of illocutionary force, hedges can be understood as 'the most important

linguistic means of satisfying the speaker's want' (Brown & Levinson 1987: 146). Here
are some common hedges: I suppose/ believe/ assume/ guess/ think/ wonder/, I'm afraid/ sorry, I
myself, a little bit, merely, kind of, only, well, actually, maybe, perhaps, sort of, rather, pretty, quite,
technically, roughly, really, certainly, totally, completely, just, etc.
In general, hedges are divided into strengtheners (act as emphatic hedges) and
weakeners (those that soften or mitigate what they modify). In English, disagreement is
often hedged to minimize the threat to the H as in the excerpt by Pomerantz (1978: 93):
(10)
J: Ts- tsuh beautiful day out isnt it?

L: Yeh its just gorgeous.
4. Apologizing:
S may describe his reluctance to impose on H's face by apologizing for performing an
FTA as in Wierzbicka (1987: 127):
(11)
'Before I disagree with our speaker', he said 'I should like to apologize to
him...'
5. Impersonalizing S and H:
S may avoid using 'I' and 'you' to indicate the distance between him and H:
(12)
A: The shirt you're wearing is short.

B: Everyone wears shirts like this.
6. Indicating deference:
Deferential markers (sir, madam...) are used to convey social hierarchy and rank. In
utterances of this kind S often, in Brown & Levinsons words, 'humbles and abases'
88
himself, at the same time, the ' hearer's wants to be treated as superior' is raised and
satisfied (Brown & Levinson 1987: 178). In a formal setting one may express one's
disagreement, saying:
(13)
There's a lot of truth in what you say, Sir, but ...
The use of deference markers, address terms and other particles also helps to lessen the
threat to the H's face want. In Vietnamese this strategy seems to be employed very often
to show that Ss try to take care of Hs. Ss may also abase or deprecate themselves and,
therefore, raise or exalt their interlocutors before expressing their disagreements. A
number of lexico-modal markers are used to soften Ss disagreeing. The most common
hedges are: c l l, c th, i loi l, kiu nh l, cht t, cht xu, t to, hi
(hi), gn nh l, tng i, kha kh, kh l, hnh nh, c v, hon ton, tuyt i,
qu tht l, rt, v cng, v vn, lm, ti cho l/ngh l/ cm gic l etc .
Investigating some cultural and cross-cultural issues in English and Vietnamese

Nguyen Q. (2003: 39) points out the most frequent expressions used in Vietnamese
to avoid direct disagreements: , nhng m; Vng, nhng m; Cng c th, nhng m;
Cng c, nhng m etc.
3.1.2.3. Off-record strategies

At times the S may choose to perform an FTA but tries to avoid being responsible for it
and leaves it up to the H to decide how to interpret it. The H can infer the force of the
utterance by considering the context and other social constrains affecting the S's choice
of particular linguistic forms. The term for the strategy allowing the S to implicitly and
indirectly transform his/her intentions is off-record strategy. Technically, in
conversations off-record strategies are considered on-record ones (Brown & Levinson
1987: 212):
...[M]any of the classic off-record strategies metaphor, irony, understatement,
rhetorical questions, etc. are very often actually on-record when used.
89
Brown & Levinson suggest a set of off-record strategies that will be highlighted in
relation with the speech act of disagreeing. S may invite conversational implicatures by
violating the Gricean Maxims. He decides to do an FTA indirectly through hints.
1.
Violating Relevance Maxim:
Violating the Maxim Relevance S invites H to look for a suitable interpretation of the
utterance by making explicitly irrelevant utterances and giving hints:
(14)
A. Miss X is getting too fat.

B. Fashions change, you know.
2.
Violating Quantity Maxim:
a.
Understating:
The violation of the Quantity Maxim makes Ss inevitably say something less than or
different from what they intend to convey. The disagreeing token thus seems to be soft
and weak, as in an example by Pomerantz (1978: 97):
(15)
E: That Pat. Isnt she a doll::

M: Yeh isnt she pretty,
b.
(Meaning: not very beautiful)
Overstating:
Ss can violate the Quantity Maxim by saying more than is necessary. An act of
disagreeing can be performed through an overstatement as in (Ibid. 1978: 93):
B. She seems like a nice little lady.
[
A.
Awfully nice little person.
Using tautologies:
(16)
c.
By using tautology S encourages H to seek for an informative interpretation of the noninformative utterance. Tautology may be understood as an act of disagreeing as in:
(17)
A. Boys are getting too naughty these days.

B. Boys are boys.
3.
Violating Quality Maxim:
90
Violation of the Quality Maxim is made through giving contradictions, ironies,

metaphors and rhetorical questions.
a.
Being ironic or using contradictions:
Ss express their intended meaning indirectly by saying the opposite of what they want
to convey. By giving two contradictory statements Ss show that they cannot be telling
the truth. It is Hs that have to look for a suitable interpretation which implies
disagreement:
(18)
A. The government is to blame.

B. Yes and no. /It is and it is not.
b.
Using metaphors:
Metaphors may be marked with hedges like real, regular, sort of/sorta, as it was, etc.
(19)
A. So he- so then, at this- ysee, --I dont like to brag but see he sorta like
backed outta the argument then.
c.
Using rhetorical questions:
Ss may demonstrate their opposite stances to the indicated information by asking

questions with no intention of getting answers as in:
(20)
A. Miss X is getting too fat.

B. How fat is too fat?
4.
Violating Manner Maxim:

a. Being vague or ambiguous:
Ss decision to be vague or ambiguous leads them to the violation of the Manner

Maxim. Ss may achieve purposeful ambiguity through metaphors as in:
(21)
A. John is a good boy.

B. He's pretty smooth/ He is a pretty sharp cookie.
91
The use of proverbs can be considered one way of over-generalization. Ss

overgeneralization makes Hs decide if the general rule applies to them:
(22)
A. That party both you and I went to was very boring.

B. Boring people get bored.
b. Being incomplete:
S may leave the implicature hanging in the air by leaving an FTA half done. S can use
one of the following structures to express his disagreement (Blundell et al. 1996):
a) I see what you mean, but ..., b) To a certain extent, yes, but ..., c) Yes, maybe/perhaps,
but ..., d) I couldn't agree more, but ..., e) I see your point, but , f) Agreed, but ..., g)
Yes, up to that point, but ..., h) That's one way of looking at it, but ..., i) There's a lot in
what you say, but ..., j) OK, but ..., k) Yes, but ..., l) Mm, but ..., m) Granted, but ..., etc.
No longer can these structures retain the force of vagueness or ambiguity if they are
followed by argumentative utterances.
c. Using backchannels:
In real life interactions, disagreeing is often softened or hedged so as to lessen the threat
to H's positive face. It is observed that backchannels are used frequently to help with
creating vagueness or ambiguity as in the following extract by Pomerantz (1978: 92):
(23)
A: So, theyll be nice to have in the house there,

B. Mm hm,
B's Mm hm makes his interlocutor seek for a suitable interpretation which is either
agreement or disagreement, and helps to maintain the harmony of their relation. Thus,
the researcher would like to suggest this strategy an additional one.
In Vietnamese off-record strategy may be deployed when the S wants to tacitly disagree
with his/her conversational partner as in:
(24)
A: N chng thng minh g.

B: Ch ch mo lm lng.
(He is not very intelligent.)

(The dog disparages the cat for being too
hairy.)
92
B uses a proverb to express his/her disagreement, and frankly speaking, the utterance
sounds more offensive than a direct expression of disagreement as it contains certain
insinuation of irony or criticism. In some cases Ss are inclined to say the opposite to
show that they are not in full agreement with their conversational participants (Nguyen
D. D. 1996: 297):
(25)
A: Lp bn cnh hc rt gii. (The next door class is very good at
studies.)
B: Cn chng em th km.
(And we are very bad at studies.)
Obviously, in Bs reply above intentional self-deprecation is used to imply their good

results in studies. At other time speakers may 'praise' their partners so as to show their
disagreement with the first assessment via the implication of irony or reproach:
(26) (In a Vietnamese folk tale: a rat saying to a fox)
R: Chng my hi lm.
(You smell bad.)
F: Cn c h nh my th thm.
(And your whole clan smells good.)
Unlike English backchannels such as 'uh-uh', 'mmm', 'mm-hmm' etc. are rarely used in
Vietnamese. In stead, particles like d, vng(), th //sao, th c /, tht (vy)
sao/// h, () (tht) th (kia) / /sao/h, ng th //chng
etc. are widely used to
show that the speech is being followed. At the same time they increase the haziness of
the utterance and hide the S's disagreement.
(27)
(Young boss talking to older employee)
B: Ba tic ti qua chn qu.
(The party last night was very
boring.)
E: Tht th sao?
(Really?)
93
Theoretically, by making the utterance ambiguous the speaker avoids being responsible
for what is said and still shows respect to social hierarchy and solidarity. The empirical
study in Chapter 2, however, does not prove this to be true. Chart 2-7 and table 2-7
unveil a very low level of politeness rated by the Vietnamese Ss in comparison to their
English counterparts: 16%, 53% and 31% of the Vietnamese respondents assess Es
reply polite, neutral and impolite, respectively vs. 47%, 43% and 10% of the English.
Thus, it is proposed that off-record strategies do not always work well in the
Vietnamese context where politeness is primarily performed by means of deference
markers, appropriate deployment of address terms and clearness.
3.1.2.4. No FTA
In Brown & Levinsons model of politeness strategies, the fifth strategic choice Dont
do the FTA appears to be neglected, as it has no interesting linguistic reflexes
(1978:77). It might be as such in other speech acts like requesting, ordering, offering or
complaining when the S is the initiator or trigger of the act. He/she may choose not to
perform the act at all because of the seriousness of the act. Nevertheless, there are acts
when the prior Ss utterance makes it relevant and necessary for the present S to voice a
reply, i.e. to perform the act. It is the case of disagreeing. By proffering assessments or
evaluations first Ss invite their interlocutors to respond. Second Ss have to verbally
utilize socially determined norms and/or certain individual strategies to give their own
assessments which may be the same or different from the priors. In such nonAnglophone cultures as Vietnamese, second Ss would be alleged to be inexplicably
impolite if they chose to abide by Brown & Levinsons fifth strategy by being quiet
(one way not to do the FTA). Silence in conversation (mentioned earlier in 1.1.2.3.)
might imply unsaid disagreements, inability to hear or even scorn, and sometimes it
may result in costly consequences of misunderstanding or relationship breakup.
94
Realizing the possible implication of silence in communicative interaction, a number of

researchers take it into consideration: Schegloff et al. (1977), Pomerantz (1978, 1984ab), Schegloff (1979b, 1984, 1992), Levinson (1983), Nofsinger (1991), Yule (1996),
Mey (2001), to name just a few. Mey (Ibid. 158) even calls it the painful silence to
underline its significance in talk-in-interaction.
Cultures and languages, however, perceive and interpret interactive silence in their own
ways. The findings in part 2 of Chapter 1 can attest to this hypothesis. While 70% of
the English informants would rather be silent than proffer evaluations opposite to the
prior, only 24% of the Vietnamese decide to cancel performing the act altogether. It can
be inferred that in comparison to the English, the Vietnamese on the whole, find it more
important to voice something in return to first evaluative tokens. Possibly, saying
something in reply in interactive communication is considered one way of keeping
solidarity and rapport, and thus, expressing politeness in Vietnamese culture and
society.
On the other hand, refusing not to do the FTA in disagreeing runs the risk of damaging
alter and egos face. In the act of expressing anger, for instance, the fifth strategy
appears an FTA that potentially damages Ss positive and negative face. When you are
angry, it is natural that you want to somehow release your anger. If you cannot do it,
you will fail to meet your self-images desire to be appreciated or to get retribution
(Lakoff 1987), and to be independent or free of action. It seems that if second Ss found
themselves in disagreement with first Ss evaluative tokens, they would, at the same
time, put themselves into a dilemma: verbalizing their opposite views would threaten
prior Ss face, but not performing the act would damage their own face. Other acts like
insulting or criticizing, in nature, threaten Hs face, and to some extent, Ss face,
95
regardless of whatever strategies are at work. Thus, interesting linguistic reflexes do

exist in certain speech acts with respect to Brown & Levinsons fifth strategy.
3.1.3. Indirectness in Disagreeing
3.1.3.1. Notion of indirectness

Indirectness, or indirect speech acts, refers to cases when '... one illocutionary act is
performed indirectly by way of performing another' (Searle 1979: 31), and the speaker
means more than, other than or even different from what he/she actually says. BlumKulka (1987) assumes that indirectness is related to the length of the inferential path to
arrive at an utterance's illocutionary point. In other words, the more indirect the way of
realization, the higher will be the interpretive demands on the H.
The S does not always intentionally use indirect speech acts. He/she may have to resort
to indirectness because of linguistic inadequacy or inability. Pragmatically, we focus
only on intentional indirectness that generates some sort of implicature. We know that
one word, one speech act can be used to accomplish different functions and vice visa,
and different structures can perform one function. Disagreeing tokens can, for example,
be expressed very directly in (28), but indirectly in the last two utterances.
(28)
That's wrong surely.
(29)
Do you really think so?
(30)
To a certain extent, yes, but ...
Dascal (1983) assumes that indirectness is costly and risky. It is 'costly' as the S has to
spend more time to produce an indirectness speech act, and it takes the H longer to
process. It is 'risky' in the sense that the S's intended meaning may not be precisely
interpreted. In the following situation, the first S's indirect strategy, obviously, does not
work. His utterance is understood as an information-seeking question and he fails to
convey what he really wants.
96
(31) A wants to turn off the TV program, asking B, who is watching it excitedly:
A: Would you like to watch something else?

B: No.
The communicative advantage of indirectness is made use of in many other cases. It is
always embarrassing to have to ask someone for money, and in situations like this an
indirect approach seems more successful than a direct request, as in:
(32)
A. Oh, I've forgotten my wallet.

B. Don't worry. I'll lend you some.
It would be a mistake if one assumed that a language just employs direct strategies or
only indirect strategies. The realization of language depends on the kind of cultural
thought patterns that are different from culture to culture.
Kaplan (1972) posits four discourse structures to show the differences in cultural
thought patterns. Native Ss of English, according to Kaplan, tend to use direct
expression and thought patterns; conversely, Asian people, including the Vietnamese,
are likely to adhere to indirect patterns.
The pattern of talk, according to Nguyen Q. (1998), seems to be different in English
and Vietnamese. Vietnamese Ss might be considered rude, impolite or too practical if
they mention the purpose of their talk at the very beginning of the conversation.
Conversely, Americans are likely to put the purpose of their conversations at the initial
stage.
Ss are presumably more direct when dealing with safe issues such as weather, and good
news, and more indirect when tackling sensitive topics like gender, religion, money and
bad news. Individuals and cultures widely vary in how, when, why, to whom and what
they apply indirect strategies. Factors affecting the degree of indirectness exploitation
will be discussed in the following section.
97
3.1.3.2. Factors governing indirectness

Socio-cultural factors governing the choice of indirectness have drawn attention of
pragmaticians from different cultures. Thomas (1995: 124) mentions four main factors,
namely: (i) The relative power of the S over the H, (ii) The social distance between the
S and the H, (iii) The degree to which X is rated an imposition in culture Y, and (iv) The
relative rights and obligations between the S and the H.
Indirectness, according to Brown & Levinson, is calculated on the basis of the three
parameters: power differential between S and interlocutor (P), social distance between
S and interlocutor (D), and the rating/ranking of imposition represented by the facethreatening act (R).
Nguyen D. H. (1995) realizes that the various structures of Vietnamese requests do not
only reflect Ss strategic choice but also their observance of socially defined practices
of the speech events and consideration of such factors as age and status of their
interlocutors. Nguyen Q. (1998: 5) proposes 12 factors that may affect the choice of
indirectness in conversations: age, gender, residence, mood, occupation, personality,
topic, place, setting, time pressure, social distance and position.
There are some other factors that are believed to affect Ss choice of indirectness, viz.:
(i) Religion: people may be more or less indirect because of their religious beliefs.
(ii) S/F language acquisition: those who acquire more than one language seem
effected by values and norms of the culture/language other than those of their
first culture/language in their choice of indirectness.
(iii) Personal relation: Ss may be more or less direct in talk depending on their
interpersonal relations.
(iv) Education: those who are well-educated normally act differently in terms of
indirectness.
98
(v) Intellectual abilities: people may be more or less direct in speaking as regards
their intellectual abilities.
All these suggestive factors, however, need to be empirically tested across speech acts
and cultures.
3.1.3.3. Indirectness and politeness

Some theoreticians of politeness assume that the notion of politeness and the notion of
indirectness represent parallel dimensions. Indirectness is, according to Searle (1979:
36), '...the chief motivation for politeness'. Lakoff, Leech, and Brown & Levinson tend
to follow Searle (1975) and Grice (1975), linking indirectness with politeness although
they base themselves on different theoretical and methodological approaches. Brown &
Levinson (1987:142) also claim that there is a strong link between politeness and
indirectness and they believe that 'indirect speech acts have as their prime raison d'tre
the politeness functions they perform.'
Leech (1983: 108) suggests that with the same propositional content, we may:
...[I]ncrease the degree of politeness by using a more and more indirect kind of
illocution. Indirect illocutions tend to be more polite (a) because they increase the
degree of optionality, and (b) because the more indirect an illocution is, the more
diminished and tentative its force tends to be.
In many circumstances, indirect speech acts are often used instead of their more direct
counterparts as being indirect, according to Brown & Levinson, is one important way
of being polite or tactful in conversation. Yule (1996: 56) shares the same, Indirect
speech acts are generally associated with greater politeness in English than direct
speech acts. Brown & Levinson (1987: 142) even go so far as to state the universality
of indirectness, [I]ndirect speech acts are universal and for the most part are probably
constructed in essentially similar ways in all languages.
It might be the case of English, where indirectness is commonly accepted to correlate
with politeness. In languages other than English indirectness does not necessarily imply
99
politeness. Contrary to the idea that indirectness and politeness are correspondent,
research into languages other than English shows that these two notions are not
necessarily parallel. Tannen (1981) believes that Americans are more indirect in their
speech behaviour than Greeks. But this does not mean that Americans are more polite
than Greeks. When examining requests in Hebrew and English in terms of politeness
and indirectness, Blum-Kulka (1987, 1992) states that the most indirect request
strategies (hints) are not judged as the most polite. It is the conventional indirectness
that receives the highest ratings for politeness. Wierzbicka (1985) argues that the
association of politeness with indirectness is the reflection of an ethnocentric
Anglophone cultural point of view, for the results of her research show that in Polish
direct requests and offers are not considered impolite.
In an attempt to shed light on the notion of linguistic politeness, Upadhyay (2003:
1651-1677) revisits the link between indirectness and politeness by using naturally
occurring conversational data in Nepali. The findings show that there is no definite
evidence for the link between indirectness and politeness, and such socio-cultural
determinants as status and age which set up a strong motivation for politeness,
honorifics and person-referring terms are important linguistic devices to indicate
politeness in Nepali. Gu (1990) and Lee-Wong (2000) assume that directness with a
high degree of imposition can be used as a means to increase the level of politeness in
intrinsically threatening acts of inviting and requesting made by speakers of Mandarin
who prefer in-group solidarity and closeness in interpersonal relations and explicitness
and clarity in language expressions.
The interrelationships between indirectness and politeness have also drawn attention of
Vietnamese researchers. Nguyen D. H. (1995) finds out the contrast in politeness
realization reflected in the low degree of form directness in requests by Vietnamese Ss
100
and high degree of form indirectness in Australian requests. Although indirectness is

seen to operate as one of the indicators of polite requests in communication in
Vietnamese language and culture (Vu T. T. H. 1997, 2000) it does not always correlate
with politeness. Nguyen Q. (1998) argues the universal value of Brown & Levinsons
model concerning politeness strategies due to their assignment of greater level of
politeness to negative politeness commonly expressed via indirect strategies prevalent
in Anglophone cultures. He also objects to the implication of lower degree of politeness
attached to positive politeness quite popular in Asian cultures. Basing on the
assumption that Vietnamese culture emphasizes community-oriented solidarity and
hierarchy the researchers provide no clear evidence for positive correlation between
indirectness and politeness put forth by Brown & Levinson and other Western
politeness theorists.
In the empirical findings presented in Chapter 2 of this study, the Vietnamese Ss give
more precedence to clearly articulated disagreements accompanied conventionalized
politeness markers like deference items and address terms. On the contrary, the less
direct utterances which contain some implication of irony, threat or reproach are not
rated polite. The English informants in this study either abide by indirect disagreement
tokens or opt out of verbal expressions of disagreeing by remaining silent. Therefore,
the positive correlation between indirectness and politeness seems to be true in the case
of Anglo-American culture, which stresses non-imposition and individualism.
Blundell et al. (1996: 190) collect many structures used in English to express one's
disagreement. The structures are classified according to their formality. Some structures
can be used at any time, i.e., it does not matter to whom you are talking, or when, or
where. These structures are neutral. There are other expressions: they are either
informal or formal. The S may, in a formal setting, express his/her disagreement as in:
101
(33)
Personally, I wouldn't go so far as to say that.
A literal translation of the utterance into Vietnamese (by Mai X. H. 1996: 197) would
embarrass H as it sounds too formal, superfluous and strange to his/her ears:
(34)
C nhn ti chng mc no , ti s khng dm ni
nh vy.
It is suggested that English and Vietnamese may be different in the way they realize
formality/ informality of language use. In his research into politeness, Nguyen V. D.
(1996) points out that although modifications are exploited to make polite requests by
both Vietnamese and English Ss, the degree to which they are deployed greatly varies.
While modifiers make significant contribution to the elaboration and formality of
requests in English, they are used with care by Vietnamese Ss, who hold dear intimacy
and warm relations, for fear of creating too much distance in communicative contact.
All in all, indirectness and politeness are universal in the sense that they occur to some
degree in all languages and cultures. However, the correlation between them needs to
be empirically tested. Different cultures and languages may vary in the perception and
realization of indirectness and politeness, and indirectness is not necessarily associated
with politeness, i.e., the generally assumed link between indirectness and politeness
should be reconsidered.
3.1.4. Summary
The study in this chapter, which adopts the model of politeness strategies suggested by
Brown & Levinson, provides a thorough descriptive account of the speech act of
disagreeing in light of politeness and indirectness. Some minor modification is done to
better adjust the model to the size and scope of the study. Out of 5 sets of strategies 4
are chosen, namely, bald-on-record and on-record (direct strategies), off-record and no
102
FTA (indirect strategies). Also, the distinction between negative politeness and positive
politeness is not made due to their controversial issues.
Brown & Levinsons model of politeness strategies, where indirect strategies are put at
a greater level of politeness, insinuates that the more direct a strategy is the less polite it
becomes, triggers off numerous arguments. Despite the existence of politeness and
indirectness in cultures and languages the interrelationships between them are not
simple by any means. To gain insight into the relationship between politeness and
indirectness in disagreeing in English and Vietnamese, a survey has been distributed
among speakers of English and Vietnamese. The issues concerning data analysis are
presented in the following part.

3.2.1.1. Aims
The present empirical study is planned to attest to the following hypotheses:
1. Native speakers of English and Vietnamese may differ in their choice of
politeness strategies used to perform the act of disagreeing.
2. The differences in English and Vietnamese choice of politeness strategies are
likely to be the consequences of the differences in assessment of socio-cultural
parameters and social situations which can be traced back to the differences in
the socio-cultural structures.

The database used in the present empirical study is obtained from elicited written
questionnaires #3, administered among 100 English native speakers in North America
and 100 Vietnamese speakers in Hanoi. Questionnaires #3 contain 3 concrete situations
in which the informants are supposed to converse with 10 partners different or/and
103
identical in terms of age, gender, status, familiarity and closeness. In other words, the
informants and their co-participants are put in symmetrical and asymmetrical role
relationships. The informants are asked to provide their disagreeing responses to the
prior evaluative tokens Miss X is getting too fat (Situation 1), Tax increase a really
cool idea (Situation 2) and That party you and I went to was very boring (Situation
3). The informants can either create their own replies or choose from a set of utterances
selected from the pretests and literature. Each informant has a set of 30 disagreements,
classified as bald-on-record, on-record, off-record strategies and no FTA (based on
Brown & Levinsons model of politeness strategies), to write down or mark. A total of
6000 disagreement tokens (3000 in English and 3000 in Vietnamese) are loaded into
and processed on SPSS. The English corpus is investigated in comparison to and
contrast with the Vietnamese. The most significant cases are chosen and brought to
further discussion.
3.2.2. Choice of Strategies by Respondents

Five cases out of ten in each situation are taken to further investigation provided that
they are proved to be statistically significant across situations. Below are the outputs of
15 cases marked c, d, e, h and j, where the informants are supposed to be in
disagreement with their close friends, people they dislike, colleagues (same age &
gender), older acquaintances and older bosses as regards the prior evaluative tokens.
104
Choice of Politeness Strategies

Sit.3.1. Miss X Is Getting Too Fat
50
40
30
20
First Language
Count
10
English
Vietnamese
Bald on record On record
Off record
No FTA
3.1c. Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend
Chart 3-13: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Miss X is fat)
Sit. 3.1c. Miss X is
getting too fat.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend

Bald-onrecord
41
41.0%
On-record
14
14.0%
Off-record
42
42.0%
19
35
19.0%
35.0%
Total
No FTA
3
3.0%
100
100.0%
45
100
45.0%
1.0%
100.0%
Table 3-31: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Miss X is fat)

Sit.3.2. Tax Increase - A Cool Idea
60
50
40
30
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-14: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Tax increase)
105
Sit. 3.2c. Tax increase

a cool idea.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %

Bald-onrecord
28
28.0%
On-record
44
44.0%
Off-record
25
25.0%
18
27
18.0%
27.0%
Total
No FTA
3
3.0%
100
100.0%
55
100
55.0%
.0%
100.0%
Table 3-32: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Tax increase)
Disagreeing Strategies to Close Friend: The English respondents are likely to be
straightforward in expressing their disagreements conversing with close friends by their

frequent abiding by bald-on-record and on-record strategies. The Vietnamese
respondents seem to be careful in overtly stating their opposing stances, which reflects
in their using more off-record strategies with the exception of 3.1c, where 35% of them
deploy direct strategies with redress compared to 14% of the English. The low
proportion of silence across three situations is worth noting. All respondents are likely
to be responsive and co-operative, especially the Vietnamese. In 3.1c and 3.3c only one
Vietnamese respondent out of 100 refuses to reply and in 3.2c the percentage is zero,
which suggests the existence of some socially-ethical sanction concerning being
responsive in interpersonal interaction to establish and keep solidarity and rapport in
the target culture.
106

Sit.3.3. Boring Party
70
60
50
40
30
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-15: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Boring party)
Sit. 3.3c. Boring
party.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %

Bald-onrecord
16
16.0%
On-record
59
59.0%
Off-record
21
21.0%
14
39
14.0%
39.0%
Total
No FTA
4
4.0%
100
100.0%
46
100
46.0%
1.0%
100.0%
Table 3-33: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Close Friend (Boring party)

60
50
40
30
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Off record
No FTA
3.1d. Disagreeing Strategies to Someone you dislike
Chart 3-16: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Miss X is fat)
Sit. 3.1d. Miss X is
getting too fat.
Disagreeing Strategies to Someone You Dislike
Total
107
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Bald-onrecord
49
49.0%
On-record
6
6.0%
Off-record
37
37.0%
No FTA
8
8.0%
100
100.0%
13
26
52
100
13.0%
26.0%
52.0%
9.0%
100.0%
Table 3-34: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Miss X is fat)
Sit. 3.2d. Tax
increase
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Disagreeing Strategies to Someone you dislike

Bald-onrecord
31
31.0%
On-record
33
33.0%
Off-record
29
29.0%
Total
No FTA
7
7.0%
100
100.0%
23
15
52
10
100
23.0%
15.0%
52.0%
10.0%
100.0%
Table 3-35: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Tax increase)

60
50
40
30
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-17: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Tax increase)
Disagreeing Strategies to Someone You Dislike: Normally, it is embarrassing and
inconvenient to interact with people with whom you do not get on well, let alone to
disclose your negative views. The English Ss seem to be direct in their disagreements,
and they appear to be most eager to defend Miss X in 3.1d with 49% of them clinging
to bald-on-record strategies. Almost half of the Vietnamese informants are inclined to
be less direct and imply their disagreement tokens via off-record strategies. In addition,
108
the number of informants who opt out of performing the act, i.e. who do no FTA at all,
is quite high in both groups.

60
50
40
30
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-18: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring party)
Sit. 3.3d. Boring
party
First Language
English Count
English %
Disagreeing Strategies to Someone you dislike

Bald-onrecord
20
20.0%
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
On-record
39
39.0%
Off-record
34
34.0%
Total
No FTA
7
7.0%
100
100.0%
13
34
49
100
13.0%
34.0%
49.0%
4.0%
100.0%
Table 3-36: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Someone You Dislike (Boring party)

60
50
40
30
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Off record
No FTA
3.1e. Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague (Same age & gender)
109
Chart 3-19: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Miss
X)
Sit. 3.1e. Miss X is
getting too fat.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague

(same age & gender)
Bald-onrecord
23
23.0%
On-record
17
17.0%
Off-record
54
54.0%
Total
No FTA
6
6.0%
100
100.0%
16
51
30
100
16.0%
51.0%
30.0%
3.0%
100.0%
Table 3-37: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Miss X)
Sit. 3.2e. Tax increase
- a cool idea.
First Language
English Count
English %

(same age & gender)
Bald-onrecord
14
14.0%
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
On-record
50
50.0%
Off-record
33
33.0%
Total
No FTA
3
3.0%
100
100.0%
19
73
100
8.0%
19.0%
73.0%
.0%
100.0%
Table 3-38: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Tax)

80
60
40
First Language
Count
20
English
0
Vietnamese
Off record
No FTA
3.2e. Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague (Same age & gender)
Chart 3-20: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Tax)
Sit. 3.3e. Boring
party.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %

(same age & gender)
Bald-onrecord
7
7.0%
On-record
57
57.0%
Off-record
33
33.0%
Total
No FTA
3
3.0%
100
100.0%
13
43
44
100
13.0%
43.0%
44.0%
.0%
100.0%
Table 3-39: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Party)
110
Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague (same age & gender): The Vietnamese show
greater tendency to abide by off-record strategies in 3.2e and 3.3e, which can be traced
back to their emphasis on community-based solidarity, while the high proportion in
English on-record strategies in these two cases might be the manifestation of AngloAmerican focus on freedom from imposition and of action. However, the English in
3.1e are likely to be indirect in disagreeing with their colleagues by adhering to offrecord strategies, while the Vietnamese Ss seem to prefer direct strategies with 16% of
the respondents opting for bald-on-record strategies and 51% of them using on-record.
60
50
40
30
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Off record
No FTA
3.3e. Disagreeing Strategies to Colleague (same age & gender)
Chart 3-21: Choice of Politeness to Disagree with Colleague, same age & gender (Party)
111

60
50
40
30
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Bald on record
On record
Off record
No FTA
3.1h. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Acquaintance
Chart 3-22: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X is fat)
Sit. 3.1h. Miss X is
getting too fat.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Disagreeing Strategies to Older Acquaintance

Bald-onrecord
24
24.0%
On-record
13
13.0%
Off-record
55
55.0%
Total
No FTA
8
8.0%
100
100.0%
13
38
42
100
13.0%
38.0%
42.0%
7.0%
100.0%
Table 3-40: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Miss X is fat)

70
60
50
40
30
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-23: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax increase)
Sit. 3.2h. Tax increase
- a cool idea.
Total
112
Bald-onrecord
9
9.0%
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
On-record
52
52.0%
Off-record
36
36.0%
No FTA
3
3.0%
100
100.0%
34
60
100
2.0%
34.0%
60.0%
4.0%
100.0%
Table 3-41: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Tax increase)
Disagreeing Strategies to Older Acquaintance : It is of great interest to see the
reciprocal influence of age and intimacy in the Vietnamese choice of strategies

compared to the English. The preference for intimacy is visible in on-record strategies
in 3.1h, whereas the emphasis on age is reflected in the adherence to off-record
strategies in 3.2h and 3.3h. The high percentage of bald-on-record by the English
informants implies that age is recognized but lightly treated in their culture. Also, their
deployment of off-record strategies in 3.1h consistent with their choice of indirect
strategies to colleagues in 3.1e may serve as evidence for English usage of indirectness
as a means to express politeness.

70
60
50
40
30
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Off record
No FTA
Chart 3-24: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring party)
Sit. 3.3h. Boring party.
Total
113
First Language
English Count
English %
Bald-onrecord
10
10.0%
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
On-record
62
62.0%
Off-record
26
26.0%
No FTA
2
2.0%
100
100.0%
13
37
45
100
13.0%
37.0%
45.0%
5.0%
100.0%
Table 3-42: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Acquaintance (Boring party)
Sit. 3.1j. Miss X is
getting too fat.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss
Total
Bald-onrecord
13
13.0%
On-record
12
12.0%
Off-record
60
60.0%
No FTA
15
15.0%
100
100.0%
11
27
44
18
100
11.0%
27.0%
44.0%
18.0%
100.0%
Table 3-43: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat)

70
60
50
40
30
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Off record
No FTA
3.1j. Disageeing Strategies to Older Boss
Chart 3-25: Choice of Disagreeing Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Miss X is fat)
Sit. 3.2j. Tax increase
- a cool idea.
First Language
English Count
English %
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %

Bald-onrecord
10
10.0%
On-record
52
52.0%
Off-record
31
31.0%
Total
No FTA
7
7.0%
100
100.0%
26
66
100
.0%
26.0%
66.0%
8.0%
100.0%
Table 3-44: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase)
114
Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss : Although the present number of informants
who opt out of responding to their older bosses evaluative tokens is the highest across
situations, the disparity in their use of direct and indirect strategies is of paramount
significance. While the English exploit more off strategies in 3.1j, and on-record
strategies in 3.2j and 3.3j, the Vietnamese would rather allude to their negative
responses by using off-record strategies or stop voicing them. In Vietnamese culture,
where interpersonal relationships are vertically structured, age and status are
institutionalized respected and valued. Thus, one should act in caution in proffering
disagreements to ones older boss. The asymmetrical role relationships provide
persuasive explanations for the low percentage of direct strategies by Vietnamese Ss,
especially bald-on-record, the use of which seems to potentially damage the norms of
social hierarchy. In 3.2j, for instance, none of 100 Vietnamese informants choose baldon-record strategies.

70
60
50
40
30
First Language
Count
20
English
10
0
Vietnamese
Off record
No FTA
3.2j. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss
Chart 3-26: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Tax increase)
115

60
50
40
30
Count
20
First Language
10
English
Vietnamese
Off record
No FTA
3.3j. Disagreeing Strategies to Older Boss
Chart 3-27: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Boring Party)
Sit. 3.3j. Boring
party.
First Language
English Count
English

Bald-onrecord
Vietnamese Count
Vietnamese %
6
6.0%
On-record
51
51.0%
Off-record
34
34.0%
32
3.0%
32.0%
Total
No FTA
9
9.0%
100
100.0%
49
16
100
49.0%
16.0%
100.0%
Table 3-45: Choice of Politeness Strategies to Disagree with Older Boss (Boring Party)
3.2.2.2. Comments
The two groups of informants demonstrate considerable differences in their deployment
of politeness strategies to express their disagreement tokens to the early stated
assessments. In general, the English informants do not pay much attention to such
factors as age, status or gender of their interlocutors, and they seem to be direct in
situations where these factors reciprocally influence (e.g. disagreeing with colleagues,
same age & gender; older acquaintances or bosses). They are inclined to forthrightly
speak out their different evaluations no matter the Hs are their close friends or those
they dislike. Also, they tend to directly disagree with others on non-personal topics like
economics, politics and social issues (taxes or social get-togethers, for instance).
In contrast, the Vietnamese informants attach significant importance to age and status
in accordance with their socially normative ethics. Thus, instead of acting quite freely
116
according to individual wills, they have to make their personal choices of strategy in
conformity to institutionalized norms of behavior, which stress community-based
solidarity and intimacy. They are likely to abide by direct strategies in safe settings
where role relationships are symmetrical, for example, talking with close friends or
colleagues. In cases where there is little possibility of balancing personal choices and
social norms, they opt for indirect strategies so as to avoid sounding too critical or
aggressive. The reasonable account for the differences in Ss choice of politeness
strategies can be made via due consideration of the differences in their assessment of
social parameters and situations (cf. findings in Chapter 1). After all, they are just
surface manifestations of the deep-level differences in the socio-cultural structures.
3.2.3. Summary
The findings have provided strong evidence for the differences in strategic choice made
by native speakers of English and Vietnamese in proffering disagreement tokens. Being
less constrained by socially normative practices, the English informants are observed to
flexibly adjust themselves to different interactive contexts and frequently deploy direct
strategies according to their personal wants. Their local socio-cultural context which is
much less hierarchical takes as its main concern the individual and his/her freedom of
action and from intrusion. The Vietnamese might generally be judged as more indirect
than their English counterparts in performing disagreements. However, as native Ss of a
speech community, they cannot stay independent of the indigenous system of social
norms determining linguistic and behavioral manners, which stresses hierarchy. It
comes as no surprise that the Vietnamese tend to sound less direct when facing
asymmetrical relationships which need some compromise or reciprocity in linguistic
expressions. It is the wider socio-cultural contexts that serve as good grounds for all
117
these differences in the Ss assessment of socio-cultural parameters and situations and

choice of strategies.

Despite the paramount effectiveness it has offered the SA study, Brown & Levinsons
model of strategies unveils certain controversial points which engender modification
across cultures and subcultures. Basing themselves on the speech act of requesting,
which is performed in first-turn utterances, Brown & Levinson pay very little attention
to No FTA strategies in such second-turn responses as disagreement tokens. In
addition, the set of strategies as regards the notion of negative/positive face has also
triggered numerous arguments.
Native Ss of English and Vietnamese, according to the empirical findings, differ in
choosing politeness strategies to realize disagreement attributes, and this confirms
Blum-Kulka and House's hypothesis that differences in perceptions of social situations
and in the relative importance attached to any socio-cultural parameter may lead to
differences in linguistic behavior (Blum-Kulka and House 1989: 137). The English
preference for direct strategies with redress and the Vietnamese tendency to use indirect
strategies have proved Leech (1986) and Brown & Levinsons assumption
(1987[1978]) that cultures may differ in terms of precedence and significance given to
each strategy in spite of having the same sets of strategies. This has also coincided with
Kieu T. T. H.s finding (2001: 86) of Americans favorite use of on-record and
Vietnamese deployment of off-record strategies in disagreements.
The assumption of consistent correlation between politeness and indirectness is taken
into consideration and is proved to be less convincing. The empirical study shows that
indirectness does not always correlate with politeness. The deployment of indirectness
varies across cultures, across speech acts and across contexts of a speech act of a
118
culture. Thus, linguistic indirectness is both culturally and contextually dependent and
colored, and the Vietnamese exploitation of indirect strategies in different contexts
ranging from intimacy to asymmetrical role relationships should be interpreted in
consideration of social factors and norms of behavior. Politeness in the Vietnamese
socio-cultural framework, which is strongly anchored in Confucian ethics, is essentially
motivated by the maintenance social harmony and community solidarity via individual
observance of institutionalized practices. On the contrary, Anglo-American culture with
its primary focus on individualist non-imposition tends to leave more free space for Ss
to make their own choice of politeness strategies. The following chapter provides a
thorough investigation of the organizational structure of disagreeing to bring out the
shared and unshared strategies deployed in English disagreement tokens in comparison
to Vietnamese ones.
119
CHAPTER FOUR
STRATEGIES CONCERNING PREFERENCE
ORGANIZATION
4.1.1. Preferred Second Turns
4.1.1.1. Markedness
Typical adjacency pairs, as earlier mentioned, consist of two parts: a first pair part and a
second pair part. Once the first part is given, there is a set of potential seconds to it.
However, not all second parts are of equal structural complexity and status. Some are
very simple, made of one or two words (Yes, Fine, thanks), others are constructed of
several long utterances (like long explanations, elaborate accounts etc.). In general, all
second alternatives can be distinguished as either preferred or dispreferred responses.
In spite of its original connotation, the concept of preference organization has nothing
to do with psychological preference of the speakers or hearers. It is merely a structural
notion similar to the concept of markedness in linguistics, which was first proposed and
developed by the Prague School, and later, by Jakobson and others (Levinson 1983:
333). The concept of markedness in linguistics can be understood as follows:
The intuition behind the notion of markedness in linguistics is that, where we have an
opposition between two or more members, it is often the case that one member is felt
to be more usual, more normal, less specific than the other (in markedness terminology
it is unmarked, the others marked).
Cited from Comrie (1976: 111)
Preferred/unmarked seconds, as interpreted on the basis of linguistic markedness, have

less material, and are structurally simpler compared to dispreferred/marked (Levinson
1983, Mey 2001). Apart from a range of different and unrelated first parts, the latter
seem to have more in common, namely, delay components and various degrees of
120
structural build-up. Preferred alternatives tend to occur within simple sequential

structures. On the contrary, dispreferred are likely to be accompanied with different
kinds of structural complexity, as in the following examples by Pomerantz (1984a: 6071):
(1)J: Its really a clear lake, isnt it?
R: Its wonderful.
(2)L: Maybe its just ez well you dont know
(2.0)
W: Well uh-I say its suspicious it could be something good too.
The preferred second in (1) is immediately produced after the first evaluative token,
whereas the delivery of the dispreferred second is deliberately delayed in (2). After a
two-second silence, W starts speaking, prefacing his disagreeing with well and other
delay components. Other kinds of dispreferred seconds like rejections of requests,
refusals of offers, denials of blames etc., are normally done in this marked manner, as
Levinson (1983: 308) puts it:
[I]n contrast to the simple and immediate nature of preferreds, dispreferreds are
delayed and contain additional complex components; and certain kinds of seconds like
request rejections, refusals of offers, disagreements after evaluative assessments, etc.,
are systematically marked as dispreferreds.
By and large, the marked actions are likely to be avoided in interpersonal conversations
due to the complexity of their marked formats.
4.1.1.2. Structural organization

Conversation analysts working on the structural organization of preferred/dispreferred
seconds like Atkinson and Drew (1979), Pomerantz (1978, 1984a-b, 1997), Heritage
(1989, 1997, 2002), Sacks (1987), Goodwin (1983), and Goodwin & Goodwin (1987,
121
1992) realize the salient and essential differences in structural organization between
preferreds and dispreferreds.
The specific characteristics of such complex-structured responses are examined and
generalized in the works by Atkinson and Drew (1979), Pomerantz (1975, 1978, 1984ab), Levinson (1983), Yule (1996), Mey (1993, 2001) among others. The main features
include: (i) delay tokens: silences/ pauses, hesitations and hedges (false starts Er,
expletives Yes), repairs, or insertion sequences, (ii) prefaces: dispreferred markers
like Well and Uh, appreciations, apologies, qualifiers and mitigations I dont know
for sure, but, and (iii) accounts or explanations for uttering dispreferreds. Some
other prosodic features like speed of delivery, articulation, stress, irregular breathing, as
well as non-linguistic factors (head nods/shakes, smiles, facial expressions, body
movements etc.) may create certain impact on the quality of dispreferred seconds. On
the whole, the production of such wordy and elaborate responses takes time and
requires a great effort on the part of conversationalists. Moreover, they may bring
unpleasant feelings to whatever parties involved in interchanges. Consequently,
dispreferred seconds are likely to be avoided due to their complex-structural format and
communicative ineffectiveness.
Conversation analytic work also focuses on the correlation of the content and the
sequential structure of preference. Quite interestingly, there is an organic relationship
between the content and its format, to wit, some patterns seem recurrently occur in
fixed structures. For instance, agreements with evaluative assessments tend to appear in
unmarked/preferred format, whereas almost all of disagreements are delivered in
marked/dispreferred structures. The notion of preference may be applied to the actions
that are produced in either preferred or dispreferred constructions, i.e., preferred actions
are normally done in preferred format, and dispreferred actions in dispreferred format.
122
A consistency between the format and content is found in a substantial number of

adjacency pair second parts. This consistent match is illustrated in the following table:
FIRST
PARTS
SECOND
PARTS
Preferred
Request
Offer/
Invite
Assessment
Question
Blame
Acceptance
Acceptance
Agreement
Denial
Refusal
Disagreemen
t
Expected
answer
Unexpected
answer of
non-answer
Dispreferred Refusal
Admission
Table 4-46: Correlations of content and format in adjacency pair second

Levinson 1983: 336 (My emphasis)
A close look at the sequential structure reveals that the concept of correlation also
involves the first pair parts. Let us take an example from Levinsons work (1983: 337):
(3)C: I wondered if you could phone the vicar so that we could ((in breath))
do the final on Saturday (0.8) morning o:r (.) afternoon or (3.0)
R: Yeah you see Ill Ill phone him up and see if theres any time free
(2.0)
C: Yeah.
R: Uh theyre normally booked Saturdays but I dont- it might not be
Actually, Cs first turn is full of places potential for R to perform a preferred second
(breathing, pauses, silences, and latching), and this wordiness is resulted from Cs
delayed uptake. Had it not been for Rs delay of a compliance response right after Cs
request I wondered if you could phone the vica, C would not have had to prolong and
elaborate his first part. As clearly shown, preferred and dispreferred seconds, by nature,
may systematically influence the structural design of their corresponding first parts.
123
4.1.1.3. Dispreferred second turns in disagreeing

Conversation analytic studies demonstrate that preference structure is not just restricted
to adjacency pairs. The actions, accomplished in the second parts, can trigger the prior
Ss and invite them to respond to the second Ss. A whole rank of successive turns may
follow the initial turn, and this is what Pomerantz terms as action chains (1978).
(4)R: Youve really both basically honestly gone your own ways.
D: Essentially, except weve hadda good relationship at

//home
R: .hhh Ye :s, but I mean its a relationship where

Pomerantz (1975: 68, 1984a: 72)
In the second turn of the sequence, D is in disagreement with Rs assessment, and Ds

mitigated disagreement token stimulates R to elaborate and clarify the prior assessment.
Rs second assessment is proffered in the third turn of the sequence. Thus, the first parts
in cases like this do allow for a set of responses to be relevant, and the structure of
adjacency pairs can be interpreted as relatively fixed.
It is of interest to note that the distinction between preferred and dispreferred format is
not always clear. In essence, there is a general preference for agreement over
disagreement when a first evaluation is uttered. But agreement components may go
with disagreement tokens, weakening the strength of the responses. The agreement
plus disagreement format seems to be prefaced by such words as Well, Yes, but, or
accompanied with delays, silences or pauses as in the following two excerpts by
Pomerantz (1984a: 70-72):
(5)A: cause those things take working at,
(2.0)
B: (hhhhh) well, they do, but
124
(6)C: .hh a :n uh by god I can even send my kid tuh public school bcuz
theyre so god damn lousy.
D: We::ll, thats a generality.
The long silence after As turn signals an upcoming negative response in Bs next turn.
The prolonged breathing and dispreferred marker well delay the main act of
disagreeing too. The same strategy is employed in (6) where D shows his hesitation by
prefacing his dispreferred answer with Well. Disagreements that are displayed after
assertions or qualifiers are called weak disagreements or weak agreements (Pomerantz
1984a).
Disagreements, however, are not always considered dispreferred seconds in
interactions. In case the first S self-denigrates or self-deprecates, the responders
agreement may be understood as implicit criticism. Conversely, a strong disagreement
on the part of the next S is actually a preferred second. Pomerantz (1975, 1978, 1984a),
Levinson (1983), Sacks (1987) and Nofsinger (1991) among others pay close attention
to this interesting point. In the example by Pomerantz (1984a: 85) exhibited below, the
disagreement token is combined with a complimentary evaluative attribute:
(7)A: I mean I feel good when Im playing with her because
feel like uh her and I play alike hehh
B: No. You play beautifully.
In comparison with other dispreferreds, disagreements that occur in response to selfdeprecations tend to be stronger and more straightforward, perhaps, because they are
done for the sake of alter not ego. On the contrary, agreements are like to be delayed,
withheld, or hedged to mitigate the confirmation of the prior. In the following example
(Pomerantz 1984a: 90) a suppositional is exploited to weaken the conformation:
(8)W: Do you know what I was all that time?
125
L: (No)
W: Pavlovs dog.
(2.0)
L: (I suppose),
As clearly seen, the agreement produced in the sequence above has typical features of
dispreferred seconds: delayed by a long pause of two seconds, and mitigated by a
qualifier. The answers subsequent to self-denigrations may be accompanied with
disaffiliation with, or favorable reformulation of the prior self-critical assessments, as
in:
(9)R: .hh But Im only getting a C on my report card in math.
C: Yeh but thats passing Ronald.
Pomerantz (1984a: 87)
In the response to Rs complaining about getting a C in math, C points out that C is a
passing grade although it is below A and B. Cs reformulating the grade scale
undermines Rs self-deprecating attribute and comforts him. Conversationalists
sometimes undermine the validity of the prior self-deprecatory formulations by
suggesting that the actions or qualities are common and normal, as in another example
by Pomerantz (Ibid.)
(10) W: Yet Ive got quite a distance tuh go yet.
L: Everybody has a distance.
As shown, the two different kinds of preference organization seem to work in opposing
directions in excerpts containing self-denigrations, and this phenomenon creates more
complexity in conversation analytic work.
Another question concerning the structural complexity is raised in relation to the
performance of second parts in response to compliments. The preference for
126
agreements/acceptances over disagreements/rejections appears to be contradictory to

the norm of self-praise avoidance. If the second party is complimented on, his/her
preferred second in form of agreement or acceptance may insinuate a self-praise token.
On the other hand, if he/she completely negates the prior compliment, he/she troubles
himself/herself by getting involved in dispreferred format. In English actual
interchanges, co-conversants are observed to make some kind of compromise solutions
including downgraded agreements, shifts of praise to third parties, or reciprocal
compliments (return of compliments to their producers) (Pomerantz 1978, 1984a and
Levinson 1983).
(11) B: By the way I love yer Christmas card,
A: I hadda hard time, but I didnt think they were too good,
(12) C: Ya sound (justiz) real nice.
D: Yeah you soun real good too.

Pomerantz (1978: 98-105)
In (11) the receiver downgrades the agreement token in response to the compliment,
and in (12) he shifts the praise by returning it to the giver. By so doing, the receiver can
avoid praising himself, but still make good use of the preference format.
4.1.2. Preferred Sequences
4.1.2.1. Repair apparatus

Preference organization does not only confine itself to alternative second turns, but also
operates within a range of various matters like the handling of repair, a sequence of
turns and sequence types. As aforementioned, repairs are often utilized as effective
delay components of dispreferred seconds. There are two kinds of repair work: selfrepairs and other repairs. Repairs can be stimulated by self (self-initiated repairs),
and by other (other-initiated repairs). In the following example by Pomerantz (1975:
127
74 & 1984a: 71), the next S provides the prior S with a chance to elaborate his
assessment by repeat his evaluation. Given this other-initiation of repair, the prior S
confirms his assessment, resulting in a dispreferred answer.
(13) A: Why whhatsa mattuh with y-Yih sou//nd HA:PPY, hh ((assessment))
B:
Nothing.
B: I sound ha:p//py?
((repair initiator))
A:
((re-assessment))
Ye:uh.
(0.3)
B: No:,
((dispreferred seconds))
Finally, the dispreferred second comes after a pause that is treated as a second chance
for A to reformulate his assessment in the first turn. As clearly demonstrated, preference
organization affects and spreads all over the sequence, from the first turn to the last
turn. On the whole, the repair mechanism works on the basis of preference for selfinitiated repairs over other-initiated repairs, and preference for self-repairs over otherrepairs (Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks 1977). The remedial work can be done in a
three-turn (or more) sequence: (i) Turn 1 (includes the repairable), first opportunity for
self-initiated self-repair, and transition space (between two first turns), second
opportunity for self-initiated self-repair, (ii) Turn 2, third opportunity for other-repair or
other-initiation of self-repair, and (iii) Turn 3, fourth opportunity for other-initiated selfrepair. The following examples by Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks (1977: 364-366)
illustrate self-initiated self-repair (opportunity 1 & 2):
(14) N: She was givin me a:ll the people that were go:ne
this yea:r I mean this quarter y//know

J:
Yeah
(15) L: An en but all of the doors n things were taped up =
128
=I mean yknow they put up yknow that kinda paper r

stuff, the brown paper.
Example (16) (Schegloff et al. 378) is typical of other-initiated other-repairs, example

(17) (Ibid. 367) illustrates other-initiation of self-repair (opportunity 3), and example
(18) (Ibid. 368) displays other-initiated self-repair (opportunity 4):
(16) A: Lissena pigeons.
(0.7)
B: Quail, I think.
(17) A: Have you ever tried a clinic?
B: What?
A: Have you ever tried a clinic?
(18) B: .hhh Well Im working through the Amfah Corporation.
A: The who?
B: Amfah Corporation. Ts a holding company.
Another component of the repair mechanism involves a range of preferences operating

in relation to the four opportunities mentioned above, namely:
Most frequently
used
Number of
Preference
1
2
Type of Repair Work
3
4
Other-initiation of Self-repair
Other-initiated Other-repair
Self-initiated Self-repair
Self-initiated Self-repair
Number of
Opportunity
1
2 (transition
place)
3
4
Least frequently used

Table 4-47: The preference ranking of the repair apparatus (Based on Levinson 1983: 341)
Table 4-2 reveals that the preference ranking spills over a continuum from the most
frequently used (# 1) to the least frequently used (# 4), and there is a clear trend for
129
self-initiated self-repair. Also, substantial delays are at work in the third opportunity if
self-initiated self-repair is not accomplished in the first two opportunities. In the
following example by Schegloff, Jefferson, and Sacks (1977: 370), B waits for As selfrepair, and only after a pause of one minute does A signal the problematic issue, leading
to As successful self-remedy.
(19) A: Hey the first time they stopped me from sellin cigarettes
was this morning.
(1.0)
B: From selling cigarettes?
A: From buying cigarettes.
In naturally occurring sequences, there are many other ways of doing repair work, such
as (partial) repetitions of problematic items, echo-questions, lengthening sounds, etc. In
addition to this, in many occasions, when the other parties can do other-repair, they still
prefer the first Ss to self-repair by indicating the repairable in their turns subsequent to
the prior as follows:
(20) K: E likes that waiter over there,
A: Wait-er?
K: Waitress, sorry,
A: Ats better,
Schegloff, Jefferson & Sacks (1977: 377)
Given the rare case when other-repair is done, it is often accompanied with such
phrases as I think used in (16), or ymean, or somehow marked, as in:
(21) L: But yknow single bedsr awfully thin to sleep on.
S: What?
L: Single beds. // Theyre-
130
E:
Ymean narrow?
L: Theyre awfully narrow yeah.
(Ibid. 378)
Preference organization also has considerable influence on sequence types (Levinson

1983). In making a request, for instance, the preference for an acceptance over a refusal
may result in the Ss designing a special pre-request, which leads to a possible offer
on the part of his co-conversant, as in Levinsons example (1983: 343) below:
(22) C: Hullo I was just ringing up to ask if you ((pre-request))
were going to Bertrands party.
R: Yes I thought you might be.
C: Heh heh
R: Yes would you like a lift?
((offer))
C: Oh Id love one.
In his work on telephone conversation openings, Schegloff realizes that preference
organization finds its manifestation in the callers provision of minimal cues in their
turns subsequent to the receivers first turns, as shown below (Schegloff 1979a: 52):
(23) R: Hello:,
C: Hello Ilse?
R: Yes. Be:tty.
Cs try on the name of the receiver should be produced with a low-rise intonation
contour, for a high-rise contour would show a far higher degree of uncertainty about the
recipients identity (Ibid. 50). The preference machinery makes dispreferred the callers
self-identification and preferred the receivers recognition of the callers. Callers selfidentification is often withheld to leave room for other-recognition. In the example
above, Cs Hello plus name act as an invitation for R to recognize who the caller is.
Callers self-identification, in general, runs the risk of having to deploy dispreferred
131
structures in telephone conversation openings between known parties. In consequence,

callers normally supply limited amount of identificatory information sufficient for them
being recognized. In the example by Levinson (1983: 345) given below, preference
organization operates in two sequence types, namely, greetings and greetings combined
with self-identification and recognition:
(24) (i)
Hi,
(ii)
Hello,
(iii)
Hello. Its me.
(iv)
Hello. Its Penny.
(v)
Hello. Its Penny Rankin.
As discussed, preference organization influences not only turns (of a pair and other
subsequent pairs), but also sequences and sequence types.
4.1.2.2. Repair apparatus in disagreeing

Remedial work in disagreeing, as discussed to some degree above, seems to operate on
the same basis of the general repair apparatus investigated by Schegloff, Jefferson, and
Sacks in their 1977 paper. Self-initiated self-repairs may occur in the first turn or in the
transition space between the first and the second turn within the first assessment, as in:
(25) A: Well, oh uh I think Alice has uh:: i- may- and maybe as you say,
slightly different, but I think she has a good sense // of humor

B:
Yeh, I think she

does too but she has a different type.
Self-initiated self-repairs can occur in the third turn of the sequence within the delivery
of disagreements as in the fragment by Pomerantz (Ibid. 74) exhibited below:
(26) W: The-the way I feel about it i:s, that as long as she cooperates,
132
an-anshe belie:ves that shes running my li:fe, or, you know, or

directing it one way or anothuh, and she feels happy about it, I do
whatever I please (h)any (h)wa(h) .HHH!// (
L:
Yeah,
W: We::ll eh-thats tur: - I mean eh-thats alright, -- uhb-ut uh, ez long

ez you do::. But h-its-eh-to me::, --after anyone
Recipients of the compliments are inclined to disagree with prior complements. They
may treat the first positive assessments as exaggerated or overdone, therefore leading to
their remedial work in form of undermining or qualifying, as in:
(27) A: youve lost suh much weight
P: Uhh hmhh uhh hmhh well, not that much
P seems to be hesitative in whether or not to repair As assessment, and after a lot of

uhs, hms and the like, she uses well to mitigate her disagreement-remedy response.
In the following excerpt (Ibid.), R downgrades the athletic award he has received by
negating its importance. C repairs his downgrading by emphasizing the significance of
the award, saying that she is happy with it.
(28) R: Tch! No, its not really impo:rtnt,
C: Well I think its very important=En Im very pleased
Sometimes, second Ss may prefer to allude that the first assessment is problematic by
delaying their turn, or asking prior Ss to reconsider initial evaluations, as given below:
(29) A: You sound very far away.
(0.7)
B: I do?
A: Meahm.
B: mNo? Im no:t,
133
Bs pause subsequent to As opinion can be assumed the first signal of Bs upcoming

disagreement. Bs question I do? is the second signal, as well as a second chance for
As self-repair. Bs apparently contrastive opinion is launched only after Bs
reaffirmation of his position and his missing (on purpose?) both two opportunities for
self-repair or self-elaboration.
Pomerantz (1984a: 71) takes notice of repair initiators like What?, Hm? and the like
that may be used to request for more clarification on the part of first Ss as given below:
(30) L: Maybe its just ex well Wilbur,
W: Hm?
L: Maybe its just ez well you dont know.
(2.0)
(D)
W: Well. Uh-I say its suspicious it could be something good too.
In other cases, the recipients long pauses or silences yield the prior Ss modification or
elaboration work. Hoping to get approvals from the co-conversants, the first Ss may
carry on explaining, clarifying and elaborating things, resulting in spilling the remedial
work over the whole sequence, as in another example (Ibid. 70-71). Chances for repair
work or places of repair work are notated with (), and disagreements with (D):
(31) 1. A: ( ) cause those things take working at,
2. (2.0)
(D)
3. B: (hhhhh) well, they // do, but

4. A:
They arent accidents,
5. B: No, they take working at, But on the other hand, some people are
6. born with hhm (1.0) well a sense of humor, I think is something yer
7. born with Bea.
8.A: Yes, or its c- I have the-eh yes, I think a lotta people are, but then I
134
9. think it can be developed, too.
(D)
10. (1.0)
11. B: Yeah, but // theres12. A:
Any-
13. A: Any of those attributes can be developed.

The two-second silence in line 2 is the first chance for A to deal with the remedy, but he
does not take it. A clarifies his position in line 8, but he still sticks to its kernel, thus
causing a one-second silence on the part of his co-conversant. This silence is also his
second chance to think over the issue at hand. However, his almost unchanged status
leads to Bs second disagreement in the agreement plus disagreement format.
4.1.3. Summary
As it is clearly shown, preferred/unmarked pair parts are structurally less complicated
and linguistically simpler in comparison with dispreferred/marked. The latter are likely
to go with delay devices, prefaces, or explanations apart from the structural complexity,
and thus tend to be avoided in interpersonal interaction because of their complexstructural format and communicative ineffectiveness. Disagreement tokens in English
and Vietnamese are seen to be performed in both marked/dispreferred structures as
dispreferred seconds and unmarked/preferred formats as preferred seconds. Also, three
kinds of repairs, namely, self-initiated self-repairs, other-initiated self-repairs, and
other-initiated other-repairs, functioning as delay devices are found to operate in
various ways in the structural organization of turns and sequences in disagreeing.
The next part compares and contrasts the English corpus and the Vietnamese corpus on
disagreeing obtained from conversations recorded in everyday casual settings within
the framework of conversation analytic studies earlier discussed and exhibited.
135

4.2.1.1. Aims
This empirical study aims at finding evidence for the following hypotheses:
1. Disagreement tokens made by native speakers of English and Vietnamese may
be similar in terms of preference format pertaining to the minimization of
disagreements as dispreferred seconds and maximization of disagreements as
preferred seconds.
2. The English informants are inclined to take advantage of devices like back
channels, partial repeats, repair initiators and turn prefaces to hedge their
disagreements while their Vietnamese are prone to deploy address terms and
particles in conformity to their social norms.

As required by conversation analytic research, all the data used in this paper should be
obtained from mundane talk occurring in natural settings. The data were collected in
2003 in Hanoi and Toronto. The Vietnamese corpus is from 30 native speakers of
Vietnamese living and working in Hanoi. They all have university/college education
(except one old-aged woman in the first conversation), and are rated as middle-class
citizens. The corpus contains eight conversations, each of which is 45 minutes long.
The first conversation is between an old-age woman and her three adult children: two
mid-aged women and one young man aged around 30. They talk about their family
issues and relatives. The second tape is a conversation among three women, who used
to be students in the same department at college. Two of them met by chance at the
house of the third woman twenty years after their graduation, and the conversation was
recorded on that day. The third conversation is between five people, two men and three
136
women. They used to be classmates at school and have been in close contact since then.
They exchange ideas about their families, children, and individual lifestyle. All the
conversationalists in the second and third conversations are in their early forties. The
fourth and the fifth conversations are between a group of first-year college students and
their schoolteacher. They talk about their school days, studies, exams, fashions, as well
as teacher-student and student-student relationships. They assess the school activities
they once took part in, and many other things. The sixth tape contains a conversation
between a four-member family and an old friend of the mother. Both the parents, aged
around 50, are officers and their children, aged between 20 and 26, are college students.
The familys friend, who is in her forties, is close to the family and they have a good
relationship. They exchange information about daily activities, their childrens heath,
studies and the like. During the talk, the daughter and the son seem to be quiet
compared to their parents. Maybe, the presence of the guest inconveniences them in
some way, although they know her well. Or maybe, it is a reflection of the norms of
Vietnamese behavioral manners: children do not actively engage in conversations
among adults until they are asked to.
The seventh conversation is about preparations for college entrance exams between two
mothers and two students. The mothers, who are actually cousins, are in their forties.
One of the students is a first-year college boy, and the other is a twelfth-grade girl, who
is preparing for the up-coming competitive college-entrance exams. The last
conversation is between an old-aged man, who used to be a middle-ranked official of
the government, his son and a female school classmate of the son, who are about 40.
Being friends for more than 20 years, the son and his friend understand each other quite
well, and find it comfortable to talk about different issues. At that time, the son was still
single and this was one of the concerns of the father.
137
The English corpus consists of 6 tapes, two of which have been recorded in Hanoi and
four in Toronto. All the 16 informants are native speakers of English from North
America and have college/university degrees. The first tape contains a conversation
between two mid-aged women who come from New York. They used to be good
friends and just met again in Hanoi after a long time of no contact. The second tape is
made with the help of 4 American English teachers working in Hanoi, aged from 24 to
30, one male and three females. They didnt know each other until they came to teach
in Vietnam. However, they had some time working together and were frequently
engaged in interaction. The first Toronto tape is between 2 mid-aged Ph.D. students, a
man and a woman and both are native speakers of English. The second is a
conversation between a Canadian old-aged couple and the husband is a graduate
student in the Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto. This kind man
recorded the conversation between him and his oldest son, a mid-aged man, making the
third tape for the researcher. The fourth Toronto tape records two young MA students
doing their research at University of Toronto. All the informants are asked to freely talk
about their daily activities, hobbies and friends and provide assessment of things they
do and of people they know.
However, for the particular purpose and size of the present paper, a major part of the
English corpus is taken from excerpts and extracts used by respected researchers in the
field of conversation analysis like Heritage and Drew (1979), Pomerantz (1975, 1978,
1984a-b), Levinson (1983), Heritage (2002, forth.), Goodwin and Goodwin (1987) and
others. These data are claimed to come from actual interactions between native
speakers of English in natural everyday settings. Generally, they are transcribed on the
basis of the conventions used in CA. This, according to Psathas (1995: 45) is
appropriate and allowable in CA, as Data may be obtained from any available source,
138
the only requirement being that these should be naturally occurring, rather than
produced for the purpose of study.
The present researcher has the respondents permission to use the tapes, although some
of the informants were recorded without being informed earlier. The majority of the
tapes were collected after the informants agreed to be recorded. The recordings were
done only when the informants got so involved in the talk that they forgot about the
recorder and the researcher herself. By and large, the data can be assumed to consist of
naturally occurring interactions, and are very much similar to those happen in everyday
exchanges between native speakers.
Being audio-taped, both kinds of data lack visual documentation. The prosodic features
may fully be incorporated in the English corpus, but not in the Vietnamese due to the
shortage of adequate technologies. And although the researcher is aware of the
significance and contribution of participants gestures, body movements, gazes, and
other facial expressions, she cannot address such body behaviors. The field-notes taken
by the researcher herself are employed for reference only when necessary and
appropriate. On the whole, the study focuses on the basic vocal features of the talk
while analyzing preference organization in English and Vietnamese on the grounds of
disagreeing data. One of the main concerns of the present paper is to examine the
preference structures in disagreeing turns and sequences. Thus, some translations from
Vietnamese into English may lack naturalness as the researcher would like to maintain
the main features of talk-in-progress in Vietnamese.
4.2.2. Strategies for Disagreements as Dispreferred Seconds
4.2.2.1. English corpus

1. Delay devices: In interactional exchanges, the initiating of assessments is often
treated as a way of inviting agreements from co-participants. However, not all the
139
responses are agreements. According to the data, English Ss tend to delay or withhold
stated disagreements and avoid early delivery of negative answers within turns and
sequences. Such markers as partial repeats (e.g. I do), repair initiators (e.g. I mean),
turn prefaces (e.g. Well, Er), requests for clarification (e.g. What?, Hm) and so
on so forth are frequently employed to signal the special turn shapes for disagreements
as dispreferreds. The following fragments can be good examples:
(32) A: Why whhatsa mattuh with y-Yih sou//nd HA:PPY, hh
B:
Nothing.
B: I sound ha:p//py?
A:
Ye:uh.
(0.3)
B: No:,
(33) Angel: I dont think Nick would play such a dirty trick on you.
Brit: Well, you obviously dont know Nick very well.

(Finegan 2004: 309)
2. Silences: Pomerantz (1984a) and Goodwin & Goodwin (1987) assume that pauses
and silences following the prior assessments are comprehended as second Ss signals of
yet-stated disagreements. In the example by Goodwin & Goodwin (1987: 43) given
below, Curts forthright disagreement finally comes after two pauses leading to Mikes
prolonging his turn and the whole sequence:
(34) Mike: Well I cant say theyre ol: clunkers- eez gotta Co:rd?
(0.1)
Mike: Two Co:rds.
(1.0)
Mike: //And
140
Curt: Not original,

Pomerantz (1984a: 71) also calls this strategy no immediately forthcoming talk
strategy. In her extract (Ibid. 70) given below, the initially silent part of the response
(marked with ) may imply an upcoming disagreement [marked with (D)] and
engender an elaborate assertion on the part of the first S:
(35) A: God izn it dreary.
(0.6)
A: //Yknow I dont think-
(D)
B: .hh- Its warm though,
3. Downgrading prior assessments: Native speakers sometimes express their negative

answers by downgrading or qualifying the already stated evaluations, as in the
following extract by Pomerantz (1978: 96):
(36) E: That Pat. Isnt she a do::ll?
Not completely agreeing with and not wishing to publicly be opposite to the coconversant, M chooses the strategy of downgrading levels of first assessments. Quite
similarly, the second S in another example by Pomerantz (1984a: 68) lessens the
strength of the prior evaluative token by providing a scaled-down or weakened
assessment:
(37) A: Shes a fox.
L: Yeh, shes a pretty girl.
English Ss can also make use of such downtoners as kind of, sort of, a bit, nearly,
almost, slightly, somewhat etc., which will be examined in Chapter five, to qualify their
disagreements, as in an extract by Pomerantz (Ibid.):
(38) A: Oh it was just beautiful.
141
B: uh I thought it was quite nice.
4. Agreement + Disagreement format: English speakers may deploy the agreement

plus disagreement format or weak disagreement, accompanied with but as in another
example by Pomerantz (1984a: 72):
(39) D: Weve got sm pretty // (good schools.)
C:
Well, yeah but where in the hell em I gonna live.
Disagreements might also be delayed within the turn construction. Ss may preface
disagreement components with uhs, wells (as in the above extract) and so on,
expressing discomfort or inconvenience.
The interesting and mysterious combination of agreeing and disagreeing in this format
is worth noting. In essence, agreements and disagreements are contrastive elements,
and in theory, they should go in opposing directions. In this special format, however,
they go together and form a type of weak or partial disagreements, as in the two
fragments below by Pomerantz (1984a: 73):
(40) R: Butchu admit he is having fun and you think its funny.
K: I think its funny, yeah. But its a ridiculous funny.
(41) A: cause those things take working at,

(2.0)
B: (hhhhh) well, they // do, butA:
They arent accidents,
B: No, they take working at but on the other hand, some people
Supposing that the agreement tokens in the excerpts above were left out, the
disagreements would then be judged as strong, as the evaluation components would be
directly contrastive with the prior.
142
4.2.2.2. Vietnamese corpus

1. Delay devices: When Vietnamese Ss find themselves in disagreement with prior
assessments, they may delay their outright answers by asking for more information or
clarification, as in the following extract:
V03.9.56.
(42) B. V nhiu ci n lm ti thy l u t khng hp l.
and many classifier he do I see be investment no reasonable
(And lots of what hes done can be considered unsound investment.)
H. Nhng m n vn kim tin tt.
But he already get money good
(But he can still make plenty of money.)
B: Ci kim tin ca thng N y (0.5) t thy khng phi
l tt.
classifier get money of address-term N that I see no must be good
(I dont think the way N makes his money is good.)
H: , sao li khng tt?

Yeah why particle no good
(Yeah, why isnt it good?)
B. Mi ch l bng ci ci c bp thi.
New only be equal classifier classifier muscle already
(Hes just used his muscles.)
H. Ai bo bn l c bp?
Who say you be muscle
(Who told you [hes just used his] muscle?)
143
The use of first person pronoun in the prior turn is worth noting. The first S, a mid-aged
man named B, uses t in talking with H, his female classmate at school, and this
exhibits their friendship and closeness. This term for self-reference is exploited in
informal talk between peers and sometimes, in downward speech, from the superior to
the inferior. The talk, assumed to be intimate and open, takes place in Bs house, when
H comes to visit B. Perhaps, all these things affect the way in which the two
conversationalists word their ideas and evaluations.
H does not agree with B in his assessment of N, their mutual friend at school, and she
uses Nhng m (But) to point out the fact that N can still make a lot of money. When
B insists on his view, H prefaces her request for reason with an agreement element ,
sao li khng tt? (Yeah, why isnt it good?). Her asking about the source of
information Ai bo? (Who told?) is deployed as a way of expressing
disagreeing, and it deserves to be mentioned. It provides the second S with a chance to
better understand her partners stance, and at the same time, it helps her avoid
producing an outright disagreement, which might make her sound too critical or
aggressive. Vietnamese Ss in my data are inclined to make frequent use of this way to
perform their disagreement.
In the fragment below, L requests evidence of the information source as she talks with
her classmate about the college entrance exams they just sat.
V03.8.45
(43) T: Cn bn l khi A nm nay kh hn.
essential be block A year present difficult more
(Essentially, group A is more difficult this year.)
L: Ai bo th?
Who tell that
144
(Who told (you) that?)

T. im cao hn nhiu.
Mark high more a lot
(The marks are a lot higher.)
L. im cao l do mi ngi thi gii nn im n mi cao.

Mark high be as all beings exam excellent so mark it new high
(Theyre high because the candidates did so well in the exams.)
Ls using of Ai bo (Who told) seems a way of withholding or hiding her

different point of view. She might change her stance if her partner has good reasons for
his assessment. She may also go on stating her disagreeing if he does not.
In short, the second Ss in these extracts seem to wish their interlocutors to either prove
or elaborate their assertions before verbally stating their opposite positions. In other
words, they use different delay devices to initiate chances for the first Ss to somehow
reconstruct the prior evaluations.
2. Silences: Native Vietnamese Ss also deploy silences or pauses to signal potential
disagreements in face-to-face interactions. In the fragment given below, B and H are
talking about their mutual friend at school, who is now a director in a joint-venture. Hs
second assessment is followed by Bs long silence of four seconds, causing H to
reassert her evaluation. Only after Hs completion of her reassertion does Bs forthright
disagreement come.
V03.9.57
(44) H: n b th l qu gii ri.
Woman that be much excellent already
(Women [like her] are really excellent.)
B. T m c v nh th t khng thch.
145
Iparticle have wife like that I not like

(I dont like to have a wife like that.)
H: ng khng thch nhng m ngi ta thch.
Grandfather not like but particle people like
(You dont like but people do.)
B: (4.0)
H: ng khng thch nhng ngi khc thch.
Grandfather not like but people other like
(You dont like but other people do.)
B. T quan im khc.
I point of view different
(I have a different point of view.)
It is of interest to talk about the use of reference terms in this recording. H, a female
friend of B, addresses him as ng (grandfather), which is a typical kinship term used
among friends and peers. ng in this case indicates that the gender of the interlocutor
is male, and its equivalent for a female is B (grandmother). When used in this way,
these kinship terms do not demonstrate the normal relationship between relatives. B in
this extract, however, does not make use of B. He uses T, a first person pronoun
used in informal talk between peers. The utility of person reference terms in this
fragment exhibits an informal and friendly atmosphere.
3. Downgrading prior assessments: The second Ss in the Vietnamese data may
disagree with the first Ss by softening and rewording prior assessments. In the excerpt
given below, T qualifies the frequency of the action mentioned by the first S, leading to
a weakened disagreement within his turn:
V03.8.46.
146
(45) D: T. ny cht gh lm sut ngy ln mng.

T (proper name) this chat extremely much . all
day go up net
(This boy T. chats a great dealall day on line.)
T: Thnh thong.
Sometimes (Sometimes.)
In other cases, second Ss make use of the preferred format by initially agreeing and
then downgrading prior assessments, thereby producing weak disagreements. The
following fragment may serve as an example:
V03.9.55
(46) B: Nc y n c::ng (0.5) K thut ca n cng mnh pht
y.
Country that it a:::lso technology of it also strong intensifer particle
(That country is also (0.5) its technology is also very powerful.)
H: , k thut ca n th: (1.0) cng kh.
Yeah technology of it be also good
(Yeah, its technology is also good.)
B: Cng siu pht y. Nht l nng nghip ca n (1.0)
rt gii.
Also super intensifier particle especially agriculture of it very good
(Its excellent. Especially its agriculture (1.0) is really good.)
As clearly seen, after agreeing with Bs assessment, H qualifies it by proposing a lower
level of evaluation. Her so doing causes her co-conversant to reaffirm his position,
adding more turns to the sequence to strengthen his point. B seems to adhere to
emphasizers like rt, pht make clear his stance.
147
4. Agreement + disagreement format: Subsequent Ss in Vietnamese may first agree

with prior assessments, and then begin their contrastive evaluation with but, i.e., they
deploy the agreement plus disagreement format, as in:
V03.5.21
(47) H: Con gi n thun hn.
Classifier girl pronoun obedient more
(Girls are more obedient.)
V: , (1.0) nhng m con trai by gi th

Yeah but classifier boy now be
(Yeah, but boys are now)
Vietnamese Ss tend to make advantage of particles like no, nh, , nh,

y, u, ,
vng etc. Among them and vng are often
utilized in upward speech from the inferior to the superior or from the junior to the
senior (Vu T. T. H. 1997, 2000) to express respect and deference; therefore, they are
called politeness/deference markers or honorifics (cf. Nguyen D. H. 1995). Let us have
a look at the following example:
V03.6.21
(48) H: Con giai l cha:: cha theo qu o (1.0) cho nn l b
phi rn
Classifier boy be not yet follow orbit for need be father must train
nhiu ((ci))
much ((laughs))
(Boys arent very obedient, so fathers have to pay more attention.)
N: Khng phi th .
No must that particle-
148
(Thats not true.)

Ns father, a friend of Ms. H, says that he pays more attention to his son N than to his
daughter, Ns older sister. In the excerpt above, H tries to verbally interpret the fathers
purpose of so doing. N, a first-year student at Hanoi Conservatory, is not in agreement
with H, as her overgeneralization might allude that he is among those who are not very
obedient. Although his utterance is full of contrastive components, and the English
version may sound too forthright, his wording in Vietnamese would be judged as
respectful and acceptable thanks to the use of the sentence-final particle . The
politeness level of an utterance in Vietnamese is commonly carried out via the use of
such semantic items as appropriate address terms, particles and other supportive
devices to show solidarity, intimacy, respect and deference, leading to high degree of
discourse indirectness. From time to time, the appropriate level of formality may be of
great help.
In the next fragment, A states her disagreement right after her teacher assesses the
college entrance exams. Her using twice within the turn increases the level of
politeness and respect necessary in her upward speech to her teacher. As unpolished
answer can be treated as an exaggeration in terms of meaning, but it is fine from the
viewpoint of socially accepted norms.
V03.4.13
(49) C: vic thi rt kh s o to (1.0) s chn c nhn
ti
work exam very difficult will train will select gifted
thc s vo i hc
really for go college
difficult exams will train will help select really gifted students
149
for colleges.
A: Khng c u . Tiu cc vn cc nhiu lun .

No have where marker- negative also extremely many often marker-
(No, its not. There are still a great many secret deals.)
However, is not always treated as a means of displaying respect to people

hierarchically higher than second-assessment profferers. In the example given below,
just plays its normal role of a particle, as there is no need to use it to demonstrate
deference and respect in talk between peers. Also, the use of cc as an amplifier
in cc nhiu helps to increase the impact of the disagreeing
attribute.
4.2.2.3. Comments
The proffering of disagreements as dispreferred seconds is produced in turns and
sequences typically characterized by delaying the overtly stated contrastive components
and performing weakened or qualified assertions. Such turns and sequences are
exploited to express disagreements as unfavorable, and at the same time, they are
oriented to in talk-in-progress to minimize explicitly stated disagreement tokens.
The data show that Vietnamese Ss construct their disagreements within turns and
sequences in nearly the same ways as the English Ss do. Vietnamese Ss may exploit (i)
delay devices such as asking for more elaboration or evidence to hedge or withhold
their opposite opinion, (ii) silences and pauses to inform interlocutors of upcoming
disagreements. They can sometimes indicate unwillingness or reluctance not to be in
accord with co-participants by (iii) downgrading or modifying/softening prior
assessments, or they may utilize (iv) agreement plus disagreement format.
Intensifiers including emphasizers, amplifiers and downtoners (Quirk et al. 1972) are
observed to be exploited in both English and Vietnamese disagreements.
150
The striking differences that emerge are in the pervasive use of pronouns and particles
in Vietnamese. Unlike English, Vietnamese is full of personal pronouns and kinship
terms (both fictive and non-fictive use) deployed for self-reference or address. It is the
appropriate use of particles, as well as person-referring terms that contribute much to
the production of polite and socially acceptable disagreements. English Ss probably
make more use of repair work, turn prefaces and backchannels (hm, mh and the
like) compared with their Vietnamese counterparts.
4.2.3. Strategies for Disagreements as Preferred Seconds

1. Immediate disagreements: As aforementioned, the English data exhibit that
conversationalists tend to avoid dispreferred format when interacting with others. It is
the fact that they are inclined to delay, withhold or qualify their disagreements with
prefaces, hesitations, silences, repair initiators and the like. This, of course, does not
mean that English Ss never forthrightly disagree with their co-conversants. Strong and
immediate disagreements are prone to appear after prior self-deprecations.
Disagreements in such cases generally occupy entire turns subsequent to selfdeprecations. Second Ss may partially repeat (PR) prior self-deprecations and then
overtly stated disagreement (D) with profferers of self-deprecations, as in an example
by Pomerantz (1984a: 83):
(50) B: Im tryina get slim.
(PR)
A: Ye:ah? // You get slim, my heavens.

B:
(D)
heh heh heh heh hh hh
A: You dont need to get any slimmah,
151
Such negations as no, hm-mh, and not may occur in initial spaces in turns
containing answers to self-deprecatory formulations. The following extracts by
Pomerantz (1984a: 84) might be good examples of this kind:
(51) R: Did she get my card?
C: Yeah she gotcher card.
R: Did she tink it was terrible?
C: No she thought it was very adohrable.
(52) B: I was wondering if Id ruined yer- weekend // by uh
A:
No. No. Hm-mh. No. I

just love to have-
2. Complimentary components: It is obvious that disagreements subsequent to prior

self-deprecations are likely to contain evaluative components. As oppositions to selfdeprecating assessments, they are constructed as positive, complimentary attributes.
Pomerantz (1984a: 85) exemplifies this view in the extracts below:
(53) C: ere Momma She talks better than I do.
B: Aw you talk fine.
(54) B: And I never was a grea(h)t Bri(h)dge play(h)er Clai(h) re,
A: Well I think youve always been real good,
Given that a self-deprecatory formulation is produced the next Ss response is made due
and relevant in the subsequent turn. The mechanism of preference organization in this
case is the reverse of the normal case. Agreements turn out to be dispreferred seconds
and disagreements preferred seconds. The reason is simple: agreements with selfcritical assessments are interpreted as criticisms, and disagreements are conceived as
favorable, positively evaluative tokens. As a result, disagreements with selfdenigrations are performed in preferred-action turns and sequences.
152
Disagreements as preferred seconds tend to be overtly stated in a range of various

forms. Second Ss may, for instance, proffer assessments quite contrastive to prior selfdeprecating assessments as in the example by Pomerants (1984a: 87):
(55) A: Im so dumb I dont even know it. hhh! heh!
B: Y-no, y-youre not du:mb,
3. Undermining self-denigrations:
Recipients
may criticize
self-deprecatory
formulations, hence disaffiliating with their validity, as below:

(56) C: I have no dates. I dont go: there // is no sense in hanging onto the
clothes
J:
(Are you-) ((high pitch))
J: Wha do ya mean you dont have any da:tes. ((low pitch))

C: Well: I just dont go out anymore thats all.
J: Oh: thats ridiculous.
By undermining, recategorizing or reformulating self-critical assessments, second Ss

can produce pleasing disagreements with first Ss. They may, from time to time, show
that prior self-deprecations are not proper actions, as in (Ibid. 88):
(57) W: And Im being irritable right now by telling you so,
L: Ah! Ah! .HHHH No. hehhhheh! No but- but uh-yuh-Wilbur agai::n.

again. Stop trying to do this of your se:lf. (1.2)leave it alone en
youll be shown the way to overcome it.
Second Ss may undermine prior self-deprecatory formulations by suggesting that they

are common and normal. It is of interest to pay attention to the deployment of
emphasizers, amplifiers or downtoners in English disagreements. These two points are
illustrated in the following extract:
(58) W: Yet Ive got quite a distance tuh go yet.
153
L: Everybody has a distance.

Native English Ss in disagreements to prior self-deprecations are observed to act quite

directly. They may explicitly negate the first assessments, provide compliments or
downgrade their seriousness.

In response to self-deprecations, Vietnamese Ss deploy a set of strategies similar to
those used by English Ss to produce disagreements as preferred seconds within turns
and sequences to demonstrate their favorable, positively evaluative assessments.
1. Immediate disagreements: Prior self-deprecatory formulations may strongly and
immediately be disapproved of by such negation components as khng (no/not),
khng phi (no/not), khng hn (not really) and the like, possibly located
within turn/sequence shapes. Let us have a look at this excerpt:
V03.3.11.
(59) L: ng T. h cng (1.0) mt phn do L.
Grandfather T spoiled also one portion because L.
(That Mr. T has been spoiled is partly my fault.)
B: Ci khng phi u L . Ci vn l=
Classifier that no must particle L particle- classifier problem be.
(Thats not true, L. The problem is)
N: Khng phi u.
No must particle
(No, its not.)
L criticizes herself for spoiling her husband by taking over almost all of the family
duties. Her school classmates directly disagree with her, saying that it is not her fault.
154
In her self-deprecation, L calls her husband by a kinship term ng (grandfather),

which is used in this situation as a title equivalent to English Mr. and is not
comprehended in relation to its original connotation. Here, we can see that particle- is
not used to show respect or deference at all. It just plays a role of a normal vocative.
From time to time, second Ss may negate prior self-criticisms by pointing out other
sources concerning present conditions, as below:
V03.9.62.
(60) BB: Anh cha thc c l anh l ch ci t bo
Older brother not aware be older brother owner classifier cell
ca x hi Ci l khuyt im do bc.
of society classifier that be fault because uncle
(Hes not aware that hes the head of a society cell ... Thats my fault.)
H: Cng khng hn l khuyt im ca bc u . C l
l B cng l
Also not be mistake of uncle particle particle. Perhaps be B also be
(1.0) cng khng mun ngh n ci chuyn y cho
n au u.
also not want think about classifier story that for it less headache
(Its not really your fault, uncle. Perhaps, B doesnt want to think
about this to avoid a headache.)
The person mentioned by Mr. BB is B, who is Hs old school classmate, and the
society cell in Mr. BBs wording is his family. The old man blames himself for the
fact that his son B, a mid-aged man, is still single. H defends both him and his son, and
perhaps, that is why her disagreement token does not sound really forthright. Had she
155
been more aggressive, she would have been interpreted as in favor of the father while in
opposition to the son.
The use of anh (older brother) by Mr. BB in this fragment has nothing to do with
relative links. It just means he in English, a third person singular pronoun. While
talking Mr. BB refers to himself as bc (uncle), and H, addresses him bc too.
Similar to other kinship terms, bc is utilized to show respect and solidarity with coconversants and the fictive use of the kin-term bc here imply that they are as close
as family members. Also, Hs deployment of polite marker in her response to Mr.
BBs self-deprecating assessment demonstrates her respect to him.
2. Complimentary components: Native Ss of Vietnamese may combine strong
disagreements with complimentary attributes. In the following fragment, the coparticipants talk about whether one should be thin or fat. H, the oldest, seems to bother
herself about her weight and keeps making self-critical assessments. The other Ss, D
and T, on the contrary, disagree with her by indicating that her body build is normal at
her age. In the previous sequence, D says that her mother wants to gain weight to be
plumper. Thus, H wishes that they could exchange their body builds. The
disagreement tokens in this fragment are made with partial repeats of the prior
assessments. Apart from showing that H is normal compared to other women T
includes complimentary evaluative terms in his response to Hs self-denigration.
V03.8.51.
(61) H: Ch b cho c::
No compensate for aunt
(May she and I make an exchange.)
D: Nhng c lm g m bo.
But aunt do what particle fat
156
(But you are not fat.)

H. ((Ci)) Khng bo g na. y:::
((Laughs)) no fat what else. That:::
((Laughs)) (Im fat, you see.)
D. n tui c th ny th bo g.
come age aunt that this be fat what
(Youre not considered fat at this age.)
T. C th ny l bnh thng ri y n, cn i
aunt this be normal particle plump well-proportioned
(You look normal this way... Plump and well-proportioned.)
H uses c (aunt) to address herself, and the same kinship is exploited by other parties
taking part in the ongoing conversation. Of course, the address term c here does not
mean that they are relatives. As mentioned above, kinship terms are the most widely
used among person reference words (Luong 1987, 1990), and c in this fictive use
has the meaning of Miss - female teacher.
3. Undermining self-denigrations: Second Ss may sometimes undermine the prior selfdeprecations by demonstrating that they are irrational or unreasonable, as in the
following excerpts:
V03.8.41
(62) D: Trnh ca mnh by gi ch dy c cp mt
thi
Level of we now only teach particle elementary level particle
(At our present level, we can only teach elementary students.)
L: V:: vn. Ch ai bit.

Irrational nobody know
157
(Its irrational. Nobody knows.)

The two female freshmen want to work part-time as tutors. D seems to be worried that
her present level of knowledge is not enough to be a tutor. L, in contrast, is more selfconfident, and she points outs that Ds self-deprecation is improper and irrational. In
the same vein, T undermines Ds self-critical comment:
V03.8.42
(63) D. Cp ba n vn cho cht.
Level three they cross-examine for death
(High school students may cross-examine you to death.)
T: Vn g.
Cross-examine what
(What can they cross-examine.)
In another extract, T concludes that they cannot teach primary school students math, as
it seems to be hard. Being in disagreement with T, D criticizes him, therefore
disaffiliating with his self-denigrating attribute:
V03.8.44
(64) T. Cp hai khng dy c u. Khng dy c u.
Level two not teach particle particle not teach particle particle
(We cannot teach primary school students. We cannot.)
D. (Ci) Coi thng nhau th.

((Laugh)) Look down on other so
((Laughs)) (You look down on others.)
Vietnamese Ss can also disaffiliate with prior self-deprecations by criticizing their

grounds. In the extract below, T assumes that his inattentiveness in grade 12 is due to
158
purity changes. In contrast, H points out that his account is a bit weird, as his purity has
already gone. In her turn, she repeats Ts key word purity and thus, invalidates it.
V03.8.54.
(65) T: Nm 12 con hc v vn Chc l ang tui dy th
((Ci))
year 12 son study foolish maybe present age purity ((laughs))
(I was inattentive in studies in grade 12Maybe because of purity)
H: ((Ci)) Tu:i dy th! i gii, gm, dy th ci

((laugh)) purity exclamation god exclamation purity classifier
g na (1.0) Dy th t bao gi
what else
purity from when.
((Laughs)) (Purity! Oh god, what kind of purity (1.0). Puritys gone)

T uses con (son) meaning I to refer to himself. This kinship term is fictively used by
teachers instead of em to address students, and this has become a prevalent trend in
schools in Vietnam in recent years.
The extracts above demonstrate strategies for disagreements with prior self-negations in
Vietnamese, which are similar to those used in English. However, Vietnamese Ss are
prone to supplementary elements such as addressing terms, deference markers to
express politeness while exploiting direct linguistic forms.
4.2.3.3. Comments
When disagreements are shaped as preferred seconds to self-deprecations, they seem to
be explicitly verbalized with such negations as no and not, and may occupy the
entire turn/sequence shapes. They may be accompanied with partial repeats or
complimentary evaluative terms. Recipients can undermine prior self-critical
assessments by re-categorizing, reformulating or criticizing them.
159
The Vietnamese in the data seem to be direct and outright in their disagreements with
prior self-deprecations. Like the English Ss, they are inclined to produce (i) immediate
disagreements, combine disagreement tokens with (ii) complimentary components, or
they may abide by disaffiliating with or (iii) undermining self-denigrations. Unlike
English Ss, Vietnamese Ss can make effective and polite disagreements to achieve
communicative goals, basing on the rich vocabulary of person-referring terms,
particles, and other supportive markers of politeness.
4.2.4. Summary
The English and Vietnamese corpora have persuasively proved the hypotheses of
similarities between English and Vietnamese in terms of preference format concerning
the speech act of disagreeing. While disagreements as dispreferred seconds tend to be
delayed or hedged disagreements to self-denigrations as preferred seconds are
inclined to overtly and forthrightly articulated. Disagreements as dispreferred
seconds are characterized by softeners and hedges, questions or requests for more
information to invalidate earlier stated evaluative attributes. Second Ss may produce
weak disagreements by using agreement plus disagreement format (Yes, but.),
qualify or downgrade prior assessments. In addition, pauses and silences are considered
signals imminent negative responses in both languages.
The English informants prefer to exploit such delay devices as partial repeats, repair
initiators, turn prefaces or back channels whereas the Vietnamese make use of the rich
repertoire of person referring terms, particles although all of them deploy emphasizers
or downtoners to upgrade or downgrade their disagreements.

The empirical part of this chapter views the notion of markedness in relation to the
notions of preference format and adjacency pair. In naturally occurring interactions,
160
disagreeing, which is structurally marked and thus dispreferred because of its structural
complexity and counter-productive effects, is often softened or hedged. However,
disagreements to self-denigrations, which are structurally unmarked and thus preferred,
are prone to be forthrightly proffered. The two kinds of disagreements seem to work in
absolutely opposing directions so that they can minimize the negative effects of
common disagreements and maximize the positive impacts of disagreement tokens to
prior self-deprecations.
The two groups of informants are inclined to express weak disagreements via
agreement plus disagreement or downgrading constructions apart from requests for
further clarity or pauses and silences. The significant difference is found in the
Vietnamese preference for deployment of address terms and particles and English
tendency to utilize repair-work, turn prefaces or back channels. In the next section, we
have a look at the strategies utilized in English and Vietnamese conversational
exchanges to adjust to the constraints systems of preference format and self-praise
avoidance, and to negotiate disagreements. As aforementioned, native speakers of
English and Vietnamese can create more or less impact in their disagreement attributes
by using intensifiers including emphasizers, amplifiers, and downtoners. Possessing the
elaborate system of address terms and a wide range of particles, the Vietnamese seem to
express with ease both normatively and strategically polite disagreements. Therefore,
the following chapter also takes into consideration the English system of intensifiers
and Vietnamese system of person referring terms and particles.
161
CHAPTER FIVE
STRATEGIES FOR CONSTRAINT SYSTEMS AND
NEGOTIATION OF DISAGREEMENTS
5.1.1. Constraint Systems
According to the organization of preference, compliments should be accepted or agreed
with. In contrast, recent research into English shows that quite a large proportion of
compliment responses are not performed as preferred seconds, and most of them are
situated in the middle of a continuum ranging from acceptances/agreements to
rejections/disagreements (Pomerantz 1975, 1978, 1984a; Levinson 1983; Heritage 2002
among others). In the following table, Pomerantz (1978: 88) presents the
interrelatedness between acceptances/agreements and rejections/disagreements with
respect to compliment responses.
PRIOR COMPLIMENTS
For Acceptances
For Rejections
(P) Appreciation tokens
(S) Agreements
Note:
(P) Disagreements
(P) indicates preferential selection.

(S) indicates an affiliated though secondary selection.
Table 5-48: Interrelatedness between acceptances/agreements and

rejections/disagreements
In her 1978 work on Compliment Responses, Pomerantz explains that the in

between-ness of compliment responses can be the result of conflicting effects brought
by the correlation between preference organization and self-compliment avoidance.
Agreeing with the prior compliments may tacitly mean praising self on the one hand,
and disagreeing may lead to the use of dispreferred format on the other. To compromise
162
with these constraint systems, Ss may disagree with initial complimentary assertions in
a various ways that are examined in detail in the empirical study. They may, for
instance, express appreciation first, and then qualify prior compliments as can be seen
in the excerpt by Pomerantz (1978: 85) given below:
(1)L: Thoser jus beautiful. (Theyre great.)
[
E:
WellE: Thank- Its juh- this is just the right (weight)
5.1.2. Negotiation of Disagreements

Conversation is a joint-venture co-constructed by multiple Ss. To continue or start a
new topic, the S has to carry out negotiations with other interactants. Once the initial
proffering of evaluations is delivered, any difficulty in responding (e.g., delayed
uptakes, hesitations, repair initiators etc.) is comprehended as signals of potential
disagreements. Facing an imminent opposition, co-participants are seen to constantly
negotiate their evaluations or assessments.
Disagreements on the part of co-
conversants may trigger and occasion first Ss qualification or modification of prior

evaluative formulations. In some cases, they may adopt new positions different or even
contrastive to prior stances, or they may retain first views and carry on reassertions to
wait for agreements from interlocutors. The process of negotiation goes on and on until
conversationalists find a common or middle ground, accept or acknowledge the coexistence of multiple views or start a new topic or end the talk (Mori 1999: 138).
Profound conversation analysts like Pomerantz (1975, 1984a), Sacks (1987), Goodwin
& Goodwin (1987, 1992) have taken notice of the ways in which native speakers of
English negotiate their disagreements. Basing on the close investigation of naturally
occurring fragments, their studies make clear the organization of sequences in pursuing
163
the co-conversants response. Below are some of theoretical backgrounds concerning

research into the organization of these sequences.
5.1.2.1. Insertion sequences

The turn-by-turn sequential organization of interaction has been central to attention in
the conversation analytic research, and adjacency pairs have been suggested a
fundamental unit of this organization (Goffman 1976, Levinson 1983, Psathas 1995).
However, in naturally occurring interactions, the operating of sequential organizations
is much more complicated. Let us first consider the notion of adjacency, which should
be understood as a relative concept. The question-answer sequences, for instance, may
find themselves embedded within other sequences, as in Merritts excerpt (1976: 333):
(2)A: May I have a bottle of Mich? ((q 1))
B: Are you twenty one?
((q 2))
A: No.
((a 2))
B: No.
((a 1))
In a similar vein, a second pair part may be held, which creates a spatial and temporal
distance within the pair, as in another example by Levinson (1983: 304):
(3)B: U :hm (.) whats the price now eh with V.A.T. do you know eh ((q 1))
A: Er Ill just work that out for you=
((hold))
B: =thanks.
((accept))
A: Three pounds nineteen a tube sir.
((a 1))
Strict adjacency pairs, according to Levinson (Ibid.), are normally assumed to have
strong effects or requirements in comparison to their embedded counterparts.
Nonetheless, insertion sequences, which are pervasively employed in natural language
usage to construct interesting interactions, are worth intensive studies.
164
5.1.2.2. Summons-answer sequences

Schegloff (1972a, 1979a) and Sacks (1975), considering telephone conversations,
discover the uniqueness of opening exchanges, and call them summons-answer
sequences. The ringing of the phone, in their view, should be treated as a summons,
and the receivers first saying Hello or Hi is assumed the second interactional
component. Obviously, the summons-answer sequences, which contain elements of
three-turn (at least) sequences, are different from such prototypical adjacency pairs as
greeting-greeting, assessment-agreement/ disagreement, or compliment-acceptance/
rejection in terms of turns, as exemplified below (Levinson 1983: 310-11).
(4)A: John?
(5)
((summons))
B: Yeah?
((answer))
A: Pass the water woulddja?
((reason for summons))
C: ((causes telephone to ring at Rs location))

R: Hello,
C: Hi,
R: Oh hi::
As clearly seen from the above interactional excerpts, summons-answer sequences are
commonly deployed not only in telephone talks, but in other everyday face-to-face
conversations too. In (5), Schegloff (1979a) proposes to treat Cs ringing the phone as a
summons/the first move in the interaction, Rs Hello - an answer and display of
identity, Cs Hi first greeting and recognition, and Rs Oh hi second greeting and
recognition. Thus, the process of identification and recognition (Schegloff ibid.),
which seems potentially problematic in three-turn sequences, turns out to be
immediately relevant in the environment of telephone interactions.
165
5.1.2.3. Pre-sequences
Utterances like Hey, You know something?, What?, Excuse me etc. are usually
deployed as prefaces or precursors (Mey 2001: 144) to other utterances or sets of
utterances. In other words, pre-sequences are those, which function as precursors to
other utterances. There are different kinds of pre-sequences including summons,
attention getters (some are listed above), pre-invitations, pre-requests, preannouncements, pre-disagreements and many others. Before actual invitations, Ss may
produce pre-invitations, as in the excerpt by Atkinson and Drew (1979: 253) given
below:
(6)A: Whatcha doin?
B: Nothin
A: Wanna drink?
The requester can make use of a pre-request to check out if the co-conversant is
available or willing to accept his request, as in Merritts example (1976: 324):
(7)C: Do you have the blackberry jam?
S: Yes.
C: Okay. Can I have half a pint then?
S: Sure. ((turns to get))
The pre-requests can be used to see if the grounds for refusal are present, otherwise the
actual request sequences are immediately cancelled, as in (Ibid. 325):
(8)C: Do you have Marlboros?
S: Uh, no. We ran out.
C: Okay. Thanks anyway.
S: Sorry.
166
Normally, it is not easy to announce bad news, and perhaps, that is the reason for Betty,
who has to inform Fanny of Evas death, makes long stretches of pre-announcements,
as in the excerpt by Maynard (2003: 132) cited below:
(9)
Betty: I: uh::: I did wanna tell you en I didnwanna tell you

uh::::: uh:: lasni:ght. Uh:: because you had entuht-uhcompany I,
I-I had
something (.) terrible ttell you.=
Betty: =So[u h: ]
Fanny:
[How t]errible[is it.]
Betty:
[.hhhhh]
(.)
Betty: Uh: ez worse it could be:.

(0.7)
Fanny: Wymean Eva?
(.)
Betty: Uh yah .hh=
Fanny: =Wud she do die:?,=
Betty: =Mm:hm,
(.)
Fanny: When did she die,
(0.2)
Betty: Abou:t uh:::(v) (.) four weeks ago.
(.)
Fanny: Oh how horrible.
167
The above death announcement is full of pauses, delays, hesitations, sound stretching,
and breathing. Instead of making a straightforward announcement, Betty just produces
pre-announcements. By specifically designing her speech, Betty, step by step, invites
guesses from Fanny. After quite a few pre-announcements, she succeeds in obtaining
her interlocutors guess of Evas death, the very message she wants to transfer.
Obviously, the special structure of pre-sequences seems to be effective in helping Ss
obviate the need to perform undesirable actions at all.
5.1.2.4. Sequences in disagreeing

Exchanging evaluative opinions or assessments requires conversationalists to have
available access to the same things, events or people being assessed. Given the
assumption that recipients are responsive, they cannot incorporate with prior Ss without
sufficient knowledge of the same referents mentioned in the on-going talk. Delays,
hesitations, pauses or silences on the part of second Ss may signal their unstated
disagreements or lack of knowledge necessary to make comments. It is very likely that
profferers of first assessments attempt to figure out the reasons of getting no response,
thus leading to their clarification, review, or modification of their stances. In
Pomerantzs view (1984b), they are prone to do so with the hope to get agreements
from their interlocutors. To pursue agreements they can abandon their initial views and
adopt new positions, as in her example given below (Ibid. 160):
(10) C: what Im having to do to people I know is cut them up and sell
them . hhhh uh a pound and a half for a dollar sixty five
M: Well I dont know whats the matter with them because fruitcake is
not cheap and thats not an awful lot of fruitcake.
(1.0)
M: Course it is a little piece goes a long way.
168
(.)
C: Well thats right
Cs customers complaint makes her decide to cut and sell the fruitcakes by halves, but
M is not in agreement with Cs decision. M states that fruitcakes are not cheap, and
they are not so big. However, Cs one-second silence makes M reconsider her position,
and she rapidly reverses her prior view. By saying a little piece goes a long way, M
enlarges the size of the cakes and insinuates her new stance. Only after a pause does Cs
positive response come. And it is prefaced by Well. In another extract by Pomerantz
(1984a: 87), the second S makes clear the view of the first S before criticizing it, adding
more turns to the sequence:
(11) C: I have no dates. I dont go: there // no sense in hanging onto the clothes,
J:
(Are you-)
((high pitch))
J: Wha do ya mean you dont have any da:tes.
((low pitch))
C: Well: I just dont go out anymore thats all.

J: Oh: thats ridiculous.
As discussed earlier, disagreements seem to be overly stated in response to selfdeprecations. After such attributes, the prior S may continue self-deprecating, resulting
in a series of disagreements. In the following excerpt by Pomerantz (Ibid. 89), L
disagrees with W and treats Ws action of self-deprecation as improper or unreasonable:
(12) W: A:nd Im-Im, Im eating the right food n the right balance of foods,
W: but, Im still, drinking coffee,
L: Thats not (drinking).
W: You think so,
L: No::.
W: It creates a nasty disposition.
169
L: I dont believe (that // atall),

W:
it, makes you irritable
L: (It does not)

W: It doe:s, // (It ca:n.)
L:
You-er you-yuh-thats a//heh heh! hah! hah! hah!

And Im being irritable right now
by telling you so,
As demonstrated, the negotiation of disagreeing in natural interpersonal interactions is

interwoven, variously structured, and smooth flowing all over the turns in the
sequences.
5.1.3. Some Frequently Used Devices in Disagreements

5.1.3.1. Intensifiers
Disagreement tokens can be divided into strong or weak according to the force of the
act. Very often, the force is enhanced or mitigated by means of intensification and
modification. In most of the cases, disagreeing should be toned down by some form of
elaboration to minimize imposition, as demonstrated in the following example by
Finegan (2004: 311):
(1)Fran: I really enjoyed that movie last night. Did you?
Frank: Yeah, it was pretty good.
Intensifiers, in Brown & Levinsons understanding (1987), act as overstaters and/or
understaters, and adverbs like rather, quite, or just can play this twin role. Some
authors view them as highlighters (van Dijk, 1979; Polanyi, 1985), or as maximizers
(Held, 1989), whereas Zellermayer (1991) emphasizes their role in encoding
information.
170
In some cases, the S may use a more direct way to frame his/her disagreement by using
intensifiers to strongly rebut the prior Ss assessment or opinion, as in the following
interaction taken from Heritage (2002: 222):
(2)Mike: Let me ask a guy at work. Hes got a bunch of old clunkers.
I cant say theyre old clunkers. Hes got two Cords and
Curt: Not original?
Mike: Oh, yes, very original.
Intensifiers are found to demonstrate quite frequently in the English corpus of the
present study, as in the conversation given below between S, B and R:
(3)S. Yeah, its pretty (.) But I like The Quiet American. Its a very good movie.
B. Not an A.
S. Right, not an A.
R. Its a B type.
S. I really like that movie but I didnt recommend anyone to see it.
(13) R: The film that film was so exciting.
B: Uhm, well, its its kinda scary.
A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics by Crystal (2003: 237) defines intensifiers as
a class of adverbs which have a heightening or lowing effect on the meaning of
another element in the sentence. Quirk et al. (1972: 438-453) divide intensifiers into
three semantic classes, namely:
(I) emphasizers: actually, certainly, clearly, definitely, indeed, obviously, plainly, really,
surely, for certain, for sure, of course, frankly, honestly, literally, simply, fairly, just
(II) amplifiers: absolutely, altogether, completely, entirely, extremely, fully, perfectly,
quite, thoroughly, totally, utterly, in all respects, most (maximizers); badly, bitterly,
deeply, enormously, far, greatly, heartily, highly, intensely, much severely, so, strongly,
terribly, violently, well, a great deal, a good deal, a lot, by far (boosters)
(III) downtoners: kind of, sort of, quite, rather, enough, sufficiently, more or less
(compromisers); mildly, moderately, partially, partly, slightly, somewhat, in part, in
171
some respect, to some extent, a little, least (of all) (diminishers); a bit, barely, hardly,
little, scarcely, in the least, in the slightest, at all (minimizers);
almost, nearly,
practically, virtually, as good as, all but (approximators)
Dinh V. D. (1986: 218) takes notice of the frequent appearance of a class of words in
Vietnamese which he calls tnh thi t and emphasizes their active usage in
different types of acts depending on communicative purposes. Below is the list of these
words:
, , nh, nh, (nh, nh) a, , y, vi, th, no, u, vy, hn,
chc, chng, m, c, (kia), ch (ch) u, thi, , i, h, h (h),
i, i, sao, vy , m thi, th/c , c m, etc
Investigating the different ways in which Vietnamese compliments are expressed

Nguyen Q. (1998: 183-185) suggests a range of lexico-modal markers commonly
deployed by Vietnamese Ss in giving compliments:
(i) va, va mi, n gin l, c l, c th, c kh nng, phi chng, mc
no th, ni kh khng phi ch,
(i) mt cht, mt to, mt to teo, t cht, i cht, tm tm, i loi,
kiu, kiu nh l,
(ii) v cng, thc s, tht l, tht, rt, rt chi l, qu l, rt l, lm, th,
y, hn ra, ra, ln,
It is worth noting that intensifiers are not restricted to intensification. The scale that is
shown by intensifiers fluctuates upwards and downwards. Emphasizers normally
indicate a heightening level. Amplifiers upgrade the evaluative tokens compared to the
commonly assumed norms, whereas downtoners carry a lowering effect.
5.1.3.2. Person referring terms

The abundance of lexical alternates and the multiplicity of pragmatic functions of the
Vietnamese system of person reference terms, including terms of address and selfreference, make it central in a number of searches by Luong V. H. (1987, 1990),
Nguyen D. H. (1995), Nguyen Q. (1998), Vu T. T. H. (1997, 2000), Nguyen T. T. B.
(2000, 2001), to name just a few. The pervasive existence of person referring terms in
172
Vietnamese, used to designate the S, the H and the third party, projects their significant
importance in the Vietnamese system of socio-cultural beliefs and values, as Fowler
(1985: 65) puts it, Whatever is important to a culture is richly lexicalized.
The amply source of alternates as well as the multiplicity of pragmatic functions
(Luong V. H. 1990) has made the Vietnamese system of person reference the object of
many studies. Among the three classes of person referring terms common nouns
(including kinship, and status terms), proper nouns and personal pronouns, the most
widely used is kinship terms (fictive and non-fictive usage) (Ibid.). In Vietnamese
culture, the kinship hierarchy is rigidly observed in the family and patrilineage realm,
regardless of age and status, but in other domains age and status are taken into
consideration together with factors like the setting, speech style, intimacy, purpose of
the talk etc. in the choice of appropriate person-referring terms (Bui M. Y. 1996, Vu T.
T. H. 1997, Nguyen V. K. 2000 and Nguyen T. T. B. 2001).
It is possible to say that in Vietnamese deictic categories of the S, addressee and other
people are more complex and elaborated compared to those in English, as they involve
the notions of age, status, relations (by marriage and by law) etc. The term honorifics
is used to denote expressions indicating people of a higher status than ego such as qu
ng, qu b, ngi and so on. According to Do H. C. (2003), personal pronouns
(first and second person) in Vietnamese are: ti, t, ta, tao, (I), mnh (I/you),
my, bay (you), chng ti, chng my, chng ta, chng mnh, bn
mnh, bn ta (we) etc. The use of these pronouns depends on personal relations,
emotional feelings and other factors, and probably, none of them can be as neutral as
English I and you. Thus, the S should be very careful in choosing the right pronoun
for the right addressee and context. Vietnamese also makes use of proper nouns and
kinship terms in certain cases. Kinships in Vietnamese can be divided into three groups:
173
(i) m, u, bm, (mother), b, ba, ta (father) ...

(i) anh (older brother), ch (older sister), em (younger brother/sister),
ch (uncle), (aunt), bc (uncle /aunt), cha (father), m (mother),
chu
(nephew
/niece/
grandson/
granddaughter),
con
(son/daughter)
(ii) anh h, ch h (cousin),
ng ni (paternal grandfather), du
(daughter-in-law), r (son-in-law) ...
Do H. C. (2003) assumes that first-group terms can be deployed as personal pronouns,

third-group terms can be used for the description of relation, and second-group terms
can act as pronouns and description devices. Professional terms like bc s (doctor),
thy (teacher), gio s (professor), ch tch (chairman), gim c (director),
b trng (minister) etc. often play the part of pronouns.
(4)Tha bc s, bc s c th ni r hn v bnh tnh ca cha
ti c khng?
(Doctor, can you tell me more about my fathers
illness?)
Sometimes the old forms like c b, c chnh, ng l etc. involving the feudal
times can be seen. The archaic forms such as ngi, trm, qu nhn, tin sinh,
thn, khanh, ngu , hin , ngu huynh, hin huynh, ti h, tin
sinh, b nhn etc. have a very limited range of use.
Wierzbicka (1996) asserts that all languages make a distinction between I (the
speaker) and you (the addressee) although some may have just one word for he and
she. Many languages, especially those spoken in South-east Asia, possess a wide
range of elaborate substitutes for I and you (Cook 1968, Wierzbicka 1996), and the
basic forms of I and you do not seem as appropriate as their substitutes. The
Vietnamese my (I) and tao (you), for example, may be interpreted as either very
intimate or very rude depending on the context.
174
Apart from personal pronouns (I, he/she/it, you, we, they), English also makes use of
proper names, professional terms (professor, master, etc.) and titles (Mr., Mrs., Miss.,
etc.), which is similar to Vietnamese.
(5)Dr. Dixon, could I ask you a question?
It is of interest to talk of multi-person pronouns in Vietnamese like ngi ta, and
mnh used as first and second person pronouns. Proper names, most of kinship
terms can be functioned as first, second and third person ones. To avoid confusion,
particles y, ta are often put in combination with second-group kinship terms when
they are used as third person pronouns, eg. c y, c ta (she).
(6)C mun con lm li bi tp ny. (c first person)
(I want you to do this exercise again)
(7)C i, c gip con vic ny nh. (c second person)
(Aunt, help me with this work.)
(8)Ti khng thch c ta/y. (c - third person)
(I dont like her.)
Third person forms which is by nature distal can replace second person ones for irony,
humor, accusation or criticism as in:
(9)Each person should wash his/her dishes.
Third person forms help to make the potential accusation less direct and aggressive, and
the personal aspects seem impersonal. It is also the case in Vietnamese when third
person forms are used in indirect criticisms and accusations:
(10) Con phi quan tm n mi ngi ch.
(Son/Daughter, you have to take care of everyone.)
175
'mi ngi (alluding to the S and/or his spouse) is used to avoid using the first person
pronoun, which seems to be too direct in Vietnamese in this case. It is possible to use
the first person plural we to speak out the rules generally applied to people as in:
(11) We dont smoke in here.
Vietnamese possesses two forms chng ti (exclusive we) and chng ta
(inclusive we), while English has only one first person plural form we. Presumably,
non-native addressees may encounter the ambiguity of the practical usage of we, and
it is not very easy for them to decide if they are included or excluded in the group. The
distinction between the two forms can be seen in these expressions: Lets go
(addressee included), and Let us go (addressee excluded).
Working on politeness and requests in Vietnamese, Vu T. T. H. (2000) notices that
person deixis especially kinship terms, are exploited to make a request more polite
because they help to demonstrate hierarchical relations and intimacy (cf. Luong V. H.
1987, 1990).
The use of Vietnamese kinship terms does affect face-to-face interaction. Basing on
talks recorded in some families in Ho Chi Minh City, Phan T. Y. T. and Luong V. H.
(2000) pay attention to this phenomenon and hypothesize that the frequent use of
kinship terms in conversation between mothers-children and grandmothersgrandchildren creates a more intimate and friendly atmosphere than that between
fathers-children and grandfathers-grandchildren .
5.1.4. Summary
Intensifiers used in disagreeing attributes help increase, emphasize or qualify the force
of second assessments. While intensifiers including emphasizers, amplifiers and
downtoners are seen to be deployed in both English and Vietnamese disagreements the
pervasive exploitation of person referring terms with their 3 subclasses (1) common
176
nouns (including kinship terms, professional terms, titles, etc.), (2) proper nouns, and
(3) personal pronouns is found mostly in Vietnamese. According to many researchers,
person reference words are of great help in expressing hierarchy and solidarity which
are held significant in Vietnamese culture.
The turn-by-turn sequential organization of talk-in-interaction is carefully examined.
Insertion sequences, which require relative understanding of adjacency, demonstrate the
mechanism to interpret natural talk. Prototypical adjacency pair format consisting of
two turns does not seem to fit into telephone interaction, which leads to the summonanswer sequences containing the process of identification and recognition. Different
kinds of pre-sequences such as summons, attention getters, pre-invitations, predisagreements etc. are effectively made use of to avoid performing undesirable acts.
In addition, the negotiation of disagreeing may result in a series of disagreements and
long string of turns and sequences. To pursue agreements on the part of second Ss prior
Ss qualify their stated views or adopt new stances.
Theoretically, compliments should be accepted or agreed with in regards to preference
organization. However, quite a few compliment responses in English are not performed
as preferred seconds. Most of them are placed somewhere between agreements and
disagreements. And this is considered the consequence of the constraint systems
pertaining to preference organization and self-compliment avoidance.

5.2.1.1. Aims
This empirical study aims at finding proofs for the followings:
177
1. While both speakers of English and Vietnamese tend to choose mid-positions in

proffering responses to compliments, the former exhibit more cases of
acceptance/appreciation than the latter as regards the constraint systems.
2. The two groups of speakers are similar in their strategies for negotiation of
disagreements with prior evaluative tokens in terms of the turn and sequence
organization.
3. To perform disagreements, English and Vietnamese speakers deploy
intensifiers, person referring terms and other supportive devices to different
extents.

The empirical study in this chapter uses the same corpora as the empirical study in
Chapter 4. Briefly speaking, the Vietnamese corpus is taken from 30 native speakers in
Hanoi, and the English corpus is obtained from 2 sources: 16 native speakers in North
America and excerpts recorded and used by famous CA analysts. Paralinguistic features
are seldom referred to in order to make up for the inability to use an elaborate system of
transcription notations in Vietnamese correlative to that in English.
5.2.2. Strategies for Constraint Systems

1. Scaled-down disagreements: As the first solution, recipients of compliments may
downgrade prior evaluative terms within agreement turns, thus producing scaled-down
disagreements that display features of both agreements and disagreements. In general,
these responses have the format of agreement turns with initially positioned agreement
components, or appreciation, but the level of evaluation is quite different, namely, is
weakened or softened, as illustrated below:
(14) B: Ive been offered a full scholarship at Berkeley and at UCLA
178
G: Thats fantastic.
B: Isnt that good?
(15) A: Oh it was just beautiful.
B: Well thank you uh I thought it was quite nice,

Pomerantz (1978: 94)
(16) C: Wl my God it sounds marvelou s Don,

[
D:
Yeah it is, its a-good deal,

(Ibid. 95)
Responses to prior compliments of this kind seem to be similar to downgraded

disagreements in agreement plus disagreement format discussed above.
2. Downgrading prior compliments: Recipients may disagree with initial compliments
by considering them as over-rated or exaggerated, and regularly, they qualify these
complimentary assertions using such qualifiers as though, just, yet, but, and the
like, as exhibited in:
(17) L: You bou:ght. like a ton of things. // (
E:
Just a few little (thi::ngs,)
(18) A: Good shot.
B: Not very solid though.
By downgrading prior complimentary attributes, second Ss seem to have made an

optimal decision: they neither totally agree nor totally disagree with first Ss, hence
getting rid of the constraint systems discussed in the previous section.
3. Credit shift: Recipients of compliments may also shift credits from ego to alter. That
is to say, they transfer the referentship to parties other than themselves. They can, for
instance, praise some third party, insinuating that prior compliments are sent to the
wrong direction. In the following fragment (Ibid. 102), J shifts the credit from self to
another referent, and in this case, a particular type of boats, when he is praised as a
179
good rower. Although J does not verbally disagree with R, his praising the boat very
easy to row and very light implicitly demonstrates his partly disagreement:
(19) R: Youre a good rower, Honey.
J: These are very easy to row. Very light.
4. Reciprocal compliments: English Ss sometimes returns complimentary attributes to

their producers. It is worth noting that credit-shift responses are often delivered as
disagreements because subsequent Ss imply that they do not deserve to get such
assessments, whereas reciprocal compliments are structured as agreements, as in:
(20) C: Ya sound (justiz) real nice,
D: Yeah you sounreal good too.
(21) E: Yer lookin good,
G: Great. Sor you.
(Ibid. 105)
5. Negating compliments: English Ss might negate prior compliments, but second Ss

negating of compliments could hurt first Ss, as in the case of a man named Perflexed in
Pomerantzs story (Ibid. 79). Unlike other native speakers of English, his wife always
downgrades or rejects his compliments, which hurts him. Abby, Perflexeds friend,
explains that the wife negates compliments just because she lacks self-confidence.
Pomerantz, however, proposes that her behavior deviates from the common standards
of accepting compliments, which results in communication failures.

1. Scaled-down disagreements: Second Ss in Vietnamese exchanges may first agree,
and then disagree with prior Ss, as illustrated in the extract below:
V03.8.48
(22) L: P. y. Xinh hn l hi n bo.
P that. Pretty more be then she fat
180
(That P shes prettier than when she was fat.)
H: , . Nhng m nh th th gy qu.
Ah yeah but particle like that be thin very
(Ah, yeah, but shes too thin.)
L talks about P, a girl who used to be fat. That girl got rid of overweight by using
certain kind of medicine, and consequently, shes lost about twenty kilos. H constructs
her disagreement turn by using the agreement + disagreement format, prefaced with a
recognition signal Ah. The conjunction but is deployed in this structure to initiate
the disagreement. The combination of agreements and disagreements in responses
subsequent to compliments weakens or qualifies disagreements despite the presence of
contrastive elements (Pomerantz 1978). In addition to this, this format is typical of
disagreement turns and sequences. It is not utilized in producing agreements.
2. Downgrading prior compliments: In the data, Ss of Vietnamese seem to often
qualify or downgrade first Ss complimentary tokens, especially when the referents are
their relatives or they themselves. In the following fragment, H and L talk about
education system in Vietnam. H praises Ls niece, a girl with a special gift in math:
V03.2.5
(23) H: con y hc gii tht
daughter that study well truth
(That girl studies very well.)
L: N hc nhn
She study easy
(She doesnt have to work
hard.)
In her positively evaluative assessment, H emphasizes the excellent study results of the
girl. Although L is not the object of the praise, she downgrades Hs compliment on her
nieces intellectual ability. The discrepancy between the prior compliment and the
181
response to it reflects a common behavior of the Vietnamese responding to

compliments, which might be considered an unwritten norm of socially behavioral
manners.
3. Credit shift: To avoid self-praising or praising their own relatives and not to reject
co-participants compliments, subsequent Ss may transfer the credit to a third party. In
the excerpt given below, D comments on Hs husband, looking at a picture of his, taken
when he was young:
V03.8.43
(24) D: p trai nht nh cn g na.
handsome most house particle what particle
(Hes the most handsome in the family.)
H: ng anh th c mi ngi khen l p giai nht nh

grandfather older brother particle all people compliment be
handsome most house
(His older brother is complimented as the most handsome in the family.)
Here, H does not directly negate the compliment, since she is not the one who is being
praised but she avoids acknowledging it verbally. For her agreement to the prior
assessment might be interpreted as an implicit compliment token on her husband,
which is normally assumed as an unfavorable action in the local culture. By shifting
credit from her husband to his older brother, she has a good strategy: she can maintain
the harmonious atmosphere but does not violate the socially accepted norm of behavior.
4. Reciprocal compliments: No reciprocal compliment is found in the tape-recorded
data obtained for this study, possibly because of the limit and size of the data. However,
according to Nguyen Q. (1998), the Vietnamese respondents utilize this strategy more
often than their American counterparts. In his research, Nguyen Q. pays close attention
182
to second Ss returning compliments to first Ss, and calls this strategy khen phn hi.
In response to the teachers compliment, for instance, the student may say:
(25) D, cng l nh c thy dy d y .
Particle that also be thanks to teacher teach that particle
(That is thanks to your teaching.)
(Ibid. 45)
5. Negating compliments: The preference for negating the prior compliment tokens
seems to be common in the Vietnamese corpus. Second Ss regularly treat positive
evaluations as overdone or exaggerated, and they tend to qualify and soften them, as in:
V03.8.51
(26) T: C th ny l bnh thng ri y n, cn i
aunt this be normal
particle plump
well-proportioned
(Youre now normal. Plump and well-proportioned.)
H: Gii i, cn cn i na ((Ci))
God particle particle well-proportioned particle ((Laughs)).
Cn i ci ni g ((Ci)).
Well-proportioned particle particle what ((Laughs)).
(My god, well-proportioned ((laughs)) Im not.) ((Laughs))
H partially repeats the prior compliment elements with the use of two particles cn
and ni, prefacing her response with an exclamatory token Gii i (gosh/god). She
explicitly disagrees with the compliment. Her laughter, however, tacitly shows that she
is happy with the prior positive assessment. Unlike English Ss, Vietnamese Ss
demonstrate a tendency to reject or obviate prior complimentary attributes, especially,
if ego is the object of credit, as in the excerpt given below:
V03.2.4.
(27) L: H , tao cng nhn mygii qu: c:: tht.
183
H particle I acknowledge you excellent very particle truth

(Hey H, I acknowledge youre really excellent.)
H: Gii ci ni g. Gm, n lc y th nh phi lm.

Excellent particle particle what Particle come then so reluctant have do
(Im no excellent at all. Gosh, youd do the same in my position.)
In this excerpt, H tries to downplay the compliment given by her close friend. The use
of particles ci, ni and Gm is effective in downgrading the evaluative
components in the first turn. H also points out that she just does the normal things that
others might do in the same situations. By showing that what she has achieved is
nothing special, she can avoid self-praising. The first person singular pronoun tao
and second person singular pronoun my are employed in Ls wording exhibit their
close friendship and solidarity. The particle is used in Ls addressing H does not
demonstrate any respect or deference. In this case, it has the same meaning as particles
or vocatives ny or i, which often go with person-referring words for address.
5.2.3. Strategies for Negotiation of Disagreements

1. Downgrading initial assessments: As discussed in the previous parts, the Ss in the
English data seem not to forthrightly oppose proffered evaluations or boldly assert
dispreferred disagreements. Instead, they are inclined to soften or hedge their different
perspectives, trying to minimize disagreeing responses. Second Ss withholding or
delaying responses could engender first Ss elaboration or qualification of initial
assessments to preempt upcoming disagreements, as in the following excerpt:
(28) A: God izn it dreary?
(0.6)
184
A: //Yknow I dont think
B: .hh- its warm though,
As incomplete elaboration in this case is, however, unsuccessful as it is overlapped by

Bs producing a disagreement. In another fragment by Pomerantz (Ibid. 100), the first S
modifies her prior assessment (by replacing happy with cheerful) after a set of
successive disagreements on the part of the second S:
(29) B: Yih sound HA:PPY, hh.
A: I sound ha:p//py?
B:
Ye:uh.
(0.3)
A: No:,
B: N:o:?
A: No.
(0.7)
B: .hh You sound sorta cheerful?
2. Adopting new stances: Sometimes, recipients of initially proffered opinions delay

the uptake of their turns, thus causing prior Ss adopting new positions, as below:
(30) B: an thats not an awful lotta fruitcake.
(1.0)
B: Course it is a little piece goes a long way.

A: Well thats right.
(Pomerantz 1984b: 160)
Bs initial opinion is received with a long silence that implies an unstated disagreement
on the part of the second S. B then decides to make a change, and overtly states her new
stance. Eventually, she gets the positive answer from her co-conversant.
185
3. Insisting on prior assessments: In other cases, producers of prior assessments may

tend to challenge second Ss by reasserting previously produced evaluative terms. In the
following example, the second Ss downgrading the evaluation of the referent leads to
the first Ss reasserting and upgrading her first position.
(31) E: That Pat. Isnt she a doll::
E: Oh shes a beautiful girl.

M: Yeh I think shes a pretty girl.
In spite of Es upgraded evaluative term, M appears to persist in her assessment, and

ends her turn with a pseudo-agreement or muted disagreement prefaced by Yeh
(Heritage 2002: 218). Two extracts given below (Pomerantz 1984a: 69) illuminate the
first Ss persistence in retaining their prior stances:
(32) A: Shes a fox.
(33) G: Thats fantastic.
L: Yeh, shea pretty girl.
A: Oh, shes gorgeous.
B: Isnt that good?
G: Thats marvelous.
As demonstrated, first Ss tend to provide stronger terms in reasserting their previously

taken positions. The first Ss in the two extracts above use gorgeous in contrast with
pretty, and marvelous in contrast with good. Also, the oh-preface used in As turn
(and in Es turn in the previous example by Pomerantz Oh shes a beautiful girl) is
interpreted as holding a position (Heritage 2002). This special use of oh mainly
occurs in responses to downgraded agreements or weakened disagreements (Ibid.).
Profferers of initial assessments may make use of oh-prefaces to construct and
reaffirm their stances in case recipients are in disagreement with them, as in the
fragment by Goodwin & Goodwin (1987: 43):
(34) Mike: Well I cant say theyre ol: clunkers- eez gotta Co:rd?
186
(0.1)
Mike: Two Co:rds.
(1.0)
Mike: //And
Curt: Not original,
(0.7)
Mike: Oh yes. Very original.
Producers of initial evaluative attributes are observed to overwhelmingly utilize ohprefaced disagreement format as effective weapons to attack second Ss disagreeing
responses (Heritage 2002: 215). In the example above, Mike resorts to the oh-prefaced
turn shape to intensify and escalate his prior stance, and fight back Curts disagreement.

1. Downgrading initial assessments: Vietnamese Ss exhibit quite a range of different
ways to negotiate with their co-participants. Given upcoming or real disagreements in
response to their prior assessments they may modify their first perspectives to make
them less challenging and more acceptable, as below:
V03.7.28
(35) N: Ci ny bn nh bo th c.
Classifier this band correspondent be okay
(This [appliance] is good for correspondents.)
H: Khng, nh bo n cng khng dng.
No correspondent it also not use
(No, correspondents do not use it either.)
N: Ci
ny n cng (0.5) cng knh.
Classifier this it also bulky
(This is quite bulky.)
187
H: Ci ny thc s n cng cng knh

Classifier this really it also bulky (This is really bulky)
N first assesses the tape recorder which is placed in front of her and H, her interlocutor,
as a good thing for correspondents to use. She then modifies her evaluation by pointing
out that it is bulky, and thus inconvenient in her turn, which follows Hs forthright
disagreement. There might be a reason for her work of elaboration. Her interlocutor H
is the owner of the appliance, and consequently, H has epistemic priority to assess her
own belonging (Heritage 2002 & forth.). As a result of this concessive action, she
finally gets the approval from her co-participant in the turn subsequent to hers.
Second Ss may appear to compromise with initial evaluative terms after first Ss
reassertion of prior opinions. In the extract given below, H disagrees with N when the
latter says that K, a teenage boy is selfish. However, after N reaffirms her stance by
providing good grounds for it (The boys mother told her that information), H seems to
abandon her previous view and sounds quite dubious with Really.
V03.7.30
(36) N: thng ny tnh n ch k
boy this character he selfish
N bao gi n cng ngh n bn thn n trc.
he when he also think about self he before.
(This boy is selfish He always thinks of himself first.)
H: Th tr con m. Cng cn b // n khng,
Particle child particle also still small // he not
([Hes] still a small boy. Still small, he isnt .)
N: Nhng n li bo ci thng ln khng th.
But she particle tell particle boy big not that
188
(But she [the boys mother] said her older boy isnt.)
H: Th:: .
Particle (Really.)
Profferers of prior evaluative statements may soften their first views to some extent, but
are still consistent with their earlier stated point of views, as T does in the next extract
from the Vietnamese corpus:
V03.8.36
(37) T: Gy qu trng s lm
Thin much look afraid very
(A very thin person looks horrible)
H: Gy qu nh bn L trng vn xinh.
Thin very like friend L look still pretty (Very thin like L still looks pretty.)
T: Cng cn tu, trng th xinh nhng m
Also depend look particle pretty but(It still depends, looking pretty but)
2. Adopting new stances: Vietnamese Ss may change their prior point of view, offer
new assessments of other aspects of the same things or people in addition to those
already stated, as exemplified:
(38) T: Thy hay,
Teacher interesting (The teacher is interesting.)
L: Thy (0.5) c:::ng vui.
Teacher also fun (Hes also fun.)
T: Nhng m nh th lp mnh li h.
But particle like that class we particle spoiled (But our class became spoiled)
L: .
Yeah (Yes.)
189
T and L talk about their former teacher at school. T first assumes that the teacher is
hay, but he does not get Ls full agreement, then he poses another evaluation
concerning their teachers teaching results Nhng m nh th lp mnh li h. Only
by adopting a new stance can T be successful in negotiating with his co-conversant.
3. Insisting on prior assessments: When first Ss find themselves in disagreement with
second Ss stances, they may wish to reassert their prior opinions, and the reaffirmation
process may result in adding more turns and sequences to the talk, as exemplified in the
excerpt below:
V03.8.48
(39) L: Nhng con thy n xinh hn ngy trc bao:: nhiu
But daughter see she pretty more day before how much
Xinh hn l hi n bo.
Pretty more be then she fat
(But I see she is much prettierPrettier than when she was fat.)
H: , . Nhng m nh th th gy qu.
Ah yeh but particle like that be thin very
(Ah, yeh, but shes too thin.)
L: Con chng thy n gy qu.

Daughter not see she thin very
(I dont think shes too thin.)
H. nhn n nhn ung // nh th th
No eat no drink // like that be
( her going without eating and drinking much // like that is)
L:
Nhng mt ngi m bt u gp
But one person particle start meet
190
n th thy n chng gy th cng chng phi l

gy.
she particle see she not thin that also not be thin
(But a person who first meets her now doesnt think shes
thinthats not thin at all)
In the same manner, in the following fragment, B escalates and intensifies his prior
evaluative terms in his next turn after the second Ss first turn. He uses siu
(powerful) to replace mnh (strong) to bring out his stance.
(40) B: Nc y n c::ng (.) K thut ca n cng mnh pht
y.
Country that it also technology of it also strong intensifier particle
That country is also (.) Its technology is also very powerful.
H: k thut ca n th cng kh.
Yeah technology of it be also good
(Yeah its technology is also good.)
B: Cng siu pht y nht l nng nghip ca n (1.0)
rt gii
Also powerful intensifier particle specifically agriculture of it so excellent
(Also very powerful, especially its agriculture (1.0) so excellent)
Ss may finally arrive at some kind of compromise after a range of disagreements. They
settle down with their own views and respect their interlocutors stances, as below:
V03.9.57
(41) H: M n b th cng l gii ri ng i.
particle woman that also be good grandfather vocative
(And women like that are good.)
191
B: Nhng m ti ni b // nghe
But
I tell grandmother // listen.
(But just let me tell you.)

H:
n b ... th l qu gii ri
Woman that be extremely good particle
(And women like that are really good.)
B: T m c v nh th (.) t khng thch.

I particle have wife like that I not like.
(I dont like to have such a wife.)
H: ng khng thch nhng m ngi ta thch.
Grandfather not like but particle people like.
B: (4.0)
H: ng khng thch nhng ngi khc thch.
Grandfather not like but people other like.
B: T quan im khc.
I point of view different.
(I have a different point of view.)
H: ng quan im l g?
Grandfather point of view be what.
(Whats your point of view?)
B: Ngha l v phi lo cng vic nh chu o tt c mi

ci.
Mean wife must worry work house thoroughly every whole classifier
Cn ci vic thng trng y chng lo.
And classifier business world that husband worry
192
(The wife must take very good care of housework, and business
is for the husband.)
H: , th nhng m (1.0) lm th no c. Chng n li lo
khoa hc.
Yeah particle but do how particle husband she still worry science
(Yeah, but (1.0) what to do. Her husband cares for science.)
B: hhhhh
Two mid-aged Ss named H and B talk about one of their mutual friends at school, who
is now a chief sale executive in a big foreign company. In her first turn, H assumes
women like the mentioned female friend are good, and she intensifies her evaluation
by adding really in her next turn. On the contrary, B does not share her stance.
However, he stops verbally expressing his different view, and mutes himself after a set
of successive disagreements. As a result of disagreement-negotiation, both friends
implicitly acknowledge each others co-existing different perspectives.
When conversing with B, H addresses him as ng (grandfather) and she is addressed
as b (grandmother). These two kin terms for address, as aforementioned, are
commonly used in interaction between friends and peers. Sometimes, B uses t for
self-reference. T is a popular form of first person singular pronoun used in talk with
peers and close friends or in downward speech.
5.2.4. Summary
The hypotheses raised have empirically been proved. Conversationalists in the English
data show a tendency to choose middle positions to avoid the dispreferred
organization of disagreeing and self-praise in response to compliments. They may use
the agreement + disagreement format to produce (i) scaled-down disagreements,
elaborate complimentary components with qualifiers or (ii) downgrade prior
193
compliments, deploy the (iii) credit shift strategy, or provide (iv) reciprocal
compliments.
The Vietnamese data exhibit a similar organization of turns and sequences in
performing disagreements under the influence of the constraint systems. Vietnamese
compliment recipients are observed to make use of the agreement + disagreement
format, and they also downgrade the scale of prior complimentary assertions, shift the
credit referent to a certain third party, or return compliments to first Ss. However, the
Vietnamese Ss in the data do not demonstrate active utility of delay components such as
mhs, hms, and the like. As well, they show careful and delicate usage of kinship
terms, and pronouns for self-reference and address. In addition, acceptance and
appreciation tokens seem to be common in English while they are rare in the
Vietnamese corpus; maybe, it is the manifestation of the common trend in Vietnamese
culture to disagree with/reject prior compliments to show modesty or humbleness rather
than to agree with/accept and express appreciations.
Native Ss of English and Vietnamese also have similar strategies in their negotiation of
disagreements. Given the case of potential or overtly articulated disagreements, they
may elaborate or (i) downgrade prior evaluations or positions, (ii) adopt new stances
that are less opposite to second Ss to pre-empt imminent disagreements, or they may
go on with defending or (iii) insisting on prior views, often by escalating and
intensifying them. The negotiation of disagreements in these cases is normally shaped
in sequences consisting of more than two turns.
At the same time, we can see the salient role of person-referring terms and particles in
the construction of disagreements in Vietnamese. The appropriate usage of terms for
self-reference and address, as well as particles makes important contribution to the
effectiveness and politeness of disagreements. Not having such rich systems of address
194
terms and particles, Ss of English make good use of devices like emphasizers,
amplifiers, downtoners, delay components etc. in expressing disagreements

Responses to prior evaluative assessments in English and Vietnamese appear to share
the same set of strategies judging from the viewpoint of the constraint systems. English
Ss who resort to mid-positions tend to either deploy agreement + disagreement
format, or weaken the stated compliments by using qualifiers, referent-shift, or
compliment-return strategies. Quite similarly, Vietnamese Ss are seen to make use of
agreement + disagreement format or downgrading the level of compliments. However,
while the acceptance + appreciation model can be observed in the English corpus it is
uncommon in the Vietnamese corpus, and this is consistent with Nguyen Qs findings
(1998: 217) of the English tendency to compliment acceptance and Vietnamese
preference for compliment obviation.
The negotiation of disagreements conducted by native Ss of English and Vietnamese is
similar in terms of strategies. Encountering potential or explicit disagreements from
second Ss, prior Ss may elaborate or modify their evaluative terms, adopt new stances
or keep the same viewpoints by upgrading their first assessments, which therefore,
prolongs the organization of turns and sequences.
Intensifiers are found to be exploited in both English and Vietnamese disagreement
tokens whereas person referring terms are inclined to be used most frequently by
Vietnamese interlocutors. Words of person reference and particles are utilized by the
Vietnamese to express hierarchy and community-based solidarity. The prevalence of
person referring terms and particles in the Vietnamese corpus does exhibit their
paramount significance in Vietnamese culture and society.
195
CONCLUSION
1. Major Findings
1.1. Politeness strategies in disagreeing
So far, we have had a close analysis of the elicited written questionnaires and recorded
disagreements by native Ss of English in North America and Vietnamese Ss in Hanoi
within the frameworks of pragmatics and CA. The findings have proved the hypotheses
of differences between Ss of English and Vietnamese in choosing strategies to realize
the act of disagreeing, which have resulted from the differences in the Ss assessment of
socio-cultural parameters and social situations. The English Ss are observed to
frequently deploy direct strategies while the Vietnamese tend to sound indirect,
especially in contexts of asymmetrical role relationships, and this has statistically
proved Leech (1986) and Brown & Levinsons assumption (1987[1978]) that cultures
may differ in terms of priorities and values given to each strategy even though they may
share the same sets of strategies. The findings have also provided sufficient proof for
Blum-Kulka and House's hypothesis (1989: 137) that differences in the understanding
of social situations and in the relative significance attached to any socio-cultural
parameter may lead to differences in linguistic behavior.
In most situations, the assessment of social situations by English and Vietnamese Ss
appears to go to opposing directions. The Vietnamese focus on Age and Status reflects
their hierarchical social structure, while the English emphasis on Manner and Setting is
a manifestation of the less hierarchical society, where Age and Status are recognized but
deemphasized. While knowing the (relative) age of interlocutors is useful to the
Vietnamese in making the right choice of address terms, asking about age may rapidly
bring conversation to a halt in Anglo-American culture (Wanning 2000: 155). Calling
it the no-status society, Wanning (Ibid.) goes on explaining about American society:
196
In a status society, people learn their places and gain some dignity and security from
having a place in the social order. Americans, however, are taught not to recognize
their places and to constantly assert themselves.
1.2. Normative-volitional politeness and indirectness
Politeness has been testified to be both normative and volitional in the sense that
discernment in form of socially institutionalized norms is open to volitional choices and
the frequent use of strategic manipulations may lead to community conventions.
Therefore, the two sides of politeness - discernment and volition need to be combined
to make the analytical framework for politeness research across cultures and languages
(Hill et al. 1986, Kasper 1990, Ide 1993, Nguyen D. H. 1995; Vu T. T. H. 1997 & 2000,
Lee-Wong 2000) especially for politeness research in status-based societies like
China, Korea and Vietnam as Bargiela-Chiappini (2003: 1463) suggests:
Socially stratified societies where normative politeness is dominant (e.g. Mexico
and the Zulu in South Africa) can be contrasted to face and status-based societies
such as China and Korea, where both normative and strategic politeness are present.
Finally, in less hierarchical societies such as the northern European and the North
American ones, status is allegedly far less marked in verbal and non-verbal interaction,
and normative politeness is therefore much less in evidence.
The outputs of the empirical study do not support the assumption of consistent
correlation between politeness and indirectness, i.e., indirectness does not always mean
politeness. Native Ss of English in North America seem to be direct in their
disagreements while their Vietnamese counterparts tend to be indirect. This finding by
no means implies that the latter are more polite than the former. As a result, the
relationship between politeness and indirectness should be examined in relation to the
local perception and interpretation of politeness and the wider context of socio-cultural
beliefs and values, for cultural beliefs and values have significant bearings on
communicative styles and interpretive strategies (Gumperz 1978). Vietnamese culture,
which is deeply rooted in Confucian ethics, is mainly aimed at social harmony and
197
community solidarity via individual observance of social norms. On the contrary,

Anglo-American culture, which primarily focuses on individualistic rationality,
provides greater possibility of strategic choices. The differences in socio-cultural
systems of norms, values and beliefs result in the differences in the rating of politeness
level by native Ss of English and Vietnamese. Vietnamese Ss are prone to attach high
level of politeness to those disagreements which are accompanied with deference
markers like , vng, other particles and appropriate address terms, the
deployment of which is made in accordance with such determinants as age and status.
1.3. Strategies concerning preference organization
Disagreement attributes in English and Vietnamese frequently tend to be hedged to

minimize the seriousness of the act on the one hand, and delayed to avoid the complexstructural format as regards preference organization on the other. English and
Vietnamese Ss are alike in using such strategies as (i) delay devices or (ii) silences to
withhold their direct disagreements, qualifying or (iii) downgrading prior assessments
or deploying the (iv) agreement + disagreement format to produce weakened
disagreements. Nevertheless, while responding to self-deprecations, Ss are prone to
provide (i) immediate disagreements and include (ii) complimentary elements to
intensify the positive impact of disagreements as preferred seconds. Ss may also
disaffiliate with or (iii) undermine prior self-critical formulations by indicating that
they are products of irrational or improper actions. The turn/sequence organization is
both designed for, and oriented towards by Ss in current talk-in-progress to minimize
disagreements as dispreferred seconds, and maximize disagreements as preferred
seconds.
The pervasive existence of person-referring terms and particles in Vietnamese
demonstrates their paramount significance to this culture and society. Terms for self-
198
reference and address, as well as particles , , nh, nh, d, vng,

etc. are essential in the construction of mitigated, softened and polite disagreeing
attributes. There is a great probability to be rude or impolite in Vietnamese culture if Ss
use incorrect terms or no terms for self-reference or address (Luong V. H. 1987, 1990;
Vu T. T. H. 1997; Nguyen. T. T. B. 2001).
1.4. Strategies for negotiation of disagreements and constraint systems
Facing imminent and/or actually articulated disagreements, Ss of English and

Vietnamese show the same trend of strategies for remedial work to negotiate with cointeractants. They may (i) modify, elaborate or reformulate previously produced
viewpoints, (ii) adopt new stances, or (iii) persist in protecting initially formulated
evaluations, thereby reasserting, extending, and upgrading them.
Both English and Vietnamese show a similar repertoire of mid-position responses to
compliments by producing (i) scaled-down disagreements, (ii) elaborating/
downgrading prior complimentary tokens or using strategies like (iii) credit shift, and
(iv) reciprocal compliments as regards the constraint systems. These similarities
between English and Vietnamese serve as suggestions concerning the existence of some
universal aspects of conversational organization. Interestingly, many CA studies done
on languages other than English (Fox et al. 1996, Mori 1999 on Japanese, Wu 1997 on
Chinese, Moerman 1988 on Thai, Park 1999 on Korean, Sorjonen 1997 on Finnish,
among others) have also proved the organizational invariance of turn-taking, repair
work and preferred/dispreferred turn delivery across languages and cultures.
The striking difference is found in the fact that the Vietnamese corpus exhibits very few
cases whereby compliments are responded with appreciations, while the English
database demonstrates a range of responses with appreciation tokens. The explanation
for this can be found in the Vietnamese socio-cultural assumptions of modesty and
199
preference for disagreement with or rejection of prior complimentary assessments (cf.

Nguyen Q. 1998). In Vietnamese culture, the pressures for social harmony are very
strong (Ellis 1996: 150), and people tend to exhibit modesty towards their capabilities,
possibly because they are unwilling to be salient or set off from others, as Ellis states:
In conversation, people display great modesty towards their abilities and work. It is
not acceptable to boast about ones past achievements or capabilities and compared
with foreigners, the Vietnamese often sound shy and reserved, and self-effacing about
their own skills.
(Ibid. 151)
The English frequent use of direct strategies could be explained via the Ss need to be
non-intrusive and free of action (Brown & Levinson 1987[1978]). Wanning (2000: 154)
notices that giving and accepting compliments seem to be popular in Anglo-American
culture and found to give rise to further communication:
Compliments are always in order. We keep the compliments flowing even with close
friends and family. The recipient should accept the compliment graciously by looking
very pleased and saying, Oh, thank you. The tale of the item in question often
provides further talk.
It is obvious that any linguistic study should not be separated from the study of the
larger socio-cultural context with its norms, beliefs and values since language is
assumed to be rooted, and embedded in the reality of its responding culture.
2. Implications
2.1. EFL & VFL implications
The differences in perception and realization of disagreements in English and

Vietnamese are likely to result in inevitable misunderstanding, unintended impressions,
miscommunication, and cultural conflicts when, for example, Vietnamese Ss transfer
their native cultural values and beliefs into English linguistic forms of disagreeing.
They may sound either too indirect because of their abidance by the Vietnamese
cultural norms or too direct because of their overemphasis on or overgeneralization of
the rules of Anglo-American culture (cf. Thomas 1983, Takana 1988). Language
200
competence is more than grammar and lexicon, which includes formulaic expressions.
It compasses the ability to use linguistic forms correctly and appropriately, known as
pragmatic knowledge. Not all native Ss who gain in-born communicative capability in
the context of their mother tongue through the process of language socialization are
successful in communication in their native language and culture, let alone cultural
outsiders who lack knowledge of the local socio-cultural norms. Unfortunately, the
teaching of second/foreign languages is mostly left unrelated to socio-cultural context
(Stern, 1983: 253). This is quite true in the context of Vietnam, where the teaching of
English is essentially based on grammar patterns. Since the Open-door Policy was
started and motivated, English teaching and learning has gained pride of place in the
Vietnamese Education System. Not only does it serve as a lingua franca in international
communication, it is a must in job finding and job promotion, too. It is high time
language learners were provided with pragmatic knowledge parallel with linguistic
bulk. Informed of the dos and the donts in the culture of the target language,
learners can eliminate, or at least, reduce culture and communication gaps. Being illprepared for intercultural interactions in a world that is shrinking in distance like ours is
careless and risky. Thus, linguistic as well as pragmatic input should be included in
textbooks and syllabus (Richards, 1983). The findings of this study may be a reminder
for textbook writers and syllabus builders, and a guide for teaching English as S/F
language to the Vietnamese and Vietnamese to North American English Ss.
2.2. Pragmatics and CA perspective in speech act study
As clearly seen, conversation analytic studies have so much to contribute to the study
of language in general, and speech acts in particular. Relying on the frameworks of
pragmatics and CA this paper provides thorough an analysis of the speech act of
disagreeing and its related issues by comparing and contrasting the elicited written
201
questionnaires and audio-taped recordings of talk-in-interaction in English and

Vietnamese. A careful analysis of the recorded interactive fragments exhibits deep
insights into complexity of preference organization of turns and sequences in
disagreeing. Many basic organizational features of turn/sequence shapes used to be
taken for granted, or simply not recognized or/and aware of, are elucidated. The
marvelous and systematic methods used in CA are of great help in exploring the
strategies concerning organization and development of on-going talk, as well as the
usage of linguistic devices in certain structural organizations.
Pragmatics with speech act and politeness theories is interested in the process of
producing language and in its producers (Mey 2000: 5). The theory of SA, which has
long been considered an eye-opener, clarifies ways humans doing things with words,
while the theory of politeness looks at how polite language use is perceived and
realized. Nevertheless, pragmatics does not seem to provide adequate and efficient
means to sufficiently investigate the working of human words, when and how SAs are
deployed. It is CA with its elaborate techniques for the analysis and explanation of
conversational mechanisms that can provide substantial insights into these matters,
simply because conversation is the very place where people do things with words
together, and the prototypical kind of language use (Levinson 1983:284).
Language users, however, communicate and use language in conformity to societys
sanctions which determine their choice of linguistic means. It is natural that pragmatics
takes as one of its main objects the study of societal practices and premises and the
extent to which they affect and determine human language use. The strictly CA-based
analytic framework does not allow the study of these societys premises and
determinants. Therefore, the integration of pragmatics and CA approaches in speech act
study makes good use of the advantages and eliminates or reduces the disadvantages of
202
each approach. Seeing the sound reason for CA to be applied to the study of speech acts
within and across languages and cultures in combination with other linguistic
approaches and methods, Levinson (1983: 285) proposes:
Nearly all the pragmatic concepts claimed to tie in closely with conversation as the
central or most basic kind of language usagethe proper way to study conversational
organization is through empirical techniques, this suggests that the largely
philosophical traditions that have given rise to pragmatics may have to yield in the
future to more empirical kinds of investigation of language usage.
Basing on its findings, the present research strongly recommends the synthetic
approach of pragmatics and CA to the investigation of speech acts within and across
languages and cultures.
3. Suggestions for Further Research

There are issues left untouched in this preliminary research into the SA of disagreeing
on the basis of pragmatics and CA because of its size and limit. The present study
almost cannot take into account prosodic features (intonation, pitch, pauses) as well
as paralinguistic factors (facial expressions, gazes, laugher), supposed to be crucial in
face-to-face interactions, to highlight other nuances of meanings and their relationships
with forms. In addition, the field notes do not fully reflect detailed body movements
and facial expressions of the participants, and audiotape recording fail to capture them
as well. The study would be better if videotape recording could have been done.
The process of opinion-negotiation involves disagreeing and agreeing, considered two
sides of a coin, and one cannot exist without the other. Consequently, it will be more
appealing if disagreeing and agreeing are investigated together. Very often, it is hard to
distinguish the subtle border between agreements and disagreements in face-to-face
talk. A yes may mean no, and on the contrary, a no may have an opposite meaning.
It is my hope that the aforementioned issues will fully be pursued in my future research.
203
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX 1
Transcription Conventions
Overlapping speech The convention used in this paper in examples from cited sources
(except for those from Merritt 1976) are mostly those developed by Jefferson, and
deployed in Schenkein (1978: xi-xvi), Levinson (1983: 369-70), Atkinson & Heritage
(1984: ix-xvi), and Maynard (2003: 255-56). It is adapted for the particular purpose of
the paper and applied to the Vietnamese data.
1.
Left hand brackets indicate a point of overlap, and right hand brackets mark
the ending:
A: Oh you do? R[eally
B:
[Um hmmm]
Other conventions may be used in some examples:

// point at which the current utterance is overlapped by that transcribed below
*
2.
indicate the alignment of the points where over lap ceases

Silence
Numbers in parentheses show elapsed time measured in tenths of seconds:

A: Im not use ta that.
(1.4)
B: Yeah me neither.
3.
Missing speech
Dotted lines indicate the place where certain utterances are left out:
A: Are they?
B: Yes because
4.
Lengthened syllables
Colon(s) indicate prolonged sounds. More colons, more stretching:
A: Ah::::
5.
Emphasis
Underscoring marks emphasis. Capital letters indicate increased stress.
A: I sex yknow WHY, becawss look
6.
Breathing (-in and -out)

hh indicates an audible out-breath, while .hh marks an in-breath. The more
hs, the longer the breath.
A: You didnt have to worry about having the .hh hhh curtains closed
7.
Explanatory material
Double parentheses indicate non-verbal actions:
A: Well ((cough)) I dont know
8.
Uncertain material
Single parentheses mark uncertain verbal phenomena:
A: (Is that right?)
9.
Intonation
A period . indicates a stopping fall in tone, a comma , indicates a continuing
intonation, and a question mark ? indicates a rising intonation.
A: A do:g? enna cat is different.
10.
Sound cutoff
Dashes indicate an abrupt cutoff of sound:
A: this- this is true.
11.
Latching
Equal signs indicate latched utterances, with no gap. They also link different
parts of a speakers utterance:
A: I am absolutely sure.=
B: =You are.
A: this is one thing [that I=
B:
[Yes?
A: =really want to do
12.
Attention
Arrows draw attention to location of phenomenon of direct interest to discussion:
C:
How ya doin=
=say whatr you doing?
APPENDIX 2
Survey Questionnaires
This questionnaire is specially designed for research purposes. It is intended to
investigate how native speakers of English express their disagreement to an
assessment or evaluation. Any information you provide will be highly appreciated and
confidentially treated in such a way that you will not be identified.
Thank you very much.
Please tick () where appropriate.
* State/ Province:
* Age:
* Occupation:
* Gender:
Male
* Education:
Primary
College/Uni.
* Place where you have spent most of your time:
Female
Secondary
Other (Please explain) ...................
Urban setting
Rural setting
* Your first language: .
- Language(s) other than your first language:
(i). ................... (ii)(iii)
- How often do you use it/them
Daily
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Rarely
Rarely
Rarely
1. Which factor(s) from the parameters listed below do you generally consider when
you disagree with someone in English? Please put them in order of importance: 01
is the most important. If the factor is of no importance please make a cross (x).
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Age
Length of time you have known him/her
Manner of communication (formal, informal)
Occupation
Setting (at home, at work)
Gender
Social status
Other (Please specify)
Order of importance
i.
None
2. Please read the following situations. How do you express your disagreement with
the person you talk with in each of the situations (given on the next page) if you
have a different evaluation? Please tick () the appropriate answer.
Column 1: Strongly disagree
Column 2: Disagree
A.
Column 3: Unsure
Column 4: Implicitly disagree
Situations
Column 5: Silent
1 2 3 4 5
Appearance
-
He/she says his/her spouse is really nice-looking.
B.
He/she keeps complimenting on his/her new hairstyle.

He/she is looking carefully at your new Italian shoes,
saying that they appear to be second hand.
- He/she says that Miss X, your acquaintance, is getting too
fat.
Material life, economic conditions
-
C.
He/she shows you a newspaper headline: GOVERNMENT

TO INCREASE INCOME TAX, saying it is a very cool
idea.
- He/she is glad that pensioners are going to get bigger
pensions soon. You are sure that it is only a rumor.
- He/she says that he/she spends too much money on clothes.
- He/she complains that things are getting too expensive
these days.
Mental life, intellectual ability, promotion, politics
-
D.
He/she suggests that Mr. Y, who works under you, should

be promoted to chief sales executive, a higher position than
yours.
- Knowing nothing about energy, he/she states that solar
energy will solve all of the present energy problems.
- He/she thinks the president was such a fool to make a
controversial announcement recently.
- He/she wants you to vote for Mr. X when you go to the
General Election, as he is an excellent candidate.
Social contact
-
He/she thinks he/she is rather an expert on cars.

He/she uses bad words to talk about your favorite team
after they have been beaten 3-0 in an international match.
He/she assumes that the party you both went to was very
boring.
He/she believes that a camping trip is good for your health.
3. Study concrete situations
3.1. Situation one:
How do you state your different evaluation when one of the following persons (next page)
mentions Miss X, an acquaintance of yours, saying, Shes getting too fat? You can choose one
of the utterances provided below or you can compose your own and write it in the appropriate
place.
1. No, youre wrong.
7. Dozens of men are following her.
2. I cant agree with you.
8. I see your point, but.
3. Shes all right, I suppose.
9. Is she?
4. We are very much in agreement,

Madam, but
10. Really?
5. How fat is too fat?
12. Other (please specify)
11. (Silence)
6. Fashions change, you know.

Your co-participant
Your response
a. Your grandfather/grandmother
b. Your mother/father
c. Your close friend
d. Someone you dislike
e. Your colleague (same age, same gender)
f. Your colleague (same age, different
gender)
g. Your acquaintance (younger than you)
h. Your acquaintance (older than you)
i. Your boss (younger than you)
j. Your boss (older than you)
3.2. Situation two:

What do you say to express your disagreement when one of the following persons (next page)
shows you a newspaper headline: GOVERNMENT TO INCREASE INCOME TAX, stating, Its
really a very cool idea? You can choose one of the utterances provided below or you can
compose your own and write it in the appropriate place.
1. Not me. I totally disagree.
7. Granted, but.
2. Im afraid I disagree.
8. That may be so, but.
3. Why do you think this way?
9. Hmm.
4. Theres a lot in what you say, but
10. Are you sure?
5. Its pretty good.
11. (Silence)
6. It is and it is not.
12. Other (please specify)
Your co-participant
Your response
gender)
3.3. Situation three:
What do you say if you disagree with one of the following persons when he/she comments,
That party both you and I went to was very boring? You can choose one of the utterances
provided below or you can compose your own and write it in the appropriate place.
1.
2.
Thats nonsense.
I strongly/totally disagree with
you.
6.
No, my dear, no, no, youre

wrong.
7.
To a certain extent, yes, but.
3.
Do you really think so?
8.
Boring people get bored.
4.
Well, I kind of like it.
9.
Uh-uh.
10.
Was it?
11.
(Silence)
12.
Other (please specify)
5.
Sorry, I cant say I share the

same idea.
Your co-participant
gender)
Your response

4. Could you please consider the utterances you would use when conversing with your coparticipants, define the level of politeness of your responses and tick () the appropriate
box?
Prior
assess-
Your co-participant Your response
ment by
your coparticip
ant
Polite
Grandmother
1. Shes all right, I

suppose.
Mother
2. How fat is too fat?
Colleague, same age

& gender
3. Fashions change, you

know.
Boss, older
4. Were very much in

agreement, but.
Father
5. Not me, I totally

disagree.
1
Miss X
is
getting
too fat.
2
Tax
increase
a
really
cool
idea.
3
Politeness level of
your response
Nonpolite
(Neutral)
Someone you dislike 6. Its pretty good.

Acquaintance, older
7. That may be so, but.
Boss, younger
8. Really?
Grandfather
9. No, grandpa, no, no,

youre wrong.
That
Close friend
party
was very
boring.
Colleague, same
age, different gender
Acquaintance,
younger
10. Boring people get

bored.
11. Do you really think so?
12. Sorry, but I think it was
interesting.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR KINDNESS
Impo
-lite
Cu hi kho st
Cu hi kho st ny phc v cho ti nghin cu v Cch biu
t s bt ng kin v mt nh gi trong ting Anh v
ting Vit ca chng ti. Xin qu v bt cht thi gian tr li gip
chng ti nhng cu hi ny. Chng ti cam oan s khng nu danh
qu v trong bt c trng hp no hoc di bt k hnh thc no.
Xin chn thnh cm n qu v.
Xin qu v nh du () vo nhng ch ph hp:
* Tnh/thnh ph:
* Tui tc:
* Gii tnh:
* Hc vn:
thch)
* Ngh nghip:
Tiu hc
i hc/cao ng
Nam
* Ni sng lu nht: Thnh th
* Ngoi ng 1: ...................................
Hng ngy
Hng tun
Hng thng
* Ngoi ng 2: ...................................
Hng ngy
Hng tun
Hng thng
* Ngoi ng 3: ...................................
Hng ngy
Hng tun
Hng thng
N
Trung hc
Trnh khc (Xin gii
Nng thn
Mc s dng:
Him khi
Mc s dng:
Him khi
Mc s dng:
Him khi
1. Qu v thng quan tm n yu t no trong cc ch s lit k

di y khi qu v th hin kin bt ng vi ngi khc bng
ting Vit. Hy xp theo th t u tin: 01 l ci quan trng nht.
Nu yu t khng quan trng xin qu v nh du (x).
a. Tui ca ngi i thoi
b. Thi gian qu v quen bit ngi i thoi
c. Khng kh giao tip (thn mt, trang trng)

d. Ngh nghip ca ngi i thoi
e. Khung cnh giao tip ( nh, ni lm vic )

f. Gii tnh ca ngi i thoi
g. a v x hi ca ngi i thoi
h. Cc yu t khc (Xin hy gii thch)

Th t
i.
Hon ton khng quan tm n bt k yu t no
2. Qu v s nu kin tri ngc vi ngi i thoi th no trong cc

trng hp sau? Xin qu v nh du () vo mt trong nm ct
sau:
Ct 1: Ni thng, khng chn t
Ct 2: Ni thng, chn t thch hp
Ct 3: Khng bit Ct 4: Kn o th hin bt ng Ct 5: Khng ni
g
Cc tnh hung
A. Dng v bn ngoi:
Ngi lun ni rng v/chng ca mnh a
nhn.
- Ngi ht li khen kiu tc mi ca mnh.
- Ngi nhn k i giy Italia mi mua ca
qu v v ni rng trng chng nh c.
- Ngi ni rng c X, mt ngi quen ca qu
v, trng qu bo.
Cuc sng vt cht, iu kin kinh t
-
B.
C
.
Ngi ch cho qu v xem tiu bi bo:

nh nc s tng thu thu nhp v ni rng l
mt kin rt tuyt.
Ngi vui v ngi v hu sp c tng tin tr
cp. Qu v bit chc rng ch l tin n.
Ngi cho rng chi qu nhiu cho vic
mua sm qun o.
Ngi nhn xt l gi c nhng ngy ny tr
nn qu t.
i sng tinh thn, kh nng tr tu, thng tin,

chnh tr
Ngi cho rng ng Y, mt cp di ca qu v,

cn c bt ln Ph trch kinh doanh, mt
chc v cao hn qu v.
Khng hiu bit g v nng lng, nhng ngi
li ni l nng lng mt tri gii quyt c vn
thiu nng lng hin ti.
Ngi cho rng tng thng thiu thn trng
khi gn y a ra 1 li tuyn b y mu
thun.
1 2 3 4 5
Ngi bo qu v hy b phiu cho ng A khi

i bu quc hi, v ng y l 1 ng c vin
sng gi.
Giao tip x hi
-
D
.
Ngi lun cho rng mnh l chuyn gia v

xe my.
Ngi ht li ch bi i bng yu thch ca
qu v, sau khi i ny thua 3-0 trong mt trn
u quc t.
Ngi bo cuc lin hoan m c 2 cng tham
gia rt t nht.
Ngi ni i ngh s c li cho sc kho ca
qu v.
3. Nghin cu cc trng hp c th
3.1. Trng hp 1: Qu v chn cu no trong nhng cu gi di
y nu qu v bt ng kin vi ngi i thoi khi h nhn xt
v c X, ngi quen ca qu v: C y trng qu bo? Qu v cng
c th vit cu ca ring mnh vo ch trng thch hp nu cch
ni ca qu v khc vi cc cu gi .
1. Ti/thy c y hon ton
bnh thng.
2. Anh/ nhm ri. C y
khng h bo cht no.
3. Rt tic l ti/ khng thy

th.
5. Th ! Vy m ti/ khng
bit y.
8. Tht vy ?
6. Con/ ngh l m/ nhm

c y vi ai th phi.
7. C hng t n ng theo
ui c y y.
Ngi cng hi thoi vi qu v

a. ng/b ca qu v
b. B/ m ca qu v
c. Bn thn ca qu v
d. Ngi qu v ght
e. Bn ng nghip ca qu v
(cng tui, cng gii tnh)
f. Bn ng nghip ca qu v
(cng tui, khc gii tnh)
4. C l l anh/ ni hi qu.
9. Theo m/ th no l qu
bo ?
10.
gy.
Cn ch/bn th
11.
(Im lng)
Cu p ca qu v
g. Ngi quen ca qu v (km

tui qu v)
h. Ngi quen ca qu v (hn
tui qu v)
i. Cp trn ca qu v (km
tui qu v)
j. Cp trn ca qu v (hn
tui qu v)
3.2 Trng hp 2:
Nu c kin tri ngc, qu v s ni th no khi ngi ni chuyn
cng qu v ch cho qu v thy tiu bi bo nh nc s tng thu
thu nhp v ni, y qu l mt tng tuyt vi? Qu v c th
chn mt trong nhng cu gi di y hoc a ra cu tr li ca
ring mnh v vit vo phn trng thch hp.
1. Tht v vn.
2. Con/chng thy g hp
dn c.
3. Tuyt vi th no ?
4. Theo thin ca ti/ vic
ny cn phi cn nhc k.
5. Th ! Vy m ti/ khng
bit y.
6. Cng c th.
7. Tht th h/sao?
8. ng nh th ?
9. C l ni nh th hi vi vng
chng?
10. Hay y (, tha xp/),
nhng.
11.
(Im lng).
Ngi cng hi thoi vi qu

v
Cu p ca qu v
a. ng/b ca qu v
b. B/ m ca qu v
c. Bn thn ca qu v
d. Ngi qu v ght
e. Bn ng nghip ca qu
v (cng tui, cng gii
tnh)
f. Bn ng nghip ca qu
v (cng tui, khc gii
tnh)
g. Ngi quen ca qu v
(km tui qu v)
h. Ngi quen ca qu v (hn
tui qu v)
i. Cp trn ca qu v (km
tui qu v)
j. Cp trn ca qu v (hn
tui qu v)
3.3 Trng hp 3:
Qu v chn cu no trong nhng cu gi pha di p li mt
trong s nhng ngi sau y khi h ni: Bui lin hoan m chng ta
cng tham gia tht t nht. Qu v c th a ra cu tr li ca ring
mnh v vit vo ch trng thch hp.
1. Anh/ nhm ri . N u
c t nht.
2. u c. Ti/ thy rt vui.
7. Th /sao/h?
3. C th l b/ i hi hi
cao.
9. Ngi bun th cnh cng

chng vui.
4. Vi ti/ th khng phi th.
10.
11.
5. Sao cu/ li ngh vy?
8. Em/ thy n cng khng

tht hp dn lm, xp/ .
T th no c?
(Im lng)
6. Xin li, nhng ti/...thy n rt

tuyt.
Ngi cng hi thoi vi qu v
a. ng/b ca qu v
Cu p ca qu v
b. B/ m ca qu v
c. Bn thn ca qu v
d. Ngi qu v ght
e. Bn ng nghip ca qu v (cng
tui, cng gii tnh)
f. Bn ng nghip ca qu v (cng
tui, khc gii tnh)
g. Ngi quen ca qu v (km tui
qu v)
h. Ngi quen ca qu v (hn tui
qu v)
i. Cp trn ca qu v (km tui
qu v)
j. Cp trn ca qu v (hn tui
qu v)
4. Xin qu v cn nhc nhng pht ngn sau v nh gi mc
lch s ca tng pht ngn theo cc cp : Lch s Bnh thng Bt lch s. Xin nh du () vo thch hp.
Nh
n
xt
ca
ngi
i
thoi
vi
qu
v
Mc lch s
ca cu p
Ngi i
Cu p ca qu v
thoi vi qu
v
1.
1. Chu thy c y
bnh thng.
C X
y
2. M cho th no l
qu bo ?
ng nghip,
cng tui & gii
tnh
3. Mt i ri.
Cp trn, hn
tui
4. Vng, nhng.
qu
bo.
Lc
h
s
Bnh
thng
Bt
lch
s
2.Tn
g
thu
thu
nhp
- Mt
tng
tuyt
vi.
5. Khng, con hon

ton phn i.
Ngi ght
6. Ci kh hay y.
Ngi quen,
hn tui
7. Cng c th nh th
y , nhng.
Cp trn, km
tui
8. Tht th sao?
3.
ng
9. Khng, ng i,
khng, khng, ng
nhm ri .
Bn thn
10. Ngi bun thy g

chng t.
ng nghip,
cng tui, khc
gii tnh
11. Cu ngh th tht

?
Ngi quen,
km tui
12. Xin li, nhng ti/

thy n hay.
Bui
lin
hoan
tht
t
nht.
Xin chn thnh cm n s gip ca qu V
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ENGLISH
Ackroyd, S. & Hughes, J. A. (1981). Data collection in context. London: Longman.
Agha, Asif. (1994). Honorification. Annual Review of Anthropology 23, 277-302.
Aston G. (1993). Notes on the Interlanguage of Comity. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.),
Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 244-250). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Atkinson, J. M. & Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court. London: Macmillan.
Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (eds.) (1984). Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. New York: Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bach, K. & Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and London: MIT Press.
Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction Process Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy
together. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Monograph
Series Vol. 7). Urbana-Chanpaign, USA: University of Illinois, Intensive English
Institute.
Barker, R. G., & Wright, H. F. (1955). Midwest and its Children. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.
Bauman, R., & Sherzer, J. (eds.) (1974). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bayraktaroglu, A., & Sifianou, M. (eds.) (2001). Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The
Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). Pragmatics transfer in ESL refusals. In
R. C. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & Stephen, D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing
communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-74). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Bentahila, A., & Davies, E. E., (1989). Culture and language use: a problem for foreign language
teaching. University Fez Morocco. IRAL, vol. XXVII/2, May 1989.
Berlin, B. & Kay, P. (1969). Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Bernard, R. H. (2002). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches (3rd ed.). Altamira Press.
Blount, B. G. (ed.) (1995). Language, Culture, and Society. A Book of Readings. Prospect
Heights, IL: Waveland.
Blum-Kulka, S. & Snow C. E. (eds.) (2002). Taking to Adults: The Contribution of Multiparty
Discourse to Language Acquisition. LEA, Publishers.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different? Journal of
Pragmatics, 11, 145-160.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness. In S. BlumKulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and
apologies (pp. 37-70). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1992). The Metapragmatics of Politeness in Israeli Society. In R. J. Watts, S.
Ide, & K. Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and
Practice. Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 255-80.
Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner Talk: Cultural Patterns of Sociability and Socialization in Family
Discourse. LEA, Publishers.
Blum-Kulka, S., & Kasper, G., (eds.) (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B., & Gerson, R. (1985). The language of requesting in Israeli society.
In J. Forgas (Ed.). Language and social situation (pp. 113-141). New York: Springer
Verlag.
Blundell, J., Higgens, J. & Middlemiss N. (1996). Function in English. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bouton, L. F. (1994). Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be
improved through explicit instruction? A polite study. In L. F. Bouton, & Y.
Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Monograph Series Vol. 5).
Urbana-Chanpaign, USA: University of Illinois, Intensive English Institute.
Bouton, L. F. (1996). Pragmatics and Language Learning. (Monograph Series Vol. 7). UrbanaChampaign, USA: University of Illinois, Intensive English Institute.
Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the
Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Cecil. (1985). Polysemy, Overt Marking, and Function Words. Language Sciences 7/2:
283-332.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1989). Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. (2002). Everyone Has to Lie in Tzeltal. In S. Blum-Kulka & C. E. Snow (eds.),
Taking to Adults The Contributions of Multiparty Discourse to Language
Acquisition (pp. 327-342). LEA.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. (1978). Universals of Language Usage: Politeness
Phenomena. In E. N. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness Strategies in Social
interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge University Press.
Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language
Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Button, G. & Lee, J. R. E. (eds.) (1987). Talk and Social Organization. Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). Topic nomination and topic pursuit. Human studies, 8, 3-55.
Cameron, D. (2002). Working with Spoken Discourse. Sage Publications.
Campbell-Kibler, K., Podesva, R., Roberts S. J., & Wong, A. (2002). (eds.). Language and
Sexuality: Contesting Meaning in Theory and Practice. CSLI Publications.
Chang, Hui-Ching. (1999). The well-defined is ambiguous indeterminacy in Chinese
conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 535-56.
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.
Coates, J. (1996). Women Talk: Conversation between Women Friends. Blackwell Publishers.
Coates, J., & Cameron, D. (eds.) (1989). Women in Their Speech Communities: New Perspectives
on Language and Sex. Longman Group UK Limited.
Cohen, A. (1996). Investigating the production of speech act sets. In S. M. Gass, & J. New,
(Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second
language. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Cole, P., & Morgan, J. L. (eds.) (1975). Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts. Academic
Press.
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: an Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems.
Comrie, B. (1989) (2nd ed.). Language Universals and Language Typology: Syntax and
Morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Coupland, J. (ed.) (2000). Small Talk. Longman.
Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Crystal, D. (ed.) (2003). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (5th ed.). Blackwell.
Dascal, M. (1983). Pragmatics and the philosophy of mind 1. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John
Benjamins.
Davis, W. A. (1998). Implicature: Interaction, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of
Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
de Kadt, E. (1998). The concept of face and its applicability to the Zulu language. Journal of
Pragmatics 292, 173-91.
Doi, Takeo. (1973). The anatomy of dependence. [Translated by J. Bester]. Tokyo: Dodansha.
Drnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: construction, administration,
and processing. LEA Publishers.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (eds.) (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings.
Duncan, S. & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face to Face Interaction: Research, Methods and Theory.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Duncan, S. (1974). Some Signals and Rules for Taking Speaker Turns in Conversations. In S.
Weitz (ed.). Nonverbal communication. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 298311.
Duranti, A. (1981). The Samoan Fono: A Sociolinguistic Study. Pacific Linguistics
Monographs, Series B, Vol. 80. Canberra: Australian National University, Dep. of
Linguistics.
Duranti, A. (1985). Lauga and Talanoaga: Two Speech Genres in a Samoan Political Event. In
Brenneis & Myers (eds.), Dangerous Words Language and Politics in the Pacific, pp,
217:37. New York: New York University Press.
Duranti, A. (1988). Intentions, Language and Social Action in a Samoan Context. Journal of
Pragmatics 12: 13:33.
Duranti, A. (1992). Language in Context and Language as Context: The Samoan Respect
Vocabulary. In Another Context. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking
Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. (pp. 77-99). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A. (1993). Intentions, Self, and Responsibility: An Essay in Samoan Ethnopragmatics.
In J. H. Hill and J. T. Irvine (eds.), Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse
(pp. 24-47). Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A. (1996). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A. (ed.) (2001a). Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Blackwell Publishers.
Duranti, A. (ed.) (2001b). Key Terms in Language and Culture. Blackwell Publishers.
Durkheim, E. (1915). The elementary forms of the religious life. George Allen & Unwin Ltd,
London.
Eisenstein M. & Bodman J. (1993). Expressing Gratitude in American English. In G. Kasper &
S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 64-81). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, C. (1996). Culture Shock! Vietnam. Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company. Portland,
Oregon.
Ellis, R. (1991). Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1979). Childrens Verbal Turn-taking. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (eds.)
Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. pp. 391-414.
Finegan, E. (2004). Language: its structure and use. 4th ed. Thomson Corp. Warsworth.
Fishman, P. (1983). Interaction: the Work Women do. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley
(eds.), Language, Gender, and Society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Pp. 89-101.
Foley, W. A. (1984). Nature versus Nurture: The Genesis of Language. A Review Article.
Comparative Studies in Society and History (1984): 335-44. Society for the
Comparative Study of Society and History (U.S.)
Ford, E. C., Fox, A. B., & Thompson A. S. (eds.) (2002). The Language of Turn and Sequence.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fowler, R. (1985). Power. In van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London:
Academic Press.
Fox, B. A., Hayashi, M. & Jasperson, R. (1996). A cross-linguistic study of the syntax and
repair. In E.Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, and S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and
grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 185-237.
Fraser, B. (1985). On the universality of speech act strategies. In S. George (Ed.), From the
linguistic to the social context (pp. 43-49). Bologna, Italy: CLUEB.
Fraser, B. (1990). Perspective of politeness. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236.
Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic forms.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27: 93-109.
Furo, H. (2001). Turn-Taking in English and Japanese: Projectability in Grammar, Intonation,
and Semantics. Routledge: New York and London.
Gardner, R. (2001). When Listeners Talk. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
(Paperback edition. 1984. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK; Polity
Press.)
Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). On Formal Structures of Practical Actions. In H. D.
McKinney and E. A. Tiryakian (eds.), Theoretical Sociology, pp. 337-66. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Garrett, P. B., & Baquedano-Lpez, P. (2002). Language Socialization: Reproduction and
continuity, Transformation and Change. Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 339-61.
Gass, S. M. & Neu, J. (eds.) (1996). Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication
in a Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter.
Gass, S., M. (1996). Introduction. In Gass, S. M., & Neu, J. (eds.), Speech Acts Across
Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter.
Geis, M. L. (1995). Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Gillham, B. (2000). The research interview. Continuum: London and New York.
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford;
New York: Oxford University Press.
Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor
Books.
Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and Responses. Language in Society 5: 257-313.
Goodenough, W. (1957). Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics. In P. L. Garvin (ed.),
MonoGraph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 9: 167-173. Washington, DC:
Institute of Languages and Linguistics.
Goodwin, C. (1979). The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation. In G.

Psathas (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 23-78).
Irvington Publishers, Inc.
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers.
New York: Academic Press.
Goodwin, C. (1984). Notes on Story Structure and the Organization of Participation. In J. M.
Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 225-46.
Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent Vision. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schefgloff, & S. A. Thompson (eds.),
Interaction and Grammar (pp. 370-404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking Context: An Introduction. In A. Duranti & D.
Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. (pp.
1-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin M. H. (1987). Concurrent Operations on Talk: Notes on the
Interactive Organization of Assessments. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics, Vol. 1, No. 1,
July 1987: 1-54.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the Construction of Context. In A.
Duranti & D. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive
Phenomenon. (pp. 147-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, M. H. (1983). Aggravated Correction and Disagreement in Childrens Conversations.
Journal of Pragmatics 7: 657-77.
Goody, E. N. (ed.) (1978). Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction.
Green, B. S. & Salkind, J. N. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh. 3rd ed. Prentice
Hall.
Greenberg, J. (1963). Language Universals. In Sebeok, T. (ed.) Current Trends in Linguistics,
Vol. 3 (Theoretical Foundations), pp. 61-112. The Hague Mouton. Revised and
published in J. Greenberg (1966), Language Universals with Special Reference to
Feature Hierarchies. The Hague Mouton.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation in P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and
Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (2), 327257.
Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. (eds.) (1964). The Ethonography of Communication [Special
issue, part 2]. The American Anthropologist, 66.
Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (eds.) (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge
University Press.
Gumperz, J. J. (1978). The conversational analysis of interethnic communication. In: E. Lama
Ross (ed.), Interethnic Communication. Southern Anthropological Society
proceedings 12, 13-31.
Gumperz, J. J. (1996). The linguistic and Cultural Relativity of Conversational Inference. In J.
J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 374-407).
Ha, Cam Tam. (1998). Requests by Australian native speakers of English and Vietnamese
learners of English. Unpublished M. A. Thesis, La Trobe University.
Hall, K., & Bucholtz, M. (1995). (eds.). Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially
Constructed Self. Routledge: New York and London.
Hare, R. M. (1979). Social Being: A theory for social psychology. England: Basil Blackwell.
Harold, W. S. (1976). The Meaning of Kinship. In Basso, K. & Shelby, H. (eds.), Meaning in
Anthropology, pp. 57-91. University of New Mexico Press.
Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hatim, B. (1997). Communication across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text
Linguistics. University of Exeter Press.
Held, G. (1989). On the Role of Maximization in Verbal Politeness. Multilingua 8: 167-206.
Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, J. (1984b). A change-of-state Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement. In J. M.
Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation
Analysis, pp. 299-345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J. (1998). Oh-prefaced Responses to Inquiry. Language in Society 27(3): 291-334.
Heritage, J. (2002). Oh-prefaced Responses to Assessments: a Method of Modifying
Agreement/Disagreement. In C. Ford, B. Fox and S. Thompson (Eds.), The
Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 196-224.
Heritage, J. (forthcoming). The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and
Subordination in Talk-in-interaction.
Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M. (1994). Constituting and Maintaining Activities across Sequences
And-prefacing as a Feature of Question Design. Language in Society 23: 1-29.
Hernndez-Flores, N. (1999). Politeness ideology in Spanish colloquial conversation: the case of
advice. Pragmatics 91, 37-49.
Hester, S. & Eglin, P. (eds.) (1997). Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization
Analysis. International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis &
University Press of America, Washington, D. C.
Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., & Ogino, T. (1986). Universals of Linguistic Politeness:
Quantitative Evidence from Japanese & American English. Journal of Pragmatics
10: 347-71.
Hill, J. H., & Irvine, J. T. (eds.) (1993). Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse.
Hill, J. H., & Mannheim, B. (1992). Language and World View. Annual Review of
Anthropology 21: 381-406.
Ho, D. Y-F. (1994). Face dynamics: from conceptualization to measurement. In: Ting-Toomey, S.
(Ed.). The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues. State
university of New York Press, Albany. Pp. 3-13.
Hockett, C. F. (1960). The Origin of Speech. Scientific American 203.3: 88-96.
Hornby, A. S. (1988). Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
House, J. (1984). Some methodological problems and perspectives in contrastive discourse

analysis. Applied linguistics, 5 (3), 245-254.
House, J. (1989). Politeness in English and German: The functions of Please and Bite. In S.
Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and
apologies (pp. 96-119). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex.
Hsien, Chin Hu. (1944). The Chinese concepts of face. American Anthropologist 46: 45-55.
Hwang, Juck-Ryoon. (1990). Deference versus Politeness in Korean Speech. The
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 82: 41-55.
Hymes, D. (1962). The Ethnography of Speaking. In T. Galdwin & W. C. Sturtevant (eds.),
Anthropology and Human Behavior (pp. 13-53). Washington, DC: Anthropological
Society of Washington.
Hymes, D. (1972a). On Communicative Competence. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (eds.),
Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). London: Penguin.
Hymes, D. (1972b). Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life. In J. J. Gumperz
and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Hold, Rinehart and
Winston. Pp. 35-71.
Hymes, D. (1974a). Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethonographic Approach. Philadelphia.
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hymes, D. (1974b). Ways of Speaking. In R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (eds.), Explorations in
the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hymes, D. (1995). The Ethnography of Speaking. In B. G. Blount (ed.), Language, Culture,
and Society. Waveland Press, Inc. pp. 248-82.
Hymes, D. (ed.) (1964). Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and
Anthropology. New York: Harper & Row.
Ide, S. (1982). Japanese Sociolinguistics: Politeness and Womens Language. Lingua 57, 357385.
Ide, S. (1986). Sex Differences and Politeness in Japanese. International Journal of the
Sociology of Language 58: 25-36.
Ide, S. (1987). Strategies of discernment and volition for Linguistic Politeness. Paper
delivered at the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp.
Ide, S. (1988). Introduction. Multilingua 7-4: 371-374.
Ide, S. (1989). Formal Forms and Discernment: Two Neglected Aspects of Universals of
Linguistic Politeness. In S. Ide et al. (eds.), Linguistic Politeness II: Multilingua 82/3: 223-248.
Ide, S. (1993). Preface: The research of integrated universals of universals of linguistic
politeness. Multilingua 12-1: 7-11.
Ide, S. (2001). Preface. In Bayraktaroglu, A., & Sifianou, M. (eds.), Linguistic Politeness
across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins Publishing
Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia.
Ide, S., Hill, B., Carnes, Y. M., Ogino, T., & Kawasaki, A. (1992). The Concept of Politeness: An
Empirical Study of American English and Japanese. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide and K.
Ehlich (eds.) Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice.
Mouton de Gruyter.
Jackson, H., & Stockwell, P. (1996). Investigating English language nature and function of
language. Stanley Thornes Publishers Ltd.
Jefferson, G. (1974). Error Correction as an Interactional Resource. Language in Society, 2:
181-99.
Jefferson, G. (1978). Sequential Aspects of Story Telling in Conversation. In J. N. Schenkein
(ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York:
Academic Press, pp. 219-48.
Jefferson,
G. (1979). A Technique for Inviting Laughter and its Subsequent

Acceptance/Declination. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in
Ethnomethodology. New York: Erlbaum, pp. 79-96.
Ji, Shaojun. (2000). Face and polite verbal behaviors in Chinese culture. Discussion note.
Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1059-62.
Johnson, S., & Meinhof, U. H. (1997). (eds.). Language and Masculinity. Blackwell Publishers.
Jones, L. (1981). Functions of English (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, J. (1972). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education. In Language Learning
16, 1-20.
Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics: An Introduction. In G. Kasper
& S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 3-17). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic Politeness: Current Research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14:
193-218.
Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (eds.) (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Mouton de Gruyter.
Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters.
Kiesling, S. F. (2001). Now I Gotta Watch What I say: Shifting Constructions of Masculinity in
Discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(2): 250-73.
Kieu, Thi Thu Huong. (2001). Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese. Unpublished M. A.
Thesis. C. F. L, Vietnam National University, Hanoi.
Kieu, Thi Thu Huong. (2003). Conversation Analysis and Disagreeing in English and
Vietnamese. Unpublished paper submitted for a credit of Conversation Analysis.
Department of Anthropology. University of Toronto, Canada.
Kieu, Thi Thu Huong. (2003). Politeness and Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese.
Unpublished paper submitted for a credit of Advanced Topics in Linguistics.
Department of Anthropology. University of Toronto, Canada.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford:
Pergamon Press.
Krashen, S. 1987. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall
International (UK) Ltd.
Kroger, R. O. (1892). Explorations in Ethogeny. With special reference to the rules of address.
In American Psychologist, vol. 37, #7: 810-820.
Kummer, M. (1992). Politeness in Thai. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (eds.) Politeness in
Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the
Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p's and q's. Papers from the Ninth
Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292-305). Chicago: Chicago
Linguistic Society.
Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper and Row.
Leech, G. N. (1980). Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(The chapter 'Language and tact' first published by the Linguistic Agency University
of Trier, Series A, Paper 46, University of Trier, 1977).
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.
Lee-Wong, S. M. (2000). Politeness and Face in Chinese Culture. Peter Lang.
Levine, D. R., Baxter, J., & McNulty, P. (1987). The culture puzzle: Cross-cultural
communication for English as second language. Prentice Hall Regents.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Levinson, S. C. (1996). Relativity in Spatial Conception and Description. In J. J. Gumperz & S.
C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 177-202). Cambridge:
Lightbown, P. M. & N. Spada. 1999. How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Littlewood, W. T. 1984. Foreign and second language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Lucy, J. A. (1997). Linguistic Relativity. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 291-312.
Luong, Van Hy (1987). Plural Markers in Vietnamese Person Reference: An Analysis of
Pragmatic Ambiguities and Native Models. Anthropological Linguistics 17: 49-70.
Luong, Van Hy (1990). Discursive Practices and Linguistic Meanings: The Vietnamese System of
Person Reference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lyon, J. [(1977), 1987] Semantics. Vol. 1 & 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malinowski, B. (1923, 1946). The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Language. Supplement to
C. Ogden & A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning, pp. 296-336.
Mao, Lu Ming Robert. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: face revisited and renewed. Journal of
Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associaties, Publishers.
Matsumoto, Y. (1988). Reexamination of the Universality of Face: Politeness Phenomena in
Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics 12 (1988), pp. 403-426.
Maynard, D. W. (2003). Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and
Clinical Settings. University of Chicago Press.
Maynard, S. K. (1997). Japanese Communication: Language and Thought in Context. Hololulu:
University of Hawaii Press.
Merritt, M. (1976). On Questions Following Questions (in Service Encounters). Language in
Society, 5.3: 315-57.
Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers.
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishers.
Mey, J. L. (2003). Introduction: About Face. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003), p. 1451.
Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture: ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese: Connective Expressions
and Turn Construction. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Nakane, Chie. (1970). Japanese society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Nash, T. (1983). American and Chinese politeness strategies; 'It sort of disturbs my sleep' or
'Health is important.' University of Hawaii Working Papers, 2, 2: 23-39.
Nguyen, Duc Hoat. (1995). Politeness markers in Vietnamese requests. Unpublished Ph. D.
Thesis, Monash University.
Nguyen, Phuong Suu (1990). A Cross-cultural Study of Greeting and Addressing Terms in
English and Vietnamese. Unpublished M. A. Thesis, University of Canberra.
Nguyen, Thi Thanh Binh (2001). The Diversity in Language Socialization: Gender and Social
Stratum in a North Vietnamese Village. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. University of
Toronto, Canada.
Nguyen, Van Do (1996). Politeness phenomena in Vietnamese and English cultures and some
implications in teaching language Evidence from forms of requests. Unpublished
M. A. Thesis. Hanoi Foreign Studies University.
Nofsinger, Robert E. (1991). Everyday Conversation. SAGE Publications.
Nwoye, Onuigbo G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of
face. Journal of Pragmatics 18, 309-328.
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing Gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context:
Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 335-58). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic Resources for Socializing Humanity. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C.
Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 407-37). Cambridge:
Ochs, E. (1997). Narrive. In T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse
Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (pp. 185-207). London: Sage
Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). When I Come Down Im in the Domain State:
Grammar and Graphic representation in the Interpretive Activity of Physicists. In E.
Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 32869). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (eds.) (1996). Interaction and Grammar.
Park, Y. (1999). The Korean connective nuntey in conversational discourse. In N. Akatsuka, S.
Iwasaki, and S. Strauss (Eds.), Japanese Korean Linguistics 5. Stanford: CSLI
Publication, pp. 131-147.
Pittenger, R. E., Hockett, C. F., & Danehy, J. J. (1960). The First Five Minutes. Ethaca, NY: P.
Martineau.
Polanyi, L. (1985). Conversational Storytelling. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse
Analysis Vol. E: Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press.
Pomerantz,
A. (1975). Second Assessments: A Study of Some Features of

Agreements/Disagreements. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California,
Irvine.
Pomerantz, A. (1978). Compliment Responses: Notes on the Co-operation of Multiple

Constraints. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversation
Interaction. Academic Press. pp. 79-112.
Pomerantz, A. (1984a). Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of
Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes. In J. Heritage & J. M. Atkinson (eds.),
Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. pp. 57-101.
Pomerantz, A. (1984b). Pursuing a Response. In J. Heritage & J. M. Atkinson (eds.), Structures
of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 152-64.
Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. J. (1997). Conversation Analysis: An Approach to the Study of Social
Action as Sense Making Practices. In van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies: A
Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 2. pp. 64-91. Sage Publications.
Pridham, F. (2001). The Language of Conversation. Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group.
Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction. Sage Publications.
Psathas, G. (ed.) (1979). Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Irvington Publishers,
Inc.
Psathas, G. (ed.) (1990). Interaction Competence. International Institute for Ethnomethodology
and Conversation Analysis & Universtiy Press of America Washington, D. C.
Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G. & Svartvik J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English.
Longman Group Ltd.
Rathmayr, R. (1999). Metadiscours et realit linguistique: Iexample de la politesse russe.
Richards, J. C. (1983). Communicative Needs in Foreign Language Learning. In Wolfson &
Judd (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Newbury House Publishers.
Richards, J., Platt, J & Webber, H. (1990). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Longman.
Roger, D. & Bull, P. (1989). Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Multilingual Matters
LTD.
Rosaldo, M. Z. (1982). The Things We Do with Words: Ilongot Speech Acts and Speech Act
Theory in Philosophy. Language in Society 11: 203-37.
Sacks, H. (1963). On Sociological description. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 8:1-16.

Sacks, H. (1972a). An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Data of Doing
Sociology. In D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press,
pp. 31-74.
Sacks, H. (1972b). On the Analyzability of Stories by Children. In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes
(eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, pp. 325-45.
Sacks, H. (1974). An Analysis of the Course of a Jokes Telling in Conversation. In R. Bauman
& J. Sherzer (eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. pp. 337-53.
Sacks, H. (1975). Everyone Has to Lie. In M. Sanches & B. Blout (eds.), Sociocultural
Dimensions of Language Use, pp. 57-80. New York: Academic Press.
Sacks, H. (1978). Some Technical Considerations of a Dirty Joke. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies
in the Organization of Conversation Interaction. Academic Press. pp. 249-269.
Sacks, H. (1987). On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in
Conversation (from a tape recording of a public lecture originally delivered in
1973). In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.). Talk and social organisation (pp. 54-69).
Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, H. (1995) Lectures on Conversation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to
Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.) (1979), Everyday
Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Irvington Publishers, Inc. pp. 15-21.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization
of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language 50: 696-735. Also in J. Schenkein
(1978) (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. Academic
Press. pp. 7-55.
Sankoff, G. (1974). A quantitative paradigm for the study of communicative competence. In: R.
Bauman and J. Sherzer (eds.). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking.
Sapir, E. (1963). Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Thought. In D.G.
Mandelbaun (Ed.), Berleley and Los Angeles. University of California Press.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1989). Course in General Linguistics, eds. Charles Bally and Albert
Sechehaye, in collaboration with Albert Riedlinger, translated from the French by
Wade Baskin. New York: Philosophical Library.
Schegloff, E. A. (1972a). Sequencing in Conversational Openings. In J. J. Gumperz and D.
Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The EthnoGraphy of Communication
(pp. 346-80). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Schegloff, E. A. (1972b). Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place. In D. Sudnow
(ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1979a). Identification and Recognition in Telephone Openings. In G. Psathas
(ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. (pp.23-78). Irvington
Publishers, Inc.
Schegloff, E. A. (1979b). The Relevance of Repair to Syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon

(ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. XII: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic
Press, pp. 261-88.
Schegloff, E. A. (1984). On some Gestures relation to talk. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage
(eds.), Structures of Social Action. (pp. 266-96). Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, E. A. (1992). In Another Context. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking
Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. (pp. 191-227). Cambridge:
Schegloff, E. A. (1995). Introduction. In Harvey Sacks: Lectures on Conversation. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell.
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson and Harvey Sacks. (1977). The Preference for SelfCorrection in the Organization of Repair in Conversation. Language 53: 361-82.
Schenkein, J. (1978). (ed.). Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. Academic
Press.
Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language Socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology
15: 163-91.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (eds.) (2001). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis.
Blackwell Publishers.
Schultz, E. A. (1990). Dialogue at the Margins: Whorf, Bakhtin, and Linguistic Relativity. The
University of Wisconsin Press.
Searle, J. R. (1965). What is a Speech Act? In M. Black (ed.), Philosophy in America Essays,
pp. 221-239. Ithaca, N.Y. Cornell University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics
3: Speech acts (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press.
Searle, J. R. (1976). A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5, 1-23.
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Sherzer, J. (1987). A Discourse-Centered Approach to Language and Culture. American
Anthropologist 89: 295-309.
Sidnell, J. (2001). Conversational Turn-taking in a Caribbean English Creole. Journal of
Pragmatics 33: 1263-1290.
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description. In K. H. Basso
& H. A. Selby (eds.). Meaning in Anthropology (pp. 11-56). Albuquerque: University
of New Mexico Press.
Silverstein, M. (1977). Language as a Part of Culture. In Tax, S. & Freeman, L. (eds.).
Horizons of Anthropology.
Snow, C. E. & Blum-Kulka, S. (2002). From Home to School: School-Age Children Talking
with Adults. In S. Blum-Kulka & C. E. Snow (eds.), Taking to Adults The
Contributions of Multiparty Discourse to Language Acquisition (pp. 327-342). LEA.
Sorjonen, M. (1997). Recipient activities: particles nii(n) and joo as responses in Finnish
conversations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.
Sperber, D., & Wilson. D. [1995(1986)]. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge,
MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. London. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Storry, M., & Childs, P. (eds.) (1997). British Culture Identities. Routledge.
Stross, B. (1973). Acquisition of Botanical Terminology by Tzeltal Children. In Meaning in
Mayan Languages. (ed.). M. Edmonson, pp. 107-42. The Hague: Mouton.
Sturtevant, W. C. (1964). Studies in Ethnoscience. In A. K. Romney & R. G. DAndrade (eds.),
Transcultural Studies in Cognition [Special issue, part 2]. The American
Anthropologist 66(3): 99-131.
Sudnow, D. (ed.) (1972). Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press.
Svennevig, J. (1999). Getting Acquainted in Conversation: A Study of Initial Interactions. John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Takahara, K. (1986). Politeness in English, Japanese, and Spanish. In cross-cultural
communication: East and West. J. H. Koo & R. N. St. Claire (Eds.), 181-194.
Tannen, D. (1981). Indirectness in discourse: Ethnicity as conversational style. Discourse
Processes, 3 (4), 221-38.
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational
Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tannen, D. (1999). The Argument Culture: Stopping Americas War of Words. The Ballantine
Publishing Group.
Tannen, K. (1990). You Just Dont Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York:
William Morrow and Co.
Tarone, E. E., Gass, S. M. & Cohen, A. D. (1994). Research Methodology in Second-Language
Acquisition. LEA, Publishers.
Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied linguistics, 4, 91-112.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. USA, England:
Longman.
Ton, Nu My Nhat. (2005). A discourse analysis of travel advertisements in English and
Vietnamese. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. College of Foreign Languages, VNU.
Tracy, K. (2002). Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities. The Guilford Press. New
York London.
Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, Convert Prestige and Linguistic Change in the Urban British English of
Norwich. Language in Society I: pp. 179-195.
Upadhyay, Shiv R. (2003). Nepali requestive acts: Linguistic indirectness and politeness
reconsidered. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003): 1651-77.
Valdes, J. M. (1987). Culture bound: Bridging the culture gap in language teaching, (2nd
printing). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (1979). Relevance Assignment in Discourse Comprehension. Discourse

Processes 2: 113-127.
van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) (1985). Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol. 3: Discourse and Dialogue.
London: Academic Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) (1997). Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A
Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 1 & 2. Sage Publications.
van Ek, J. A. (1976). The threshold level for modern language teaching in schools. London:
Longman.
Verschueren, J. (1984). Linguistics and cross-cultural communication (review article).
Language in Society 13, 489-509.
Vu, Thi Thanh Huong (1997). Politeness in Modern Vietnamese: A Sociolinguistic Study of a
Hanoi Speech Community. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. University of Toronto,
Canada.
Wallace, A. & Atkins, J. (1960) The Meaning of Kinship Terms. American Anthropologist 62:
427-51.
Wanning, E. (2000). Culture Shock! USA. Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company. Portland,
Oregon.
Wardhaugh, R. (1991). How conversation works. Blackwell, Oxford U. K. and Cambridge U. S.
A.
Watts, R. J., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (eds.) (1992). Politeness in Language: Studies in its History,
Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Grammatical Categories. In J. B. Carroll (ed.), Language, Thought, and
Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (pp. 87-101). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language. In J. B.
Carroll (ed.), Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee
Whorf (pp. 134-59). Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wierzbicka, A. (1985). Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts. Journal of
Pragmatics, 9, 145-178.
Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English speech act verbs: a semantic dictionary. Academic, New York.
Wisker, G. (2001). The postgraduate research handbook: succeed with your MA, MPhil, EdD and
PhD. Palgrave.
Witkowski, S. & Brown, C. Lexical Universals (1978). Annual Review of Anthropology 7: 427451.
Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (eds.) (1983). Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition.

Newbury House Publishers, Inc.
Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Newbery House Publishers.
Wright, A. (1987). How to communicate successfully. Cambridge University Press.
Wu, R. R. (1997). Transforming participation frameworks in multip-party Mandarin Chinese

conversation: the use of discourse particles and body behavior. Issues in Applied
Linguistics 8 (2), pp. 97-118.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Zellermayer, M. (1991). Intensifiers in Hebrew and in English. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 4358.
Zimmerman, D., & West, C. (1975). Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation. In
B. Thorne, & N. Henley (eds.), Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance.
Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Pp. 105-29.
VIETNAMESE
Hu Chu & Bi Minh Ton. (2002). i cng Ngn Ng Hc (Tp I). Nxb
GD.
Hu Chu & Bi Minh Ton. (2003). i cng Ngn Ng Hc (Tp I). Nxb
GD. (Ti bn ln th 2)
Hu Chu. (1995). Gio trnh gin yu v ng dng hc. Nxb GD. Hu.
Hu Chu. (2003). i cng Ngn Ng Hc (Tp II). Ng Dng Hc. Nxb.
GD. (Ti bn ln th 1)
inh Trng Lc. (1998). Ting Vit. Nxb. H Ni.
inh Vn c (1986). Ng php ting Vit T loi. Nxb. H & THCN.
Bi Minh Yn. (1996). Xng h trong gia nh ngi Vit. Trong Nguyn Vn
Khang (Ch bin), ng x giao tip trong gia nh ngi Vit, tr. 83157. Nxb. Vn ho thng tin.
Cao Xun Ho. (1991). Ting Vit: S tho ng php chc nng (Quyn 1).
Nxb KHXH.
Cao Xun Ho. (1998). Ting Vit: My vn ng m ng php t
vng. Nxb. GD.
Dip Quang Ban & Hong Vn Thung. (2003). Ng php ting Vit (Tp I).
Nxb GD. (Ti bn ln th 7)
Dip Quang Ban. (2004). Ng php Ting Vit (Tp II). Nxb GD. (Ti bn ln
th 7)
Hong Ph (Ch bin). (1988). T in ting Vit. Nxb. X hi.
Hong Trng Phin. (1991). Nghi thc li ni ting Vit Nam. Trong Nghin
cu Ngh thut v Vn ho, 42.
Hong Vn Vn. (1999). Dng hc vi vic dy ngn ng giao tip: Thun li
v kh khn. Trong Nhng vn ng dng hc - K yu Hi
tho khoa hc 'Ng dng hc' ln th nht H Ni (tr. 210-219). 41999. HNN-HQG.
Hong Vn Vn. (2005). Ng php kinh nghim ca c Ting Vit: M t

theo quan im chc nng h thng. Nxb KHXH, H Ni.
Kiu Th Thu Hng (2001). Cc yu t phi ngn ng v vic dy-hc ngoi
ng. Trong Ngn Ng s 9-2001. Tr. 24-30. Vin ngn ng hc.
Kiu Th Thu Hng (2005). Cch biu t s khng tn ng v cu trc
c a dng: Bnh din phn tch hi thoi. Trong Tp ch Khoa
hc, s 4/2005, tr. 26-40. HQG HN.
Kiu Th Thu Hng (2005). Mt vi cm t nh danh trong ting Vit nhn t gc vn ho. Trong Ngn ng v i sng, s 12 (122) 2005, tr. 28-30.
Kiu Th Thu Hng (2005). Phn tch hi thoi: thng lng khi bt ng
kin. Trong Tp ch Khoa hc Ngoi Ng, s 4/2005, tr. 49-58.
HNN HN.
Kiu Th Thu Hng (2006). Cch p li li khen trong ting Anh v ting
Vit: Bnh din phn tch hi thoi. Trong Ngn ng, s 1/2006,
tr. 32-43.
Lng Vn Hy. (2000). Bin th c php v v th x hi: Mt nghin cu lch
i v ng i ti hai cng ng min Bc Vit Nam. Trong Lng Vn Hy (Ch bin) Ngn t, gii v nhm x hi t thc tin
ting Vit (tr. 230-265). Nxb KHXH, H Ni.
L Hng Tin. (1999). ng t ng vi phng tin ngoi ng quan trng gp
phn bin vn bn thnh qui phm php lut. Trong Nhng vn
ng dng hc - K yu Hi tho khoa hc 'Ng dng hc' ln
th nht H Ni (tr. 210-219). 4-1999. HNN-HQG.
Mai Xun Huy (Dch) (1996). Functions in English. Blundell, J., Higgens, J., & Middlemiss
N. Nxb. H Ni.
Mai Xun Huy. (1996). Cc cung bc ca giao tip v chng ngi Vit.
Trong Nguyn Vn Khang (Ch bin), ng x giao tip trong gia
nh ngi Vit, tr. 34-54. Nxb. Vn ho thng tin.
Ng Thin Hng (2003). Kho st cc phng tin t vng, ng php biu t
tnh tnh thi nhn thc trong ting Anh v ting Vit. Lun n
tin s ng vn. HKHXH & NV, HQGHN
Nguyn Phng Chi. (2005). Mt s c im ngn ng-vn ho ng x ca hnh vi t chi
trong ting Vit (c s i chiu vi ting Anh). Lun n tin s ng vn. Vin ngn
ng hc - Vin KHXH Vit Nam.
Nguyn c Dn . (1997). Logc - Ng ngha - C php: Nxb H & THCN.
Nguyn c Dn. (1996). Logc v Ting Vit: Nxb GD.
Nguyn c Dn. (1998). Ng dng hc: Nxb GD.
Nguyn Ho. (1999). Lc trung ngn v cc kiu cu. Trong Nhng vn
ng dng hc - K yu Hi tho khoa hc 'Ng dng hc' ln
th nht H Ni (tr. 262-266). 4-1999. HNN-HQG.
Nguyn Khc Thun. (2002). i cng lch s vn ho Vit Nam. Nxb GD.
Nguyn Kim Thn. (1982). Li n ting ni ca ngi H Ni. Nxb. H Ni.

Nguyn Ph Phong. (2002). Nhng vn ng php Ting Vit: Loi t v
ch th t. Nxb HQGHN.
Nguyn Quang. (1998a). Trc tip v gin tip trong dng hc giao thoa vn
ha Vit-M. Tp san ngoi ng 4-1998.
Nguyn Quang. (1998b). Mt s khc bit giao tip li ni Vit-M trong
cch thc khen v tip nhn li khen. Lun n tin s khoa hc
ng vn. H KHXH & NV, HQGHN.
Nguyn Quang. (2004). Mt s vn giao tip ni vn ho v giao thoa
vn ho. Nxb HQGHN.
Nguyn Thin Gip & on Thin Thut &, Nguyn Minh Thuyt (2004). Dn
lun ngn ng hc: Nxb GD. (Ti bn ln th 9).
Nguyn Thin Gip. (2000). Dng Hc Vit Ng. Nxb. i hc Quc Gia.
Nguyn Th Thanh Bnh. (2000). Xng v gi: Bng chng v gii trong ngn
t ca tr em trc tui n trng H Ni v Hoi Th. Trong Lng Vn Hy (Ch bin) Ngn t, gii v nhm x hi t thc tin
Ting Vit. (tr.115-134). Nxb. KHXH H Ni.
Nguyn Vn Chin. (1992). Ngn ng hc i chiu v i chiu cc ngn
ng ng Nam . HSPNN H Ni.
Nguyn Vn Khang. (2000). Ngn ng hc x hi. Nxb. KHXH H Ni.
Phan Th Yn Tuyt & Lng Vn Hy. (2000). Vi nt v ngn ng giao tip
trong cc cuc ni chuyn gia 3 th h ng b - cha m con
chu ti mt s gia nh Thnh ph H Ch Minh. Trong Lng
Vn Hy (Ch bin) Ngn t, gii v nhm x hi t thc tin Ting
Vit (tr.98-114). Nxb. KHXH H Ni.
Quang m. (1994). Nho Gio xa v nay. Vin KHXHVN Vin ng Nam .
Tn Din Phong. (1999). Tm hiu s sai lch ng ngha ca ngi th
ngn trong ngn giao xuyn vn ho. Tp ch Ngn ng S 7-1999.
Tr.26-29. Vin ngn ng hc.
Trn nh Hu. (1994). n hin i t truyn thng. Nxb. H Ni.
Trn Hu Mnh. (1999). Quy chiu & ni suy Hai khi nim trong dng hc
v vic dy v hc ting Anh bc i hc. Trong Nhng vn
ng dng hc - K yu Hi tho khoa hc 'Ng dng hc' ln th
nht (tr. 238-247). H Ni, 4-1999. HNN-HQG.
Trn Ngc Thm. (1997). C s vn ha Vit Nam. Nxb GD.
Trn Quc Vng (Ch bin) (2004). C s vn ho Vit Nam. Nxb GD.
V Th Thanh Hng. (2000). Gin tip v lch s trong li cu khin ting
Vit. Trong Lng Vn Hy (Ch bin) Ngn t, gii v nhm x hi t
thc tin ting Vit (tr. 179-211). Nxb KHXH, H Ni.
V Th Thanh Hng. (2000). Lch s v phng thc biu hin tnh lch s
trong li cu khin ting Vit. Trong Lng Vn Hy (Ch bin) Ngn
t, gii v nhm x hi t thc tin ting Vit (tr. 135-178). Nxb
KHXH, H Ni.

Ph.D. Thesis

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Ph.D. Thesis

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY HANOI

COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

KIEU, THI THU HUONG

Supervisors: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hoang Van Van

I certify my authority of the study project report submitted entitled

DISAGREEING IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE:

In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Kieu Thi Thu Huong

1.1.1.1. Speech acts and speech events..................................................................14

4.2.3. Strategies for Disagreements as Preferred Seconds......................................149

LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS

ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS

Cross-cultural Speech Act Realization Project

Discourse Completion Task

English as a foreign language

Face saving act

Face threatening act

Semi- Discourse Completion Task

Significance (a term used in SPSS)

Statistic Package for Social Sciences

Vietnamese as foreign language

of contributing to the socio-cultural aspects of spoken English-Vietnamese

linguistic expression should be done with reference to the bigger socio-cultural

- To thoroughly study different dimensions of a specific speech act in light of

1.2.2. Practical merits

- To point out the similarities and differences in American/Canadian and Vietnamese

disagreement/agreement (Pomerantz, 1984a). The main features in preference

preference organization and self-compliment avoidance. Other searches by Pomerantz

3. Research question and hypotheses of the study

3.2. Research hypotheses

This study aims at testing the following hypotheses:

Native speakers of Vietnamese and English tend to differ in their use

Politeness with its two constitutive elements volition and discernment

In regards to preference organization English and Vietnamese native

English and Vietnamese speakers seem to exploit similar strategies for

Native speakers of English and Vietnamese seem to employ

4. Scope of the study

individual to individual within a culture or a subculture and from culture to culture. It

- Field notes and personal observations

5.2.2. Combination of pragmatics and conversation analysis

5.2.3. Combination of pragmatics and CA in other studies

pragmatics to identify cross-cultural and cross-linguistic pragmatics differences and

Disagreeing has been examined, described, analyzed, compared and contrasted in

concerning its perception, performance, preference structure, and constraint systems

7. Organization of the study

1.1.1.1. Speech acts and speech events

(Pomerantz 1978: 84)

the speech events. A speech event can be considered as an activity in which

1.1.1.2. Three-dimension speech acts

1.1.1.3. Classification of speech acts

words change the world

(4) F: Thats beautiful.

1.1.1.4. Disagreeing a communicative illocutionary act

(Pomerantz 1978: 99)

(Blundell et al. 1996: 192)

L: Yeh its just gorgeous

(Pomerantz 1978: 93)

(11) C: Well well haftuh frame that.

R: Yee- Uhghh its not worth fra(hh)mi(h)ng,

1.1.2. Conversation Analysis

1.1.2.1. Historical background

Drawing upon and growing out of developments in such domains as phenomenology,