A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY ON EXPRESSING SATISFACTION IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE. Nguyễn Thị Thùy Linh. QH.1.E

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
NGUYỄN THỊ THÙY LINH
A CROSS- CULTURAL STUDY ON EXPRESSING

SATISFACTION IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS (TEFL)
Hanoi, May 2010

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
NGUYỄN THỊ THÙY LINH
A CROSS- CULTURAL STUDY ON EXPRESSING

SATISFACTION IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND
VIETNAMESE
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS (TEFL)
SUPERVISOR: Prof. NGUYỄN QUANG, Ph.D.
Hanoi, May 2010

RENTENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS
I hereby state that I : Nguyễn Thị Thùy Linh, 06.1.E1., being a candidate
for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements of the
College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper
deposited in the library.
In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited

in the library should be accessible for the purpose of study and research, in
accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the
care, loan or reproduction of the paper.
Signature
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to

Prof. Nguyen Quang, my supervisor, for his valuable guidance, instructive
comments and dutiful supervision, without which this thesis would not be
completed.
I would also like to give my sincere gratitude to all of the lecturers at

ULIS-VNU, Hanoi for their scholarly knowledge, experience, and
enthusiasm in their lectures. During the process of implementing the
research, they have created favorable conditions for me, not only in terms
of accessing to essential materials but also of their heart-warming
encouragement.
I also take this opportunity to express my immense thankfulness to my

friends and classmates, who have always stayed by my side, given me
constructive comments and perked me up every time I need. Particularly I
want to say a special thanks to two friends of mine, Vu Thi Kim Chi and
Nguyen Thuy Linh, who are all living and studying in the U.S. for their
invaluable help in distributing the survey questionnaire.
I cannot forget to acknowledge the important contributions of both

Vietnamese and American informants, whose names cannot be mentioned
in the thesis.
Finally, I would like to express my enormous debt to my parents for their

continual encouragement and immeasurable support.
i
ABSTRACT
Based on the theoretical background of cross-cultural communication, this

study aims at investigating the similarities and differences in expressing
satisfaction in the Vietnamese and American languages and cultures. It
focuses primarily on the popularity and preference of strategies of
expressing satisfaction.
To succeed in doing such research, the author of the study takes

informants’ social parameters such as age, sex, marital status, living area,
and knowledge of foreign language(s) into consideration. Besides, their
surveyed responses are carefully analyzed to build a frame, a common set
of strategies in the field.
The conclusion is drawn from data analysis and findings are presented and
compared in a brief and concise way. Some common patterns of
expressing satisfaction in both Vietnamese and American English cultures
from the data are also presented and illustrated with the hope of partially
helping avoid cultural shock and communicating breakdown.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART A: INTRODUCTION...................................................................... 1
I. Rationale................................................................................................ 1
II. Aims of the study................................................................................... 2
III. Method of the study ............................................................................. 3
IV. Scope of the study................................................................................ 3
V. Design of the study................................................................................ 4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT....................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND.................................. 5
1.1. Culture and communication................................................................ 5
1.1.1. Culture ........................................................................................... 5
1.1.2. Communication............................................................................. 9
1.1.3. Culture- communication correlation........................................... 12
1.1.4. Cross-cultural communication.................................................... 14
1.1.5. Communicative competence....................................................... 15
1.2. Speech acts. ....................................................................................... 18
1.2.1. The notion of speech acts. ........................................................... 18
1.2.2. Classification of Speech Acts ...................................................... 19
1.2.3. Expressing satisfaction as a speech act ....................................... 22
1.3. Politeness .......................................................................................... 24
1.3.1. Face and politeness ...................................................................... 24
1.3.1.1. Face ...................................................................................... 24
1.3.1.2. Politeness ............................................................................. 24
1.3.2. Positive politeness ....................................................................... 27
1.3.3. Negative politeness...................................................................... 29
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY..................................................................... 32
2.1. Comments on the survey questionnaire and the informants............ 32
2.1.1. Comments on the survey questionnaire....................................... 32
iii
2.1.2. Comments on the informants....................................................... 34
2.2. Data analysis ..................................................................................... 35
2.2.1. Strategies in expressing satisfaction (SES) ................................. 35
2.2.2. Factors affecting the choices of SESs ......................................... 36
2.2.3. Realization of SESs in American English and Vietnamese ........ 37
2.2.3.1. Realization of SESs in American English ........................... 37
2.2.3.2. Realization of SESs in Vietnamese ..................................... 53
PART C: CONCLUSION......................................................................... 74
I. Review of major findings .................................................................... 74
II. Suggestions for further study .............................................................. 76
iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1: The five general functions of speech acts (following Searle 1979)
Table 2: Use of strategies as seen from American informants’ parameters
Table 3: Use of strategies as seen from Vietnamese informants’ parameters
Table 4: Comparisons of favored strategies between American and

Vietnamese informants
Figure 1: Ferrando’s diagram of culture
Figure 2: Nguyen Quang’s diagram of components of communication
Figure 3: Bach and Harnish’s classification of speech acts (1979)
Figure 4: Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown and Levinson)
Figure 5: Nguyen Quang’s diagram of possible strategies for doing FTAs
Figure 6: Solidarity- social distance dimension (Holmes)
v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
S Speaker
H Hearer/ Addressee
FTA Face threatening act
NP Negative politeness
PP Positive politeness
vi
PART A: INTRODUCTION
I. Rationale
With the great speed of developing and expanding, English has emerged as
the most powerful international language all over the world. Starting from
its use gradually turning into colossal, plus the characteristics of
convenience, English on those days can be said to be the “golden key to
every door”.
In Vietnamese context, as a result of the open policies and a lot of
encouragement and support from society, the needs of learning English
have also been magnified. However, for the sake of examination, the real
purpose of learning English has been somehow distorted. A long time ago,
the method of English teaching at school was Grammar- Translation
Method with the stress on grammatical points. Up till now, thanks to the
conscientious research from language teachers and educators, the pendulum
of English language teaching has swung to Communicative approach.
Acquiring a new language means a lot more than the manipulation of
syntax and lexicon. Language is not just a system of sounds, words and
grammatical structures in isolation, yet it is seen as a system of
communication existing in a community. The goal of language teaching is,
therefore assumed to be learners’ ability to communicate in the target
language.
As a matter of fact, to attain the good command of communication, culture
learning apparently becomes indispensable. Winston Brembeck (1977: 37)
noted that, “To know another’s language and not his culture is a very good
way to make a fluent fool of oneself”. It is also true of English. In order to
help learners achieve communicative competence, we have to pay close
attention to the target culture. That dialectical connection has always been
a concern of researchers and it has received more and more confirmations.
1|Page
Thomas (1983) states that the lack of social linguistic competence results in
rudeness, miscommunication or even communication breakdown because
non-native speakers’ inappropriate use of cultural norms and conventions
are considered as manifestation of “impoliteness or unfriendliness” due to
“boorishness or ill will” rather than lack of pragmatic knowledge.
Accordingly, culture learning no longer remains humble and unnecessary
in the syllabus. In contrast, it needs to be taken into great consideration
and concentration. Nguyen Quang (1998: 2) states that, “One cannot
master a language without profound awareness of its cultural background
and in both verbal and non-verbal communication, culture makes itself
strongly felt.” Learners can truly master English only when they are able to
have good understanding of the interrelationship between culture and
language.
With these reasons in view, the researcher would like to carry out a small-
scale study on Expressing satisfaction as a speech act, which is viewed in
the light of Politeness (Positive politeness-Negative politeness) in
American English and Vietnamese. Due to the limit of the paper, she would
not be able to deal with all aspects but draw out some major differences
and similarities in expressing satisfaction in the two languages. It is hoped
that the study may help learners avoid culture shock and pragmatic failures
in expressing satisfaction as well as in cross-cultural communication.
II. Aims of the study

The study focuses on those following aims:
- To provide some similarities and differences in politeness strategies
of expressing satisfaction in American English and Vietnamese.
- To find out factors that affects the choice of politeness strategies
when expressing satisfaction in American English and Vietnamese.
2|Page
- To raise awareness of cross-cultural factors in expressing satisfaction
and help learners of English avoid cultural shock in cross-cultural
communication.
III. Method of the study

Quantitative method is primarily deployed. Remarks, assumptions and
conclusions of the study are mainly based on the contrastive analysis of
data. What is more, the qualitative method will assist along and be paid due
attention to.
The practical approaches are:
Conducting survey questionnaires
Referring to publications
Consulting the supervisor
Discussing with Vietnamese and American friends
Applying personal observation
IV. Scope of the study

The paper investigates expressing satisfaction as a speech act in English
and Vietnamese. Therefore only verbal expression of satisfaction is
analyzed. The study focuses on the dimension of Politeness (Positive
Politeness and Negative Politeness).
Due to the limitation of time and resources, the study only concentrates on
investigating strategies of expressing satisfaction in English and
Vietnamese in some situations together with some typical socio-cultural
factors among various ones governing the choice of politeness strategies.
Besides, the number of informants is limited: 40 informants from the U.S
and 40 informants from Vietnam (Northern Vietnam).
3|Page
V. Design of the study
The thesis consists of three main parts:
Part A: Introduction
This part includes, the rationale, aims, scope of the study and methodology.
Part B: Development
This is the main part of the study which is divided into two chapters.
Chapter 1: Theoretical background
Chapter 2: The study
In the first chapter, in order to lay the basis for the study, definitions and
theories of culture, communication and speech acts are critically discussed
and contrastive analysis of data is offered.
Part 3: Conclusion
In this part, the major findings are summarized, conclusions drawn and
suggestions for further study made.
4|Page
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1. Culture and communication

1.1.1. Culture
The term “culture” has been defined by many scholars from time to time. It
may not be an exaggeration to say that there are nearly as many definitions
of culture as there are fields of inquiry into human beings.
In its simplest meaning, culture is thought to be something non-natural or
ordinary- it is the everyday life, something people think, wear, eat or speak,
etc. However, the definition of culture is wider than those above, as seen
from the scientific view.
Richards (1993:94) defines culture as “the total set of beliefs, attitudes,
customs, behaviors, social habits, etc. of the members of a particular
society.” Culture in its broad sense covers all aspects of human life. It
includes both material culture- physical artifacts and objects like “ao dai”,
vases, pagodas and nonmaterial culture- abstract creation like symbols,
norms, customs or values.
However, it must be noted that “the essence of culture is not its artifacts,
tools or other tangible culture elements but how the members of the group
interpret, use and perceive them.” (Banks, 1989:8). Therefore, Ferrando
(cited in Nguyen Quang’s Lecture notes) gives the definition: “Culture is
everything that people have, think or do as a member of a society.”
5|Page
Figure 1: Ferrando’s diagram of culture
Thus, culture refers to the patterned ways of thinking, feeling and reacting.
People within a culture usually interpret the meaning of symbols, artifacts
and behaviors in the same ways. In other words, culture provides the fabric
that enables human beings to interpret their experiences, and guides their
actions. Culture gives them a common framework of meaning and, hence,
allows them to know what they can expect of others and what others can
expect of them. For example, in Vietnamese culture, when a compliment is
given, a denial is expected. Meanwhile, in America, a “thank you” is
expected.
Within the limitation of the paper, the definition offered by Levine and
Adelman (cited in Nguyen Quang’s lecture note) is chosen to be the most
appropriate one.
Culture is a shared background (for example, national, ethnic, religious)
resulting from a common language and communication style, customs,
beliefs, attitudes and values.
As condensed and precise it turns out, this definition emphasizes the
importance of language in the way that it is the chief vehicle by which
people communicate ideas among each other and the principal means by
6|Page
which human beings have created culture and transmit it from generation to
generation.
In order to gain a deeper understanding towards culture, it is useful to
examine more closely its characteristics. According to O’Neil
(http://anthro.palomar.edu/culture/culture_2.htm), culture is identified with
the followings:
1. Culture is learned
Culture is non- natural; people have to learn to get it. In other words,
people are not born with culture but become culture bearer by learning it.
Children learn it from adults; the following generation learns it from the
previous one. Through exposure, observation and imitation, they take in
culture elements and internalize them.
2. Culture is transmissible
In all cultures, symbols act as the physical existence of cultural elements
and they are the means by which culture is passed along from generation to
generation. Symbols include objects, words and acts which have come to
be socially accepted as standing for something else; people use symbols to
spread culture, and thanks to this, culture is learned. Through day-to-day
interaction, people learn and transmit culture. The more people acquire
knowledge of culture, the more widely and deeply culture is transmitted.
Herein, it is observable that the first characteristic of culture leads to the
second one.
3. Culture is dynamic
All cultures are inherently predisposed to change. They never remain static.
Within each culture, there are dynamic processes operating that encourage
the acceptance of new things and ideas together with the omission of no-
longer-useful ones. For example, white complexion used to be considered a
criterion of beauty but tan is now admired. Women used to be confined to
7|Page
the role of housewives, yet now they can join in various social activities
and pursue their own careers.
From this point of view, O’ Neil states: “All culture knowledge does not
perpetually accumulate. At the same time that new cultural traits are added,
some old ones are lost because they are no longer useful”. That is,
processes leading to change include invention and cultural loss. Invention
brings new items while cultural loss seems to be an inevitable result of old
patterns being replaced by the other new ones.
It is noted that new cultural traits are added not only due to the invention or
discovery of absolutely new tools, practices or concepts but also due to the
diffusion of traits. Diffusion occurs when the influence of one culture is
spread to one another.
4. Culture is selective
According to Geertz (1973), culture is a set of standardized orientation to
recurrent problems and a mechanism for the normative of behavior. That is,
each culture selects a configuration of dos and don’ts, rights and wrongs. It
defines the limit of behavior patterns and, therefore, distinguishes one
human group from another based on the typical features of each. For
example, American people appreciate individualism while Vietnamese
people are group- oriented. Obviously, the selectivity of culture makes up
the uniqueness in each one.
Actually, the selectivity is carried out every time, everyday and throughout
the whole history of culture whenever a certain thing or perception is
created, accepted, changed or left behind.
5. Facets of culture are interrelated
As culture is a complex whole, cultural elements do not exist separately.
They are integrated and interdependent. Within a culture, when one thing is
touched, everything else is affected. For instance, when women in some
Muslim countries are allowed to go out with no veil, they have more
8|Page
chances to contact the outside world and improve their knowledge. They
can take part in social activities, thus, their status in society is improved.
6. Culture is ethnocentric
Ethnocentrism is the viewpoint that one’s ethnic group is the centre of
everything, against which all other groups are judged. More specifically,
one group sees it as superior and rates others based on its own measures.
Ethnocentrism leads people to reject alien ideas or things as addressed
unnatural. It is normal that a group considers its way of life the only right
one and somehow unleash scorn for the others’ ways. Take the following
case as an example. Asian people find it unacceptable for Western ones to
leave their parents in old- aged institutions. In contrast, Western people
regard children upbringing in Asian countries as spoiled and negative
because it does not give children much independence to grow.
Ethnocentrism therefore is a factor of resistance to change. It maintains
ethnic lines despite transculturation. To some extent, this characteristic
seems to be on the contrary to the third one. However, conflict propels life
and it is their co-existence that ensures the equilibrium of the development
of culture.
To sum it up, human life and culture are inextricably connected. Our ways
of life form culture and culture affords use a kind of map for finding our
way about life.
1.1.2. Communication
From the dawn of human civilization till now, communication has been
playing the primary role in our lives. It takes places in almost every human
action and accounts for the most of our lifetime. Recognizing that
phenomenal function of communication and how broad the term denotes, a
lot of researchers have attempted to reason the definition of it.
9|Page
As defined by Hybels and Weaver (2001: 5), Communication is “any
process in which people share information, ideas, and feelings that involve
not only the spoken and written words but also body language, personal
mannerism and style, the surrounding and things that add meaning to a
message.”
It is understood that communication refers to the process of exchanging
information. During that process, information is enclosed in a package and
is channeled and imparted by a sender to a receiver via a medium. Herein,
“medium” covers not only verbal means such as speech, song, tone of
voice, etc but also nonverbal means such as body language, sign language,
touch, eye contact and even writing. Going further, Williams (1989:10)
defines communication in more details:
“Communication refers to:
(1). The exchange of symbols, common messages, information
(2). The process of exchange between individuals through a common
system of symbols
(3). The art of expressing ideas
(4). The science of transmitting information”
Generally, communication can be viewed as “the process of sharing
meaning through verbal and nonverbal behavior” (Levine and Adelman,
1993).To attain a closer look at communication and its system, the diagram
designed by Nguyen Quang as given below may serve the purpose.
10 | P a g e
Figure 2: Nguyen Quang’s diagram of components of communication
Communication
Verbal communication Nonverbal communication
Intralanguage Paralanguage Extralanguage
- Vocabulary - Vocal characteristics:

- Grammatical rules pitch, volume, rate,
- Phonetic rules vocal quality, types of
- Rules of language vocal flow
use - Vocal inferences
- Silence
Body language Objective language Environmental

language
(action language, (artifacts)
kinesics)
-Eye contact -Clothing -Setting

-Facial expressions -Jewelry -Conversational
-Gestures -Make- up distance/ proxemics
-Postures -Artificial scents -Time/ chronemics
-Physical characteristics -Flowers -Lighting system
-Body movement -… -Color
-Touch/ haptics/ tactile -Heat
-… -…
11 | P a g e
It is undeniable that communication is the prerequisite of our lives thanks
to its various functions and implications. According to Nguyen Quang, we
communicate to satisfy the double nature of our beings: the “Social being”
and the “Conscious being”. It is through communication that we gain
personal identity, which meets the Conscious being’s need. In our early
years, our parents told us, “You’re so pretty”, “You’re really smart”. Later,
we interact with our friends, teachers, colleagues who communicate their
views of us. Their messages help us form and enhance our sense of self.
Also, the Social being’s need to be connected is met by communication
because “Communication is a key foundation of relationships. We build
connections with others by revealing our private identities, asking
questions and listening to answers, working out problems, remembering
shared history, and planning a future.” (Wood, 2009:167). Hence, no one
can live as a human being without communication. This has been proved
by the case of a child brought up by wolves in the jungle who lived and
behaved as a real wolf and hardly had any concept of himself as a human.
In brief, communication is a vital part of human life. Without
communication, people would stagnate and our society would not exist
anymore.
1.1.3. Culture- communication correlation

As the two terms “culture” and “communication” have been cracked
thoroughly, another issue that comes to light is the relationship between
them. Needless to say, culture is implicitly and inextricably related to
communication. As Samovar (1981:20) insightfully remarks:
“Culture and communication are inseparable because culture not only
dictates who talks to whom, about what and how the communication
proceeds, it also helps to determine how people encode messages, the
meanings they have for messages, and the conditions and circumstances
12 | P a g e
under which various massages may or may not to be sent, noticed or
interpreted. Culture is the foundation of communication.”
Decoding from this comment, culture is meant to determine the way people
communicate. For instance, when an American sees a bus coming, he
always uses the present progressive (“The bus is coming”) while his
Japanese fellow chooses the present perfect tense to express (“The bus has
come”). Another example is, Western people tend to start their
conversation with the topic of the weather while Eastern people, especially
the Vietnamese prefer to talk about personal life such as marriage, family
and so on. Thus, the principles of communication are culturally affected or
communication practices are largely created, shaped and transmitted by
culture.
However, the relationship between culture and communication is not just
one sided. The reverse is also the case; that is, culture is created through
communication. Communication, in this light, is the means of human
interaction through which cultural characteristics- whether customs, roles,
rules, rituals, laws, or other patterns- are created and shared. It is not so
much that individuals set out to create a culture when they interact in
relationships, groups, organizations, or societies, but rather that culture is a
natural by- product of social interaction. In a sense, culture is the “residue”
of social communication. For example, from early ages, children are told to
say “thank you” by parents when being given present. That is a way
children learn about politeness through communication.
Overall, culture and communication cannot be separated “for as soon as we
start to talk about one, we are almost inevitably talking about the other”
(Condon and Yousef, 1975:34). They interact and assist each other in any
circumstances. It is true that, communication shapes culture and conversely
culture shapes communication.
13 | P a g e
1.1.4. Cross-cultural communication
As seen from the previous parts, culture shapes communication and ways
of interpreting communication. Thus, there is high likelihood that problems
arise when people from different cultures communicate with each other.
That is the reason for the term “cross-cultural communication” comes to
life.
Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied linguistics gives
the definition of cross-cultural communication simply as “an exchange of
ideas, information, etc. between people from different background”.
(1992:92).
In a broader sense, cross-cultural communication is “communication
(verbal and non-verbal) between people from different cultures;
communication that is influenced by cultural values, attitudes and
behavior; the influence of culture on people’s reactions and responses to
each other”. (Levine and Adelman, 1993:94).
It is understandable that when cross-cultural communication occurs, many
difficulties, misunderstandings or communication failures may happen
because people of different backgrounds have different communicating
styles. They often interpret others’ speech according to their own cultural
convention and they tend to use their own culture to value others. If the
cultural values of the speakers are widely different, misinterpretations and
misunderstandings can arise and even result in a total breakdown of
communication. This can also lead to confusion, anger, disappointment and
culture shock as an inevitable consequence.
An interesting example is, in a party where there are a lot of guests from
different countries in the world. A Vietnamese lady wearing such an
attractive dress enters the room. An American man immediately notices her
and as a pretext to approach the girl, he comments, “Wow! You look so sexy
in that dress. “To his surprise, her face flushes tomato red and she tries to
14 | P a g e
shun him during the party. This is a typical example of communication
breakdown due to lack of cultural knowledge. In American culture,
especially among the young, saying that someone is sexy is merely a
compliment. However, in Vietnamese culture, it is still a taboo to say so
and people find it hard to accept a compliment relating to sex.
Undoubtedly, cultural differences are the source of difficulties and failures
in cross-cultural communication. Only with awareness of cultural
differences can people keep their communication smooth and easy. In other
words, knowledge is the key to effective cross- cultural communication.
First, it is essential that people understand the potential problems of cross-
cultural communication, and make a conscious effort to overcome those
problems. Second, it is also important to assume that one’s efforts will not
always successful; hence, they need to adjust behaviors appropriately.
To sum it up, in order to communicate with people from different countries
successfully, people should enrich their own knowledge of other cultures
and have a receptive attitude towards cultural differences. Only then, cross-
cultural communication will be a joyful experience which provides
opportunity for people to broaden their mind to the world.
1.1.5. Communicative competence

For most people communication is simply talk. It is a natural event and
happens almost every single minute all over the world. Nevertheless, it is
important to note that communication does not mean to be a merely simple
action, for lying beneath every transaction of communication, a goal is
attached together. When we communicate, we transmit (as by speech,
signals, writing or behavior) information (thoughts and emotions) so that it
is satisfactorily understood. Human beings do not exchange data- we
understand information. Communication, therefore, refers to the process as
15 | P a g e
“sharing meaning” and to some extent; communication is defined as “the
management of messages for the purpose of creating meaning”.
In other words, the goal of communication is shared meaning which leads
to effective decision making and problem- solving. But how does one
determine the effectiveness and appropriateness of any given interaction?
And even more important, how do we know if communication is
competent?
In order to provide an answer to those questions, “communicative
competence” was coined and gradually becomes a common term.
The idea of communicative competence is originally derived from
Chomsky’s distinction between competence and performance. By
competence, Chomsky means the shared knowledge of the ideal speaker-
learner set in a completely homogenous speech community. Performance,
on the other hand, is concerned with the process of applying the underlying
knowledge to the actual language use, commonly stated as encoding and
decoding (Hymes).
Hymes finds Chomsky’s distinction of competence and performance too
narrow to describe language behavior as a whole. Hymes believes that
Chomsky’s view of competence is too idealized to describe actual language
behavior, and therefore his view of performance is an incomplete reflection
of competence. For Hymes, Chomsky’s linguistic theory represents a
“Garden of Eden” viewpoint that dismisses central questions of use in the
area of performance.
He believes that we should be concerned with performance, which he
defines as the actual use of language in a concrete situation. Hymes deems
it necessary to distinguish between two kinds of competence: linguistic
competence that deals with producing and understanding grammatically
correct sentences, and communicative competence that deals with
producing and understanding sentences that are appropriate and acceptable
16 | P a g e
to a particular situation. Thus Hymes coins a term “communicative
competence” and defines it as “a knowledge of the rules for understanding
and producing both the referential and social meaning of language”.
Without a doubt, Hymes’ viewpoint in communicative competence theory
resonates so well with the need of cross-cultural communication
knowledge. A good command of English grammar, lexis and phonology is
helpful but this along is not enough. People should bear in mind that things
such as “the place of silence, appropriate topics of conversation, forms of
address and expression of speech acts” are different across cultures and for
some time, these primarily decide the effectiveness of cross-cultural
communication.
Inside the indication of communicate competence, there are many
components enclosed. In Richard’s opinion, they namely are:
Knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of the language
Knowledge of rules of speaking (e.g. knowing how to begin and end
conversations, knowing what topics may be talked about in different
types of speech events, knowing which address forms should be used
with different people one speaks to and in different situations.
Knowing how to use and respond to different types of speech acts,
such as requests, apologies, thanks and invitations.
Knowing how to use language appropriately
In a brief and clear-cut form, Saville-Troike (1915:22) proposes three
major components of communicative competence as follows:
Linguistic knowledge
Cultural knowledge
Interaction skills
This idea emphasizes not only the learner’s ability to produce
grammatically correct sentences but also the knowledge of what, when and
how to produce these sentences.
17 | P a g e
According to Canale and Swain (1983:4), communicative competence
consists of four elements:
Celce- Murica & Donrnyei (1995:79) attempted to complement to the

communicate competence by adding the final component:
- Actional competence: competence in conveying and understanding
communicative intent, that is, matching actional intent with linguistic
form.
1.2. Speech acts.

First mentioned by Austin in 1962, the term “Speech acts” has become a
topic of sustained investigation in almost every field of English- speaking
world. Blum-Kulka and Kasper (1989:2) emphasize, “The study of speech
acts is to remain a central concern of pragmatics, especially cross-cultural
pragmatics”.
1.2.1. The notion of speech acts.

In producing utterances, people do not only intend to offer linguistic
expressions but also to perform actions through these utterances. An
utterance like “I am hungry”, for example, could probably be interpreted
under appropriate contexts as a remark on the speaker’s appetite, as a
18 | P a g e
request for money, or, as a request for attention from a young child. This
phenomena inspired the British philosopher John Austin to initiate the
speech act theory, which has later been inherited, refined and developed by
a number of philosophers and linguists like Hymes (1964), Searle (1969),
Leech (1983), Schmidt and Richards (1983), Levinson (1983), Green
(1989), Yule (1986) and others.
Speech act, in Richards et al.’s words, is “an utterance as a functional unit
in communication” (1992:342). In his three- fold division of speech acts,
Austin (1962, cited from Levinson, 1983) categorizes them as:
1. Locutionary act: the utterance of a sentence with determinate sense

and references
2. Illocutionary act: the making of a statement, offer, promise, etc. in
uttering a sentence, by virtue of the conventional force associated
with it (or with its explicit performative paraphrase)
3. Perlocutionary act: the bringing about of effects on the audience by
means of uttering the sentence, such effects being special to the
circumstances of utterance.
Of the three dimensions, in Yule’s opinion, “the most essential act that
counts is illocutionary force because the same utterance can potentially
have quite different illocutionary forces” and that partly explains why Yule
states, “The term ‘speech act’ is generally interpreted quite narrowly to
mean only the illocutionary force of an utterance”.(1996:51)
1.2.2. Classification of Speech Acts

Different philosophers and linguists have classified speech acts in different
ways.
Based on performative verbs, Austin (1962) presents taxonomy consisting
of five categories of speech act verbs: verdictives (e.g.: grade, estimate,
19 | P a g e
diagnose…), exercitives (e.g.: order, advise, warn…), commissives (e.g.:
promise, guarantee, bet…), behabitives (e.g.: apologize, criticize, bless…)
and expositives (e.g.: argue, affirm, concede…).
Raising his criticism against Austin’s taxonomy’s weaknesses, the most
serious of which lies in the lack of consistent principles of classification,
Searle (1979:12) proposes one of the most influential and widely- used
classification of speech act with the focus on the functions performed by
speech acts:
Declarations: change states of affairs, comprising pronouncement at

court, naming, firings, appointments, resignations…
Representatives: state what the speaker believes to be the case or
not, including assertions, descriptions, reports, statements…
Expressive: denote a speaker’s psychological state or attitude. They
can be complaining, apologies, compliments, greetings…
Directives: attempt to get the hearer to do something and express
what the speaker wants. They are requests, suggestions, orders…
Commissives: commit a speaker to a course of action, expressing
his/ her intention such as promises, pledges, threats, refusals…
Supporting Searle’s classification, Yule (1996:55) later summarizes the

five types of speech acts with their key features as below:
Speech act type Direction of fit S= speaker X= situation
Declarations Words change the word S causes X
Representatives Makes words fit the world S believes X
Expressives Makes words fit the world S feels X
Directives Makes the world fit words S wants X
Commissives Make the world fit words S intends X
Table 1: The five general functions of speech acts (following Searle 1979)
20 | P a g e
Bach and Harnish (1979) suggest a systematic, comprehensive and explicit
classification with six general categories of illocutionary acts, two of which
effectives and verdictives – are conventionally not communicative. The
other four major classes, namely constatives, directives, commissives, and
acknowledgement are communicative speech acts.
Illocutionary act
Communicative Conventional
Constative Directives Commissives Acknowledgement Effectives Verdictives
Figure 3: Bach and Harnish’s classification of speech acts (1979)

The four main communicative classes accords with those of Austin’s
expositives, exercitives, commissives and behabitives respectively and are
somehow closely associated to Searle’s representatives, directives,
commissives and expressives.
Another way to classify speech acts is the one based on the relationship
between the structure and the function. Yule (1996) claims that the three
structural forms are declarative, interrogative, imperative and the three
general communicative functions are statement, question and command/
request. There is always an interrelationship between a form and a function.
In other words, the relationship can be either direct or indirect. “Whenever
there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function, we have a
direct speech act, wherever there is an indirect relationship between a form
and a function, we have an indirect speech act.” (Yule, 1996:55).
Therefore, if a declarative is used not to make a statement but to make a
request, this is an indirect speech act. For example, if someone wants the
21 | P a g e
others to close the door but instead of saying “I hereby request of you that
you close the door”, he says “It’s cold outside”, he performs an indirect
speech act.
In short, an indirect speech act is one performed by “means of another”
(Searle, 1979:60). In an indirect speech act, the speaker actually means
more than what he says.
1.2.3. Expressing satisfaction as a speech act

In accordance with the classification of Speech acts from Searle,
expressing satisfaction belongs to the type of expressives, i.e. “those kinds
of speech act that state what the speaker feels. … And in using an
expressive, the speaker makes words fit the world (of feelings)” (Yule,
1996:53). To be more precise, they are based on psychological states and
relate to the expression of feelings or emotions to the receiver.
In a straightforward way, “satisfaction” found in Oxford Advanced
Learner’s Dictionary (7th edition) is the good feeling that you have when
you achieved something or when something you wanted to happen does
happen. It is often mistaken among those good feelings as happiness, joy,
content or fulfillment. However, when taking a close look, there are some
slight distinctions among them.
Happiness is a state of mind or feeling characterized by
contentment, love, satisfaction, pleasure, joy, etc. It often depicts the
good feelings of a person in general, therefore, “satisfaction” is
meant beyond the shade of “happiness”.
Contentment (rather formal) is a feeling of happiness or
satisfaction with what you have
Fulfillment is a feeling of happiness or satisfaction with what you
do or have done.
22 | P a g e
So on so forth, satisfaction should be concisely identified as “the
gratification you feel after you have fulfilled a need, wish or expectation.”
(From the “Secret society of happy life” (2002:90)).
Lying on such basis, expressing satisfaction is meant to be an act of
showing how happy and content somebody is when he/she have attained
something longing. It is such an amorphous feeling; therefore the
expression of it may vary from person to person. To grasp it briefly, there
are supposed to be two main strategies when expressing satisfaction, that
is:
Non-verbal strategies:
o Body action
o Smiling
o Silence
o Crying
o Others
Verbal strategies:
o Thanking
o Understating
o Seeking agreement
o Using joke
o Being optimistic
o Giving gift
o Asking question
o Raising common ground
However, as stated from the beginning, the purpose of this study is to
investigate expressing satisfaction as a speech act. Therefore, it is to take
the focal point on verbal strategies and explore the differences between two
cultures (Vietnamese and American).
23 | P a g e
1.3. Politeness
1.3.1. Face and politeness
1.3.1.1. Face
The notion of face was proposed and understood by Goffman (1967, in
Thomas, 1995:168) as the positive social value a person effectively claims
for himself in others’ assumptions that he has taken during a particular
interaction. It is an image of self-described in terms of approved social
attributed.
However, the best-known definition of face is that by Brown and Levinson
(1978:61), which is derived from Goffman’s and based on the assumptions
that every competent adult member of a society has (and know each other
to have) face. In their words, face is “the public self-image that every
member wants to claim for himself”, consisting in two related aspects:
Negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to
non-distraction, and
Positive face: the positive consistent self-image or “personality” claimed by
interactants”.
1.3.1.2. Politeness
Politeness has recently emerged as one of the favorite issues for linguistic
scholars to study on. Therefore, concerning the concept of politeness, there
have been many definitions surrounding. Following are several widely
known ones.
Linguistically, politeness is defined as “the interactional balance achieved
between two needs: the need for pragmatic clarity and the need to avoid
coerciveness”(Blum- Kulla, 1987:131). In this sense, tipping the balance in
the favor of either of the needs may lead to impoliteness.
Culturally, politeness is viewed as “a fixed concept, as in the idea of
“polite social behavior” or “etiquette, within a culture” (Yule, 1996:60).
24 | P a g e
Yule further states that such different general principles for being polite in
social interaction within a particular culture as being tactful, generous,
modest, and sympathetic towards others can be specified (ibid:60). And as
polite behaviors may be different from one culture to another, what is
considered to be “politeness” varies in different cultures.
Cross-culturally, politeness in communication is seen as “a system of
interpersonal relation designed to facilitate interaction by minimizing the
potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange”.
As all linguistic actions involve a potential face threat of some kind, it
particularly requires the speaker to choose a proper politeness means so
that the other’s face is respected. As there are negative face and positive
face, there are Negative Politeness (NP) and Positive Politeness (PP),
respectively.
According to Nguyen Quang, NP is any kind of communicative act which
is intentionally and appropriately meant to show that the speaker does not
want to impinge on the addressee’s privacy, thus, maintaining the sense of
distance between them. It includes face saving acts oriented to the hearer’s
negative face and tends to show deference. NP can be best summed up as
“a concern not to impose on others or restrict their freedom, but to
maintain distance” (Bentahila & Davies, 1989).
Similarly, PP includes face saving acts concerned with the hearer’s positive
face and “tends to show solidarity, emphasize that both speakers want the
same thing and that they have a common goal” (Yule, 1996). Nguyen
Quang defines PP as “any kind of communicative act which is
appropriately intended to show the speaker’s concern to the addressee,
thus, enhancing the sense of solidarity”.
In short, NP is to respect others’ privacy while PP is to show one’s concern
to others.
25 | P a g e
To deal with face threatening acts (FTA), Brown and Levinson (1987:60)
suggest five strategies:
Lesser risk
1. Without redressive action, baldly

On record
Do the FTA
4. Off record
2. Positive
politeness
5. Don’t do With
the FTA redressive
action 3. Negative
politeness
Greater risk
Figure 4: Possible strategies for doing FTAs
The diagram shows that when encountering a FTA, the speaker (S) can
choose one of the five possibilities:
1. S goes on record: baldly performs the act without apology or

mitigation. For example, S may use imperative such as “Pass
me the salt”.
2. S goes on record, performing the act with redresses in terms of
positive politeness i.e. choosing a positive strategy of making A
feel good and feel that A’s value is shared.
3. S goes on record, performing the act with redresses in terms of
negative politeness i.e. choosing a negative strategy of hedging,
apologizing, offering or asserting a desire to avoid interfering
with A’s freedom of action.
4. S goes off record, performing the act by implicature: producing
statements that are indirectly addressed to A.
5. S might decide not to do FTA in case the face-threat is great.
26 | P a g e
Brown and Levinson implicitly consider negative politeness to be “more
polite” than positive politeness. This can be seen in the diagram when they
number the former and the latter 3 and 2, respectively. Nguyen Quang
remarks that this point of view by Brown and Levinson more or less
decreases their diagram’s universal value; hence, he proposes another one.
FTA encounter
4. Do not do the FTA Do the FTA
On record
Off record
2. With redressive action
Positive Negative
politeness politeness
Without redressive action
Figure 5: Nguyen Quang’s diagram of possible strategies for doing FTAs
1.3.2. Positive politeness

Positive politeness, according to Brown and Levinson, “is oriented towards
the positive face of H, the positive self-image that he claims for himself”.
Yule (1996) seems to clarify the notion when he defines positive politeness
as a face saving act tending to show solidarity, emphasizing that both S and
H want the same thing and that they share the same goal. In short, positive
politeness shows concerns for others.
Nguyen Quang, well aware of the sense of solidarity between interactants,
sees positive politeness as “any communicative act (verbal and/or
27 | P a g e
nonverbal) which is appropriately intended to show the speaker’s concern
to the addressee, thus, enhancing the sense of solidarity between them”
(2004:12).
In order for a speaker to minimize the face- threatening aspects of an act,
Brown and Levinson specify the super- strategy of going on record with
positive politeness into 15 positive politeness strategies employed in
communication. What follows is a sketch of these strategies, each
illustrated with example(s).
Strategy 1: Notice, attend to H (his interest, wants, needs, goods)
The teacher highly appreciated your last essay. May I have
through it?
Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)
You count faster than a computer!
Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H
I jump on my bike and off I ride out of the gate, into the road,
straight to school. Do you know what happens next? When I
nearly reach the T- junction, a large dog runs across the road
so suddenly that I respond no reactions. I crash right into it
and land on the ground three meters from the bike. Thank
God, I am alright but the rim of the front wheel is warped…
Can you give me a lift home?
Strategy 4: Use in- group identify markers
Where have you been, darling?
Strategy 5: Seek agreement
A: I’m so tired of staying day and night!
B: So am I.
Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement
A: Do you like the red pullover?
B: It’s really beautiful, in a way.
28 | P a g e
Strategy 7: Presuppose/ Raise/ Assert common ground
How can we, student, afford that rent?
Strategy 8: Joke
OK if I tackle those cookies now?
Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of or concern for H’s
wants
I know you have a lot of work to do but it’s a really good film.
Strategy 10: Offer/ promise
Take it easy. I’ll help you.
Strategy 11: Be optimistic
I’m sure you won’t mind if I turn the fan on.
Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity
Let’s have some cookies, then.
Strategy 13: Give (or ask for) reasons
Why don’t you phone him now?
Strategy 14: Assume or assert reciprocity
I’ll come with you if you help me with this problem.
Strategy 15: Give gifts to H
I’ve just been out shopping. Here’s hotdog for you. Like it?
Strategy 16: Comfort and encourage
Keep calm. You’re on the right way.
Strategy 17: Ask personal questions
Are you married?
1.3.3. Negative politeness

Negative politeness, according to Brown and Levinson, “is oriented mainly
toward partially satisfying (redressing) H’s negative face, his basic want to
maintain claims of territory and self-determination”. In Bentahila and
Davies’s words, negative politeness is understood as a concern not to
29 | P a g e
impose upon others or restrict their freedom, but remain distance. While
positive politeness narrows the distance between interlocutors, negative
politeness keeps a distance between them. In brief, negative politeness
avoids interfering with others’ personal affairs.
Nguyen Quang, well aware of the sense of distance between interactants,
refers to negative politeness as “any communicative act (verbal and/or
nonverbal) which is appropriately intended to show that the speaker does
not want to impinge on the addressee’s privacy, thus enhancing the sense of
distance between them.”
Brown and Levinson introduce 11 negative politeness strategies used in
communication as follows:
Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect
I would like to say how deeply grateful I am.
Strategy 2: Question/ hedge
It’s hot here, don’t you think so?
Strategy 3: Be pessimistic
I don’t think you can do me a favor.
Strategy 4: Minimize the imposition
I just want to have a sip of that.
Strategy 5: Give deference
What would you like, madam?
Strategy 6: Apologize
I’m sorry to have to inform you that you have missed the
opportunity.
Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H
Can one trust such people?
Strategy 8: State the FTA as a general rule
Customers are requested not to smoke in this area of the
restaurant.
30 | P a g e
Strategy 9: Nominalize
It’s my pleasure to be able to inform you that …
Strategy 10: Redress other wants of H’s
I don’t know how I can express my gratitude to you for your
consideration to my mother.
Strategy 11: Avoid asking personal questions
“Asking personal questions” is a positive politeness strategy to
give concern to H, whereas this is considered to interfere with H’s personal
affairs. Thus, avoiding asking such personal questions as “How old are
you?”, “How much do you earn a month?” … is regarded as one negative
politeness strategy.
So far, 17 positive politeness strategies and 11 negative politeness

strategies have been briefly showcased. It should, however to noted that
there is often no clear-cut distinction between positive politeness and
negative politeness strategies in real life communication for sometimes,
people may combine different strategies to attain their communicative
purposes.
31 | P a g e
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY
2.1. Comments on the survey questionnaire and the informants

2.1.1. Comments on the survey questionnaire
This study is inclined to probe into some noteworthy Vietnamese-American
similarities and differences in expressing satisfaction to others. As
mentioned above, entirely aware of the difficulties in conducting an
elaborate investigation with a lot of research tools, the researcher have
designed and made full use of the questionnaire. As the primary medium in
collecting sufficient data for the contrastive analysis between two
languages and cultures, questionnaire has been divided into two parts
targeting at different aims.
The first part, which is composed of 18 situations in three areas: at home, at
work and in public, is to test their validity. Informants are asked to rank a
five-level scale in order of the possibility of expressing satisfaction with
somebody in each given situation.
At home:
Someone says you are lucky to have such a happy family
Someone says your child is an energetic, curious and playful kid
Someone says your child is a gentle, obedient and well-behaved kid
Someone says your child has got good marks at school
Someone says your husband is such a high income earner
Someone says your husband is very caring and sharing
Someone says your husband always listens to you with an open mind
Someone says your husband is good-looking and attractive
At work:
Someone compliments on your good work
Someone helps by taking over your work when you are unavailable
32 | P a g e
Someone shows your mistakes in your work and suggests the
solutions
Someone helps you out when you are being reprimanded by the boss
You are given a promotion
You are always charged to take the lead in every project
In public:
Someone enthusiastically helps you with your heavy shopping bags
Someone gives positive comments on your attractive appearance
Someone asks for direction in a polite manner
Someone helps to collect the things you have dropped on street
The second part, on the other hand, consists of three case- study situations,
each of which was taken from one area in the first part of the questionnaire.
The reason for choosing those three situations is they are assumed to be
rated highly advisable by both Vietnamese and American informants.
Situation 1: (at home)How would you verbally express your satisfaction to

the following person when someone (another person) says you are lucky
to have such a happy family?
Situation 2: (at work)How would you verbally express your satisfaction to

the following person when someone (another person) shows your
mistakes in your work and suggests the solutions
Situation 3: (in public)How would you verbally express your satisfaction

to the following person when someone (another person) enthusiastically
helps you with your heavy shopping bags
In investigating the verbal reactions of Vietnamese and American in
expressing satisfaction, the communication partners of the informants are
33 | P a g e
particularly important. Hence, after much consideration, the informants
have been intentionally condensed into:
The informants’ best friend
The informants’ nodding acquaintance
The informants’ brother/sister
The informants’ colleague
The informants’ boss
The informants’ subordinate
It is also necessary to notice that some factors likely to affect
communication are not demonstrated in the questionnaire such as:
Paralinguistic factors: rate, pitch, volume, vocal filters, etc.
Extra linguistic factors: gestures, facial expression, body motions,
eye contact, etc.
Communication setting and object language: place, time,
conversational distance, clothes, etc.
Informants’ mood: happiness, confusion, annoyance, etc.
Due to those limitations, the study is only an effort to make a partial
investigation, and the concluding remarks are tentative and suggestive.
2.1.2. Comments on the informants

Of the 43 Vietnamese and 40 American informants, 40 Vietnamese and 40
Americans have been randomly selected to ensure the neutrality and
compatibility for the analysis. The former group are all living in Northern
Vietnam while the latter one are American residents working and studying
in the United States with limited knowledge of Vietnamese culture, thus,
having no bias towards answering the survey questionnaires.
Importantly, the informants were absolutely guaranteed to be unidentified
in any discussion of the data, hence they would feel comfortable and open
to share their own opinions.
34 | P a g e
2.2. Data analysis
2.2.1. Strategies in expressing satisfaction (SES)
In terms of positive politeness, expressing satisfaction is a communicative
act (verbal and non-verbal, though non-verbal aspects of this act are not
covered in the scope of the study) which is appropriately intended to show
the speakers’ concern to the hearer, thus enhancing the sense of solidarity
between them. The concern can be appreciated in the way closeness is built
and emotions/ feelings are shared among each other.
As a matter of fact, communicating partners may employ some positive
politeness strategies such as: seeking agreement, using joke, being
optimistic, exaggerating, giving gifts to the hearers.
On the other hand, in the light of negative politeness, expressing
satisfaction is also a communicative act which is appropriately intended to
show that the speaker does not want to impinge on the hearer’s privacy,
thus, enhancing the sense of distance between them. The speaker, in this
way, may appear to be pessimistic or giving deference to the hearer. The
speaker’s concern is likely to be up to common and social habits, through
which they might not want to express their inner feelings or thoughts.
Therefore, they choose to stay indifferent and be polite in their proper
manner.
However given the fact that satisfaction towards every person may be
anticipated variously, the question of whether expressing satisfaction are
more positive/ negative politeness remains controversial. An utterance of
expressing satisfaction may belong to negative viewpoint due to the
conventional formality in deference:
- Thank you, Sir. Your family is a happy one, too.
Yet, the utterance can also be seen as a positive politeness strategy when
the speaker intends to seek agreement with the hearer. He wants to involve
35 | P a g e
the other one into the conversation, which somehow reduces the
communicating distance and strengthens the solidarity.
With intention of analyzing satisfaction’s expressions in the light of cross
cultural communication in general and of politeness strategy in particular,
the author of this study suggests eight strategies of expressing satisfaction:
Strategy 1: Thanking
Strategy 2: Understating
Strategy 3: Seeking agreement
Strategy 4: Using joke
Strategy 5: Being optimistic
Strategy 6: Giving gift
Strategy 7: Asking question
Strategy 8: Raising common ground
In some case, the boundary of each strategy is not clear enough due to an
overlap between positive and negative politeness. Thus, when carrying out
the data analysis procedure, the author just hope to find out the most
popular strategies utilized by both Vietnamese and American respondents.
2.2.2. Factors affecting the choices of SESs

Apparently, people rarely apply the same expression when they feel
satisfied towards different ones. It may vary a lot based on the situations,
social status and for some time the mood of the speaker, to name just a few.
Condensing all of those considerations, Nguyen Quang (2004) believes that
there are at least 20 social factors which might affect the choice of
strategies in human interactions, namely:
36 | P a g e
age channel
gender family relation
residence social distance
occupation time pressure
status power age power
mood gender power
personality intellectual power
topic physical power
communicative point economic power
setting
With an insightful thought and after some consultation with other well-
versed people in this field, the author suggests 6 factors which may have
impose great impact on the choice of expressing satisfaction strategies:
1. Age
2. Gender
3. Marital status
4. Area where you spend most of your time
5. Occupation
6. Acquisition of other language.
2.2.3. Realization of SESs in American English and Vietnamese

2.2.3.1. Realization of SESs in American English
2.2.3.1.1 Realization of SESs in English as seen from co-interactants’
parameters
The study aims at discovering the uses of strategies of expressing
satisfaction towards different co-interactants. In the order from best friend
37 | P a g e
to subordinate, all of the eight strategies mentioned above will be analyzed
under the frame of three situations (at home, at work and in public).
a. Best friend
Situation 1: At home
Strategy 1 Strategy 3 Strategy 4 Strategy 8
40% 30% 15% 15%
When someone compliments on your happy family, it has been proven that
you are more likely to show your satisfaction. In the case that it is your best
friend who makes the comment, there are four strategies being used to
respond: thanking in the formal way (E.g.: “thank you!”, “thanks”), seeking
agreement (E.g.: “Yeah yeah, for sure”, “I can’t agree with you
anymore”,etc.), using joke (E.g.: “Don’t jinx it, dude”, “Haha funny”, etc.),
Raising common ground (E.g.: “You know, you’re part of this family, too”,
“If only you know what it takes to be that way”).
As seen from the table, there is no big gap among the four choices of the
respondents. Strategy 1 (thanking) is highest chosen, followed by strategy 3
(seeking agreement) and standing lastly in the list is strategy 4 and 8 with
the equal share.
Situation 2: At work
65% 10% 10% 15%
In the second situation-at work, Strategy 1 still remains the favored strategy
of most respondents. Although the choices of strategies are the same as in
the first situation, there has been a great increase in the choice of the first
one. This may be reasoned as, the respondents do not want to “take risk” by
38 | P a g e
joking or adding more details when they are still in the office
environments. They choose to be short and polite as possible.
Situation 3: In public
Strategy 1 Strategy 4 Strategy 8
70% 15% 15%
When it comes to happen in public, strategy 3 no longer stays, instead, it

has added more on the choice of the first strategy. Strategy 4 and 8 are still
in the list, however, they just cover the small number of choices share
among the three ones.
b. Nodding acquaintance
Situation1: At home
80% 10% 10%
On addressing the satisfaction towards a nodding acquaintance, most of the

respondents once again choose strategy 1 while strategy 6 and strategy 8
are utilized rarely. The thanking strategy is made the greatest use perhaps
owing to the level of kinship among speakers. They tend to use negative
politeness strategy to keep a certain distance towards strangers when it
comes to the topic of their families.
80% 10% 10%
39 | P a g e
As clearly seen from the table, the shares in the second situation somehow
resemble the first one. Strategy 1 still remains the first and foremost choice
while the other strategies have been replaced by strategy 5 (“being
optimistic”) and strategy 7 (“asking question”). Comparing to the firs
strategy, they are less utilized; however, they have depicted the variety of
expressing satisfaction strategies to some extent.
For example:
- Strategy 1:
o Oh thank you.
o Thank you for your help.
o Thank you for your suggestions.
o Thank you very much.
o Thank you a lot.
o .....
- Strategy 5:
o Thanks. The next time, I’ll do a much better job, I swear.
- Strategy 7:
o How can you know that?
o Oopps, really? How can you find out?
Strategy 1 Strategy 8
90% 10%
The lion share is still for the first strategy when it comes to expressing
satisfaction in public. It is predictable as for the two reasons. First, the
relationship between speakers is not too intimate. Second, the context is in
the outer space where there are full of strangers surrounding. Therefore, the
safest choice is saying a thank you as a response.
40 | P a g e
c. Brother/ sister
Strategy 1 Strategy 4 Strategy 5 Strategy 7 Strategy 8
25% 10% 15% 20% 30%
With communicating partners who are siblings, the result varies a lot. The
thanking no longer holds its first rank. Instead, “raising common ground”
strategy is used more and strategy 7 (“asking question”) stands right after
strategy 1.
It can be explained by the more intimate level of kinship among speakers.
They tend to open up and feel comfortable with positive politeness.
55% 25% 10% 10%
In this case, the variety in the choices of strategies does not last long.
Strategy 1 comes back to its first place and followed are strategy 3
(“seeking agreement”). Examples for the choice of strategy 3 are:
- All right. I’ll do that.
- Yeah! I agree! I have been wrong.
The two other strategies, seven and eight appears dispersedly throughout
the results of respondents such as:
- Thanks but how do you know about it? (Strategy 7)
41 | P a g e
Situation 3: In pubic
60% 20% 20%
There are only four main strategies utilized in expressing satisfaction with
siblings when they help the respondents out with the heavy bag. Standing
on top is thanking. And coming next- at the second rank is both strategy 4
and strategy 8.
For example:
- It’s about time you help. (Strategy 8)
- Thanks kid, I love you. (Strategy 4)
There is one thing worth noticing, that is, strategy 4 (“Using joke”) is only
found in situation 1 and situation. It is absent from the situation 2- when the
formal workplace presents and a proper manner is required.
d. Colleague
Strategy 1
100%
It is such a stunting result as there is only one strategy that all of the
respondents resort to. Thanking seems to be the number option and is found
applicable in almost every cases of expressing satisfaction. Colleague is
someone you share most of your office hours with and somehow is the
competitor at work. Therefore, it is easy to comprehend that being too
intimate is not a good way to communicate, especially in the western
countries’ working environment.
From time to time, they use the thanking strategy such as:
- Thank you.
42 | P a g e
- Thanks.
- Thank you a lot.
- Thank you so much for your sincere comments.
80% 20%
If in the first situation, the compliment is about the private life of the
respondents, coming to the second one, the context is all at work. As
predictable, strategy 1 is still given the priority. It counts for most of the
choices while strategy 8 (“raising common ground”) only constitutes the
smaller amount.
90% 10%
As seen from the data, the next situation is also a splitting image of the
previous one. They are similar in the way that there are only strategy 1 and
8 making up the whole choices. Meanwhile, they are slightly different as
strategy 1 covers almost and leave a very tiny share for strategy 8.
e. Boss
70% 15% 15%
When addressing to boss-who may be older and higher in status, American

informants made greatest use of the first strategy. It does not seem to bear
43 | P a g e
any surprise. However, the thing worth noticing herein is, the second rank
of both strategy 5 and 8.
If in the previous cases, the respondents chose to reply the comments by
formally thanking such as “Thank you.” or just “Thanks.”, in this case,
there has been a slight change in addressing to the higher- status
communicating partner.
E.g.:
- Thank you very much. (Strategy 1)
- Thank you, Sir. (Strategy 1)
- Thank you for noticing, Sir. (Strategy 1)
- I’m very lucky, Sir. (Strategy 5)
- Thank you, Sir. They really help encourage me in my job. (Strategy
8)
25% 10% 15% 15% 35%
For most of the time, thanking is the dominant strategy for American
informants to express their satisfaction. However, in this case, the result
does not reflect that norm anymore. The choices have been various among
the 5 strategies and there is not any big gap from one to one.
At top, strategy 8 (“raising common ground”) has been used most
frequently.
E.g.:
- I want to do the right things.
- I appreciate the suggestions. I will work on them.
- Thank you, Sir. I really appreciate what you have said.
44 | P a g e
- Oh, I’m sorry. I will work harder.
Standing in the middle is strategy 1.
Being next to it is the position of strategy 3 and 5.
E.g:
- Oh, yes. I do agree with you, Sir. (Strategy 3)
- You’re right. Your advice is great. (Strategy 3)
- Thank you for pointing that out. I will try hard to change. (Strategy
5)
- Don’t worry, Sir. I will work harder next time. (Strategy 5)
Lastly, strategy 2 is at the bottom of the list.
E.g.:
- If it had not been for your helpful advices, the project would be a
total failure. I just wanna say thank you a lot.
80% 20%
However, when it turns to a situation in public, Strategy 1 comes back to be

the most favorable choice, with strategy 8 accompanying in the second
rank. For some time, they choose to add deference to their thanking, such
as:
- Thank you, Sir/ Mad.
- Thank you very much for your help.
f. Subordinate
60% 10% 20% 10%
45 | P a g e
In responding to a compliment on family stuff from a subordinate, most of
the informants prefer the thanking strategy as the number one option.
Besides, strategy 5 also represents to be considerable.
E.g.:
- Thank you. I hope yours is well, too.
- I’m very lucky, thanks.
Both Strategy 3 and 7 hold the last position in the list though they do not
constitute much of the choices.
45% 10% 15% 10% 20%
Apart from the number one position for strategy 1 as usual, in this situation,
there has been a great contribution from strategy 8 to strategy 3 and 7. It
shows that, respondents tend to show their positive politeness towards their
subordinate when it comes to work rather than negative politeness.
E.g:
- Interesting, thank you. I’ll look over it. (Strategy 5)
- You surely helped. (Strategy 3)
- Oops. Guess that it is right, isn’t it? Thank you very much. (Strategy
7)
- You’ve caught my mistakes. I think you’ve done a good job. (Strategy
8)
80% 20%
46 | P a g e
It seems that, in public, American respondents are not likely to express
themselves as much at work. Once again, the thanking strategy stands in
the pre-dominant position and outnumbers strategy 8.
E.g.:
- Oh thanks. (Strategy 1)
- Thank you for all the help, I really need it. (Strategy 8)
Overall, the data reveal a hint that level of kinship and power status may
exercise a remarkable influence on the communicative act of expressing
satisfaction. Though the thanking strategy is the most commonly use and is
found applicable in almost any cases, American respondents still make use
of various strategies such as raising, seeking agreement, using joke and
asking question.
2.2.3.1.2 Realization of SESs in English as seen from informants’

parameters
Informan Age Gender Marital Residence Occupation Acquisitio
ts’s status n of FL (s)
paramete U30 O30 Ma Fe Sing Mar Ru Ur Soc- Tech Yes No
rs ser -sci
strategy
Str 1 45% 55% 80% 20% 70% 30% 80% 20% 60% 40% 80% 20%
Str 2 40% 60% 10% 90% 55% 45% 35% 65% 80% 20% 90% 10%
Str 3 35% 65% 40% 60% 35% 65% 25% 75% 40% 60% 45% 55%
Str 4 45% 55% 25% 75% 90% 10% 20% 80% 80% 20% 60% 40%
Str 5 45% 55% 25% 75% 65% 35% 25% 75% 45% 55% 55% 45%
Str 6 60% 40% 20% 80% 80% 20% 20% 80% 60% 40% 80% 20%
Str 7 20% 80% 80% 20% 20% 80% 45% 55% 60% 40% 85% 15%
Str 8 15% 85% 40% 60% 65% 35% 35% 65% 55% 45% 55% 45%
Table 2: Use of strategies as seen from American informants’ parameters
47 | P a g e
Age
100
50
Under 30
0 Over 30
Str 1 Str 2
Str 3 Str 4 Under 30
Str 5 Str 6
Str 7 Str 8
The chart illustrates the difference in choices of expressing satisfaction

strategies. When comparing the answers between respondents under 30 and
ones over 30, it can be seen that, the older ones seems to be more
enthusiastic in expressing their satisfaction by various strategies. From
Strategy 1 to 8, the percentage of both groups show a norm that, in most
cases the group over 30 outnumbers one under 30. Only in Strategy 6
(Giving gift), there is an exception. And in the last two strategies, the
choices from group over 30 are surprisingly much higher than the other
ones.
The result surely has delivered many stunning implications. Contrary to
what people often assume, people over the age of 30 are the one with more
varied strategies of expressing satisfaction. This can be explained as the
older ones have more experiences than the younger and therefore, they find
themselves comfortable and initiative in choosing the best way to express
their satisfaction.
48 | P a g e
Gender
100
80
60
40
Male
20
Female
0
Str 1 Str 2
Str 3 Str 4 Male
Str 5 Str 6
Str 7 Str 8
It is apparently seen from the chart that women outnumber men when it
comes to the variety of strategies in expressing satisfaction. As for the male
respondents, Strategy 1 and 7 (thanking and asking questions) are more
favored than others. Meanwhile women mostly resort to strategy 2, 6 and 8
(understating, giving gift and raising common ground). This difference can
be drawn from the stereotypes of both men and women. If men are viewed
as reticent, short and concise in words, women to the contrary, are talkative
and tend to express themselves more in communication. To some extent,
this trend also illustrates the difference in choice of negative politeness and
positive politeness. The author is strongly convinced that due to the sex
distinction, women are probably keen on wording than men. They seem to
be in favor of positive politeness while men are more inclined towards
negative politeness.
49 | P a g e
Marital status
Of all the strategies employed by these two parameters, the single prefer
using joke than other ones. In contrast, married people are least fond of
strategy 4. Instead, the married show their greatest priority in the strategy
of raising common ground (strategy 8) and asking questions (strategy 7).
This can be traced to the fact that the single seem to be more light-hearted.
Their choices of strategies are varied and in other spectrum, they are not as
tactful as the married. However, speaking of the married, they may own
more experience and therefore they tend to know better ways to express
their satisfaction to different co-interactants.
50 | P a g e
Residence
As seen from the chart, the most striking feature if the choice of strategy 1
(thanking) from the rural dwellers. They resort to it as the number one
option and in most cases; they apply just a “thank you” to the listeners.
This seems strange when comparing with the urban ones as most of the
strategies are distributed relatively equally and people flexibly apply every
strategy to show their satisfaction.
This finding is really surprising for the author often assume that, the rural
dwellers are the one living in the countryside, they may be more likely to
express their solidarity and socialization than the city dwellers.
Nevertheless, the fact is speaking the different words.
51 | P a g e
Occupation
Overall, among the eight strategies being utilized by both people from the
two working groups, strategy 3, 5 and 8 (seeking agreement, being
optimistic and raising common ground) are more favored by tech-sci
informants. This is also a surprising finding as soc-ser informants who
involve their life with a lot of communication and co-interactions to others
are often thought to be more sociable and flexible in expressing
themselves.
However, after this result has come out, the author has already drawn a
different view towards those two groups. The soc-ser, though sociable they
might appear, tend to be more careful in expressing their satisfaction than
the others. Meanwhile, the tech-sci are found to be more optimistic and
open in their verbal expressions.
52 | P a g e
Acquisition of foreign language(s)
Several remarkable differences can be realized between the two

parameters. First, in almost any strategies, the choices from informants
with acquisition of foreign languages are higher the ones without foreign
language. Second, only strategy 8 (raising common ground) and strategy 3
(seeking agreement) are more chosen by the non-foreign language
informants. As the findings seem vague, it is not persuasive enough to
come up with any precise conclusion about the impact of foreign languages
on the way American informants express their satisfaction to others.
2.2.3.2. Realization of SESs in Vietnamese

2.2.3.2.1. Realization of SESs in Vietnamese as seen from co-
interactants’ parameters
a. Best friend
Situation 1:
Str 1 Str 2 Str 3 Str 4 Str 5 Str 7 Str 8
10% 10% 20% 25% 15% 15% 5%
53 | P a g e
For the first situation-at home, the choices of Vietnamese informants in
expressing satisfaction spread out from strategy 1 to 8. No strategy stands
dominantly and the disparity from one to one is not so distinctive. Two
strategies being utilized most are strategy 4 (Using joke) and strategy 5
(being optimistic) while strategy 8 (raising common ground) stands at the
bottom.
It might be the case that Vietnamese informants find it comfortable enough
to express satisfaction in private life with their best friends. They are
inclined to choose the strategies which reflect more on themselves and their
families.
Situation 2:
Str 1 Str 2 Str 3 Str 7 Str 8
20% 15% 40% 10% 15%
In the second situation, there are only 5 strategies employed, which are
thanking, understating, seeking agreement, asking questions and raising
common ground. Although the co-interactant remains the same, the manner
and distance in terms of response are much more different from the first
situation. At work, people resort most to strategy 3 (seeking agreement)
and strategy 1 (thanking), which can be seen in those following examples:
- Ừ cám ơn mày. (strategy 1)
- Đồng ý, tao sẽ sửa. (strategy 3)
- T biết rồi. (strategy 3)
- Thanks mày. (strategy 1)
Meanwhile, strategy 7 (asking questions) and 8 (raising common ground)
are the last things respondents want to deploy. Moreover, the most striking
feature can be viewed from the table is the appearance of strategy 2
54 | P a g e
(understating) while in the responses from American informants, this
strategy disappear.
This can be reasoned by the fact that Vietnamese people are inclined to
“lower” themselves and try to act modest. Some choose to say just a thank-
you, some choose to say sorry and some choose to agree when it comes to
reveal their own mistake. Very few ones choose to examine into the
mistakes and ask for the reasons.
Situation 3:
Str 1 Str 2 Str 3 Str 4 Str 5 Str 6 Str 7 Str 8
15% 5% 5% 25% 5% 15% 5% 25%
When the setting changes into the public, all of the eight strategies have
turned up again. Standing on top is strategy 8 (raising common ground) and
strategy 4 (using joke), in the following are strategy 1 (thanking) and
strategy 6 (giving gift). Ranking last is strategy 7 (asking questions). This
does not seem to be a big surprise to the author as Vietnamese people tend
to show their best friends the satisfaction in such a varied way. There
seems to be no boundary to delineate their responses.
E.g.:
- Thanks mày nhé! (strategy 1)
- Nếu mà không có mày tao chết mất đấy. (strategy 2)
- ừ, vậy cậu cầm hộ tớ nhé. (strategy 3)
- Ôi hôm nay ăn phải cái gì mà lại từ bi hỉ xả thế! (Strategy 4)
- May cho tao quá. (Strategy 5)
- Lát đi làm 1 chầu kem nhá. (Strategy 6)
- Thật là mày muốn giúp tao không? (Strategy 7)
- Cậu thật sự là một người bạn tốt. (Strategy 8)
55 | P a g e
b. Nodding acquaintance
Situation 1:
Str 1 Str 2 Str 4 Str 7
60% 20% 5% 15%
As viewed from the table, there are only 4 strategies being used in the
situation- at home. Furthermore, the disparity between the most chosen one
and the least chosen one is really great. In most times, respondents choose
the quick and safe response, which is strategy 1 (thanking). This can be
easily drawn out and the author has already anticipated. People naturally do
not find it relaxed and comfortable to talk about their families and private
life with a stranger. Therefore, they just take the compliment for granted
and reply in a short and polite way. However, there are some exceptions
besides in which people choose to reply in a cheerful and positive way.
E.g.:
- Em cám ơn ạ. Ôi từ thuở cha sinh mẹ đẻ đến giờ mới có người khen
mình thế này. (strategy 4)
- May mắn gì đâu. Bác cứ quá khen, vẫn còn kém gia đình bên bác
nhiều lắm. (strategy 2)
- Bạn nghĩ vậy thật à? (strategy 7)
Situation 2:
Str 1 Str 8
50% 50%
The results in the second situation are really distinctive. There are only two
strategies being utilized and both of them (thanking and raising) get the
equal share. As mentioned above, when the co-interactant is a stranger,
56 | P a g e
people feel reserved to reveal their satisfaction, especially in the context of
offices, the bond between them is slighter.
E.g.:
- Cám ơn cậu. (strategy 1)
- Lời khuyên của bạn giúp mình rất nhiều. (strategy 8)
Situation 3:
Str 1 Str 5 Str 8
85% 5% 15%
At the first glance, strategy 1 has emerged as the pre-eminent choice among
the three strategies deployed. Also, the gap between strategy 1 (the most
chosen one) and strategy 5 (the least chosen) is really huge. This can be
explained as the bond between the speakers is vulnerable. Their
relationship is distant and therefore, they mostly resort to thanking as the
number one choice.
E.g.:
- Rất cám ơn anh/ chị. (strategy 1)
- Em thật là may mắn vì có anh/ chị giúp đỡ. (strategy 5)
- Anh/ chị quả là người tốt bụng. (strategy 8)
c. Brother/ sister
Situation 1:
10% 30% 30% 10% 5% 5% 10%
Coming to this situation, almost all of the strategies are presented and
distributed comparatively equal. The disparity between the most chosen
57 | P a g e
and the least chosen does not count much. To reason for this, there are two
causes. First, the relationship between speakers is intimate; hence they are
likely to expose their satisfaction freely and comfortably. Second, the
setting is at home- where both of the speakers are included in. It gives them
a sense of belonging and therefore, the manner is loose.
E.g.:
- Cám ơn mày. (strategy 1)
- Hì, anh/ chị cũng vậy đấy. (strategy 3)
- Chứ sao, mày nói chuyện xưa như trái đất. (strategy 4)
- Ừ, do nhà mình có phúc mới được vậy. (strategy 5)
- Muốn ăn xúc xích đây mà (strategy 6)
- Thế vợ chồng anh/ chị sao? Chắc lại có chuyện lục đục hả?
(Strategy 7)
- Nhưng mà nhiều lúc cũng có chuyện khó chịu lắm. (strategy 8)
Situation 2
Str 1 Str 3 Str 4 Str 5 Str 7 Str 8
35% 30% 5% 5% 10% 15%
As seen from the table, ranking the highest is strategy 1 (thanking) and
following is strategy 3 (seeking agreement). At the bottom of the list, there
are strategy 4 (using joke) and strategy 5 (being optimistic). It turns out
that, when the setting has changed, the manner in each response is also
changed.
E.g.:
- Ờ, thanks. (strategy 1)
- Nhất chí. (strategy 3)
- Người đâu mà tốt bụng hiền lành như Bụt thế này! (Strategy 4)
58 | P a g e
- Ôi may thật. (strategy 5)
- Thật chứ? Giờ tôi biết làm gì đây? (Strategy 7)
- Thế mà em đã không nghĩ tới đấy. Em hứa là sẽ đi xem lại ngay.
(strategy 8)
Situation 3:
Str 1 Str 2 Str 3 Str 4 Str 5 Str 6 Str 7 Str 8
30% 5% 5% 25% 5% 10% 5% 15%
There has been a gradual distribution in choices of expressing satisfaction

in this situation. All of the eight strategies are utilized in this case at a
relatively equal rate, which constitutes the variety of expressions.
E.g.:
- Thanks. (strategy 1)
- Không có anh/ chị là em chết đấy. (strategy 2)
- Ừ vậy thì cầm đi. (strategy 3)
- Có thế chứ! Đàn ông đàn ang sức dài vai rộng là phải thế. (strategy 4)
- Ôi vui ghê. (Strategy 5)
- Cám ơn nhé, tí tao mua cho gói bim bim. (strategy 6)
- Có thật là khuân được không? (strategy 7)
- Anh/ chị thật là tốt. (strategy 8)
d. Colleague
Situation 1:
60% 10% 5% 5% 20%
59 | P a g e
Once again, strategy 1 plays the dominant role among the choices of
strategies. In the second rank, it is strategy 8 (raising common ground).
Lastly, strategy 3 (seeking agreement) and 5 (being optimistic) share the
final rank. It can be partly explained that, when talking about private life or
family stuff with other colleagues, Vietnamese respondents are still being
very careful and reserved.
E.g.:
- Cũng bình thường vậy thôi mà. (strategy 2)
- Ừ, cậu nói đúng đấy. (strategy 3)
- Vâng, mình cũng mong là gia đình mình sẽ mãi được hạnh phúc.
(strategy 5)
- Mình cũng không nghĩ nó hạnh phúc đến thế đâu. Cũng có lúc xô
bát xô đũa đấy. (strategy 8)
Situation 2:
Str 1 Str 8
85% 15%
The most striking feature herein is there are only two strategies used in the
situation- at work. Almost all of the informants resort to thanking strategy
and vary their tones based on the intimacy level towards the co-
interactants. Only the minority choose to add more details in their response
and use strategy 8.
E.g.:
- Tôi sẽ nghĩ lại và làm theo những lời bạn góp ý. (Strategy 8)
60 | P a g e
Situation 3:
Str 1 Str 4 Str 8
65% 5% 30%
Though the context herein is different from the previous one, the majority
of informants still resort to the thanking strategy. Strategy 4 has presented
itself in the list, yet it amounts to just a small number of choices.
E.g.:
- Cám ơn anh/ chị. (strategy 1)
- Hộ đi, mai mình cho phiếu bé ngoan. (strategy 4)
- Cậu thật là tốt. Lần sau mình lại đi cùng cậu nhé. (strategy 8)
e. Boss
Situation 1:
60% 10% 10% 20%
As the number one favored strategy in almost any cases, thanking once
again stands at top when the co-interactant is boss. In the second place is
strategy 8 (raising common ground). The thing noticeable herein is the
turn-up of strategy 2 and 3 (understating and seeking agreement). Though
small amounts they contribute, both of the strategies have added up to the
variety of choices in this first situation.
E.g.:
- Dạ, em cảm ơn. (strategy 1)
- Làm sao mà bằng gia đình sếp ạ. (strategy 2)
- Dạ, cháu cũng nghĩ như vậy. (strategy 3)
61 | P a g e
- Vâng, cũng hạnh phúc, song nhiều khi có xung đột đấy ạ.
(strategy 8)
Situation 2:
45% 15% 5% 35%
It seems that, in the second situation, the model is duplicated exactly the
same as in the first one. There are also 4 strategies utilized, strategy 1 and 8
play the dominant role. The only thing to differentiate is the replacement of
strategy 2 by strategy 4 (using joke).
E.g.:
- Cám ơn sếp. (strategy 1)
- Vâng, đúng là em đã làm sai ạ. (strategy 3)
- Sếp tinh cú ghê. (strategy 4)
- Cám ơn sếp. Em chưa có nhiều kinh nghiệm lắm nên mong sếp cứ
chỉ bảo them. Em sẽ cố gắng hơn ạ. (Strategy 8)
Situation 3:
35% 5% 5% 15% 5% 5% 30%
Without doubt, the results collected from this situation are the most
surprising among the three. In the two previous situations, it seems that the
same model is in display and the third situation is supposed to be alike.
However, the choices herein are diversified and all of the seven strategies
are deployed to express satisfaction.
62 | P a g e
This can be somehow explained by the fact that, the setting of
communication is in public where there is no strain or working atmosphere.
People are inclined to express themselves more and be free in choices of
responding.
E.g.:
- Dạ vâng, em cảm ơn sếp ạ. (strategy 1)
- Không có sếp giúp chắc em kiệt sức vì xách đồ mất. (strategy 2)
- Sếp khỏe như giai mười tám đôi mươi! (Strategy 4)
- Em tốt số lắm nên được sếp giúp đây mà. (Strategy 5)
- Sếp ơi, hôm nào đi cà phê với em nhé. (Strategy 6)
- Dạ thôi ạ, sếp ơi, sếp có gì để em cầm giúp không? (strategy 7)
- Sếp thật là tốt bụng. (Strategy 8)
f. Subordinate
Situation 1:
80% 5% 5% 10%
Subordinate is someone working under your control and therefore, when

choosing to reply their compliments on private life, informants tend to play
it safe and sound by the thanking strategy. There are three other strategies
used in addition but most of them get a small share.
E.g.:
- Cám ơn em. (strategy 1)
- Không may mắn như em nghĩ đâu. Chán nản lắm em ạ. (strategy 2)
- Ừ tôi cũng thấy mình may mắn. (strategy 3)
- Ui chuyện, mình mà lị. (strategy 4)
63 | P a g e
Situation 2:
40% 40% 5% 15%
The most remarkable feature in this situation is strategy 1 (thanking) is no

longer the one and only No.1. in the list. It has to share the rank with
strategy 3 (seeking agreement). Following is strategy 8 (raising common
ground) and standing at the bottom is strategy 4 (using joke).
E.g.:
- Ừ phải rồi. Lần sau cứ nói ngay lại với mình nhé. (strategy 3)
- Dốt nhưng còn tốt đấy. (strategy 4)
- Tôi ghi nhận sự đóng góp này. (strategy 8)
Situation 3:
65% 5% 10% 10% 10%
Coming to this situation, strategy 1 has already come back to be the most
favored strategy utilized by most of the informants. It seems that, no matter
in which cases, towards which co- interactants, thanking is proved to be
best applicable. In the second rank, there are 3 strategies share this place
altogether, they are strategy 4 (using joke), strategy 7 (asking questions)
and strategy 8 (raising common ground). Finally, it is strategy 3 (with only
5 %) that makes up for the last rank.
E.g.:
- Thanks cậu. (strategy 1)
- Vậy thì cậu cầm đi. (strategy 3)
64 | P a g e
- Đây, còn mấy cái nữa này. Xách nhiệt tình đi rồi anh tang lương
cho. (strategy 4)
- Cậu có thực sự xách được không? (strategy 7)
- Cậu thật tốt vì đã giúp mình. (strategy 8)
2.2.3.2.2. Realization of SESs in Vietnamese as seen from informants’

parameters
Table 3: Use of strategies as seen from Vietnamese informants’ parameters
Informants’ Age Gender Marital Residence Occupation Acquisition
parameters status of FL (s)
strategy U30 O30 Ma Fe Sing Mar Ru Ur Soc- Tech- Yes No
ser sci
Str 1 80% 20% 50% 50% 45% 55% 15% 85% 35% 65% 65% 35%
Str 2 45% 55% 30% 70% 40% 60% 70% 30% 60% 40% 20% 80%
Str 3 55% 45% 80% 20% 20% 80% 30% 70% 25% 75% 40% 60%
Str 4 80% 20% 35% 65% 55% 45% 15% 85% 70% 30% 20% 80%
Str 5 75% 25% 85% 15% 80% 20% 60% 40% 35% 65% 45% 55%
Str 6 80% 20% 10% 90% 35% 65% 55% 45% 70% 30% 70% 30%
Str 7 40% 60% 70% 30% 10% 90% 20% 80% 35% 65% 80% 20%
Str 8 45% 55% 35% 65% 20% 80% 30% 70% 30% 70% 90% 10%
Age
80
60
40
20 Under 30
0 Over 30
Str 1 Str 2
Str 3 Str 4 Under 30
65 | P a g e
Of all the figures recorded in this parameter, it is apparently observed that
most of the informants under the age of 30 resort to strategy 1 (thanking),
strategy 4 (using joke), strategy 5 (being optimistic) and strategy 6 (giving
gift), most of which reflect on the side of positive politeness strategies.
Meanwhile, the older ones seems to be in favor of strategy 8 (raising
common ground) and for some time, strategy 7 (asking question), which go
into more details in the response and with some seriousness.
Gender
As discussed above, strategy 1(thanking) is the most favored strategy in

expressing satisfaction. However, in the light of sex distinction, there is
hardly a difference between male and female. It turns out that, both of the
sex resort to this “short and concise” strategy equally.
In terms of female’s choices, women tend to outweigh men considerably in
strategy 2 (understating), strategy 6 (giving gift) and strategy 8 (raising
common ground).
66 | P a g e
On the other hand, men’s choices outnumber women’s in strategy 3
(seeking agreement), strategy 7 (asking questions).
The only point that can be drawn out is, women are often seen to be more
talkative than men, and hence they are more likely to express their
satisfaction with many more words, more details and in various tone.
Marital status
At the first glance, it can be viewed that in almost any strategies, the
married ones outnumber the single one greatly. The most noticeable case is
in strategy 7 (asking questions), the married informants make up for nearly
all of the choices while leaving a very small amount to the single ones.
There is one reason that can explain for this trend. Comparing to the ones
who already get married and have their own families, the single ones seem
to be lack of experience and understanding in terms of social
communication. They are still reserved in communicating to fully express
their satisfaction. And in some cases, they just try to be optimistic and be
polite.
67 | P a g e
Residence
In terms of the rural respondents, all of the strategies have been utilized but
there are just two strategies (5-being optimistic and 6-giving gift) being
chosen more than the urban ones. Meanwhile, covering from strategy 1 to
eight, the urban ones outnumber the rural greatly.
It might be the case that, the Vietnamese rural informants are not so good
and flexible at using strategies to express their satisfaction. They may have
a variety of choices but they are all at a modest rate. However, when it
comes to the urban dwellers, the situation is completely different. They can
express their satisfaction in an effective way through a diversity of
strategies and swing from one to one easily to suit the context and co-
interactants.
68 | P a g e
Occupation
In this case, both soc-ser and tech-sci informants get a variety of choices
and there is no great disparity between two groups in choices of each
strategy.
As for the soc-ser informants, they outweigh the other one in strategy 2
(understating), strategy 4 (using joke) and strategy 6 (giving gift) while
leaving the remains being outnumbered by tech-sci informants. Needless to
say, it is as what the author has expected. As the soc-sers’ work is dealing
with social affairs, working together with a lot of people, their
communication skills are also more tactful and flexible than the other ones.
That is the reason why, they choose the loose strategies and try to be
positive in their communication with different types of people. Also, that
makes sense for the tech-sci ones to be more favored of thanking, agreeing
or asking questions to express satisfaction towards others.
69 | P a g e
Acquisition of foreign language (s)
Speaking of the informants with acquisition of a foreign language, they

emerge with higher number of choices in strategy 1 (thanking), strategy 6
(giving gift), strategy 7 (asking questions) and strategy 8 (raising common
ground).
In terms of the ones without a foreign language, their favored choices are a
little different. Four strategies that are utilized most are understating,
seeking agreement, using joke and being optimistic.
The most outstanding feature can be seen in the choices of strategy 4. If
most of the non- foreign language informants choose to add joke as their
expression of satisfaction, very few ones with acquisition of foreign
language resort to using joke.
70 | P a g e
2.2.3.3. Similarities and differences
a. Similarities
After a great detailed discussion of strategies used to express satisfaction of
both Vietnamese and American informants, several common points
between the two groups can be deduced as follows.
Though different in cultures and conception, both of the Vietnamese
and American choose strategy 1 (thanking), strategy 8 (raising
common ground) and strategy 3 (seeking agreement) as the most
favorable ones. That can be easily understood as most of those
strategies are short, easy to say and may not include other
implications or mixed message during the communication process.
Particularly, strategy 1 seems to be the number one option for every
respondent (both in Vietnam and the U.S.). It covers a large share in
the total proportion and can be seen in almost any cases.
In contrast, there is also a coincidence when in both of the groups;
very few informants choose strategy 6 to express their satisfaction. It
stands at the bottom of the list with a tiny share and therefore is
regarded as the least favorable strategies among the eight.
Moreover, there are some noticeable similarities in terms of social
factors affecting the choices of strategies:
o Sex : male < female
It has been drawn out from the comparison between the
Vietnamese and American respondents that male’s choices of
strategies are often outnumbered by female’s. This conclusion
exactly stereotypes the concept that, women are more
talkative, sensible and better at expressing their own feelings
in varied ways.
71 | P a g e
o Marital status: single <married
In this case, the majority is in the side of the married people.
Most informants who have already got married and have their
own families tend to be more flexible with their responses and
expressions than the single ones. They choose among a great
variety of strategies and deftly switch from one to one to
achieve the target of communication.
o Residence: rural <urban
Following the model of the two previous points, the rural
dwellers’ choices of strategies are also outweighed by the
urban ones. It turns out that, people living in the city are
somehow better at conveying their satisfaction by verbal
strategies than the ones living in the countryside.
b. Differences
First and foremost, the thing that can be easily seen from the
responses of the two groups is the length of each utterance. As for
American informants, they choose to express with short and brief
words. They hardly make a long utterance which adds up more
details and reveals more about themselves. Otherwise, the long
utterances seem to be popular among responses from Vietnamese
informants.
If in the previous part, the author has discussed that strategy 1 are
mostly utilized by both of the groups, coming to this one, strategy 1
is also the place where some differences can be figured out. In terms
of the American, when resorting to thanking strategy, they just say
“Thanks” or “Thank you” to almost every co-interactants. However,
to the Vietnamese, the thanking strategy can be varied a lot.
72 | P a g e
E.g.:
- Cám ơn cậu.
- Cám ơn anh/ chị rất nhiều.
- Hihi thanks nhé.
Together with saying a thank you, the Vietnamese people also add
their emotions and their respects into it.
Another place where there is a disparity between the Vietnamese and
American is in strategy 4 (Using joke). Though western people are
often thought to be open-minded, positive more carefree than the
easterners, they actually resort very little to using joke strategy as a
way to express satisfaction. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese utilize the
strategy a lot and it also constitutes a great number of choices
among the eight strategies.
In brief, the difference can be observed in the following table:
American Most Vietnamese

Strategies % preferred Strategies %
Thanking 31.5% Thanking 20.2%
Raising common ground 26.3% Raising common ground 17.9%
Seeking agreement 10.5% Seeking agreement 13.4%
Being optimistic 10.5% Using joke 13.4%
Asking questions 10.5% Understating 10.1%
Using joke 8.8% Asking questions 10.1%
Understating 1.7% Being optimistic 8.9%
Giving gift 1.7% Least Giving gift 5.6%
preferred
Table 4: Comparison of preferences of strategy between American and

Vietnamese informants
73 | P a g e
PART C: CONCLUSION
I. Review of major findings
On the theoretical background of speech act, politeness and in the light of

cross-cultural communication, the author has conducted an investigation
into Vietnamese and American informants’ choice of strategies to express
satisfaction. The investigation shows that the two groups of informants
have similarities and differences in cultural and linguistic behavior towards
expressing satisfaction. The differences result from the specific features of
the two languages and cultures in general, and politeness norms and
communication styles in particular. The similarities illustrate that between
the two, there exist some common things, which lay initial foundation for
cross- cultural communication as well as for cultural exchange and
integration.
With the purpose to explore into those intriguing points, the survey
questionnaire is divided into two parts, each of which serves a certain
function to answer for what research questions have raised from the
beginning. The analysis of data collected from the Part 1 of the
questionnaire helps determine the validity of the act of expressing
satisfaction in some particular situations in three main areas of “at home”,
“at work” and “in public”, whereas that of data collected from Part 2 helps
unravel the politeness strategy patterns used in both groups of the
informants. Also, the effects of informants’ status parameters such as age,
gender, marital status, occupation, living area and acquisition of foreign
language(s) are recorded. Below is a review of major findings.
In terms of politeness strategies
74 | P a g e
- Both groups of informants, especially the Vietnamese, tend to be
more precisely polite when expressing satisfaction to intimates but
more negative politeness- oriented towards those with greater social
distance. This finding supports Holmes’ conception that, “Generally,
people express negative politeness more often to those it is
appropriate to keep at a distance, and more often to friends or
potential friends. [..]. In other words, in many contexts, as social
distance increases so does negative politeness”. (Holmes, 1995). This
can be illustrated below:
Intimate Distant
High solidarity Low solidarity
POSITIVE NEGATIVE
POLITENESS POLITENESS
Figure 6: Solidarity- social distance dimension (Holmes)

- Contrary to the differences in geography, culture and lifestyle, both
of the Vietnamese and American informants decide thanking as the
most favorable strategy in expressing satisfaction. With such a short
response and be applicable in almost any situation and to different
co- interactants, the strategy has revealed more about the
communication styles among Vietnamese informants. That is, due to
globalization, many people are somehow affected by the western
cultures. When facing the need of expressing their satisfaction
towards others, they try to avoid going into details, which can
threaten their privacy instead, they give a short and polite thank as a
response.
75 | P a g e
In terms of informants’ status parameters
The results of data analysis show that all investigated status
parameters, namely age, gender, marital status, occupation, residence
and acquisition of foreign language(s) have different impacts upon
both Vietnamese and American informants in their linguistic
politeness behavior. Generally speaking, it has been shown that, both
of the Vietnamese and American informants at older age; of weaker
sex with social occupation appear to be more open and carefree than
ones in the opposite groups.
II. Suggestions for further study

This study is only a partial investigation into the act of expressing
satisfaction to people with different social distances and of different
relative powers. Many dimensions still remain unanswered, of which the
followings would promise to be interesting:
¾ Formality- informality in expressing satisfaction
¾ Directness- indirectness in expressing satisfaction
¾ Paralinguistic factors in expressing satisfaction (intonation, stress,
pitch, etc.)
Despite her best effort, the author is fully aware that short-comings and
mistakes are inevitable and therefore it is she who stands entirely
accountable for those weaknesses. Every constructive comment and
feedback from readers is highly appreciated.
76 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY
In English:
Austin, J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Bach, K.& Harnish, R. (1984). Linguistic communication and speech acts.

England: The MIT Press.
Banks, J.A. & McGee, C. A. (1989). Multicultural education. Needham

Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Bentahila, A. & Davies, E. (1989). Culture and language use: A problem

for language teaching. In RAL, vol. 27/2, 99-112.
Blum- Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (eds). (1989). Cross- cultural

pragmatics: requests and apologies. Ablex.
Brembeck, W. (1977). Development and teaching of a college course in

intercultural communication. Readings in intercultural communication.
Pittsburgh: SIETAR Publications, University of Pittsburgh.
Canale, M. & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative

approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics.
Celce- Murcia, M. Z. Dornyei & S, Thurrel. (1995). Communicative

competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specifications.
Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6: 5-35.
Condon, J.C. & Yousef, F.S. (1975). An introduction to Intercultural

communication. 20th ed. Prentice Hall.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Green, G.M. (1989). Pragmatics and natural language understanding.
Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc.
Homes, J. (1995). Women, men and politeness. London and New York:
Longman.
Hybels, S. & Waver, R.L. (2001). Communicating effectively. Mc Graw-

Hill, Inc.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In: J.B. Pride and J.

Holmes (eds) Sociolinguistics, Harmondsworth
Lakeoff, R. (1977). What Can You Do with Words: Politeness, Pragmatics

and Performatives. In Roger, Andy, Wall, Bob and Murphy, John (eds),
Proceedings of the Texas Conference on Performatives, Presuppositions
and Implicatures, 79-106. Arlington, V.A.: Centre for Applied Linguistics.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London and New York:

Longman.
Levin, D.R. & Adelman, M.B. (1993). Beyond language- intercultural

communication for English as a second language. Prentice Hall, Inc.
O’ Neil, D. (2010). http://anthro.palomar.edu/culture/culture_2.htm
Richards, J.C. & Schmitdt, R. W. (1983). Language and communication. In

London and New York: Longman.
Richards, J.C., Platt, J. and Flatt. H. (1992). Longman dictionary of

language teaching and applied linguistics (2nd edition). UK: Longman.
Samovar, L.A. (2007). Communicating between cultures. 6th ed. Belmont:

Thomson Wardsworth.
Saville- Troike, M. (1982). The ethnography of communication: An
introduction. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics.

London and New York: Longman.
Williams, F. (1989). The new communication. Wardsworth Publishing

Company Inc.
Wood, J.T. (2009). Everyday encounters: An introduction to interpersonal

communication. Toronto. Ont: ITP Nelson.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
In Vietnamese:
Nguyễn Quang. (2002). Giao tiếp và giao tiếp giao văn hóa. NXB Đại học
Quốc Gia.
Nguyễn Quang. (2004). Giao tiếp nội văn hóa và giao văn hóa. NXB Đại
học Quốc Gia.
Nguyễn Quang. (1998). Intercultural communication. HULIS- VNU.
.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1- Questionnaire for American
Hello ^^,
My name is Nguyen Thi Thuy Linh from Hanoi University of Language

and Internation Studies (HULIS), Vietnam National University. I am
working on my B.A Thesis Paper in Cross-cultural communication.
As the one and only research tool, this questionnaire can be said to be the
springboard for my research to move on. Therefore, I am really grateful if
you can spare some time to help me answer the questions in it.
This survey questionnaire is designed for my research into “A Cross-

Cultural Study on Expressing Satisfaction in American and Vietnamese”.
Your assistance in completing the following items is greatly appreciated.

You can be confident that this questionnaire is for research purpose only
and you will not be identified in any discussion of the data.
Thank you very much for your participation.
• Your age:
Below 20
21-39
40-59
60 and above
• Your gender:
Male
Female
• Your marital status:

Married
Single
• Your occupation: ...........................................................

• Area where you spend most of your time:
Urban
Rural
• Acquisition of language(s) other than your mother tongue?

Excellent Good Fair Poor
I. Do you think it is advisable to express your satisfaction to

someone you know in the following situations?
Please tick (9) in one of the following 5 columns:
1. means highly advisable

2. means advisable
3. means yes and no
4. means unadvisable
5. means strongly unadvisable
Situations 1 2 3 4 5
At home:
Someone says you are lucky to

have such a happy family
Someone says your child is an
energetic, curious and playful kid
Someone says your child is a
gentle, obedient and well-behaved
kid
Someone says your child has got
good marks at school
Someone says your husband is
such a high income earner
very caring and sharing
Someone says your husband
always listens to you with an open
mind
good-looking and attractive
At work:
Someone compliments on your

good work
Someone helps by taking over your
work when you are unavailable
Someone shows your mistakes in
your work and suggests the
solutions
Someone helps you out when you
are being reprimanded by the boss
You are given a promotion
You are always charged to take the
lead in every project
In public:
Someone enthusiastically helps

you with your heavy shopping bags
Someone gives positive comments
on your attractive appearance
Someone asks for direction in a
polite manner
Someone helps to collect the things
you have dropped on street
II. Situations
Situation 1: (at home)
How would you verbally express your satisfaction to the following

person when someone (another person) says you are lucky to have
such a happy family?
+ S/he is your best friend:
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
+ S/he is your nodding acquaintance:
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
+ S/he is your brother/sister:
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
+ S/he is your colleague:
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
+ S/he is your boss:
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
+ S/he is your subordinate:
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
Situation 2: (at work)

person when someone (another person) shows your mistakes in your
work and suggests the solutions
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
Situation 3: (in public)

person when someone (another person) enthusiastically helps you
with your heavy shopping bags
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
THANK YOU KINDLY FOR YOU COOPERATION

Appendix 2- Questionnaire for Vietnamese
Bản câu hỏi khảo sát
Bản câu hỏi khảo sát này được lập nên với mục đích phục vụ cho đề tài
khóa luận tốt nghiệp của tôi, “Bày tỏ sự hài lòng trong tiếng Anh và tiếng
Việt”.
Tôi rất mong nhận được sự giúp đỡ của quý vị bằng việc trả lời những câu
hỏi dưới đây một cách xác thực. Tôi xin đảm bảo nội dung của bản câu hỏi
này được bảo mật tuyệt đối và chỉ được sử dụng cho mục đích nghiên cứu.
Mọi thông tin về người tham gia sẽ không được tiết lộ dưới bất kỳ hình
thức nào.
Xin chân thành cảm ơn!
Hãy đánh dấu (9) và điền vào chỗ thích hợp
• Tuổi tác:
Dưới 20
21-39
40-59
Trên 60
• Giới tính:
Nam
Nữ
• Tình trạng hôn nhân:
Chưa có gia đình
Đã có gia đình
• Nghề nghiệp:
………………………………………………………………
• Nơi bạn sống lâu nhất:
Thành thị
Nông thôn
• Mức độ thông thạo của ngoại ngữ thứ hai của bạn (ngoài tiếng mẹ
đẻ):
Giỏi Khá Trung bình Yếu
I. Qúy vị có thể hiện sự hài lòng đối với người mà quý vị quen
biết trong các tình huống sau đây không?
Xin quý vị đánh dấu (9) vào một trong năm cột sau:
1. Cột 1 là Có
2. Cột 2 là Có thể có
3. Cột 3 là Có thể có hoặc là không
4. Cột 4 là Có thể không
5. Cột 5 là Không
Các tình huống 1 2 3 4 5
Trong gia đình:
Ai đó khen bạn thật là may
mắn khi có một gia đình hạnh
phúc
Ai đó nói con bạn là một đứa
trẻ năng động, hiếu kì và ham
chơi
Ai đó nói con bạn là một đứa
trẻ hiền lành, ngoan ngoãn,
biết nghe lời
Ai đó khen con bạn đạt điểm
cao ở trường
Ai đó nói chồng bạn kiếm
được nhiều tiền
Ai đó nói chồng bạn là một
người biết quan tâm và chia
sẻ
Ai đó nói chồng bạn luôn
luôn lắng nghe bạn
Ai đó nói chồng bạn đẹp trai
và cuốn hút
Trong công việc:
Ai đó khen bạn làm việc tốt
Ai đó làm hộ công việc của
bạn khi bạn không thể
Ai đó chỉ ra lỗi sai và đề ra
vài giải pháp trong công việc
cho bạn
Ai đó nói khó cho bạn khi
bạn bị sếp quỏ trách
Bạn được thăng chức
Bạn luôn luôn được/ bị giao
công việc trưởng nhóm trong
các đề án
Ở nơi công cộng:
Ai đó nhiệt tình giúp bạn
mang mấy túi đồ mua sắm
khá nặng
Ai đó khen bạn đẹp
Ai đó hỏi đường với một
cung cách lịch sự
Ai đó giúp bạn nhặt lại những
thứ đồ bạn để rơi trên phố
II. Tình huống
Tình huống thứ nhất: (trong gia đình)
Qúy vị nói như thế nào để bày tỏ sự hài lòng của mình đối với những người
sau đây khi họ nói rằng bạn thật may mắn khi có một gia đình hạnh phúc?
1. Người ấy là bạn thân:
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
2. Người ấy là bạn xã giao:
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
3. Người ấy là anh/ chị/em:
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
4. Người đó là đồng nghiệp:
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
5. Người đó là sếp:
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
6. Người đó là cấp dưới:
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
Tình huống thứ hai: (trong công việc)
sau đây khi họ chỉ ra lỗi sai và đề ra vài giải pháp trong công việc cho bạn?
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
Tình huống thứ ba: (ở nơi công cộng)
sau đây khi họ nhiệt tình giúp bạn mang mấy túi đồ mua sắm khá nặng?

………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
Xin chân thành cảm ơn sự hợp tác của quý vị!

A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY ON EXPRESSING SATISFACTION IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE. Nguyễn Thị Thùy Linh. QH.1.E

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

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

A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY ON EXPRESSING SATISFACTION IN AMERICAN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE. Nguyễn Thị Thùy Linh. QH.1.E

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ THÙY LINH

A CROSS- CULTURAL STUDY ON EXPRESSING

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

Hanoi, May 2010

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

NGUYỄN THỊ THÙY LINH

A CROSS- CULTURAL STUDY ON EXPRESSING

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

SUPERVISOR: Prof. NGUYỄN QUANG, Ph.D.

Hanoi, May 2010

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited

First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to

I would also like to give my sincere gratitude to all of the lecturers at

I also take this opportunity to express my immense thankfulness to my

I cannot forget to acknowledge the important contributions of both

Finally, I would like to express my enormous debt to my parents for their

Based on the theoretical background of cross-cultural communication, this

To succeed in doing such research, the author of the study takes

Table 2: Use of strategies as seen from American informants’ parameters

Table 3: Use of strategies as seen from Vietnamese informants’ parameters

Table 4: Comparisons of favored strategies between American and

Figure 1: Ferrando’s diagram of culture

Figure 2: Nguyen Quang’s diagram of components of communication

Figure 3: Bach and Harnish’s classification of speech acts (1979)

Figure 4: Possible strategies for doing FTAs (Brown and Levinson)

Figure 5: Nguyen Quang’s diagram of possible strategies for doing FTAs

Figure 6: Solidarity- social distance dimension (Holmes)

FTA Face threatening act

II. Aims of the study

III. Method of the study

IV. Scope of the study

1.1. Culture and communication

Verbal communication Nonverbal communication

Intralanguage Paralanguage Extralanguage

- Vocabulary - Vocal characteristics:

Body language Objective language Environmental

-Eye contact -Clothing -Setting

1.1.3. Culture- communication correlation

1.1.5. Communicative competence

Celce- Murica & Donrnyei (1995:79) attempted to complement to the

1.2. Speech acts.

1.2.1. The notion of speech acts.

1. Locutionary act: the utterance of a sentence with determinate sense

1.2.2. Classification of Speech Acts

Declarations: change states of affairs, comprising pronouncement at

Supporting Searle’s classification, Yule (1996:55) later summarizes the

Constative Directives Commissives Acknowledgement Effectives Verdictives

Figure 3: Bach and Harnish’s classification of speech acts (1979)

1.2.3. Expressing satisfaction as a speech act

1. Without redressive action, baldly

1. S goes on record: baldly performs the act without apology or

4. Do not do the FTA Do the FTA

2. With redressive action

Without redressive action

Figure 5: Nguyen Quang’s diagram of possible strategies for doing FTAs

1.3.2. Positive politeness

1.3.3. Negative politeness

So far, 17 positive politeness strategies and 11 negative politeness

2.1. Comments on the survey questionnaire and the informants

Situation 1: (at home)How would you verbally express your satisfaction to

Situation 2: (at work)How would you verbally express your satisfaction to

Someone says you are lucky to

Someone compliments on your

Someone enthusiastically helps

How would you verbally express your satisfaction to the following

How would you verbally express your satisfaction to the following