data.ulis.vnu.edu.vndata.ulis.vnu.edu.vn/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1851/1/(3... · Web viewIn a word, cultures seem to differ in the way they realize their languages via speech acts.

PART A. INTRODUCTION

I. RATIONALE:

In the light of Communicative Language Teaching, language is taught for but

communication. In other words, to teach language is to provide learners with communicative

competence, by which Richards et al. (1992:65) means “the ability not only to apply

grammatically correct sentences but also know when and where to use the sentences and to

whom”. Sharing the same point of view, Saville-Troike (1982) believes that linguistic

knowledge, interactional skills, and cultural knowledge are all essential components of

communication that must ultimately be accounted for in order to communicate appropriately.

However, the teaching and learning of English in Vietnam are more or less under the

influence of the traditional ways of teaching and learning language, which mainly focused on

the development of linguistic competence – lexis, grammatical rules, vocabulary, and

pronunciation. Meanwhile, little attention has been paid to oral skills and even less to cultural

aspects. This leads to a fact that Vietnamese learners of English, though they have fairly good

knowledge of linguistic competence, usually find themselves unable to communicate in a

natural way or face up with communication breakdown in the target language, especially with

native speakers of English. Moreover, it is the lack of the target language culture and cultural

differences that lead Vietnamese learners of English experience culture shock in every aspect

of cross-cultural communication. Therefore, learners must have mutual understandings and

awareness of cultural differences to be successful cross-cultural communicators.

Of the universal human speech acts, criticism is a subtle one, a high face-threatening

act in communication, especially in intercultural communication. In addition, criticisms are

socially complex even for for native speakers. Furthermore, many studies regarding the speech

act of criticizing have been carried out in different languages and in interlanguage of English

learners of different language backgrounds such as House and Kasper (1981), Tracy, Van

Dusen, and Robison (1987), Tracy and Eisenberg (1990), Wajnryb (1993, 1995) and Toplak

1

and Katz (2000) and others, but not in Vietnamese. The problems posed for Vietnamese

learners of English concerning criticism have not yet been adequately investigated. Therefore,

a study on the similarities and differences in giving criticism in English and Vietnamese

cultures through verbal cues is believed to be of great importance and significance. The

findings from the research would partly help teachers and learners of English, especially

Vietnamese learners of English, avoid miscommunication, hence cultural shock and

communication breakdown.

II. AIMS OF THE STUDY:

The research is intended to thoroughly contrast verbal criticism in English and

Vietnamese from cultural perspective, thus partly helping to increase the awareness of the

similarities and differences between English and Vietnamese cultures in giving criticisms. To

achieve this overall purpose, the study aims at:

Describing and classifying the criticizing strategies in English and Vietnamese.

Comparing and contrasting different strategies employed by Vietnamese and

English people when they give criticism in their own language and culture.

Studying how culture exerts its influence on English and Vietnamese in giving

criticism.

III. SCOPE OF THE STUDY:

For the limited time and scope, paralinguistic (speech, tone, and pitch) and

extralinguistic (facial expression, eye contact, postures, orientation, proximity, movement,

clothing artifacts etc.) factors, important though they obviously are and the author is well

aware of, play a vital part of effective interpersonal communication in accompanying and

amending the spoken word(s), the study is only confined to the verbal aspect of the speech act

of giving criticism.

2

Secondly, to raise learner’s awareness of the wide application of criticizing strategies,

the data used for illustration and exemplification are taken mainly from short stories and

novels in English and Vietnamese. The collection of the data in this ways brings us some

convenience for the contrastive study: it yields a wide range of strategies, used by people from

different cultures in different situations, which a questionnaire or an interview, highly or to

some extent controlled, would not have offered.

Finally, by English, the author means the English language as a mother tongue; no

distinction will be made between American English, British English, Australian English and

so on.

IV. METHODOLOGY:

Since the main purpose of the study is to compare and contrast verbal expressions in

giving criticism in English and Vietnamese, the result of which will be exploited for language

learning and teaching; therefore, describing, comparing and contrastive analysis prove to be

the best candidates of all. Thus, the thesis will be oriented in the following steps:

- identify strategies of criticism in both English and Vietnamese stories in the source

of books.

- classify them into sub-strategies.

- describe them in each language to find out the typical features of each sub-

strategies.

- analyse, compare, and contrast criticizing strategies based on the cultural features

in two languages to point out the basic similarities and differences in this aspect.

- reach the comments and conclusions on the subject under research.

- make some necessary pedagogical suggestions.

In order to facilitate the process of doing the comparison and best exploit our

knowledge of English language, most the the description in this work is based towards English

and Engilsh is considered as the basic language and Vietnamese as the comparative language.

Source of samples of data: The corpus with 1,100 examples will be collected from

3

selected English, American, Newzealand and Australian short stories and novels and from

Vietnamese short stories in early years of 19th century and modern ones before and after 1945.

The information about the source of the data is given in parentheses.

V. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

This study certainly has some limitations.

The research cannot include the paralinguistic and non-linguistic aspects due to the

limit of time, which will certainly limit the authenticity of the data and then the pragmatic

effect of the expected results. Secondly, the data in this study are taken from a number of short

stories and novels in English and Vietnamese, thus this reveals the disadvantage of missing

suprasegmental features such as stress and intonation. In addition, this research is carried out

by a non-native speaker of English, so there must be a lack of native linguistic sensitivity in

analyzing.

In view of these limitations, the research can only be regarded as a preliminary study

and any conclusions are tentative.

VI. RESEARCH DESIGN:

As for the design of the study, it is composed of three main parts:

Part A - Introduction - introduces the rationale, scope, aims and methodology of the study as

well as the way to collect the data.

Part B - Development - consists of three chapters. They are:

- Chapter I encompasses the relationship between language and culture, the notions

of speech acts, theories of politeness, as well as the aspects of C.A. in culture,

which are relevant to the purpose of the study.

- Chapter II investigates the similarities and differences in the criticism strategies in

English and Vietnamese. In this chapter, what is meant by criticizing in this study

4

is taken into account. Then the criticism strategies as well as the criticism modifiers

in the two languages will be described, compared, and contrasted.

- Chapter III deals with, on the basis of the previous chapter, the implications to the

teaching of the criticism strategies in English to the Vietnamese learners of English

from a socio-cultural perspective.

Part C – Conclusion – draws conclusions of the study and proposes some suggestions for

further research.

5

PART B. DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER I. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This chapter reviews the theories and literature relevant to the topic under investigation

in the present study. The first two sections mention to contrastive analysis (I.1) and the

relationship of language and culture (I.2). The final two sections offer two linguistic notions:

speech acts (I.3) and politeness (I.4).

I.1. CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS (C.A.)

Contrastive Analysis dates back to the 1950s when it was first developed and practiced

as an application of structural linguistics to language teaching. As regards its definition James,

C. (1980: 3) declares:

“Contrastive Analysis is a linguistic enterprise aimed at producing inverted (i.e.

contrastive, not comparative) two-valued typologies (a C.A. is always concerned with

a pair of languages), and founded on the assumption that languages can be

compared.”

(Carl Jame, 1980: 3)

James also claims that there are three branches of two-valued (two languages are

involved) interlingual linguistics: translation theory – which is concerned with the process of

text conversion; error analysis; and contrastive analysis – these last two having as the object of

enquiry the means whereby a monolingual learns to be bilingual. Among these branches of

linguistics, C.A seems to be the most effective way in comparing between the first language

and the second language as well as a pairs of languages foreign language learners are learning.

Hence, in the preface of his book Contrastive Analysis, Carl James (1980) states,

“In the heyday of structural linguistics and the pattern practice language teaching

methodology which derived insights and justification from such an approach to

6

linguistic description, nothing seemed of greater potential value to language teachers

and learners than a comparative and contrastive description of the learner’s mother

tongue and the target language.”

(In the Introduction of Contrastive Analysis by Carl James, 1980)

Contrastive analysis is defined, according to James (1980), as a form of interlanguage

study and a central concern of applied linguistics. As a matter of fact, C.A. has had much to

offer not only to practical language teaching, but also to translation theory, the description of

particular languages, language typology and the study of language universals. In relation to

bilingualism, C.A. is concerned with how a monolingual becomes bilingual; in other words, it

is concerned with the effects exerted by the first language (L1) on the foreign language being

learnt (L2). Thus, C.A has been a preferable method used by Vietnamese linguists in recent

years as it enables them to contrast Vietnamese with other languages not only of the same

typologies, but also of different ones. It also helps bring out many interesting differences and

similarities between languages, which make a great contribution to lightening the language

teaching and learning burden.

It has been suggested that there are two kinds of C.A.: theoretical and applied ones.

According to Fisiak et al (cited by James, C., 1980:142), theoretical C.As. “do not investigate

how a given category present in language A is presented in language B. Instead they look for

the realization of a universal category X in both A and B .” Meanwhile, applied C.As. are

“preoccupied with the problem of how a universal category X, realized in language A as Y, is

rendered in language B.” That means applied C.As are unindirectional whereas theoretical

C.As. are static, because they do not need to reflect any directionality of learning, which is

illustrated in the following diagram:

X X

A B A(Y) B(?)

Theoretical C.As Applied C.As

Figure 1. Theoretical C.As and Applied C.As

7

As James (1980: 142-143) states, applied C.As. are interpretations of theoretical C.As.

rather than independent executions, since an applied C.A. executed independently is liable to

lose its objectivity; that is, its predictions will tend to be based on teachers’ experience of

learners’ difficulties rather than derived from linguistic analysis.

Mentioning to learning theory, particularly the theory of “transfer”- a term used by

psychologists in their account of the way in which present learning is affected by past

learning, Lado (1957: 2) states,

“... individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings and the distribution of forms

and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture

– both productively when attempting to speak the language and to act in the culture,

and receptively when attempting to grasp and to understand the language and culture

as practiced by natives.”

In fact, there are two types of transfer, namely “positive transfer” (or “facilitation”)

and “negative transfer” (or “interference”), which may occur during the process of learning

language by learners who have already attained considerable degrees of competence in their

first language:

- “Positive transfer” (or “facilitation”): the transfer makes learning easier and may

occur when both the first language and second language have similar features.

- “Negative transfer” (or “interference”): the constraint of L1 or the borrowing of a

first language pattern or rule leads to an error or appropriate form in the foreign

language.

Therefore, to gain the effective teaching and learning of the L2, it is necessary for

teachers to recognize the potential transfer problem areas and integrate strategies that would

help the learner to overcome difficulties and to avoid errors attributed to these transfer

problem areas.

Considering that learning difficulty and differences between L1 and L2 are directly and

proportionally related, Lado, R. (1957: 1-2) suggests, “the student who comes in contact with a

8

foreign language will find some features of it quite easy and others extremely difficult. Those

elements that are similar to his native language will be simple for him and those elements that

are different will be difficult.”

However, Whitman and Jackson (cited by James, C., 1980: 188) argues that “relative

similarity, rather than difference, is directly related to levels of difficulty.” What is more, Lee

(cited by James, C., 1980) concludes that “different” or “exotic” languages may not be

difficult to learn, for L1 and L2 are so far apart that there is a very little or no L1 interference.

Supporting that point of view, Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis claimed that the principal

barrier to second language acquisition is the interference of the first language systems with the

second language system and that a scientific, structural analysis of the two languages in

question will yield a taxonomy of linguistic contrasts between them which in turn would

enable linguists to predict the difficulties a learner would encounter.

Apart from that, human learning theories highlighted interfering elements of learning,

concluding that where no interference could be predicted, no difficulty would be experienced

since one could transfer positively all other items in a language. Lado, R. (1957: vii) in the

preface to his book “Linguistics Across Culture”, says: “The Plan of the book rests on the

assumption that we can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulties in

learning, and those that will not cause difficulty by comparing systematically the language

and the culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the students.” Then in

Chapter One of the book, he continues: “... in the comparison between native and foreign

languages lies in the key to ease or difficulty in foreign language learning.”

Hence, it is widely agreed that comparison of cultures is considered as an integral part

of contrastive linguistics and of the language learning and teaching.

As Lado (1957, cited in Valdes, 1986) notes, when comparing two cultures we must be

very careful in the generalisations we make and be prepared to revise or change these

generalisations as our understanding of another culture develops. However, generalisations are

flexible and change over time with our experiences (Clarke and Clarke 1990, 34). Therefore,

we should ignore other aspects of culture such as gender, class, or ethnicity, and Kramsch

(1993, 49) urges to consider this range of diversity within culture when teaching cultures.

9

However, our view of culture has broadened to include a more interpretive approach towards

culture (Kramsch 1993, 24). Instead of just being concerned with the facts of one culture the

emphasis has moved towards interpreting culture based on cross-cultural understanding,

involving comparisons and contrasts with a learners' native culture and the culture of the

language they are studying (see Valdes 1986). Dunnet et. al. suggest six aspects of culture that

learners and teachers should be familiar with:

(1) Languages cannot be translated word-for-word … (2) The tone of a speaker's voice (the

intonation pattern) carries meaning… (3) Each language-culture employs gestures and body

movements which convey meaning… (4)…languages use different grammatical elements for

describing all parts of the physical world. (5) All cultures have taboo topics… (6) In personal

relationships, the terms for addressing people vary considerably among languages. (1986, 148-

149)

Therefore, teachers and learners should be aware of these features and be prepared to

analyse both their own culture and the target culture according to such criteria.

I.2. LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

I.2.1. The relationship of language and culture:

Language, according to “Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary” (1992: 506), is

defined as “systems of sounds, words, patterns, etc. used by humans to communicate thoughts

and feeling”. Crystal (1992: 212) also shares this definition of language when the researcher

considers language as “the systematic, conventional use of sounds, signs, or written symbols in

a human society for communication and self-expression”. Thus, language is one of the highest

and the most amazing product of human being that helps distinguish them from other creatures

and that serves the main purpose of communication.

Language, according to Kramsch (1998:3), is “the principle means whereby we

conduct our social lives”. That means language is considered as the medium through which a

culture is reflected. That point of view is also shared by Saville-Troike (1982; 35), which says,

“there is a correlation between the norm and content of a language and the beliefs, values and

10

needs present in the culture of its speaker”. In addition, sharing with Brown’s and Saville-

Troike’s idea about the relationship between language and culture, Kramsch in his book

Language and Culture (1998) emphasizes this correlation by presenting three functions of

language related to culture:

- Language expresses cultural reality

- Language embodies cultural reality.

- Language symbolizes cultural reality.

Therefore, it is widely believed that the correlation between language and culture is

obviously undeniable.

What can be derived from the above discussions is the relationship between language

and culture. In order to make this interrelation more explicit, it is necessary to clarify what

we mean by culture.

Culture is so popular a notion in our daily life that many researchers have defined it in

many ways.

According to Veresiaghin, Kostomarov (1990), “culture” is considered as a social

phenomenon, which consists of both material and spiritual values. In other words, there are

two catergories of culture “tangible culture” (architectual buildings, costumes and the art of

food…) and “invisible culture” (folk songs, festivals …). Whereas, others hold the idea that

“culture” is limited to products of culture which include visible expressions and invisible

patterns –the hidden ones. Therefore, culture in this point of view also refers to the often

hidden patterns of human interactions, expressions and viewpoints that people in one culture

share. Because of its submergence, it is difficult for most people to realize cultures deeply and

encounter in communication.

When defining the notion of culture, Goodenough (1981; in Wardhaugh, 1991: 217)

affirms, “Culture is a sort of knowledge which everyone must possess to function within a

society.” What is more, “culture is everything that people have, think and do as a member of

a society” (Gary Ferrando, 1996; in Quang, N., 2005: 38). It can be interpreted from these

points of view that culture is the knowledge of patterns (models/ schemes/ behaviors) learned

11

and shared by a set of people in a community and that the process related to the products of

culture and the dynamic factors of the creations of cultural products are paid more attention.

Culture is also defined as ‘human’s behaviors’ by another group of researchers, who

emphasize on the mechanisms of human’s behaviors. One of the typical definitions of

‘culture’ related to human’s behaviors is Clinfford Geertz’s (1973: 383), in which culture is:

a. The total way of life of a person.

b. The social legacy that individual acquires from his group.

c. The way of thinking, feeling and believing.

d. An abstraction from behavior.

e. A theory on the part of the anthropologist about the way in which a group of people

in fact behave.

f. A store house of pooled learning.

g. A set of standardised orientation, to recurrent problems.

h. Learned behavior.

i. A mechanism for the normative of behavior.

j. A set techniques for adjusting both of the external environment, to other men.

k. A precipitate of history.

l. A behavior map, sieve, matrix.

In addition, sharing the idea about the influence of culture on people’s behaviors,

Seelye (in Fantini, A.E., 1997: 23) has his own definition:

“Culture is the systematic, rather arbitrary, more or less coherent, group-invented,

and group-shared creed from the past that defines the shape of “reality” and assigns

the sense and worth of things; it is modified by each generation and in response to

adaptive pressures; it provides the code that tells people how to behave predictably

and acceptably, the cipher that allows them to derive meaning from language and

other symbols, the map that supplies the behavial options for satisfying human needs”.

12

Parson, T. (1949: 8) also argues, “Culture … consists in those patterns relative to

behavior and the products of human action…” Thus, “culture” influences behaviors and it is

structured system of patterned behavior. (Lado, R., 1957:110)

Laying the emphasis on the invisible and non-natural aspect of “culture”, a number of

researchers consider “culture” as the products of “consciousness” and “behavior”. One

representative of this group, Levin and Adelman (1993: XVIII) states,

“Culture is a shared background resulting from a common language and

communication style, customs, beliefs, attitudes and values”. Richards et al (in Clyne,

1996: 94) shares the same idea with Levine and Adelman’s and Banks et al’s (1989

:72) when he defines “Culture is a total set of belief, attitudes, customs, behaviors, and

social habits.”

Culture, according to Redder and Rehbein (1980; in Clyne, 1996), is “an ensemble of

social experiences, thought structures, expectations, and practices of action, which has the

quality of a “mental apparatus”. Moreover, “culture is the collective programming of the

mind which distinguished the members of one group or category of people from another”

(Hofstede, 1984: 22).

In short, learning about cultures is absolutely enriching. The more one knows others,

the more she sees her own culture more clearly. Therefore, Quang, N. (2005:5) states, “by

learning about contrast, we can better understand how cultures influence individuals and their

communication with others”.

I.2.2. The culture of Vietnam

The culture of Vietnam, according to Wikipedia encyclopedia, is considered as one of

the oldest in the Southest Asia region. Although Vietnam lies geographically in Southeast

Asia, long periods of Chinese domination and influence has resulted in the emergence of many

East Asian characteristics in Vietnamese culture. While Chinese culture has the largest foreign

13

influence on traditional Vietnamese culture, there is also a much smaller influence from the

Cham and later Western cultures (most notably that of France, Russia and the United States).

Vietnam’s population (in 2006) was 84.402.966, with a population density of 253

persons per km². Most people live in or near the densely populated Red River or Mekong

deltas, which are Vietnam’s two major cultivated areas. The Red River Delta, in the North, is

the cradle of the Vietnamese civilization and rice culture. The Mekong Delta, a very fertile

land in the South with a favorable climate, is the largest rice growing area in Vietnam. It can

be said that Vietnamese culture has evolved on the basis of the rice culture. Thus, the lifestyle

of the Vietnamese population is closely related to the village and native land. It helps to shape

the community value and especially patriotism among the Vietnamese. It is the fact that the

Vietnamese people are well known for fiercely protectors of their independence sovereignty

for 2000 years. Most of the Vietnamese are always willing to devote all through their lives of

struggle for national liberation and independence when needed.

Another noticeable feature is the familial relation of Vietnamese culture value. If it can

be said that Western cultures value individualism, then it can also be said that Eastern cultures

value the roles of family (from Wikipedia encyclopedia). Indeed, you cannot understand the

Vietnamese until you first understand the importance of the family. As in many other Asian

countries, family is the foundation of Vietnamese society. Many families have 3 generations

living under one roof. Today, however, more and more couples are choosing to move into

their own homes. In Vietnamese society, decision-making is a family affair. Children cannot

make decisions for themselves if their parents are still alive.

About 74% of Vietnamese currently live in rural areas, and although many are being

influenced by the process of Westernization, traditional rural customs and traditions still play a

vital role in shaping the culture of Vietnam. In rural Vietnam, kinship plays an important role.

As a result, there is a complex hierarchy of relationships. This complex system of relationships

is conveyed particularly through the Vietnamese language, which has an extensive array of

honorifics to signify the status of the speaker in regards to the person they are speaking to.

This helps to form the personalism in Vietnamese culture value. This is also in agreement with

14

Phan Ngoc (cited by Nguyễn Văn Độ, 2004:146), who says, “Western culture value is

individualism, whereas Vietnamese culture value the personalism.”

Furthermore, a Vietnamese proverb says, “While drinking water, we must be grateful

for its source”. This is why, in almost every rural village or urban district, a temple has been

built to worship the tutelary spirit who founded the locality. Today people still worship the

tutelary spirit along with the national heroes who sacrified their lives for the country.

In addition, religion has exerted a deep influence on Vietnamese culture and the

Vietnamese concept of life. Vietnamese religious beliefs have been influenced by combined

values of the three traditional religions forming the Tam Giáo (“triple religion”). Buddhism,

introduced in Vietnam in the 2nd century, is considered as the official ideology. The

ideological influence of Buddhism remained very strong in social and cultural life.

Confucianism, originated from China and propagated to Vietnam in the early Chinese

domination period, is a moral doctrine advising people that they have a part of responsibility

in their fate, that they must love one another, must not think of abstract things of the next

world, and pay much attention to education. Due to the influence of Confucianism, the

Vietnamese became more hardworking, friendly and scholars with knowledge. The central

idea of Taoism, founded by Lao Tseu, is to live purely and simply. It replies on harmony

between Man, Nature and a Universal Order.

Besides the “triple religion”, Vietnamese life was also profoundly influenced by the

practice of ancestor worship as well as native animism. Most Vietnamese people, regardless of

religious denomination, practice ancestor worship and have an ancestor altar at their home or

business, a testament to the emphasis Vietnamese culture places on filial duty.

In sum, Vietnam is at the crossroads between South East Asian and the offshore

islands. Its culture bears common features of the South East Asian cultural region, while also

having absorbed the quintessence of cultures from other parts of the world. However, the

Vietnamese highest culture values are patriotism, community value, familial value and

personalism. It is culture values that help to shape patriotism, peace loving, closeness,

friendliness, sincerity, straightforwardness and interdependence in each of Vietnamese people.

15

I.2.3. The culture of England

British customs and traditions are famous all over the world. When people think of

Britain they often think of people drinking tea, eating fish and chips and wearing bowler hats,

but there is more to Britain than just those things. We have English and British traditions of

sport, music, food and many royal occasions. There are also songs, sayings and superstitions.

Britain, the largest island of the British Isles, includes the countries of England, Wales

and Scotland. Being an island has affected the British people’s characteristics. British people

still have an island mentally: independent, separate and on the edge of things. British families

are often criticized for they way they do things separately, though many people believe that it

is good for children to learn to be independent. From an early age, children are encouraged to

decide what they want to do, eat or wear, and their parents try to respect their opinions. Upon

reaching their appropriate age, children are encouraged to “live the nest” and begin an

independent life. Compared to that familial culture value of Vietnam, the members of a family

in Britain usually do not share the rame roof. In Britain, it is common for members of the

extended family (grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.) to live far away. Some grandparents see

very little of their grandchildren. Families try to stay in contact with each other by writing and

telephoning, by visiting occasionally, and sometimes by holding big family reunions. Since

they see less of each other, their concern for each other is not so strong. It is the fact that

although family loyalty is still important, and many people feel they have a duty to care for

members of their family when they need it, it is not the part of British culture for old people to

live with younger members of their family. Most elderly people live in their own homes and,

when they cannot care for themselves, move into an old people’s home or a nursing home.

When the community value is concerned, it is rare to find people who have lived all

their lives in one community. As a result, the British also have no the same community value

as the Vietnamese do.

Furthermore, the British are known as perfectly polite and proper, always saying

“please”, “thank you” and “excuse me”. British people are also famous for their reserve and

their “stiff upper lip” (not giving their opinion or showing their feeling in public), which

16

makes them seem formal and distant. The view of Britain as a country where everyone

behaves in a strange but nice way is not realistic. For many American people the British are

snobbish and do not seem very friendly. In addition, the British often cause confusion and

upset by not saying what they mean; for example, they usually say, “That’s no problem” when

they know that it will be a big problem.

Modern Britain is a multi-faith community, in which many religions are practiced, but

the main religion is Christianity. The Church of England functions as the established church in

England. Both the Church of England and the Catholic Church in England and Wales trace

their formal history from the 597 Augustinian mission to the English. Other churches which

have started in England include the Methodist church, the Quakers and the Salvation Army.

Many British people believe that luck plays an important part in their lives, they thus

usually wish somebody luck (good luck) in many situations. British people learn superstitions

while they are children, and though few adults will admit to being superstitious, many act on

superstitions out of habit. The British are also interested in fate and in knowing what will

happen to them in the future. Most people know which sign of the zodiac they were born

under, and read their horoscope or “stars” in magazines, though only a few take what is said

seriously. British people may thank their lucky stars for a piece of good fortune. When things

go wrong thay may say “Just my luck!”, blaming their own bad luck, or look back on an

unlucky act that has, in some unexplained way, caused their current problem.

In short, Britain according to many Western scholars contains a rich mixture of many

different cultures (England, Wales, Ireland and Scotland). However, it is word-wide agreed

that British people are independent, separate, and reserve. In addition, individualism is also the

main ego in British culture.

I.3. THE THEORY OF SPEECH ACTS

According to Levinson (1983), speech act theory is one of the central issues in the

study language use. In this section, the works by Austin, Searle, and Yule - the pioneers in the

field, are briefly reviewed in order to provide theoretical frameworks.

17

I.3.1. Notion and classification of speech acts:

The notion of speech acts dates back the British philosopher of language John Austin

(1962). In his very influential work, ‘How to do things with words’, Austin defines speech acts

as the actions performed in saying something or actions performed using language. In fact,

when speaking, we perform certain linguistic actions such as giving reports, making

statements, asking questions, giving warnings, making promises and so on. In other words,

speech acts are all the acts we perform through speaking – all the things we do when we

speak. Austin (1962) distinguished between the three kinds of acts, namely locutionary,

illocutionary, and perlocutionary then. Of these, a locutionary act is the act of saying

something in the full sense of “say”. An illocutionary act is the one of using the sentence to

perform a particular function; and a perlocutionary act is the one of producing some kinds of

effects that are produced by means of saying something. Among above three kinds of acts, the

illocutionary act which Austin later termed “speech act” is the core interest of Austin as well

as of other pragmatists (Levinson, 1983).

Meanwhile, Searle (1974) argue that each type of illocutionary acts requires certain

expected or appropriate conditions called felicity conditions. These conditions relate to the

beliefs and attitudes of the Speaker and the Hearer and to their mutual understanding of the

use of the linguistic devices for information. What is more, Searle (1965), cited by Minh,

(2005, p. 11) emphasized that Austin’s felicity conditions are not only dimensions in which

utterances can go wrong but they are also constitutive of the various illocutionary forces, and

therefore, can differentiate illocutionary acts from one anther . Searle classified those felicity

conditions into four kinds, which are:

(1) Preparatory conditions: The person performing the speech act has to have quality to

do so.

(2) Sincerity conditions: The speech act must be performed in a sincere manner.

(3) Propositional context conditions: The utterance must have exact content.

18

(4) Essential conditions: The speech act has to be executed in the correct manner.

(Searle, 1979, p.44)

Both Austin and Searle has paved the way to research into linguistic functions instead

of linguistic forms as is often observed in earlier linguistic studies. They also have tried to

classify speech acts and put them under categories.

Austin (1962) categorizes five classes of speech acts as:

(1) Verdictives : “the giving of a verdict”, e.g. assess, appraise …

(2) Exercitives : “exercising of powers, rights, or influence”, e.g. command, direct ...

(3) Commissives : “committing the speaker”, e.g. promise, propose …

(4) Behabitives : “reaction to other people’s behavior and fortunes”, e.g. apology,

thank …

(5) Expositives : “expounding of views, the conducting of arguments and the

classifying of usages and of references”, e.g. accept, agree ...

However, this classification is criticized for basing mainly on the performative verb

through which a speech act is expressed and having no clear or consistent principle or set of

principles based on which Austin constructed his taxonomy. Thus, many speech acts

according to his classification, may belong to two different categories.

Searle (1979), finding fault with Austin’s, suggests his own classification of speech

acts. These speech acts are further described as follows:

(1) Representatives: representing states of affairs (e.g.: assertions, conclusions, or

descriptions ).

(2) Directives: getting the hearer to do something (e.g.: suggestions, commands or

requests ).

(3) Commissives: committing the speaker to doing something (e.g.: threats, refusals, or

promises.)

19

(4) Expressives: expressing feelings about states of affairs (e.g.: apologies,

compliments or congratulations).

(5) Declarations: bringing about changes of some state of affairs (e.g.: resignations,

declarations or baptism )

Wardhaugh (1992) summarizes and explains Austin’s (1962) and Searle’s (1975)

speech act theories and then concludes:

In contrast to Austin, who focused his attention on how speakers realize their

intentions in speaking, Searle focused on how listeners respond to utterances, that is,

how one person tries to figure out how another is using a particular utterance [ … ]

what we see in both Austin and Searle is a recognition that people use language to

achieve a variety of objectives .

Wardhaugh (1992: 287)

Another approach to distinguish types of speech acts can be made on the relationship

between structure and function (Yule, 1996: 54). He divided speech acts into direct speech act

and indirect speech act and defines,

“Whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function, we have

a direct speech acts. Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure

and a function, we have an indirect speech act.”

The utterance “Turn on the fan, please”, for example, the speaker (S) has directly

requested the hearer (H) to turn on the fan. The syntactic structure of this utterance indicates a

straightforward request in English. Nevertheless, the same request can be made in a more tacit,

indirect manner to achieve the same result; S may say something like “It’s hot in here”.

I.3.2. Speech acts across cultures:

Speech acts like greeting, complimenting, requesting, thanking or giving advice and so

on are present in almost all cultures. In principle, these speech acts can be fulfilled in any

20

language, but they are performed in different manners and by different means. Sharing the

same point of view, Hymes (1964) and Saville-Troike (1982) state that there is a close

connection between language, society and culture and that all speech acts and speech

behaviors are governed by social norms. That explains why Wierzbicka (1985: 146) observes,

“Cultural norms reflected in speech acts differ not only from one language to another,

but also from one regional and social variety to another.” What is more, “Every

culture has its own repertoire of characteristic speech acts and speech genres.”

(Wierzbicka, 1991: 149)

Hence, governed and conditioned by our culture and though the contact with other

members in our cultural environment, everyone sets own “cultural schemata” that helps

him/her interpret what is wrong and what is right. These standards are appropriate in our

community, but when coming into contact with a new culture, if we interpret other’s behavior

according to these standards, there may be arise some cross-cultural problems in our own

communication that potentially lead to cultural conflict.

Therefore, the study on speech acts across cultures is believed to be essential or vital

for not only a person who expects to survive in a new environment, but also for a learner of a

foreign language who expects to succeed in communication.

I.3.3. The speech act of criticizing:

In real-life communication, the speech act of criticizing – as in the case of complaining

- has proven to be composed of different speech acts and of great risk of causing face

threatening act (FTA). It is, therefore, suggested that studies on criticizing as a speech act

across cultures should be carried out with the hope of contributing to the successful cross-

cultural communication.

The speech act of criticizing has been studied by different researchers such as House

and Kasper (1981), Tracy, van Dusen, and Robison (1987), Tracy and Eisenberg (1990),

Wajnryb (1993, 1995) and Toplak and Katz (2000) and others.

21

Tracy, et al (1987) investigated the characteristics of criticisms by people from

different cultural backgrounds and distinguished “good” from “bad” criticisms. According to

him, a good criticism is one that displays a positive language and manner; suggests specific

changes and possible critic; states justified and explicited reasons for criticizing and does not

violate the relationship between interlocutions and is accurate. Supporting that point of view,

Wajnrub (1993) holds “an effective criticism must be kept simple specific, well-grounded,

linked to strategies for improvement and delivered as an attempt to share experience. It also

needs to be softened by means of a number of strategies. These include ‘measuring words’ (to

avoid being too negative), ‘soft-pedaling’ (i.e. using internal and external modifications to

lessen the harshness of the criticism), ‘using affirmative language’ such as comforting

messages, ‘distancing and neutralizing’ (to depersonalize the criticism) and ‘using negotiating

language’ (to avoid imposing on the addressee.) (Wajnryb, 1993; cited by Minh, 2005: 15).

That point of view seems to be supported by Wajnryb (1995) who preferred a direct and

‘economical’ criticism rather than indirect, wordy, and ‘time-wasting’ one.

Along these perceptions, Toplak and Katz (2000) focused on the difference between

the speaker and the addressee when giving their judgments of the criticism given, “The

addressee tented to view sarcasm as more severe than the speaker intended.” However, they

also discovered that sarcasm was not perceived by the recipient as having as negative an

impact on the relationship between the interlocutors as direct criticisms.

Tracy and Eissenberg (1990) in their investigation into the preferences for message

clarity and politeness in giving criticism found that among people from different races and

gender the superiors tended to give more weight to message clarity that did subordinates and

that this preference also varied according to gender and race.

Overall, the speech act of criticizing has attracted many researchers thanks to its great

contribution to thoroughly deep understanding of the field. Yet, the definition of this speech

act is still not mentioned, which makes it difficult to compare and contrast the findings of the

various studies.

One of the most widely-used definition in the study of the field is Tracy et al’s (1987),

in which they consider both criticizing and complaining as the act of ‘finding fault’ and define

22

these two speech acts as ‘negative evaluation of a person or an act for which he/she is deemed

responsible.’ However, Tracy et al’s (1987: 56) suggest two main points to distinguish

between criticizing and complaining, which are “content and form and the salient role

identity” of the giver and the receiver: criticisms are usually associated with higher social

status and complaints with lower social status, although there may also be exceptions.

Another definition of criticism is found in House and Kasper (1981), who consider

criticisms, accusations, and reproaches as different kinds of complaints. Their reasons for this

are that all of these speech acts share the same two features, namely “post-event” and “anti-

speaker”. However, one might argue against this definition at least on the following grounds.

Firstly, a criticism does not necessarily have to be always targeted at an event which happens

earlier in the sense used by House and Kasper. It can also be made about something static,

permanent, and independent of chronological time such as a person’s personality or

appearance. Secondly, the feature “anti-speaker” seems more applicable to complaints than to

criticisms as pointed out by Tracy et al. (1987). Both the illocutionary force and the

illocutionary point that a critic and a complainer intend are inherently different. In criticizing,

S may intend H to try to improve to his or her own benefits, or S just may wish to express his

or her opinion known. In complaining, S implies that something bad has happened to himself

or herself, or that H has done something bad to him or her and therefore expects a repair from

the latter. Thus, criticisms are usually, though not necessarily, associated with constructive

attitudes or at least with non-self involvement, which is not the case with complaints.

In light of this discussion, it is apparent that compared to other speech acts, our

understanding of the speech act of criticizing is rather limited due to the fact that this speech

act is under-researched in literature. It is therefore necessary that more studies be conducted to

shed lights on the pragmatic properties of criticizing, thus supplementing the existing body of

speech act research, which is presently confined to a rather small set of speech acts. (Ellis,

1994).

I.4. THEORIES OF POLITENESS

23

“Politeness is basic to the production of social order, and a precondition of human

cooperation … any theory which provides an understanding of this phenomenon at the

same time goes to the foundation of human social life.”

(Gumper, cited by Brown and Levinson, 1987)

It can be interpreted from Gumper’s words that politeness is so crucial a notion in real-

life communication. That partially explains why most research into politeness as a linguistic

dimension has been centred on one of the following four perspectives : conversational-maxims

(Lakoff, 1973; Leech, 1983), face-saving (Brown and Levinson, 1978, 1987), social norms

(Jespersen, 1965), and conversational-contracts (Fraser, 1975; Fraser and Nolen, 1981; Fraser,

1990). These perspectives are presented as below:

I.4.1. Conversational-maxims

Lakoff (1973), basing on Grice’s construct of Conversational Principles, has described

the following three different politeness sub-rules a speaker might follow in choosing to be

polite :

Rule 1. DON’T IMPOSE

This is the most formal rule and appropriate to situations in which there is an

acknowledged difference in power and status between the participants. Accordingly, S

will avoid, mitigate, or ask permission or apologize for making the addressee do

anything which A does not want to do. More particularly, a speaker chooses his acts

so as to minimize the extent which he imposes on the hearers, which means not giving

or seeking personal opinions, avoiding personal reference, avoiding reference to

family, personal problems, habit, and even avoiding earthy, slangthy, merely

emotional language, and any topics which are considered taboo.

24

Rule 2. OFFER OPTIONS

It is a more informal rule and appropriate to situations in which the participants

have approximately equal status and power, but are not socially close. In general, if S

wishes to persuade A of some view or course of action, S will phrase his speech so that

A does not have to acknowledge S’s intent.

Rule 3. ENCOURAGE FEELINGS OF CAMARADERIE

This rule is appropriate for close friends or intimates. In intimate politeness,

almost any topic of conversation is fair game, assuming that with a close friend, one

should be able to discuss anything. In contrast to informal politeness, the governing

principle here is not only to show an active interest in the other, but asking personal

questions and making personal remarks, but also to show regard and trust by being

open about the details of one’s own life, experiences, feelings, and the like.

In a later work, Lakoff (1990) states that those three sub-rules of politeness may not

necessarily have an equal weight in different cultures. European cultures, for example, may

prefer Distance (sub-rule 1), while Asian cultures can be Deferential (sub-rule 2) and modern

American culture to Camaraderie (sub-rule 3).

Leech (1983) introduces a number of maxims based on Gricean Cooperative Principle

that explain the relationship between sense and force in conversations. The main maxims are

presented as follows:

(1) Tact Maxim: Minimize hearer’s costs; maximize hearer’s benefit.

(2) Generosity Maxim: Minimize your own benefit; maximize your hearer’s benefit.

(3) Approbation Maxim: Minimize hearer’s dispraise; maximize hearer’s praise.

(4) Modesty Maxim: Minimize self-praise; maximize self-dispraise.

(5) Agreement Maxim: Minimize disagreement between yourself and others; maximize

agreement between yourself and others.

25

(6) Sympathy Maxim: Minimize antipathy between yourself and others; maximize

sympathy between yourself and others.

(Quoted from B.Fraser, 1990:225)

Like Lakoff, Leech also suggests these maxims have different weightings in different

cultures, which accounts for cross-cultural variations in politeness norms. For example, the

Maxim of Tact, according to Leech, is considered as the most important kind of politeness in

English-speaking countries.

I.4.2. Face-saving:

“The most influential theory of politeness was, however, put forward by Brown and

Levinson (1978, 1987)” and “Central to Brown and Levinson’s theory of politeness is

the concept of face.”

(Thomas, 1995: 168)

In fact, the face-saving view of politeness was adopted by Brown and Levinson (1978,

1987). This view is grounded principally on the concepts of positive and negative face, which

come from Goffman’s notion of face. ‘Face’ is defined as “the positive social value a person

effectively claims for himself” (Goffman, 1967: 319)

Basing on this definition, Brown and Levinson also distinguish between two

components of face : ‘positive face’ and ‘negative face’, which are two related aspects of the

same entity and refer to basic ‘desires’ or ‘wants’ of any individual in any interaction and

define ‘positive face’ as one’s desire to be approved or accepted by others and ‘negative face’

as one’s desire to be free from imposition from others.

Since these two types of face operate pan-culturally, they need to be continually

attended in the process of communication so that politeness can be achieved. Furthermore,

Brown and Levinson also claim that certain speech acts are inherently face-threatening, i.e.

they may threaten either the positive or negative face of the interlocutors involved.

On these grounds, Brown and Levinson (1978: 60) propose a chart of five strategies to

minimize risk of losing face, numbering from 1 to 5 or from greater to lesser risk of face

26

losing, respectively (see Figure 2). This chart receives high appreciation from many

researchers.

As can be seen from Figure 2, S can choose either to “go on record”, i.e. perform a

direct speech act, or to “go off record”, i.e. opt for more indirect strategies such as metaphor,

irony, rhetorical questions, and all kinds of hints. If S chooses a direct strategy, he/she can

either “go bald on record” without compensating for it or “soften” it by various politeness

strategies. In case S decides to modify the illocutionary force of the speech act he/she intends

to perform, he/she will have to consider the pay-off that the use of each type of politeness

strategy brings and then decisions accordingly.

In a word, cultures seem to differ in the way they realize their languages via speech

acts. Thus, this view of politeness and their claim to its universality have still been discussed.

I.4.3. Social-norms:

The social- norm approach is principally based on a number of studies of oriental

politeness and thus serves as an appropriate model for accounting politeness in these cultures.

Nwoye (1992), for example, claims that in a society where public face ( related to social

norms and expected behavior) is placed over private face (related to individual desire), it is

more important for individuals to discern what is appropriate and act accordingly than to act

according to strategies designed to accomplish a particular inter-personal goal. Whereas,

Matsumoto (1989) and Ide (1989) basing on the studies on the honorific system in Japanese

argue that in a culture where the individual is more concerned with comforting to the social

norms, it is discernment but not face that underlines the notion of politeness and governs the

interactant’s behavior.

27

Supporting that point of view, Gu (1990: 245) defines the politeness principle as “a

sanctioned belief that an individual’s social behavior ought to live up to the expectations

belief that an individual’s social behavior ought to live up to the expectations of

respectfulness, modesty, attitudinal warmth and refinement.” What is more, Gu on the basis

28

of Leech’s (1983) model proposed his own model which involved four maxims such as Self-

denigration, Address, Tact and Generosity. The Self-denigration Maxim dictates S to

‘denigrate Self and elevate Other’. The Address Maxim admonishes S to address H with an

appropriate address term based on H’s social status, role and the S-H relationship. The Tact

and Generosity Maxims are close to Leech’s.

1.4.4. Conversational-contracts:

Conversational-contract approach was adopted by Fraser (1990), who also adopts the

Gricean Cooperative Principle in its general sense and recognizes the importance of

Goffman’s notion of face. The principle view in Fraser’s conversational-contract approach is

that interlocutors bring into their conversation an understanding of certain initial contractual

rights and obligations, which are renegotiable as the conversation goes on and the context

changes. In Fraser’s (1990) point of view, politeness is considered as an on-going process and

involves conformity to the expected social norms rather than “making the hearer feel good a la

Lakoff or Leech”, or “making the hearer not feel bad a la Brown and Levinson.” (Fraser, 1990

: 233)

In sum, the notion of politeness in this approach has been discussed from various

perspectives. Furthermore, politeness is also argued to be a complex notion, which does not

necessarily operate similarly in every society.

CHAPTER II. A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THE SPEECH ACT OF

CRITICIZING IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE

29

This chapter investigates the similarities and differences in the criticism strategies in

English and in Vietnamese. Firstly, it is essential to make clear what is meant by criticizing in

this study. Then, the criticism strategies-semantic formulas and criticism modifiers in the two

languages will be described, compared and contrasted. Finally, the summary will highlight the

differences and the similarities between the two languages with particular reference to the

politeness strategies.

II.1. THE SPEECH ACT OF CRITICIZING

According to Fraser, Rintell, Walters ( 1980: 78- 79), “every language makes available

the same set of strategies – semantic formulas – for performing a given speech act … if one

can request, for example, in one language by asking the hearer ( H) about his ability to do the

act ( Can you do that?) by expressing one’s desire for the H to do the act ( I’d really

appreciate if you’d do that), then these same semantic formulas – strategies – are available to

the Ss of very other language.” In these authors’ opinions, they seem to be quite aware of

some cross linguistic differences in this respect, but they dismiss them as “minimal”. As a

result, such point of view could probably be seriously dented by reference to almost any

language.

In fact, when comparing selected speech acts from only two languages, the topic still

vast and could not be treated exhaustively in any work. The cultural norms reflected in speech

acts differ not only from one language to another, but also from one regional to social variety

to another.

A criticism is defined as an illocutionary act whose illocutionary point is to give

negative evaluation on H’s behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products, etc. for which he or

she may be held responsible. This act is performed in hope of influencing H’s future actions

for the better for his or her own benefit as viewed by S or to communicate S’s dissatisfaction/

discontent with or dislike regarding what H has done but without the implicature that what H

has done brings undesirable consequences to S. (Adapted from Wierbicka, 1987)

30

Following Searle’s classification (1976), as a speech act, criticizing belongs to the

group of expressives. From S’s point of view, the preconditions of criticizing are:

1. The act performed or the choice made by H is considered inappropriate according

to a set of evaluative criteria that S holds or a number of values and norms that S

assumes to be shared between himself or herself and H.

2. S holds that this inappropriate action or choice might bring unfavorable

consequences to H or to the general public rather than to S himself or herself.

3. S feels dissatisfied with H’s inappropriate action or choice and feels an urge to

make his or her opinion known verbally.

4. S thinks that his or her criticism will potentially lead to a change in H’s future

action or behavior and believes that H would not otherwise change or offer a

remedy for the situation without his or her criticism.

(Adapted from Wierzbicka’s discussion of criticisms, 1897 and

Olshtain & Weibach’s discussion of complaints, 1993)

Among the above preconditions, precondition 2 will make criticisms distinctive from

their two neighbors: complaints and blames. In complaints, the inappropriate action carried out

by the complainee is seen as being at a cost to the complainer; whereas, blames are given

mainly to assign responsibility for a unsatisfactory situation which can lead to further negative

effects for the blamer.

In the reality of social interactions, criticizing has proven to be a speech act which has

a great potentiality of causing FTA. Therefore, the appropriate strategies for criticizing need to

be investigated thoroughly and introduced to help communicators succeed in their interactions.

Following Yule’s classification (1997), like all the other speech acts, criticizing can be

either a direct speech act or an indirect speech act. That means a criticism can be realized by

either direct or indirect strategies. When mentioning to the directness level of a criticism,

Blum-Kulka (1987) states, “the more indirect the mode of realization, the higher will be the

interpretive demands”. It can be interpreted from Blum-Kulka’s point of view that the

directness level of a criticism in this study was determined by the degree of illocutionary

31

transparency, and thus the amount of effort needed to interpret the illocutionary point of this

criticism.

The speech act of criticisms were coded according to their: (1) realization strategies,

(2) semantic formulas, and (3) modifiers.

Criticism realization strategies are defined as the pragmalinguistic conventions of

usage by which criticisms are realized. (Adapted from Blum-Kulka, House, and Kasper’s,

1989; and Takahashi’s definition, 1996).

Criticism semantic formulas are semantic structures that have acquired an illocutionary

force representing criticisms. (Adapted from Clark, 1979)

Modifiers are linguistic devices employed to help reduce the offence of a face-

threatening act.

II.2. CRITICIZING STRATEGIES AND SEMANTIC FORMULAS IN ENGLISH AND

VIETNAMESE

As stated in 2.1., a criticism can be realized by either direct or indirect strategies.

II.2.1. Direct criticisms:

Direct criticisms are ones which explicitly point out the problem with H’s behavior,

acts, choices, words, work, products and etc. Direct strategies of criticisms in English and

Vietnamese can be realized via various sub-strategies.

II.2.1.1. Negative evaluations:

II.2.1.1.1. In English:

When delivering a direct criticism, S can give out a negative evaluation on H’s

behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products, etc. by using some negative-evaluative

adjectives. For instance,

32

(1) It’s crazy. Absolutely bloody crazy when only waiting a day or two to see if Joseph

comes back on duty at Twarda. [19; 26](2) Stephen is wrong. When a man like Stephen Powell decides to believe in ghosts,

his mind must be sick. [31; 92](3) David, you are rule and sullen. I don’t like sullen boy. [7; 17](4) It’s foolish to keep on like this. [18; 84](5) That looks terrific, Lara. [2; 32]

In all the above examples, we face with various adjectives with different meanings

(crazy, wrong, rude and sullen, foolish, and terrific, etc. ), but they are all used to serve the

same purpose – to give negative evaluations on H’s behavior, acts, choices, words, work,

products and etc.

In addition, the evaluative adjectives with positive meaning in English combined with

a negation will also express negative evaluations on H’s behavior, acts, choices, words, work,

products and etc. In the examples below the positive adjectives good, nice, fair, professional,

etc. go with a negation “no” or “not”, which give negative evaluations on H’s behavior, acts,

choices, words, work, products, etc.

(6) It was not particularly nice of you to give me a false name. [21; 30](7) Oh, Misha. That’s not fair. [19; 59](8) It was no good, sir. [29; 19](9) It is not professional. It makes us look like a bunch of babies. [1; 68]

II.2.1.1.2. In Vietnamese:

Interestingly, direct criticisms in the form of negative evaluations in Vietnamese were

also found. From the data collected, Vietnamese S usually use the following patterns to

criticize H’s behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products, etc.:

33

1/ person criticized + negative-evaluative adjective + (modal words)

(10a) Em nhỏ nhen quá ! [48; 33] (You are so selfish.)

(10b) Hắn bẩn tính lắm. [40; 26] (He plays dirty tricks on me.)

2/ action criticized + là + negative-evaluative adjective + (modal words)

(11a) Cười to như thế là bất lịch sự đấy. [46; 28] (It’s impolite when you laugh so loud)

(11b) Làm thằng đàn ông cứ thấy gái là nghệt mặt ra dở ẹt! [40; 73] (He looks like an idiot in front of girls.)

(11c) Mày yêu hắn là dở hơi lắm. [86; 29] (You are a nut if you love him.)

3/ action criticized + như + phrase with negative meaning

(12a) Ăn nói với mẹ mà cứ như với đồ bán cá tôm ở ngoài chợ ấy. [118; 28]

( You talk to your mother as if you were talking to a scoundrel.)

(12b) Mọi người tránh tao như tránh hủi ấy. [125; 28] (People stay away from me as I am a leprosy.)

4/ person criticized + negative-evaluative adjective + bỏ cha/ bỏ mẹ/ bỏ xừ

(13a) Mày trẻ con bỏ xừ. Mày còn chê nó cái gì nữa? [97; 29] (You are so childish. What of him makes you unpleased?

(13b) Thằng bạn trai của bà ấy dốt bỏ mẹ. [74; 29] (Her boyfriend is very retarded.)

5/ person criticized+ negative-evaluative adjective + như + noun

(14) Lão ta đa nghi như Tào Tháo ấy. [40; 30] (He is so suspicious.) 6/ person criticized + đúng /thật/ quả là … + cái thứ /cái người /cái thằng/cái đồ/

cái loại/cái kiểu … + negative-evaluative adjective

(15a) Mày đúng là thằng đàn ông kỳ cục [40; 50] (You are such a weird man.)

34

(15b) Anh rõ thật là người từ trên trời rơi xuống ấy. Có mỗi cái số xe mà cũng

không nhớ nổi. [84; 29] (You are such a fool, man! You can’t even remember your own license plate.)

(15c) Con nhỏ Tư Sương này quả là người đàn bà i-nốc. [40; 68] (Ms. Suong is really a cold-blood young girl.)

(15d) Mày đúng là cái thứ ăn hại. [64; 29] (You are such a pervert.)

7/ person criticized + trông thế mà/ thế mà … + negative-evaluative adjective

(16) Cái con mẹ ấy trông thế mà ghê gớm quá. [113; 28] (She looks nice but so horrible.)

8/ Trông/ Nhìn + person criticized + đâu đến nỗi + thế mà + negative-evaluative

adjective

(17) Trông con bé ấy đâu đến nỗi thế mà dám làm chuyện động trời. [130; 28] (That little girl looks so innocent, but what she had done is unbelievable.)

9/ Thời nào có cái loại/ cái ngữ …+ phrase with negative meaning. + (modal word)

(18a) Thời nào lại có cái loại chồng suốt ngày chỉ rượu với tổ tôm thế này. [47; 28] (How on earth having a husband like you, who is only drinking and gambling all

day long.)

(18b) Thời đại nào có cái ngữ anh em như chúng mày, mới giàu mà đã lên mặt dạy

đời rồi. [42; 28] (How on earth having people like you, who are looking at others as you’re

Rockefellers’?)

10/ action criticized + thế mà không biết xấu hổ/ ngượng/ nhục/ hèn/ dơ…

(19a) Vợ liệt sĩ đi tằng tịu với thằng thương binh nguỵ thế mà không biết ngượng là gì.

[113; 29] (Shame on her! How can a widow like her is dating with her past-husband’s

enemy.)

(19b) Trốn vô nhà thiên hạ giữa đêm khuya lại còn đòi ăn cơm thế mà không biết xấu

hổ. [69; 29]

35

(Shame on you! How can you braking into someone’s house at the mid-night

and asking for food.)

11/ action criticized + không biết/ thạo… chỉ giỏi biết/ chỉ được cái... + phrase

with negative meaning

(20a) Việc nhà thì không biết chỉ được cái “ăn cơm nhà vác tù và hàng tổng”[113; 29] (He doesn’t care his own housework, but willing to do volunteer works.)

(20b) Ăn nói còn chưa thạo chỉ giỏi biết sửa lưng người khác. [40; 44] (You can’t behave yourself, how dare you to criticize others.)

12/ Đã + negative-evaluative adjective + lại còn + negative-evaluative adjective

(21a)Thật xấu hổ khi tao có đứa bạn như mày. Đã hèn hạ lại còn đáng thương.

[38; 137] (It’s a pity of me to have a friend like you. You are such a pitiful and despicable

guy)

(21b) Lũ trẻ ranh ấy đã ngu dốt lại còn bất lịch sự nữa chứ. [76; 28] (Those little devils are discourteous and ignorant.)

13/ Mới nứt mắt/ tí tuổi… đã + phrase with negative meaning

(22a) Mới nứt mắt ra mà đã bày đặt nói dối, lừa gạt người khác. [82; 28] (How can you dare to trick others though you are still a little boy?)

(22b) Mới tí tuổi đầu mà đã đua đòi ăn chơi lêu lổng rồi. [76; 28] (Although he is still very young, he imitates to be a playboy.)

14/ Tưởng + person criticized + positive evaluative adjective + ai dè/ hóa ra…+

phrase with negative meaning

(23a) Tưởng anh can tràng dũng cảm lắm ai dè anh cũng thuộc loại nhát như thỏ đế.

[40; 40] (I thought you are a brave man, but you are so chickened.)

(23b) Tưởng Nguyên phong trần lắm hóa ra cũng mít ướt như mình ấy chứ. [111; 28] (I thought Nguyen is a tough guy, but he is a weak-hearted man like me.)

15/ person criticized + phrase or idiom with negative meaning

(24a) Chị ta cũng mèo mỡ lắm ! [113; 28]

36

(She is such a promiscuous woman.)

(24b) Cái ngữ nhà ấy cũng mặt dạn mày dày lắm. [93; 29] (He is such an impudent guy.)

16/ Negative-evaluative phrase

(25a) Quá quắt. [69; 28] ( You’re absolutely unbearable!)

(25b) Lắm điều . [51; 28] (Talkative)

(25c) Vô ý vô tứ. [43; 28] (You are so careless!)

17/ Cái kiểu/lối/cách … + action criticized + hay/ lạ/ buồn cười… + (modal word)

(26a) Cái kiểu ăn nói của mày hay thật đấy. [88; 28] (The way you talk is ridisculous and unacceptable!)

(26b) Cái cách làm ăn của lũ chúng nó buồn cười thật. [64; 28] (The way they’re doing business is silly.)

18/ Ai lại/ ai đời/ có đời nào/ đời thuở nhà ai … + lại + action criticized + bao giờ/

như vậy/ như thế…

(27a) Đời thuở nhà ai mất của lại mang cái bộ dạng bình thản và nhơn nhớn quá như

vậy. [84; 28] (I can’t understand what type of person he really is when he still kept so calm

when finding himself to be lost property.)

(27b) Ai đời mới ba tuổi ranh lại đòi lấy vợ ở riêng như thế bao giờ. [122; 28] (Why he want to get married while he’s just a little kid?)

II.2.1.2.Disapproval:

II.2.1.2.1. In English:

37

Another way to deliver a criticism directly is to describe S’s attitude towards H’s

behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products, and etc. This type of criticizing is categorized

as disapproval strategy.

The S who disapproves of an action thinks that it is a bad thing to do, and imagines

that he could prevent this action from happening by expressing his negative opinion of it, he

mentally expresses this opinion.

To express disapprovals, English people usually use phrases I don’t think …’s very

good, I’m (certainly) not in favor of…, I’m (really) not pleased/ displeased/ upset, etc.

about…, It’s wrong to…, I can’t approve of…, I (really) don’t approve of…, I’m not (very)

happy about…, I’m dead against…, In my opinion…, I would like to say how much I

disapprove of…., I (certainly) cannot give my approval to…, (I must say) I find…(quite/

completely, etc. ) unsatisfactory/ unacceptable, etc. Let us cite some examples,

(28) I can’t approve of the way you work alone on this project. That’s not your job as

editor-in-chief. You’ve supposed to delegate responsibility. [1; 21](29) I’m certainly not in favor of that guy. He’s too cocky. [1; 14](30) It’s wrong to ask questions about things that had already been exhaustively

discussed in her presence. [21; 8](31) I don’t think he is very good. [16; 31](32) I’m really not pleased about the opinion that he was acting up for the sake of the

other guards. [19; 33]

II.2.1.2.2. In Vietnamese:

In Vietnamese, phrases expressing disapprovals like those above also occur in the

following patterns:

1/ 1st person + không nghĩ/ không cho… + action criticized + là + evaluative

adjective + (modal word)

38

(33) Anh không cho việc chú tỏ ra quá cao thượng như thế là tốt lắm đâu. [75; 28] (I don’t think your magnanimous behavior is good.)

2/ 1st person+ (modal word) + không hài lòng/ không tán đồng/ không vui/ khó

chịu/ buồn bực/ghét/phản đối.. + (modal word) + person/action criticized

(34a) Tao ghét cay ghét đắng cái cách hắn cư xử với vợ mình như thế. [83; 28] (I really hate the way he’s treating his wife.)

(34b) Anh cảm thấy không vui lắm khi em trả lời anh như thế. [76; 28] (I’m not very happy about your answer.)

(34c) Tôi kịch liệt phản đối cái kiểu người ta ăn nói tục tĩu đến thế. [88; 28] (I totally oppose their obscene language.)

(34d) Em hoàn toàn không đồng ý việc anh luôn đi sớm về khuya như vậy. [90; 28] (I totally disagree that you always leave so early and return so late.)

3/ Thật là + sai lầm/ sai/ tồi tệ/ khủng khiếp/kinh khủng/xấu hổ … + khi+ action

criticized

(35a) Thiệt là xấu hổ cho cả lớp chúng ta khi Nam bị bắt quả tang khi đang quay cóp

trong khi thi. [77; 28] (What a shame for Nam being caught for cheating!)

(35b) Thật là sai lầm khi mày tiêu xài phung phí như vậy. [50; 28] (It’s would be a big mistake if you are wasting your money like that!

4/ action criticized + là/ thì + sai/ không đúng/ không chấp nhận được/vô lí….

(36a) Đến mình mà nó chẳng coi ra gì thì không thể chấp nhận được. [42; 28] (It’s totally unacceptable that he ignored me since I am his boss.)

(36b) Cái câu “Bắc Kỳ” vừa rồi mới nghe thấy được nhưng nghe lâu là vô duyên lắm.

[40; 48] (It is all right to hear your sentence at first time; yet, the more you talk about it,

the more I feel it’s just a flat joke!)

5/ 1st person+ phải nói rằng/phát biểu/cho ý kiế n…+( 1st person)+ (adverb of

frequence) + (modal word)+ủng hộ/tán thành/đồng ý…+ person/action

criticized

39

(37) Ba phải nói rằng ba sẽ chẳng bao giờ ủng hộ việc con luôn đặt ba mẹ trong tình

thế đã rồi. [80; 28] (I would never ever agree that you’re always ask me after everything is done.)

6/ Theo+1st person+person/action criticized+ là/ thì + (modal word) + sai/quá

đáng/quá quắt/không chấp nhận được…

(38a) Theo tôi, cô làm vậy là sai rồi. [74; 28] (I think you are wrong!)

(38b) Theo ý kiến của riêng tôi, việc xây được cả một cái trường mà không xây lấy cái

nhà vệ sinh thì quá lắm. [111; 28] (In my opinion, they can build a whole school but can’t afford to build a restroom

is unacceptable.)

(38c) Theo quan điểm của tôi, việc đồng chí giám đốc quá chú trọng vào công việc mà

quá ít để ý đến cá nhân là không thể chấp nhận được. [40; 20] (According to my point of view, it’s unacceptable that our director put too much

effort on this work compare to this private life.)

(38d) Theo ba, hiện tại của các con bây giờ thì lại có quá nhiều điều vị kỉ quá.

[111; 28]

(According to me, nowadays, people are very selfishness.)

II.2.1.3.Expression of disagreement:

II.2.1.3.1. In English:

In everyday communication, we sometimes give direct criticisms in the form of

disagreement. Wierzbicka (1987: 128) argues that when a person disagrees, he wants to say

his own opinion is different and to imply that the thinks the first speaker was wrong (or that

this idea was not good). The expression of disagreement are usually realized by means of

negation word “No” at the beginning of the statement,

(39) No, Stefa, the connection would be so far too subtle for any Nazi. [19; 67]

40

(40) No, but his house will cause trouble. [31; 46]

Apart from the negation No at the beginning of the expressions, disagreeing can also

be realized by some performatives as I don’t agree, I don’t know (about)…, I don’t think…,

Actually/ In fact, I think …, I disagree…, I can’t agree (with)…, I can’t go along with …, I

(entirely) disagree (with)…, (I’m afraid) I can’t accept…, I see things rather differently

myself…, I can’t say that I share that/ your view/ assessment (of)…, etc. We can make this

clear by taking some examples:

(41) I don’t agree with you about leaving it until the last minute on Wednesday, though

I know that her usual day. [19; 64] (42) I entirely disagree with him about the point that he has said one thing and he has

meant another. [13; 92](43) I’m afraid I can’t accept with you about the disgusting way you treat your father.

[28; 53]

Another way of expressing disagreement in English is to express arguments against

H’s behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products, etc. Examples of this are:

(44) Wrong! She has done wrong, boy. Take care that the habit doesn’t spread!

[13; 29] (45) That makes no difference. I don’t care what the cup is – or was. You’re old

enough to learn to control your feelings and you’re going to start right now.

[31; 24](46) There’s nothing the matter with it. You’ve been listening to fools who don’t know

what they are talking about. That’s all. [31; 16](47) You decided this place was haunted. Now you are looking for anything to show

that you were right. So I’m going to show you how wrong you were. I’m going to

41

take you through the whole house, from top to bottom. I’m going to show you it’s

no more haunted than Mother’s bar is haunted. [31; 19]

II.2.1.3.2. In Vietnamese:

From the collected data, we realize the following patterns that Vietnamese people

exploit when expressing disagreement:

1/ 1st person+ (modal word)+ không đồng ý /không chấp nhận… + person/action

criticized

(48a) Anh hoàn toàn không đồng ý với cách giải thích vô lý của em. [91; 28] (I totally disagree with your unreasonable explanation.)

(48b) Con không thể nào chấp nhận cái tính khí cổ hủ lạc hậu như mấy ông già xưa ấy.

[81; 29] (How can I live with his conservative and out-dated personality like that? He’s

such a weird old man!)

2/ 1st person + (modal word) + không chắc chắn + (modal word) + về/ khi + action

criticized

(49a) Tao không chắc lắm khi mày quyết định vội vã như thế. [101; 28] (I am not really sure if you come up with your decision so quickly.)

(49b) Tôi thực sự không chắn chắn một tí nào khi anh giao phó toàn bộ cho cái thằng

vô tích sự đó. [96; 28] (I am not really sure it’s a right decision for you to appoint that useless guy to

take care such a very important project.)

3/ 1st person + nghĩ/ cho là/ chắc rằng… + action/person criticized + là + không

ổn/đúng …

(50a) Em cho rằng anh đánh giá anh Hải như vậy là không đúng đâu. [48; 28] (I believe you are wrong to criticize Mr. Hai like that!)

(50b) Anh nghĩ việc chú mày cho phép nó ra đi một mình là không ổn. [92; 297]

42

(I believe it’s not right if you allow him to leave by himself.)

4/ 1st person+ không thể nói rằng+1st person+ chung quan điểm/ ý kiến …về +

person/action criticized

(51) Tôi không thể nói rằng tôi cũng có chung quan điểm với đồng chí về việc bỏ

đồng đội mà chạy của đồng chí bí thư. [40; 43] (I totally oppose with your idea about the secretary’s betrayal!)

5/ Theo (ý kiến của)+ 1st person+(là thế này) , action/person criticized + là / thì +

negative-evaluative adjective

(51a) Theo ý của tao là thế này Tám ạ, mày chỉ biết nói mà không biết nghĩ là không

được. [40; 49] (According to my opinion, it’s not right if you keep saying without thinking,

Tam!)

(51b) Theo tui, cái nghề ấy thì có cái gì lấy làm vẻ vang nhỉ. [47; 411] (According to me, there is nothing to be proud of that job.)

6/ 1st person+ muốn/thực sự phải đưa việc/vấn đề…+ action criticized+ bàn bạc/

thảo luận/tranh cãi …

(52) Tôi thực sự phải đưa vấn đề ông nhượng bộ với các đối tác ra bàn bạc lại.

[39; 28] (I have to bring up your concessions to all the parties to be evaluated.)

7/ Action criticized + expression of disagreement

(53a) Mày nói vòng vo tam quốc hoài, tao mệt quá. [104; 28] (I am so tired with your meandering way of talking.)

(53b) Cái kiểu khinh khỉnh hay sĩ hảo, tao đấm thèm. [102; 38]) (What a disdainful guy! I hate that!)

8/ Expression of disagreement

(54a) Vớ vẩn. [42; 28] (Rubbish.)

(54b) Vô lý [64; 28] (Nonsense)

43

II.2.1.4. Identification of problem:

II.2.1.4.1. In English:

Identification of problem which states errors or problem found with H’s behavior, acts,

choices, words, work, products and etc. can also be considered as a direct strategy of criticism.

In this strategy, S criticizes H through explicating all H’s errors and problem; for instance,

(55) You are mistaken. A man is a fool who does not pay himself for the trouble he has

been put to. [13; 10] (56) There seems to be some mistake. You’ve left out the most important thing,

Joseph. [19; 110] (57) Yeah, you don’t care, but you forget one thing. [25; 99](58) It was wrong of you to show such vengeance. [19; 38](59) You seem to have misconceptions about your client. [27; 147](60) But I must say you were unwise to try to stop it. [18; 124]

In all the above examples, we can find the phrases There seems to be some mistake, It

was wrong of …, You’re mistake …, You’re wrong to …, etc. which S in English usually uses

to show directly the problem with H’s behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products and etc.

II.2.1.4.2. In Vietnamese:

In Vietnamese, there is also this sub-strategy of criticism:

1/ person criticized + sai rồi/ không đúng …

(61a) Thím sai rồi. [52; 28] (You’re wrong!)

44

(61b) Mày sai mất rồi con ạ. [114; 28] (You’re wrong, dude!)

2/ action criticized + là/thì …+ negative-evaluative adjective

(62a) Là con cái không lo cho cha mẹ lúc trăm tuổi già là bất hiếu đó. [52; 28] (It’s ungrateful towards your parents that you can’t take good care of them at

their late life’s stage.)

(62b) Chúng ta làm thế là sai rồi. [46; 28] (We did that wrong!)

(62c) Mày làm như thế là không hợp với luân thường đạo lý đâu con. [104; 28] (It’s unethical for you to do that, dude!)

3/ person criticized+negative-evaluative adjective+(modal word), action criticized

(63a) Mợ lăng loàn quá, hơi xích mích tí gì mợ cũng nói đến tiếng li dị. [114; 28] (You’re so dissolute! It’s just a minor disagreement, why do you think about

being divorced?)

(63b) Nhà này cũng tệ bạc thật, người ta đến làm cho mửa mật mà chỉ cho ăn toàn rau

già cá ươn. [71; 28]

(They’re so cheap! They can’t afford a good meal for their own laborers!)

4/ Đã bảo rồi, person/action criticized + (bây giờ chắc là đã hiểu rồi/ sáng mắt rồi/

tin rồi …)

(64a) Đã bảo rồi, thằng cha đó nào có ra thể thống gì đâu. [86; 28] (I told you! He’s such a bastard!)

(64b) Đã bảo rồi, sứa không nhảy qua đăng được mà vẫn lao đầu vào, bây giờ chắc là

đã sáng mắt rồi. [37; 28] (I told you that there is no snow in a rainy day, but you didn’t listen to. Now, you

know what I meant, huh?)

II.2.1.5. Consequences:

II.2.1.5.1. In English:

45

This sub-strategy means that S warns about consequences or negative effects of H’s

behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products, etc. for himself or herself or for the public. Let

us begin with some examples:

(65) I can’t understand what you see in Janet and Alvin and the Barracloughs and all

that lot. They’re nothing but a bunch of plonkers. To go round with them’s bad

enough, but to let them turn you on to dope’s just ridiculous. [29; 24](66) Clara, my dear, you’ve spoilt David. It has made him like a girl. He isn’t brave

and strong. [7; 6] (67) This is stupid. We’re going to be shattered on that nine mile walk. [29; 122]

We can find out from these instances that S can also give direct criticisms via warnings

of the negative consequences or effects of H’s behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products,

etc.

II.2.1.5.2. InVietnamese:

Quite similar to that in English, direct criticisms in Vietnamese can also be recognized

by means of warnings about the consequences or negative effects. Most of warnings collected

followed the patterns:

1/ Person/action criticized, thảo nào/hèn gì + consequences/negative effects

(68a) Ăn toàn những thứ sống sít như thế, thảo hèn đau bụng là phải. [37; 28] (You ate all raw foods. That’s why you got stomachache!)

(68b) Thái độ riết róng như thế với cấp dưới, hèn chi không ai chịu nổi. [40; 67] (He’s so strict to his associates, that’s why nobody likes him.)

2/ Person/ action criticized , thế thì/thì …+ consequences/negative effects

(69a) Người đâu cứ như thằng ngáo lên chùa, thế thì còn làm được gì. [112; 28] (You’re such a fool! What actually you can do?)

46

(69b) Lớn rồi mà cứ ngồi nhà ăn báo cô, thế thì thật là khổ tâm. [74; 29] (You’re getting adult but so useless! That’s so sad, man!)

(69c) Nhưng tự mình không bảo vệ được mình, không bắt nổi con kiến đang bò trên

người mình, thì làm sao mà tính chuyện xa xôi. [72; 29] (You can’t even take care of yourself. What can I expect from you?)

3/ Action criticized , (nên) + consequences/ negative effects

(70a) Anh thả luống bọn trẻ, nên chúng sinh hư là phải. [107; 28] (You never ever take care of your children, no wonder they are so naughty!)

(70b) Cha mẹ chúng ta không muốn cho con học, không muốn cho con tiến thân, nên

chúng ta mãi khổ thế này. [93; 29] (Our parents didn’t want us to go to school to fulfill our educational dream, that’s

why we are suffering.)

(70c) Ông ấy chỉ tỏ tình bằng tay, bạ đâu hốt đó, sờ mó cọ quẹt, mò mẫm chứ không

biết tỏ tình bằng lời ăn tiếng nói, nên già rồi ổng vẫn ế vì cái tính bốc hốt đó.

[110; 29] (He’s such a player, that’s why nobody wants to marry him.)

(70d) Tình nghĩa bạn bè xây đắp đâu dễ, chớ như kẻ thăm ván bán thuyền, người đời

cười chê. [40; 109] (It isn’t easy to get a true friendship. That would be a shame if you ruin it.)

(70e) Anh em chúng mày làm như thế chẳng khác nào răng cắn vào lưỡi, chẳng còn ra

thể thống gì nữa. [102; 23] (That’s a disgrace if brothers are fighting with each other.)

4/ Action criticized , thế nào/ thể nào… + consequences/ negative effects

(71a) Học hành lớt phớt như bọn bay, thể nào cũng rớt đại học cho mà coi. [104; 28] (You won’t pass the college’s entry exam if you don’t study carefully!)

(71b) Với tính khí cứng rắn kiểu sĩ phu Bắc Hà như ông Hùng, thể nào rồi cũng bị mấy

cha ngứa mắt mà tiện ngọt. [40; 164] (Mr. Hung needs to be more flexible and political; otherwise, later or sooner they

will stab behind his back.)

47

(71c) Buôn bán mà làm gì như ăn cướp vậy, thể nào cũng mất hết khách chết đói cả

đám bây giờ. [64; 29] (You will lose all your customers if you keep ripping them off.)

II.2.2. Indirect criticisms:

We sometimes resist giving bald criticisms and prefer to hedge what we say. In other

words, we tend to use indirect criticisms to convey our negative opinions or comments on H’s

behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products, etc. instead of direct criticisms in order to

avoid the potential threat of the act of criticizing. Hence, indirect criticisms are used to imply

the problem with H’s behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products, etc. via a wide range of

sub-strategies.

II.2.2.1. In English:

Form the collected data, we realize that 7 following sub-strategies appear in English

with different proportions.

II.2.2.1.1. Demand for change

Demand for change is one of sub-strategies to express negative assessment of H’s

behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products, etc. According to Wierzbicka (1987: 40), a

person who demands something says that he wants something to happen, and implies that the

addressee has to cause it to happen. The S expects that the person or persons involved will be

reluctant to comply with his will, but he wants to convince them that they should do it, and in

fact have to do it.

Therefore, S may soften the potential threat of his criticizing by using this positive

politeness strategy via expressions You have to…, You must…, It is obligatory that…, You are

required…, You need…, or It’s necessary …, etc. Let us cite some examples,

48

(72) You must give up your idea of investigating the mansion. [18; 54] (73) Hey, boy! You are required being polite to that lady. [29; 7](74) It’s obligatory to remove your shoes before entering my house. [25; 20](75) It is necessary to be more serious. [24; 35]

II.2.2.1.2. Request for change:

Instead of criticizing directly, S might choose to avoid this by giving requests for

change. That means S doesn’t say bruntly what he wants and he wants something to happen

rather than the H to do something.

Request for change can be recognized via imperatives with or without subject. For

instance,

(76) You shouldn’t pretend that you do not know what you’ve done to me [23; 116](77) An idle thought! Allow it to pass! [33; 6](78) You must stop calling her a spook, George! [12; 72](79) Don’t, Sam, don’t talk that way ! [25; 46]

Furthermore, a request for change in English can also realized through ways of

weakening the imperative force (please) or the tags (won’t you, will you, why don’t you)

(80) Stop driving me crazy, please? [21; 26](81) You will be quiet, won’t you? [25; 21](82) Pay more attention of what to say to him, why don’t you? [22; 45]

II.2.2.1.3.Advice about change:

49

This is also a positive politeness strategy. In this strategy, in order to avoid the

potential threat of the act of criticizing S may choose to stress his cooperation with H by

giving advice on how to fulfill a task or to perform an action better. An advice can be

performed by various means.

Firstly, an advice about change can be realized via an Imperative:

(83) Don’t take such a risk. [18; 125](84) Hand it this way, not that way. [14; 56]

In addition, an advice is also expressed via the performatives You should… , You’d

better…, You ought to…, If I was you I would…,I advise you…, I should advice that…, My

advice would be…, It might be an ide to …, etc. For instance,

(85) I advise you to have no doubt about that. [27; 230](86) I should advise that you’ve spoilt David. [7; 6] (87) If I were you, I would think about it more carefully. [5; 32](88) I wouldn’t be so kind to such a guy if I were you. [6; 21]

Advice about change can be performed in the forms of interrogative.

(89) Why don’t you call me more often? [20; 24](90) Will your bad behavior be corrected at once? [10; 65]

II.2.2.1.4. Suggestion for change:

Similar to advice, suggestions for change are what S might choose to avoid the high

FTA when criticizing H’s behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products, etc. They

demonstrate that H really wants to stress his cooperation with suggesting an alternative option

for a better act or behavior, etc.

50

(91) How about some more thought? [4; 43](92) Why don’t you stay and make the work done more quickly? [9; 2]

It is obviously from the above examples that S uses interrogative forms with How

about…, Why don’t you…, etc. to suggest alternative opinion.

In addition, a suggestion can also be realized via the performative verb “suggest”

(I suggest that…, May I suggest you…, It is suggested that…, What I’m going to suggest…)

(93) I suggest that we should talk about this more. [3; 42](94) What I’m going to suggest is that you should keep calm. [8; 18]

Apart from the interrogative and the performative verb “suggest”, suggestions can be

performed by means of structures You can …, You could…, It would be better if ..., etc.

(95) You can make it more specific. [34; 26](96) It would be better if you could afford to make it better. [15; 7]

II.2.2.1.5. Rhetorical question:

This is an off-record strategy in which S asks a question with no intention of obtaining

an answer, which violates the Quality Maxim (i.e. Be sincere). These rhetorical questions

leave their answers hanging in the air, implicated. Although they are used as an off-record

strategy, which is generally more indirect than on-record ones, we can hardly conclude that

they are polite because most of them are used with ironical touch. Let us cite some examples:

(97) Why did you do this terrible thing to your own child? [23; 116](98) Why can’t you be like other man? Why can’t you be like Folo who has a steady

job or do something honest and honorable like that? [3; 38](99) How can you prove such a shocking statement? [13; 55]

51

(100) Why don’t you ever listen? [17; 67]

II.2.2.1.6. Using metaphor:

Similar to rhetorical question, the use of metaphors is an off-record strategy in which S

wants to express his attitude or opinion toward H’s behavior, acts, choices, words, work,

products, and etc. by words with metaphorical meaning. That means they are employed to

refer to something else other than this.

(101) He is in fact red-blooded male in the vicinity. [11; 11](102) She has an acid tongue. She can raise laughs at other people’s expense. [6; 32](103) That is another half-baked scheme. [35; 8](104) The broadcast news was accurate and reliable but really dull. [34; 5](105) His mind was a haze of fear and confusion. [9; 16]

II.2.2.1.7. Being ironic:

Being ironic is also an off-record strategy. Using this strategy, by saying the opposite

of what he means, which again violates Quality Maxim (i.e. Be sincere), S can indirectly

convey his intended meaning if there are clues that his intended meaning is being conveyed

indirectly. For instance,

(106) How kindly to your own child! [3; 71](107) Are you able to manage the house? [7; 7](108) What kind of story are you telling? [3; 96]

II.2.2.1.8. Supposition/Wish

Instead of criticizing directly, S might choose to avoid this by asserting suppositions or

wishes that something could be or couldn’t be done and it is possible at the time of the

52

utterance. In English, S tends to use the following patterns Supposing (that) …, On the

condition that…, I wish…, etc. For example,

(109) Supposing that he had announced me the news earlier. [33; 123](110) He wishes he wounldn’t have gone out last night. [12; 45]

II.2.2.2. In Vietnamese:

Besides the direct strategies, there are a number of ways to deliver criticisms indirectly

in Vietnamese. It is a common belief that indirect criticisms are made when people find it hard

to criticize directly. From the data obtained, it is noticed that the ways of giving indirect

criticisms recognized are varied. They can be classified into the following sub-strategies.

II.2.2.2.1. The use of metaphor:

Quite similar to that in English, the use of metaphor in Vietnamese can also be found

when giving criticisms indirectly.

(109) Thằng chồng nhà ấy trông lù rù như chuột chù phải khói ấy. [103; 28] (Her huband looks so dumb.)

(110)Giấy tờ ai dám đưa cho ông cụ ruột để ngoài da ấy. [31; 28] (Who dares to give important documents to that old heedless man?)

(111)Chẳng có ai dắt trâu chui qua ống như thế được. [54; 28] (That’s really perculiar.)

(112) Bày việc ấy cho nó thì khác gì dạy đĩ vén váy. [106; 29] (It was unnecessary of you to do so.)

(113) Mày thì bắt nạt ai chớ với nó thì khác nào rung cây dọa khỉ. [66; 28] (It was invalid when you tried to bully him.)

53

It can be seen from the above examples that the use of metaphors in Vietnamese can be

made by comparing two things or two characteristics which are quite similar in meaning. This

type of rhetoric is widely used in Vietnamese to lessen or to enhance the degree of criticisms.

II.2.2.2.2. Being ironic:

Being ironic in Vietnamese is one of indirect strategies in which S says the opposite of

what he means to convey his intended meaning. Let us cite some examples:

(114) Dì quan trọng quá nhỉ! [121; 28] (How important you are!)

(115) Gớm, ông bận gì mà cho nó sang mời năm bảy lượt cũng chẳng chịu sang cho.

[113; 28] (I ask my son to invite you several times. What take you so long to get here?)

(116) Xong em gọi anh ngay. Ngay mà 3 giờ sáng rồi không thấy ngay đâu. Ngay của

em mọi ngày đúng là thế, chuẩn là thế. [89; 28] (You said you would call me immediately after finishing your work.

Nevertheless, you haven’t called me even at 3 a.m. now. How punctual

you are!)

(117) Em làm sao mà lịch sự và thông thái bằng chị được! [99; 29] (How can I compare myself to you?)

(118) Ôi nhiều thế cơ à? [74; 29] (Wow! That’s a lot!)

II.2.2.2.3. Others:

It can be generalized that indirect criticisms in Vietnamese can also be realized via:

II.2.2.2.3.1. Rhetoric question:

Let us begin with some examples,

54

(119) Dì lấy tư cách gì làm mẹ của tôi? Dì tự xem lại mình có xứng với hai tiếng ấy

không? [121; 29] (What qualities you want me to call you my stepmom? You’re not fit to be my

mother.)

(120) Vì ai mà em tôi thành bụi đời, ba tôi buồn rầu mà sinh bệnh, còn tôi thì bị tống

cổ ra khỏi nhà? [121; 28] (Who makes my dad to get sick with sadness? Who makes my sister and I

become homeless?)

(121) Bố mà còn nói chuyện bất hiếu à? Bố có hiếu từ bao lâu rồi bố không về thăm

ông bà? Bố có nhớ là còn có ông bà dưới quê không? [107; 29] (Dad! You don’t care and you don’t miss your own parents! How could you

expect me to grateful to you?)

It is quite clearly that the use of rhetorical questions in Vietnamese shares the same

function of that in English. In deed, the speakers use those rhetorical questions with no

intention of obtaining the answers.

II.2.2.2.3.2. Advice:

In Vietnamese, in order to avoid the potential threat of the act of criticizing S also

chooses to give an indirect criticism which stresses on his cooperation with H by giving advice

on how to fulfill a task or to perform an action better. This sub-strategy of indirect criticisms

can be realized via the following common ways:

1/ (2nd person) + đừng + do X + nhé, nghen, nghe, nha…!

(122) Từ nay con đừng có tò mò họ chuyện trò với nhau nữa nhé! [114; 28]

(From now on, don’t be curious with their conversations, Ok!)

2/ 2nd person+ cần/nên/phải…+ do X

(123) Cậu nên nói thật với tớ đi. [66; 29]

55

(You ought to tell me the truth)

(124) Ông cần phải cẩn thận không thì mang tiếng với cấp trên vì nó đấy. [40; 44] (You should be careful or you’ll suffer a discredit to your superior!)

3/ (2nd person) + không nên + do X

(125) Cái tông nhà con Nga nào có ra gì mà anh đâm đầu vào! Anh không nên rước

cái ngữ ấy về làm gì con ạ. [56; 254] (You should not get marry to Nga. Her family’s backgrounds were very bad.)

4/ do X + hơn + (2nd person)

(126) Mai mốt chơi cẩn thận với nhẹ tay hơn nghe ông bạn. [79; 28] (Next time, you have to be careful, Ok? My friend!)

5/ Sao/ Chẳng lẽ/Tại sao …+do X?

(127) Chẳng nhẽ con không nhịn cụ được sao? [63; 29] (Can’t you endure your own grandmother?)

II.2.2.2.3.3. Request:

In Vietnamese, to request people to do things, we may use any of the followings forms:

Imperatives, Questions, or Requests with conventional markers.

1/ Imperatives

(128) Nhanh tay lên đi nào. [65; 28] (Let’s moving on! Hurry up!)

(129) Nói be bé một tí. Làm gì mà phải gào lên như thế. [57; 28] (Low down, please! You don’t have to scream like that!)

2/ Questions:

(130) Các cậu sang đây để học hay để đùa cợt vậy? [50; 28] (Do you come here to study or to joke?)

(131) Ai khiến nhà bác chõ mồm vào đây thế? [85; 54] (Who urges you to interfere?)

56

3/ Requests with conventional markers

(132) Tôi lạy ông! Ông mặc người ta … ông đừng lôi thôi nữa. [67; 213] (I bow to you! Let them alone. Don’t be involved in.)

(133) Thế ông định bỏ mẹ con tôi chết đói à? Ông phải lên trông nom chúng nó cho

tôi còn còn xoay xở chứ? [58; 30] (So you intend to leave the kids and me starving? You must go there to take care

of them so that I can manage.)

Furthermore, in Vietnamese to request people not to do something, we may say:

4/

đừng (có, có mà)

(2nd person) + chớ (có, có mà) + do X

không (được)

(134) Đừng có nói năng tự tiện như thế. [41; 93] (Be careful with your language! Don’t say whatever you want to say!)

(135) Mày chớ có mà học thói ăn kĩ làm dối nghe chưa. [124; 28] (Do you hear me? Don’t be reckless like that!

5/ (2nd person) + khoan + do X

(136) Mày khoan hãy nói khi chưa biết rõ về người ta. [78; 110] (Don’t criticize him if you don’t really know him!)

II.2.2.2.3.4. Demand:

Demand for change is one of sub-strategies to express negative assessment of H’s

behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products and etc. The Vietnamese tends to use any of

the followings,

57

phải

(2nd person) + cần phải + do X

(bắt) buộc

(137) Em cần phải thay đổi cách suy nghĩ cũ rích của mình đi. [36; 28] (You must change your out-dated mind!)

(138) Là con gái, đứng ngồi phải có ý tứ chứ! [95; 28] (As a girl, you have to show your consideration of your gesture!)

(139) Lần này mày phải làm cho chu đáo hơn, đừng để thui chó nửa mùa hết rơm như

lần trước nhé. [45; 28] (You have to be more careful with this time. Do not make the same mistake

twice!)

II.2.2.2.3.5. Suggestion:

In Vietnamese, to suggest people doing or not doing something, we may say any of the

followings,

1/ Sao + (2nd person) + không thử + do X ?

(140) Sao cô không thử tiếp chuyện với ông ấy rồi hãy quyết định? [108; 29] (Why don’t you just try to talk to him before you come up with a decision?)

(141) Sao mày không thử hỏi nó lấy một câu? [84; 90]

(Why don’t you just try to ask him?)

2/ (1st person) + đề nghị + (2nd person) + do X

(142) Tôi đề nghị đồng chí Hùng nên nghiêm túc cho [40; 72] (I urge you, Mr. Hung, to behave yourself!)

(143) Đề nghị các đồng chí phát biểu ý kiến chứ ai lại cứ ngồi im thin thít hết như thế

này. [94; 214] (Don’t just sit there! I urge you all to bring up your opinions, please!)

58

3/Gợi ý của tôi là+ 2nd person+ nên+ do X

(144) Gợi ý của tôi là chị nên cân nhắc thật kỹ lưỡng trước khi ra quyết định

này. [47; 44] (My suggestion is that you should think carefully before making this decision.)

Sometimes, suggestions in Vietnamese may also fall into:

4/ Sẽ tốt hơn nếu + (2nd person) + do X

(145) Sẽ tốt hơn nếu như anh nói thẳng với cô ấy ngay từ đầu. [62; 28] (It would be better if you talked to her at first)

5/ do X + sẽ không tốt hơn sao?

(146) Cứ mắng cho bỏ tật ăn cơm nhà lo chuyện hàng xóm sẽ không tốt hơn sao?

[113; 28] (Is it better if you tell him not to get involved in someone’s problem?)

II.2.2.2.3.6. Supposition/Wish:

This type of indirect criticism can also be found in Vietnamese.

1/ Giá mà/ giá như + (2nd/3nd person) + positive adjective + như +

(another 3rd person)

(147) Giá mà thằng con nhà tôi cũng chăm chỉ và hiền lành như thằng con nhà chị.

[87; 28] (I wish my son could be good natured and study hard like yours.)

2/ Giá mà + (2nd/ 3rdperson) + do/don’t do X, thì + (1st person) + đâu đến nỗi nào

(148) Giá mà cha mẹ chúng ta cũng cho chúng ta ăn học đàng hoàng tử tế thì chúng ta

đâu đến nỗi nào. [93; 28] (If our parents could support us to fulfill our educational dream, then we are not

suffering like this.)

3/ Phải chi + ( 2nd/3rd person) + do/don’t do X + thì đã không …

59

(149) Phải chi bả nghe lời tui không bỏ qua những nguyên tắc kinh tế tối thiểu thì đã

không xảy ra chuyện này rồi. [40; 180] (If she had taken my advice, not ignoring some basic principles, it wouldn’t have

happened.)

II.3. MODIFIERS IN ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE CRITICISMS

Many reasearchers have affirmed that not only strategies but also modifiers are

essential elements to form criticisms.

When delivering criticisms, the participants employed the following modifiers to show

respect to their interlocutors’ face. These modifiers were categorized according to their

relative location within the criticism. The coding categories below were adapted from House

and Kasper (1981).

II.3.1. External modification:

External modifications are the supportives which move before or after the head acts.

They include reinforcing devices, namely, steers, sweeteners, disarmers, and grounders.

II.3.1.1. Steers:

II.3.1.1.1. In English:

Steers are utterances that S used to lead H onto the issue he or she was going to raise.

They are ‘I have some comments about …’, ‘There is something that I’d like to say to you…’,

‘Anyway I told you that…’, ‘I’d like to express my own opinion/ attitude about…’, etc. in

English. For example,

(150) I have some comments that you don’t look as enthusiastic as you were a little

while ago. [21; 7](151) Here are some my own ideas of his manner. [29; 42]

60

(152) There is something that I’d like to say to you. You’ve got the shrinks. You’ve

got them badly! You’ve got the most terrible case of shrinks I’ve ever seen.

[24; 31](153) Anyway, I told you that you were completely wrong. [21; 32]

II.3.1.1.2. In Vietnamese:

The patterns ‘để tao/tôi/anh/em… nói cho mà nghe nè…’, ‘tôi muốn nói rằng…’, ‘nếu

phải khuyên, tôi chỉ khuyên…’, ‘Ví dụ như…’,’ Ý của tôi là thế này…’, etc. are the Vietnamese

equivalents.

(154) Để tao nói cho mày nghe nè. Chỉ có thằng già này nhìn xa trông rộng, tính toán

vì lợi ích chung, nhưng có ai thèm hiểu cho đâu. [63; 29] (Let’s me tell you something! I’m the only one who really cares for everyone,

but nobody feel me at all.)

(155) Còn chuyện của chú, nếu phải khuyên, tôi chỉ khuyên chú nên trở về. [42; 49] (If you ask me, I suggest you should return home.)

(156) Tao nghe bố mẹ mày than phiền về mày nhiều lắm. Ví dụ như ngày sinh phần

cho ổng bả, mày chẳng hề biết đến và chẳng đóng góp thứ gì. [86; 28] (I heard you parents were complaining about you. They said you don’t even care

and make no contributions to their funeral plans.)

II.3.1.2. Sweeteners:

II.3.1.2.1. In English:

Sweeteners are compliments or positive rewards paid to H either before or after a

criticism to compensate for the offensive act. For example,

(157) Joking is fine, but there are some jokes of you I don’t enjoy. [31; 114]

61

(158) You’re a good boy, Tim, and there’s nothing wrong with being generous, but it is

possible sometimes to be over generous and you might have been just a little bit

over generous towards that old man. [29; 75](159) You were polite and friendly to me, but you were not honest. You were not a

gentleman. [7; 56]

II.3.1.2.2. In Vietnamese:

The Vietnamese also uses this type of modifier very often when giving criticisms. For

instance,

(160) Biết chú mang nặng kỷ niệm tôi quý và càng quý hơn khi giờ đây mọi người hầu

hết đều bảo nhau quay lưng lại quá khứ rồi. Nhưng đeo đuổi theo nó là điều

không nên. [39; 29] (Nowadays, many people ignore their pasts. You are an exception. That is why I

am really happy for you. However, do not just look back! You have to look

forward.)

(161) Qua làm việc mấy lần, nhất là lần đầu tuần vừa rồi, em thấy bả táo bạo thông

minh nhạy bén, dám quyết, dám chịu trách nhiệm nhưng táo bạo và liều lĩnh quá,

táo bạo đến đôi khi không hiểu gì cả mà đáng ra ở cương vị ấy, bả phải hết sức

thận trọng. [40; 184] (I had been working with her several times and I know she is very smart and

responsible person. However, last week, I realized that she was also reckless.

At her level, she should not do like that!)

(162) Tôi thực sự hoan nghênh những đóng góp tích cực có ích của anh trong những

cuộc họp gần đây. Song trong cuộc họp này, tôi thấy anh vẫn chưa đưa ra những

đóng góp cho kế hoạch của chúng ta như thường lệ. [45; 29] (I was really appreciative your last helpful opinion, but I found that you didn’t

make good contribution to our plan as usual.)

(163) Dù em có thay lòng đổi dạ và không còn là cô em bé bỏng và ngây thơ như

trước nữa, nhưng tôi cũng phải thừa nhận rằng em vẫn là biểu tượng và khát

62

vọng sống của tôi. [129; 28] (Even though you had dumped me and you are no longer my little angel, but I

have to admit that you are still my angel.)

II.3.1.3. Disarmers:

II.3.1.3.1. In English:

Disarmers are utterances that S used to show his or her awareness of the potential

offence that his or her speech might cause H. Disarmers in English may take any of the

followings: It might drive you crazy when…, I hate to tell you that…, It might hurt you a lot…,

It’s not (very) good…, I hate to turn you down but …, I feel (very) sorry to say that…, etc. For

instances,

(164) It might drive you crazy when I want to say that you treat me in a very strange

way just because I’m not a suitable woman for the Barretto to marry. [33; 53](165) I feel very sorry to let you know there’s nothing we can do about it right now, so

it doesn’t make any sense for you to be mad at me. [2; 66](166) I hate to tell you that he’s wrong when he thinks the whole world was made for

his pleasure. [31; 23]

II.3.1.3.2. In Vietnamese:

Disarmers in Vietnamese can also be realized via phrases …có lẽ sẽ rất buồn/phát bực/

phát cáu/ phát khùng/ không vui… khi …, …không có cách nào khác…, …sẽ/có lẽ (sẽ rất) tự

ái…, …nghĩ là …sẽ bị choáng/sốc/phản đối…,…sẽ trách/ mắng…khi…, etc.

(167) Bố nghĩ con sẽ rất tự ái khi bố góp ý với con rằng đã lấy chồng rồi thì không nên

đua đòi lêu lổng theo bạn bè, mà phải biết ở nhà lo cho chồng cho con.

[109; 41] (I know you will be sad, but I have to say that you were totally wrong. As a

63

married woman, you should stay home and take care of your family, not fooling

around with your friends.)

(168) Mày có lẽ sẽ rất buồn khi tao nói mày thiệt không phải chút nào. Chuyện sai trái

như thế mà mày cũng phụ họa vào. [119; 54] (I know you will be sad, but I have to say that you were totally wrong. How dare

you took side with others in that trouble.)

(169) Mày sẽ cho tao là nhiều chuyện nhưng tao cũng phải nói. Mày như ếch ngồi đáy

giếng, biết chiếc xà lan ấy nó nằm nghiêng nằm ngửa ra sao đâu mà cũng bày đặt

làm quân sư quạt mo. [55; 29] (You may say that I am an annoying person but I have to tell you something. If

you don’t know anything, don’t say anything!)

II.3.1.4. Grounder:

II.3.1.4.1. In English:

Grounders are utterances that S used to give reasons to justify his or her intent. Let us

begin with some examples.

(170) It’s quite stupid of you to completely believe that a walking-stick possibly grow

longer because it’s made of dead wood and dead wood can’t grow. [24; 29](171) You’d better careful because when I see you starting to plot, I watch you like a

wombat. [24; 18](172) She might be taught better manners without spoiling her good looks because

she just shakes her head when being asked. [13; 29]

II.3.1.4.2. In Vienamese:

Grounders in Vietnamese can also be recognized in any of the followings:

64

(173) Mày cổ lỗ xỉ bỏ xừ, vì học Anh văn là phải tạo được không khí sinh động và sôi

nổi như vậy mới có hiệu quả chứ [101; 28] (How old-fashioned you are! It is only effective when teachers know how to

stimulate students’ interest in learning English.)

(174) Ông bảo thằng bạn trai của chị là người ươn hèn, không có chí khí nam nhi, chị

mà lấy anh ta cũng sẽ khổ cả đời. [74; 29] (Our grandpa told your boyfriend lacks of courage and strong will. Therefore, it

is miserable of you to marry him.)

(173) Anh không hiểu thật hay đùa? Trông anh cũng có vẻ trí thức, những bức họa

cũng có hồn mà tệ thế sao? [119; 29] (Don’t you understand or do you pretend not to understand? You yourself look

intellectual and your paintings are rather expressive, but how heartless you are!)

II.3.2. Internal modification:

Internal modifications are the parts of the speech act of criticizing. They are:

II.3.2.1. Hedges:

II.3.2.1.1. In English:

In literature, a “hedge” is partical, word or phrase that modifies the degree of

membership of a predicate or noun phrase in a sentence, it says of that membership that it is

partial, or true only in certain respects, or that it is more true and complete than perhaps

might be expected.

(Brown and Levinson, 1987: 114)

Hedging opinion with hedges like sort of, kind of, somehow… are used for avoiding

direct criticism. For examples,

(174) Take no notice of him, Tim. He is really a sort of person who is always

showing off. [29; 61]

65

(175) This child is just a kind of dull boy. He can’t learn anything. [7; 7]

II.3.2.1.2. In Vienamese:

Hedges in Vietnamese are also found in the followings,

(176) Đâu có loại người nào như thế chứ, nửa đêm nửa hôm rồi còn tha con người ta

đi. [44; 384] (What type of person is he when inviting my child to go out at midnight?)

(177) Gã ấy cũng kiểu như những tay giang hồ tứ chiến mà thôi. [100; 92] (He’s such a player, no more no less.)

(178) Tôi chỉ sợ thằng ấy nếu không là đoán mò ngớ ngẩn như lũ thầy bói xem voi,

thì cũng ngu si kiểu như anh chàng trói voi bỏ rọ mà thôi. [98; 48] (I am afraid that if he’s not a fool, then he might be an idiot!)

II.3.2.2.Cajolers:

II.3.2.2.1. In English:

Cajolers are conventionalized speech items whose semantic content is a little

transparent relevance to their discourse meaning (Blum-Kulka et al., 1989: 284) their

discourse functions being the establishment, restoration or extension of harmony between the

H and S. They are ‘you know’, ‘you see’, ‘as you know’, ‘as you may have learnt’, ‘I mean’…

(178) You know we’ve out of your tablets I told you this morning. Why don’t you do

what I say and see a doctor? [3; 14](179) I mean you’ve done wrong in taking his only comfort away from a poor prisoner.

[8; 46](180) Now, wait a minute, Stanley. Stop and think about it. Half the people in the

world are female, and if you come along and start singling out one of them for

66

being a woman you’re not proving a goddam thing, you know it. [5; 53]

II.3.2.2.2. In Vietnamese:

‘Anh biết đấy’, ‘anh biết không’, ‘chị xem’, ‘anh/chị thấy không’, ‘anh/chị hiểu cho’…

are equivalent cajolers in Vietnamese. For instances,

(181) Anh biết không, chuyện có thế mà mẹ cũng làm rầm lên. [60; 28] (You know what? It’s not thing but mom made it so complicated!)

(182) Chị xem, cái bọn trẻ này ăn nói không biết rào trước đón sau, cứ toạc móng

heo, thẳng tuồn tuột, đến sống sượng. [53; 29] (As you see, those little children spoke in a direct and rough language without

any precaution.)

(183) Tôi định nói là cái con ấy suốt ngày ra ngắm vào vuốt thì còn tính gì đến

chuyện làm ăn được nữa. [126; 79]

(I meant she counldn’t do anything because she just knows to look at herself

only.)

II.3.2.3. Appealers:

II.3.2.3.1. In English:

Appealers are devices that are explicitly hearer-directed and appeal to an

understanding or an alignment between S and H like ‘Right?’, ‘OK?’, ‘… don’t you think?’,

‘…is it?’, etc.

(184) Now, Milo, stop teasing me like that, OK? [5; 7](185) You’re wrong, Jack, don’t you think? [1; 118](186) They are rather rough and rude. Right? [7; 30]

II.3.2.3.2. In Vietnamese:

67

Vietnamese people also use appealers to evoke a hearer signal of understanding or

alignment like ‘đúng không nào?’, ‘phải không nào?’, ‘chứ nhỉ?’, ‘nhỉ?’, ‘đấy nhỉ?’, ‘được

chứ?’, etc.

(187) Đó không phải là việc của cậu, đúng không nào? [70; 29] (None of your business! Isn’t it?)

(188) Anh không đối xử tệ đến như vậy đấy chứ? [59; 28] (You don’t treat me that bad, do you?)

(189) Gớm, mày cũng lịch sự quá nhỉ! [128; 29] (Wow! I never ever thought that you were a polite person.)

II.3.2.4. Downtoners:

II.3.2.4.1. In English:

Downtoners in English are sentence modifiers which modulate the impact of an

utterance like ‘just’ or ‘simply’… or express uncertainty or tentativeness ‘perhaps’, ‘maybe’,

‘possibly’, ‘probably’…

(190) It is, perhaps, pretty nasty. The son of a bitch told me he was going to AA at

night. [27; 78](191) That’s unfair, but maybe the whole thing makes me sick. [28; 52](192) Mary, you probably have the shortest memory in the history of man. We went

bowling a week ago. Why don’t you wake up and live? [25; 24]II.3.2.4.2. In Vietnamese:

‘vừa mới’, ‘vừa’, ‘đơn giản là’, or ‘có lẽ’, ‘có thể’, ‘có khả năng’, ‘phải chăng’, ‘nói

khí không phải chứ…’, etc. are Vietnamese equivalents. For examples,

68

(193) Có lẽ thật ngớ ngẩn khi phải chịu đựng những thứ quá giới hạn chỉ vì theo đuổi

tham vọng của mình. [86; 28] (It would be crazy if you keep following your ambitions without any clear

plans.)

(194) Nói khí không phải chứ ở giữa chỗ đông người mà bác cứ nói lấy nói được như

thế là không nên bác ạ. [128; 28] (You should not say whatever you want to say in the front of the crowd like

that!)

(195) Phải chăng anh không có mắt hay sao mà không hay không biết gì hết.

[123; 28] (Are you blind or something? If not, why don’t you see anything at all?)

II.3.2.5. Understaters:

II.3.2.5.1. In English:

Understaters are adverbial modifiers that unrepresent the situation presented in the

proposition like ‘a (little) bit’, ‘quite’, ‘just a little’, ‘just a little bit’, ‘just a bit’, ‘a little’, etc.

(196) It caused not a little confusion. [30; 44](197) Stop, Stanley. It’s quite nonsense of you to take such unnecessary risks.

[19; 116](198) It was just a foolish question of you. [5; 43]

II.3.2.5.2. In Vietnamese:

In Vietnamese, understaters are ‘một chút’, ‘một tý’, ‘một tý tẹo teo’, ‘tý chút’, ‘tạm’,

‘hơi … một chút’, ‘tàm tạm’, ‘chút ít’, etc.

(199) Cách giải thích của anh vừa rồi hơi vô lí một tý. [87; 55] (Your explaination is just a little bit nonsense.)

69

(200) Phương án anh đưa ra cũng khá khả quan, tuy nhiên anh cần điều chỉnh chút ít

cho phù hợp với thực tế. [115; 70] (Your strategy is doable; however, you need to work around a little bit to make

sure it’s realistic.)

(201) Hải nhà em không lười chỉ hơi đụt thôi. [48; 28] (My Hai is not that lazzy. He’s just lay-back sometimes.)

II.3.2.6. Subjectivizers:

II.3.2.6.1. In English:

Subjectivizers are elements which express a speaker’s subjective opinion with regard

to the situation referred to in the proposition, such as ‘I think’, ‘I suppose’, ‘I’m afraid’, ‘in my

opinion’, ‘to my mind’, etc. Let us cite some examples.

(202) In my opinion, it’s waste of time of you to try to persuade her. [28; 64](203) Mih, I couldn’t say this to you down there, but I think you can’t blame that kid

like that. [19; 92](204) It was generally supposed that it would not happen again. [25; 81]

II.3.2.6.2. In Vietnamese:

Subjectivizers in Vietnamese are ‘tôi nghĩ (rằng)’, ‘tôi cho rằng’, ‘tôi e (rằng)’, ‘theo

tôi (thì)’, ‘theo quan điểm của tôi (thì)’, ‘theo cách nhìn nhận của tôi’, etc.

(205) Tớ nghĩ cuộc sống của cậu cũng đâu đến nỗi nào mà cậu cứ kêu với rên như

thế. [57; 29] (I think your life is not bad all right, just be positive and don’t feel down!)

(206) Theo cách nhìn nhận của tôi thì bà con ta đáng trách lắm. Việc của chính mình

mà lại có người lơ là, làm ăn theo kiểu quan cần dân trễ, hoặc chân trong chân

70

ngòai. [102; 49] (According to my point of view, our people should be blamed. They don’t even

care about their own problems and I don’t see they are finding a way to solve

them.)

(207) Tao e rằng cái thằng ấy, cái thằng quá bạo gan ấy, thể nào cũng vào tù sớm mà

thôi. [48; 349] (I think it’s just a matter of time, he is going to jail for all the risky things that

he did.)

II.3.2.7. Intensifiers:

II.3.2.7.1. In English:

Intensifiers are elements that are used to modify gradable meanings in the proposition

like ‘so’, ‘really’, ‘extremely’, ‘enormously’, ‘absolutely’, ‘very’, etc.

(208) Peggoty, you’re extremely rule and you are making me angry. [7; 16](209) I mean it, Dade. Howard was firm and unyielding in his manner and it’s really

dangerous to do. [5; 118](210) You were unkind to David’s mother. You made her her very unhappy. You and

your sister are absolutely cruel. You were cruel to David and his mother, too.

You’re really a bad people. [7; 25]

II.3.2.7.2. In Vietnamese:

In Vietnamese, the following words function as intensifiers: ‘vô cùng’, ‘thực sự’, ‘thật

là’, ‘thật’, ‘rất’, ‘rất chi là’, ‘quả là’, ‘rất ư là’, ‘lắm’, ‘thế’, ‘đến vậy’, ‘cực kỳ’, ‘có …trở

lên’, …

(211) Nó mới ngoi lên được chức quản đốc mà đã rất ư là hách. [96; 276]

71

(He’s very bossy even though he’s just got promoted to be a new manager.)

(212) Bố mẹ à, con thiết nghĩ, bố mẹ không nên can thiệp quá sâu vào đời sống riêng

tư của gia đình em nó như thế. [51; 29] (Mom and Dad! I think you should not interfere my younger brother’s personal

life!)

(213) Cái thằng này sao cù lần quá trời hà, không biết mô tê chi hết. Hèn chi mày dễ

bị dụ khị là phải. [40; 48] (You’re such an idiot! No wonder you were being fooled all the times!)

II.4. DISCUSSION ON THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE

TWO LANGUAGES

Generally, the speech act of criticizing in English and Vietnamese exhibits both

differences and similarities.

II.4.1. The criticism strategies in English and Vietnamese:

Both languages were found to make use of the same criticism strategies: direct and

indirect, but not necessarily the same number and use of criticism formulas. Table 1 indicates

that generally the Vietnamese produced fewer direct criticisms but more indirect ones than the

English. In deed, as shown in Table 1, the Vietnamese delivered 57.9% for direct criticisms,

compared to 63.6% for the English and 42.1% for indirect criticisms, compared to 36.4% for

the English.

As far as the direct criticism formulas are concerned, the Vietnamese were

significantly different from the English in the frequency of their use of “negative evaluation”

and “identifications of problem”. No difference between the two languages was found for the

other three direct criticism formulas, namely “disapprovals”, “expressions of disagreement”,

and “consequences”. As shown in Table 2, the Vietnamese produced a considerably smaller

72

number of “identifications of problem” than the English, 7.2% for the Vietnamese compared

to 16.5% for the English, whereas the Vietnamese made use of a great number of “negative

evaluation” ( 15.1%).

Table1: Result of survey on direct and indirect strategies in English and Vietnamese.

Table 2: Result of survey on direct strategies in English and Vietnamese.

Negative

evaluation

Disapproval Expression of

disagreement

Identification

of problem

Consequences Total

English 10.9% 10.7% 13.1% 16.5% 12.4% 500

Vietnamese 15.1% 11.2% 14.6% 7.2% 9.8% 600

In comparison of linguistic realizations, the Vietnamese often produced strikingly

different wording even when they used the same criticism formulas as the English. Although

both languages made use of five direct criticism formulas (“negative evaluation”,

“disapprovals”, “expressions of disagreement”, “identification of problem”, and

“consequences”), there are also in Vietnamese a range of ways to criticize directly, which are

far from similar to the conventional ways in English.

The most outstanding illustrated examples were found in the Vietnamese’s and the

English’s use of “negative evaluation”. It was observed that when giving “negative

Strategies

Language

Direct Indirect

Total number of

criticisms counted

English 63.6% 36.4% 500

Vietnamese 57.9% 42.1% 600

73

evaluation” on their interlocutors’ behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products, and etc., the

English made use of only a restricted ways via a limited number of negative adjectives (crazy,

risk, foolish, rude and sullen, dangerous, disgusting, unwise, not nice…), meanwhile the

Vietnamese tended to use not only evaluative adjectives but nouns and verbs with negative

meaning.

Another example of the differences in linguistic realizations that while most of the

Vietnamese’s “disagreement” was mitigated by the performative “Tôi hoàn toàn không đồng

ý…”, “Con không thể nào chấp nhận…”, “Tôi cho rằng…”, “Theo ý của tôi…”, etc., the

English’s “disagreement” was mostly expressed by the negation “No”.

Apart from the direct ways, there are in both English and Vietnamese indirect

strategies of criticizing. In both languages, we can criticize indirectly via “demand”, “request”,

“advice”, “suggestion”, “rhetorical question”, “metaphor”, “being ironic” or

“supposition/wish”. However, the collected data revealed a significant difference between the

English and the Vietnamese in the use of “advice”, “demand” and “suggestion”. Table 3

illustrated the distribution of indirect criticisms by the both languages. As can be seen, except

for “request”, “rhetorical question”, “metaphor”, “being ironic”, and “supposition/wish”, all

the remaining indirect criticisms were distributed quite differently between the English and

Vietnamese. For instance, while the English preferred “suggestion for change”, the

Vietnamese seemed to favor “advice” and “demand”. Indeed, “suggestion for change”

constituted the largest percentage of the English criticisms (9.8%), but contributed only a

modest quantity of 4.1% to the Vietnamese’s total use of criticism. By contrast, “advice” and

“demand” were resorted to 9.6% for the former and 8.9% for the latter of the time by the

Vietnamese, but were employed only 4.2% and 3.7% of the time by the English, respectively.

Table3: Result of survey on indirect strategies in English and Vietnamese.

Request Advice Demand Suggestion Rhetorical

question

Supposition/

Wish

Metaphor Being

ironic

Total

English 5.8% 4.2% 3.7% 9.8% 3.6% 3.1% 2.7% 3.5% 500

Vietnamese 6.1 % 9.6% 8.9% 4.1% 4.3% 3.4% 3.1% 3.6% 600

74

In term of actual wording of the criticism formula “advice”, the modal system between

the two languages remarkably differs from each other. The English employed a wide variety

of advice realization structures with modal verbs that express advisability. In fact, “should”,

had better”, and “ought to” are conventionalized ways of giving advice. Whereas “need”,

“have to”, and “must” are not conventionalized and are usually avoided in English. By

contrast, in Vietnamese “cần”, “nên”, and “phải” and the particles “nào”, “thôi”, “đi”,

“nữa”, “nghe”, “nha”, “nghen”… are frequently used when producing pieces of advice.

Similarly, when it came to linguistic realization of the criticism formula “request”,

most of the native speaker of English tended to make use of the modality “can” and “could” to

express their request politely, whereas in Vietnamese it is the modal word (nào, thôi, đi, nhé,

nha, nghe, nghen…).

“Suggestion” was another criticism formula that was verbalized differently by the

Vietnamese and the English. While most of the English “suggestion” were mitigated by the

structures with the performative verb “suggest” I suggest that …, May I suggest…, It’s

suggested that…, What I ‘m going to suggest is that…,etc., the Vietnamese suggestion was

recognized via noun “Gợi ý của tôi là …”

In the field of addressing term, the English tend to be more informal than the

Vietnamese. The English addressing system is in interpersonal contact by using I -You system

of addressing while Vietnamese system of addressing is rather complicated (Tôi, tao, tớ, mày,

bạn, anh, chị, thằng ...)

Another examples of the differences in actual wording that there are more varied ways

in Vietnamese when delivering criticisms than in English, for some of which there are no

English equivalents or the translations are not idiomatic (e.g. đồ bán cá bán tôm, đa nghi như

Tào Tháo, cái loại chồng suốt ngày chỉ rượu với tổ tôm, ăn cơm nhà vác tù và hàng tổng, mới

nứt mắt ra, nhát như thỏ đế, mèo mỡ, tính khí cổ hủ lạc hậu như mấy ông già xưa, thổ lộ can

trường, rau già cá ươn, sứa không nhảy qua đăng được, thằng ngáo lên chùa, kẻ thăm ván

75

bán thuyền, nói toạc móng heo, quân sư quạt mo, thui chó nửa mùa hết rơm, lù rù như chuột

chù phải khói, dắt trâu chui qua ống, rung cây dọa khỉ, răng cắn vào lưỡi,…).

II.4.2. The modifiers in English and Vietnamese

The speech act of criticizing in English and Vietnamese exhibits both differences and

similarities, not only in criticism strategies but also in the choices of modifiers. Table 4 is to

summarize the modifiers in English and Vietnamese criticisms.

Table4: Result of survey on the modifiers in English and Vietnamese criticisms.

Languages

Modifiers

English Vietnamese

A.Internal

Modification

A.1. Hedges

A.2.Cajolers

A.3. Appealers

A.4. Downtoners

A.5.Understaters

-sort of, kind of, somehow …

-you know, you see, as you know, as

you may have learnt, I mean …

-Right?, OK?, …don’t you think?, …

is it?

-perhaps, maybe, possibly,probably…

-a (little) bit, quite, just a little, just a

little bit, just a bit, a little…

-loại, kiểu, thứ, hạng ….

-anh biết đấy, anh biết không, anh/chị

thấy không, anh chị hiểu cho …

-đúng không nào?, phải không nào?,

chứ nhỉ?, nhỉ?, đấy nhỉ?, được chứ? ...

-có lẽ, có thể, có khả năng, nói khí

không phải chứ….

-một chút, một tý, một tý tẹo teo, tý

chút, tạm, hơi … một chút, tàm tạm,

chút ít ...

76

A.6. Subjectivizers

A.7. Intensifiers

B.External

modification

B.1. Steers

B2.Sweeteners

B.3.Disarmers

B4. Grounders

-I think, I suppose, I’m afraid, In my

opinion, to my mind….

-so, really, extremely, enormously,

absolutely, very…

- ‘I have some comments about …’,

‘There is something that I’d like to

say to you…’, ‘Anyway I told you

that…’, ‘I’d like to express my own

opinion/ attitude about…’

-‘Joking is fine, but ...’, ‘there’s

nothing wrong with being generous,

but …’,

- ‘It might drive you crazy when…’,

‘I hate to tell you that…’, ‘It might

hurt you a lot…’, ‘It’s not (very)

good…’, ‘I hate to turn you down but

…’, ‘I feel (very) sorry to say that…’

-because…, because of…, since….

-tôi nghĩ rằng, tôi cho rằng, tôi e rằng,

theo tôi thì, theo quan điểm của tôi,

theo cách nhìn nhận của tôi …

-vô cùng, thực sự, thật là, thật, rất, rất

chi là, quả là, lắm, thế, đến vậy, cực

kỳ …

- Để tao/tôi/anh/em … nói cho mà

nghe nè …’, ‘tôi muốn nói rằng …’,

‘nếu phải khuyên, tôi chỉ khuyên…’,

‘Ví dụ như …’, ‘Ý của tôi là thế này

…’

-‘Đó là điều đáng quý, nhưng…’, ‘Nói chuyện với nó rõ chán, nhưng

dù sao …’

- ‘…có lẽ sẽ rất buồn/phát bực/ phát

cáu/ phát khùng/ không vui… khi …’,

‘…không có cách nào khác…’, ‘…

sẽ/có lẽ (sẽ rất) tự ái…’, ‘…nghĩ là …

sẽ bị choáng/sốc/phản đối…’, ‘…sẽ

trách/ mắng…khi…’

- vì.., có lẽ do.., tại vì…, bởi vì…

77

As far as the external modifiers are concerned, the Vietnamese did not differ much

from the English in their order or preference for a particular type of modifiers. In fact, their

choices included “sweeteners” (49.1%), “grounders” (22.4%) and “disarmers” (18.2%), finally

followed by “steers” (10.3%). This is relatively similar to the English ranking of choices

(64.8%, 24.7%, 7.9% and 2.6%, respectively).

The Vietnamese differed from the English, however, in that they provided a more even

distribution of the various types of external modifiers. Meanwhile, the English tended to rely

heavily on “sweeteners” (64.8%) and slightly on the rest, especially “steers” (2.6%) and

“disarmers” (7.9%).

The Vietnamese were also remarkably different from the English in the distribution

of their choices of internal modifiers. Table 5 illustrates the distribution of criticism internal

modifiers by the two languages.

Table5: The distribution of criticism internal modifiers by the two languages

Language

Internal

modifiers

English Vietnamese

Hedges 8.6% 8.4%

Cajolers 6.9% 7.8%

Appealers 10% 11.9%

Downtoners 18.3% 17.6%

Understaters 20.1% 18.3%

Subjectivizers 29.7% 17.2%

Intensifiers 5.4% 19.8%

As can be seen from the Table 5, “subjectivizers” and “intensifiers”, except for all the

remaining internal modifiers (“hedges”, “cajolers”, “appealers”, “downtoners”, and

78

“understaters”), were distributed quite differently between the English and the Vietnamese. In

deed, while the English preferred “subjectivizers”, the Vietnamese seemed to choose

“intensifiers” the most. “Subjectivizers” constituted the largest percentage of English

criticisms (29.7%) while the Vietnamese employed only 17.2% of the Vietnamese total use of

criticism internal modifiers.

“Intensifiers” was another difference in the choice of criticism internal modifiers

between the two languages. “Intensifiers” (rất, vô cùng, thực sự, rất ư là…) were applied most

by the Vietnamese, while criticisms without any modification by intensifiers were most

preferred by the English.

II.4.3. Summary of differences and similarity of the speech act of criticizing in English and

Vietnamese cultures:

The speech act of criticizing is a subtle one, a high face-threatening act in

communication, especially in intercultural communication, which might affect the success or

failure of giving criticism in daily communication. Therefore, learners must be aware of

differences and similarities to guarantee the cultural floor that will be made available for both

S and H to understand each other exempt from any culture shock.

There are so many differences between systems of beliefs, values, and assumptions of

people from different cultures and here British and Vietnamese. Through the analysis above

we can see that in many instances the different culture values in Vietnamese and English seem

to adversely affect how the Vietnamese and the English went about performing criticisms.

However, as far as the speech act of criticizing is concerned and within the limitation of this

study, we have raised the most contrastive values affecting how they give criticisms.

Firstly, it is the fact that the English tend to be more rational and therefore more direct

in speech acts than the Vietnamese who appreciate harmony and as a result, tend to be more

indirect in expressing their point of view, especially in delivering criticisms. This could

explain why the Vietnamese produced fewer direct criticisms but more indirect ones than the

English.

79

Secondly, coming from the conversational style, the English tend to avoid challenging

elements threatening the other’s face and, as a result, tend to be “hedged” as much as possible

when arguments are unavoidable. Furthermore, the English who are well known to be reserve

do not give their opinion or showing their feeling in public and often cause confusion by not

saying what they mean. Whereas, it is not the case in Vietnamese culture where the sincerity

and straightforwardness are highly appreciated. The Vietnamese thus employed more

“negative evaluation” than the English did.

Thirdly, the Vietnamese use of “advice” and “demand” was more or less influenced by

their culture values. In the English culture, giving “advice” or “demand” would be probably

considered “interfering” or “face-threatening”, whereas it is regarded as demonstrating case,

sincerity and friendliness, which seem to constitute the perception of politeness in Vietnamese

culture. In addition, since the sense of community is quite strong, which often makes the

Vietnamese feel responsible for other’s deed, especially for helping the people who have done

something wrong to correct themselves; therefore, the Vietnamese had a rather higher

percentage of frequency in “advice” and “demand” than the English did.

Fourthly, “requests for change” in form of questions in English (beginning with “can”

or “could”) are regarded as the highest form of politeness, which are frequently used in

everyday life. Whereas such questions in Vietnamese are considered as the formal ones and

are restrictedly employed. This is influenced by the culture values that the Vietnamese prefer

closeness.

Fifthly, the English highly assess their individualism, whereas the Vietnamese pay

much respect to collectivism as nature of their life. Individualism and collectivism have

influence on the behavior and therefore how they give criticisms. The English, therefore,

preferred “subjectivizers” the most.

Sixthly, the English addressing system is in interpersonal contact by using I -You equal

system of addressing while Vietnamese equal system of addressing is interpreted in another

cultural feature. As stated in I.1.2., Kinship plays an important role in many rural areas of

Vietnam, which results in a complex hierarchy of relationships. In the field of addressing term,

the Vietnamese respect hierarchical system. Therefore, the English tend to be more informal

80

than the Vietnamese in the forms of addressing, which are governed by the complicated

hierarchical system of addressing.

Seventhly, the differences in English and Vietnamese culture values may more or less

affect to the criticism expressions. Generally, there are more varied ways in Vietnamese when

delivering criticisms than in English, for some of which there are no English equivalents or the

translations are not idiomatic (“tham con giếc tiếc con rô”, “đồ bán cá bán tôm”, “ăn cơm nhà

vác tù và hàng tổng”, “rau già cá ươn”, “thui chó nửa mùa hết rơm”, “lù rù như chuột chù

phải khói”, “dắt trâu chui qua ống”, “rung cây dọa khỉ”, “nói toạc móng heo”, “lo bò trắng

răng”, “mất bò mới lo làm chuồng”, “làm cho ra ngô ra khoai”, “cõng rắn cắn gà nhà”,

“đàn gảy tai trâu” etc.) for living under the influence of the Vietnamese rice culture, (“thằng

ngáo lên chùa”, “thằng trời đánh thánh vật”, “làm ơn làm phúc”, “cải tà quy chính”, “chiếc

áo không làm nên thầy tu”) of religion, (“kẻ thăm ván bán thuyền”, “vong ân bội nghĩa”, “ăn

cháo đá bát”) of the tutelary spirit of the locality, and of the ancestors.

On the other hand, there also exists a similarity in the field of face and politeness when

giving criticisms in English and Vietnamese. The English as well as the Vietnamese try to

maintain politeness, keep and save face and try to dilute every face threatening act in

compliance with cultural norms they set up.

In short, awareness of cultural differences and similarity between the English and the

Vietnamese help us to understand better besides the influence of language, and help us to

avoid unnecessary cultural conflicts only because of the shortage of the world knowledge.

Now we can see if this awareness could do anything useful in the field of language and culture

teaching.

CHAPTER III. IMPLICATIONS TO FLT IN VIETNAM.

81

The previous analysis of criticism strategies in both English and Vietnamese cultures

has raised a question to all of us that to be success in a target language does not only mean full

understanding of that target linguistic system, but also a broader acquisition about the target

culture. Hence, the core of this chapter is to bring forwards certain implications in: (i) cross-

cultural communication, and (ii) foreign language teaching and learning of the speech act of

criticism, especially in translation.

III.1. Review of the study:

It can be summarized from the study that:

The English tend to be more rational and therefore more direct in speech acts than the

Vietnamese who appreciate harmony and as a result, tend to be more indirect in expressing

their point of view, especially in delivering criticisms.

The Vietnamese employed more “negative evaluation” than the English did because of

differences in the culture values of sincerity and straightfordwardness.

“Advice” and “demand” in Vietnamese are regarded as demonstrating case, sincerity

and friendliness, while they are considered as interfering or face-threatening in the English

culture; therefore, the Vietnamese had a rather higher percentage of frequency in “advice” and

“demand” than the English.

The influence of the culture values that the Vietnamese prefer closeness, sincerity and

friendliness, “requests for change” in form of questions are limited in use in Vietnamese

whereas they are highly appreciated in English.

Individualism (English) and collectivism (Vietnamese) have influence on the behavior

and therefore how they give criticisms, the English thus preferred “subjectivizers” the most.

The English tend to be more informal than the Vietnamese in the forms of addressing,

which are governed by the complicated hierarchical system of addressing.

Generally, there are more varied ways in Vietnamese when delivering criticisms than

in English, for some of which there are no English equivalents or the translations are not

82

idiomatic for living under the influence of the differences in manners and customs, religion,

thoughts and conceptions of life, etc.

III.2. Implications:

III.2.1. In cross-cultural communication:

Richards et al. (1992: 92) defines Cross-cultural communication as “an exchange of

ideas, information, etc. between persons from different cultural backgrounds.” From that point

of view, it is quite clearly that Cross-cultural communication contains in itself potential

cultural shock because each participant may interpret the other’s idea according to his or her

own cultural conventions and expectations.

In line with that idea, Levine & Adelman (1982: 178) states “culture conflict” is

“Cultural misunderstanding that creates negative feelings and confusion” and “cultural

conflicts occur as a result of misinterpretations, ethnocentrism, stereotypes and prejudice.

Thus, it is the variety of cultures in the world that causes culture shock.

However, “it seems that no matter how well a person has prepared himself, some

degree of “shock” is inevitable and, some would say, necessary for better adjustment. What is

important is to recognize these feelings and know how to respond to them.” (Condon and

Yourself, 1971).

Therefore, learning for awareness of cross-cultural interaction and learning for cultural

adjustment is essential or vital for not only a person who expects to survive in a new

environment, but also for a learner of a foreign language who expects to succeed in

communication.

To measure communicative success in person-to-person interaction, Dean Barnlund

(1975 in Valdes, J.M.; 1992: 64) has given a formula consisting of three factors:

- Interpersonal equation (The understanding between people is dependent upon the

degree of similarity of their belief systems, their perceptual orientations and their

communication styles.)

83

- Perceptual orientation (The way approaches reality. Those people who share the

same perceptual orientation feel more with each other.)

- Similarity of communicative style ( The likelihood that congenial communicants

enjoy talking about the same topic, tune easily into the same factual or emotional

levels of meaning, share a preference for form understand each other on non-verbal

level.)

In fact, there are so many differences between systems of beliefs, values, norms and

assumptions of people from different cultures and here English-Vietnamese.

In short, awareness of cultural differences and similarity between the English and

Vietnamese criticisms help us understand better the influence of culture on language and help

us avoid unnecessary cultural conflicts to be successful in cross-cultural communication.

III.2.2. In foreign language teaching and learning:

It is recently undeniable that cross-cultural competence (the awareness of cross-

cultural interaction) is seen as the main goal in language teaching and learning. The reason for

this is that language and culture is inseparable, that language learning is a process of

acculturation and that culture could be defined in term of communication and vice versa.

When it came to the reality of foreign language teaching and learning situation in

Vietnam, as stated in the Introduction, the teaching and learning of English in Vietnam are

more or less under the influence of the traditional ways, which mainly focused on the

linguistic competence, meanwhile little attention has been paid to cultural aspects. As a result,

in terms of the speech act of criticism, the Vietnamese learners may:

- Stick to a limited number of ways of giving criticisms in English.

- Impose the conventional ways of giving criticisms in Vietnamese when speaking

English.

84

- Be unaware of the ways to soften the potential of threatening fact elements when

delivering criticisms in English

- as a result, appear to be unnecessarily rude or impolite

- Give criticisms in English by translating the Vietnamese criticism strategies, which

may be the most outstanding and remarkable problem with Vietnamese learners of

English.

Therefore, the introduction of English and Vietnamese cultures to the translation

teaching of criticism is believed to be of great importance in foreign language teaching.

Translation is, according to Bell (1991: 6), “the replacement of a representation of a

text in one language by a representation of an equivalent text in a second language.”

However, it is not always easy to find the formal equivalents of a text in English. In fact, it’s

observed that Vietnamese students of English do not meet as many difficulties in translating

English criticisms into Vietnamese as they do when they translate Vietnamese criticisms into

English because they see no equivalence in English. This can be explained from the truth that

there are some noticeable differences between English and Vietnamese cultures, and as a

result, the remarkable differences on using language. Let us take some examples for this case:

(214) Giàu thì giàu thật, nhưng lão ấy tằn tiện qúa mức, thắt cổ mèo treo cổ chó đấy.

[57; 29] (215) Có điều gì không thoải mái thì cứ nói ra chứ cứ sưng mày sưng mặt thế ai mà

chịu được. [44; 388](216) Thì ra nó té nước theo mưa, xin giết thịt một con lợn mà lại mổ đến 2, 3 con.

[98; 180]

In the above sentences, “thắt cổ mèo treo cổ chó”, “sưng mày sưng mặt”, “té nước

theo mưa” are expressions which are frequently used in Vietnamese whereas in the target

language and culture we can find no absolute equivalent translation.

85

Therefore, Newmark (1988: 39) proposed two methods of translation. They are

semantic translation (translator tries to render the exact contextual meaning of the original

text) and communicative translation (translator focuses on the “force” rather than the content

of the message).

Based on the above methods, sematically and literally, the translations may yield “He

hang his cat and dog” (thắt cổ mèo treo cổ chó), “you have swollen face” (sưng mày sưng

mặt), “He splashed the water in the rain” (té nước theo mưa). In the target language and

culture, these equivalent translations seem alien and lose their original forces of the speech act

of criticizing. Communicatively, these expressions may be translated as “very stingy” (thắt cổ

mèo treo cổ chó), “be displeased” (sưng mày sưng mặt), and “take advantage of” (té nước

theo mưa).

It’s quite clearly from the above examples that, for many Vietnamese criticisms,

semantic translation will sound awkwards, or even imposible. Thus, the Vietnamese learners

of English should be encouraged to translate Vietnamese criticisms into English using

communicative translation, not semantic translation.

Hence, there are some suggested criticisms which are picked up mainly from the

Vietnamsese-Vietnamese dictionary (Y, N., 1999) to help students practice their skill of

Vietnamese-English translation employing communicative translation.

(1) Mấy đứa ấy chỉ là lũ ăn đóm theo tàn mà thôi, chấp nhặt làm gì. [131; 49](2) Lúc làm tốt thì ai cũng tranh giành, nêu cao thành tích cá nhân, bây giờ thất thiệt

thua lỗ thầy đổ cho bóng, bóng đổ cho thầy, thật là dơ. [131; 1551](3) Bụng u thì cũng không ưa gì tông giống cái thằng vá ấy. [131; 1670](4) Lão già đã kề miệng lỗ rồi còn ki cóp tiền xây nhà ngang nhà dọc làm gì nữa, để

tiền ăn có hơn không. [131; 931](5) Thấy giám đốc sai sờ sờ thế mà trong cuộc họp ai cũng không dám rỉ răng. [131;

1498]

(6) Nó còn nhỏ, có sai thì bảo ban nó, việc gì phải tay đấm chân đá như thế! [131;

1498]

86

(7) Mày không tính toán trước, chứ ai lại tay không bắt gió trời như vậy. [131; 1498](8) Cũng vừa vừa thôi, đừng có tham bùi đánh cả bông. [131; 1522](9) Không biết ăn cây nào rào cây ấy, đã được thế nọ muốn thế kia. Những là tham con

giếc tiếc con rô, lại đứng núi này trông núi nọ. [131; 1522](10) Hắn lười chẩy thây, lúc nào cũng kiếm cớ để nghỉ. [131; 1071](11) Cứ thúc người ta đi từ từ mờ sáng thế mà thanh thiên bạch nhật rồi vẫn chưa đến.

[131; 1529](12) Anh đừng có thánh tướng tự mình lo liệu tất cả, thau đồng chẳng khỏi tay thợ hàn

đâu. [131; 1534](13) Nhà cửa nó bỏ phóng sinh ra đấy để đi đàn đúm. [131; 584](14) Cái con bé ấy ngồi chưa nóng chỗ đã đứng dậy quày quả ra đi. [131; 1208](15) Nó mới ngoi lên được chức quản đốc mà đã rộng miệng cả tiếng rồi. [131;

1412](16) Anh em với nhau sao chúng bay nỡ đối xử tán tận lương tâm đến thế. [131;

1491](17) Nghe ông ta nói thì rất hay, nhưng phải xem việc ông ấy làm chứ. Đúng là bọn

người tay cầm khoán tay bẻ măng. [131; 1497](18) Đã lấy chồng rồi còn về xin bố mẹ hết cái này đến cái khác, con cái gì mà thấy bở

thì đào, thấy mềm thì đục mãi. [131; 1551](19) Trong cuộc họp, ai cũng ngồi thin thít như thịt nấu đông thì còn gì là tinh thần

góp ý với xây dựng nữa. [131; 1572](20) Đồ trẻ con, ăn chưa sạch bạch chưa thông mà cứ gân cổ lên cãi nhau với người

lớn. [131; 47](21) Thằng ấy thì chấp gì nó, đúng là đồ ăn cơm không biết trở đầu đũa. [131; 48](22) Con gái lớn rồi phải học ăn học nói, học gói học mở, chứ như mày đi ra ngoài

người ta cười cho thối mũi. [131; 828](23) Lão ấy thì không thể khá lên được, kiếm được một muốn ăn mười thì gay thật.

[131; 938](24) Cái cô ấy … linh tinh lang tang quá, hôm nào đi với anh ấy, nay đã thân với người

87

khác rồi. [131; 1024](25) Cái thằng ấy lấy phải con vợ khó tính, bủn xỉn lo hơn tính thiệt, bắt ép chồng xin

hai anh chia của ở riêng. [131; 1027](26) Mới có đi tí đoạn đường, mà tụi bay đứa nào đứa nấy cũng trông cứ lò khò như

cò bợ cả vậy. [131; 1028](27) Cái bà ấy tài thật, nói khoác mà không ngượng mồm tí nào. [131; 1224](28) Em làm thế là không đúng. Em không nên bênh con như thế. Em mà cứ bênh con,

nó được mợi sau này dạy không được đâu. [131; 680](29) Nó hỏi chỏi họng vậy ai mà nghe được. [131; 377](30) Các anh chăm sóc trâu bò của hợp tác xã như thế nào mà chỉ thấy rặt một loại trâu

cổ bò, bò cổ giải thế này. [131; 1697](31) Mậu dịch viên gì mà cứng như củi khô, chưa chi đã cửa quyền. [131; 495](32) Vội gì thì bố cứ đi để tôi làm, việc gì mà giận cá chém thớt. [131; 740](33) Cái ngữ lúc nào cũng ngại lội bùn lấm chân, vọc sơn phù mặt, thì làm gì mà ăn?

[131; 1045](34) Một lúc ta không thể diệt được hai thằng, liệu cơm gắp mắm chớ anh Sáu. [131;

1022](35) Vợ chồng gì mà coi nhau như khách qua đường. [131; 884](36) Ông nhà này phải cái tính đã đi đâu y như rằng đi biền biệt mất tăm mất tích.

[131; 1108](37) Đã hơn ba mươi tuổi rồi mà hắn cứ lông bông như ngựa chạy đường quai. [131;

1046](38) Mày lại theo vết xe đổ các quan thầy mày, nhằm nhè nỗi gì mà huênh hoang, tự

đắc. [131; 1554](39) Các anh thì kêu van gì, lúc nào cũng trên chăn dưới nệm, có biết đói rách là gì

đâu. [131; 1702](40) Chị đừng vẽ rắn thêm chân, bày đặt chuyện để vu cáo người khác. [131; 1807](41) Tội rành rành như thế mà mày còn bênh hắn được sao. [131; 148](42) Cứ cái tính đỏng đảnh ấy thì chỉ có chết già. [131; 346]

88

(43) Kiểu làm dưỡng sức như thế thì không biết bao giờ mới xong việc. [131; 566](44) Đời thuở nhà ai mà vợ lại chửi chồng như thế. [131; 670](45) Bà không cần phải lo đứng lo ngồi cho con trai bà như thế đâu. Nó đã lớn rồi.

[131; 1027]

PART C. CONCLUSIONS

I. CONCLUSIONS

89

Language expresses, embodies, and symbolizes cultural reality. Therefore, it widely

belived that the correlation between language and culture is obviously undeniable.This relation

is clearly expressed throught the speech act of criticism in English and Vietnamese.

The English criticisms are quite different from the Vietnamese criticisms for under the

influence of the differences in culture values. The English tend to be more rational and

therefore more direct in speech acts than the Vietnamese who appreciate harmony and as a

result, tend to be more indirect in expressing their point of view, especially in delivering

criticisms. The Vietnamese also employed more “disapproval”, and “expression of

disagreement” than the English did because of differences in the perception of politeness. The

Vietnamese had a rather higher percentage of frequency in “advice” and “demand” than the

English. “Requests for change” in form of questions are limited in use in Vietnamese whereas

they are highly appreciated in English. Individualism (English) and collectivism (Vietnamese)

have influence on the behavior and therefore how they give criticisms, the English thus

preferred “subjectivizers” the most. Some ways in Vietnamese when delivering criticisms

have no English equivalents for living under the influence of the differences in manners and

customs, religion, thoughts and conceptions of life, etc.

The study above has partially met some of the requirements for intercultural

acquisition to deal with the speech act of criticism. The outcome of the study is aimed at the

awareness of the target culture and native culture, which can engender misinterpretations and

confusion. The study of cultural values and beliefs in criticism, therefore, can reveal the

greater portion of the whole philosophical domain which is manifested in every act, utterance,

and thought of every member in that language.

On the basis of the results of the study, this contrastive study has presented some

cultural differences and some pragmatic problems which the Vietnamese learners of English

may face when learning this speech act in English. This may lead to some problems in cross-

cultural communication, and foreign language teaching and learning. Therefore, some

implications in these areas will be introduced in hope of helping the Vietnamese learners of

English.

90

II.SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY

Although some knowledge about differences and similarities between English and

Vietnamese criticism strategies in term of culture have been investigated in the thesis, it can

not cover all the aspects relating to such broad cultural and linguistic phenomena. As a result,

further research in this area could profitably address itself to among the followings:

- The cross-cultural study of the speech act of criticism responses in English and

Vietnamese.

- The cross-cultural study of the speech acts of criticism and criticism responses in

English and Vietnamese.

- Cross-cultural interference in the English criticism and criticism response made by

Vietnamese learner of English or vice versa.

The thesis has been completely with my greatest efforts. However, shortcomings and

inediquacies are unavoidable. Therefore, I would be grateful for comments and criticisms of

readers so that I could improve it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I.REFERENCE BOOKS

A.IN ENGLISH:

91

Asher, R. E. (Ed). (1994). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. New York:

Pergamon Press.

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: OUP

Bach, R., and Harnish, R. M. (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts.

Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Banks, J.A., Banks & McGee, C.A. (1989). Multicultural Education. Needham Heights, M.A:

Allyn & Bacon.

Bell, R. T. (1991). Translation and Translating: Theory and Practice. Harlow: Longman.

Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). Indirectness and politeness in requests: Same or different? Journal

of Pragmatics 11, 131-146.

Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (Eds). (1989). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests

and Apologies. (Vol. XXXI) Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

Brown, G. and Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: CUP.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In

E. Goody (Ed). Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge:

CUP.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.

Cambridge: CUP.

Clyne, M. (1981). Culture and Discourse Structures. In Journal of Pragmatics 3, 61-66.

Clyne, M. (1994). Inter-cultural Communication at Work: Cultural values in Discourse.

Cambridge: CUP.

Cohen, A. (1987). Using verbal reports in research on language learning. In C. Faerch &

G. Kasper (Eds). Introspection in Second Language Research. Clevedon: Multilingual

Matters.

Cohen, A. (1996). Developing pragmatic ability to perform speech acts. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 18, 253-267.

Cook, V. (1993). Linguistics and second language acquisition. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Coulmas, F. (Ed). (1997). The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

92

Downes, W. (1998). Language and Society (2nd Edition). Cambridge:CUP.

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1989). Internal and external modification in interlanguage request

realization. In S. Blum-Kulka & J.House & G.Kasper (Eds).

Fantini, A.E. (1997). New ways in Teaching Culture. Illnois USA.

Fraser, B. (1975). The concept of politeness. Paper presented at the 1985 NWAVE Meeting.

Georgetown University.

Fraser, B. (1990). Perpectives on politeness. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2), 219-236.

Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Geis, M. (1998). Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. Cambridge: CUP.

Golddard, A., & Patterson, L. M. (2000). Language and Gender. London: Routledge.

Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional Ritual: Essays on Face-to-face Behavior. New York:

Double Day.

Goodenough, W.H. (1981). Culture, Language and Society. London, Benjamin/Cunnings.

Girce, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds), Speech Acts. New

York: Academic Press.

Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomenon in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2), 237-

257.

Ha Cam Tam, (1998). Requests by Australian Native Speakers of English and Vietnamese

Learners of English. M.A Thesis. La Trobe University.

Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and The Translator. New York: Longman.

Hervey, S., & Higgins, I. (1992). Thinking Translation- A Course in Tranlation Method:

French-English. London: Routledge.

Hoang Thi Giang Lam (2004). Some Major Vietnamese-English Cross-Cultural Differences

and Similarities in Suggesting. M.A. Thesis. VNU-CFL.

Hofstede, G. (1984). National Cultures and Corporate Cultures. In L.A.

Holmes, J. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. London: Longman.

Holmes, J. (1995). Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.

93

Hornby, A.S. (1992). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (Encyclopedia Edition). Oxford:

OUP.

House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas

(Ed.), Conversational Routine. Explorations in Standardised Communication Situation

and Pre-patterned Speech. New York: Mouton Publishers.

Hudson, R.A. (1999). Sociolinguistics (2nd Edition). Cambridge: CUP.

Hybels, S., & Weaver II. R. L. (1992). Communicating Effectively (3rd Edition). New York:

McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Hymes, D. (1964). Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology. New

York: Harper & Row.

Jackson, H., & Stockwell, J. (1996). An Introduction to the Nature and Functions of

Language. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes (Publishers) Ltd.

James, C. (1980). Contrastive Analysis. Essex: Longman Group Ltd.

Jonathan, C. (2000). Oxford Guide to British and American culture. Oxford: OUP.

Kasper, G. (1982). Teaching-induced aspects of interlanguage discourse. Studies in Second

language Acquisition 4(2), 99-113.

Kasper, G. (1989). Interactive procedures in interlanguage discourse. In W. Oleksy (Ed),

Contrastive Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Kasper, G. (1990). Linguistic politeness: Current research issues. Journal of Pragmatics 14(2),

193-218.

Kasper, G. (1992). Pragmatic transfer. Second Language Research 8 (3), 203-231.

Kasper, G. (1996). Introduction: interlanguage pragmatics in SLA. Studies in Second

Language Acquisition 18, 145-148.

Kasper, G. (2001). Classroom research on interlanguage pragmatics. In K.Rose & G. Kasper

(Eds).

Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. New York: OUP.

Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford: OUP.

Lado, R. (1957). Linguistics across Cultures: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers.

Ann Arbor, MI: UMP.

94

Lakoff, R. (1973). The logic of politeness: Or minding your P’s and Q’s. In C. Corum, T.

Smith-Stark & A. Weiser (Eds), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the

Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

Larson, M. L. (1984). Meaning-based Translation. Lanham: University of America.

Le Nhan Thanh (2004). Intensifiers in English and Vietnamese. M.A. Thesis. VNU-CFL

Leech, G, (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman.

Levine, D.R., & Adelman, M.B. (1982). Beyond Language-Intercultural Communication for

English as a Second Langauge. Prentice Hall Inc.

Levine, D.R., & Adelman, M.B. (1993). Beyond Language-Cross-Cultural Communication.

Regents/Prentice Hall Inc.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: CUP.

Longman. (1998). Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture (2nd Edition).

Harlow: Longman.

Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge:CUP.

Newmark, P. (1988). Approaches to Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.

Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. New York: Phoenix ELT.

Newmeyer, F. J. (Ed). (1988). Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey (Vol. IV: Language: The

Cocio-cultural Context). Cambridge: CUP.

Nguyen Quang (1998). Intercultural Communication. VNU-CFL.

Nguyen Quang Ngoan (2004). Some Vietnamese-American Cross-Cultural Similarities and

Differences in Disagreeing with Power-Unequals. M.A Thesis. VNU-CFL.

Nguyen Thanh Long (2004). A Study of Expressing Anger in Anglicist and Vietnamese

Cultures. M.A. Thesis. VNU-CFL.

Nguyen Thi Thuy Minh (2005). Criticizing and Responding to Criticism In A Foreign

Language: A study of Vietnamese Learners of English. PhD Thesis. The University of

Auckland.

Olshtain, E. (1983). Socio-cultural competence and language transfer. The case of apology. In

S.Gass & L. Selinker (Eds).

95

Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. (1989). Speech act behavior across languages. In H. W. Dechert &

M. Raupach (Eds), Transfer in Language Production. Norwood, New Jeysey: Ablex

Pub. Corp.

Palmer, F. R. (1981). Semantics (2nd Edition). Cambridge: CUP.

Peccei, J. S. (2001). Pragmatics. London: Routledge.

Pham Thi My Le (1999). A Cross-Cultural Study on Advising in English and Vietnamese.

M.A. Thesis. VNU-CFL.

Platt, J. T. (1978). Sociolects and Their Pedagogical Implications. RELC Journal – a Journal

of Language Teaching and Research in Southeast Asia. Vol.9. No. 1. June 1978.

Pride, J.B. (Ed). (1981). Sociolinguistic Aspects of Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford:

OUP.

Pride, J.B. (Ed). (1985). Cross-cultural Encounters. Melbourne: River Seine Publications.

Quang, N. (2005). Cross-cultural Communication- Lecture Notes-Hanoi.

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A Grammar of Comtemporary

English. London: Longman.

Richards, J. C. (1985). The Context of Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.

Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Flatt, H. (1992). Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and

Applied Linguistics. UK: Longman

Richards, J., & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds). (1985). Language and Communication. London and

New York: Longman.

Rintell, E. (1981). Sociolinguistic variation and pragmatic ability. In J. Walters (Ed), The

Sociolinguistics of Deference and Politeness. Special Issues of the International

Journal of Sociology and Language 27.

Rose, K., & Kasper, G. (2001). Pragmatics in Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP.

Saville-Troike, M. (1982). The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. Oxford:

Basil Blackwell.

Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: CUP.

Searle, J. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds), Syntax and sematics.

Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.

96

Sofer, M. (1999). The Translator’s Handbook (3rd Edition). Rockville: Schreiber Publishing.

Thomas, J. (1983). Cross-cultural pragmatic failure. Applied Linguistics 4, 91-112.

Tomalin, B., & Stempleski, S. (1993). Cultural Awareness. Oxford:OUP.

Ton Nu My Nhat (1997). Making Requests and Responding in English and Vietnamese. M.A.

Thesis. VNU-CFL.

Tracy, K., & Eisenberg, E. (1990). Giving criticisms: a multiple goal case study. Research on

Language and Social Interaction 24, 37-70.

Tracy, K., Van Dusen, D., & Robinson, S. (1987). Good and bad criticism: a descriptive

analysis. Journal of Communication 37, 46-59.

Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Trudgill, P. (1983). Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. London:

Penguin Books.

UNESCO. (1982). World Conference on Cultural Policies. Mexico City.

Valses, J.M. (1986). Culture Bound-Bridging the Cultural Gap in Language Teaching.

Cambridge: CUP.

Verderber, R. (1990). Communicate! Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Wardhaugh, R. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (2nd Edition). Oxford: Blackwell.

Widdowson, H.G. (1996). Linguistics. Oxford: OUP.

Whitney, P. (1998). The Psychology of Language. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction.

Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Yates, J. (1996). Master the Basics. New York: Barron’s.

Yule, G. (1996). The Study of Language (2nd Edition). Cambridge: CUP.

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.

B.IN VIETNAMESE:

Bùi Phụng. (1995). Từ điển Việt- Anh. Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh: NXB Thế giới.

Đỗ Hữu Châu. (2001). Đại Cương ngôn ngữ học, Tập 2: Ngữ dụng học, Giáo dục.

97

Đinh Trọng Lạc. (2002). 99 phương tiện và biện pháp tu từ tiếng Việt. Hà Nội: NXB Giáo

Dục.

Hoàng Phê. (2000). Từ điển tiếng Việt. Đà Nẵng: NXB Đà Nẵng.Mai Xuân Huy. (?) Cách dùng chuẩn Anh Ngữ. NXB Hà Nội.

Nguyễn Đức Dân. (2000). Ngữ dụng học, Tập 1. Giáo dục.

Nguyễn Quang. (2002). Giao tiếp và giao tiếp giao văn hóa. Hà Nội: NXB ĐHQG Hà Nội.

Nguyễn Thiện Giáp. (2002). Từ vựng học tiếng Việt. Hà Nội: NXB Giáo Dục.

Nguyễn Văn Độ. (1995). Về việc nghiên cứu lịch sự trong giao tiếp. Ngôn ngữ, No. 1/1995.

Nguyễn Văn Độ. (2004). Tìm hiểu mối liên hệ ngôn ngữ- văn hóa. NXB ĐHQG Hà Nội.

Nguyễn Văn Khang. (1999). Ngôn ngữ học xã hội- Những vấn đề cơ bản. Hà Nội: NXB Khoa

học xã hội.

Nguyễn Văn Quang. (1999). Một số khác biệt giao tiếp lời nói Việt Mỹ trong cách thức khen

và tiếp nhận lời khen. Luận án Tiến sĩ, Đại học Quốc Gia Hà Nội.

Trần Ngọc Thêm. (1999). Cơ sở văn hóa Việt Nam. Hà Nội: NXB Giáo Dục.

II. BOOKS TO EXTRACT EXAMPLES

A.IN ENGLISH:

1. Adams, N. (1995). Hard Rock. Boxtree.

2. Adams, N. (1992). Sudden Death. Boxtree

3. Ashley, B. (1996). Running Scared. Penguin Books.

4. Bronte, C. (1994). Jane Eyre. Longman.

5. Caldwell, E. (1991). Jenny by nature. New American Library.

6. Carson, M. (?). Sucker. In Nguyễn Thị Ái Nguyệt. (1996). 20 Truyện Ngắn Chọn Lọc.

NXB Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh.

7. Charles, D. (1990) David Copperfied. Longman.

8. Dumas, A. (1990). The Black tulip. Collier-MacMillan Limited, London.

9. Edward, H. (?). Man with a Secret. In Nguyễn Thị Ái Nguyệt. (1996). 20 Truyện Ngắn

Chọn Lọc. NXB Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh.

98

10. Herman, M. (?) Bottlebie. In Nguyễn Thị Ái Nguyệt. (1996). 20 Truyện Ngắn Chọn Lọc. NXB Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh.

11. Heyward, B. (?) A Shepherd. In Nguyễn Thị Ái Nguyệt. (1996). 20 Truyện Ngắn Chọn

Lọc. NXB Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh.

12. Hugh, S. The haunted sand. Walker Books, London.

13. James, F. C. (1996). The Prairie. Dell Publishing Co., Inc.

14. Jack, L. (1979). To Build A Fire and Other Stories. Ladder Edition.

15. Jack, L. (?) Kish. In Nguyễn Thị Ái Nguyệt. (1996). 20 Truyện Ngắn Chọn Lọc. NXB

Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh.

16. John, G. (1999). Death Not To Be Proud. Pyramid books - New York.

17. John, S. (1995). The Red Pony. A Piccolo Book.

18. Kein, C. (1988). The Mystery at The Moss-Covered Mansion. Grosset & Dunlap

Publshers- New York.

19. Laird, C. (1990). Shadow of The Wall. Walter Books-London.

20. McKenzie, J.K (1891). Stories from 3 Worlds. Heinemann Educational Australia.

21. Nabokov, V. (1975). Laughter In The Dark. Berkley Publishing Co.

22. Nathaniel, H. (1992). The Scarlet Letter. Harper & Row, Publishers- New York.

23. Nathaniel, H. (?). Rapechini’s Daughter. In Nguyễn Thị Ái Nguyệt. (1996). 20 Truyện

Ngắn Chọn Lọc. NXB Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh.

24. Roald, D. (1977). The Twists. Puffin Books.

25. Robert, P. W. All the King’s Men. Fawcett Publication, Inc.

26. Robert, R. (1990). In the Wrong Rain. Pyramid books - New York.

27. Scott, T. (1995). The Burden of Proof. Warner Books.

28. Segal, E. (1991) Love Story. New American Library- Times Mirror.

29. Segal, E. ( 1992) Love Story. NXB Thanh Niên.

30. Swindells, R. (1998). Follow A Shadow. Genguin Books

31. Thaniel, N.A. (1890). The visitors. Pyramid books- New York.

32. Tilburg, W.V. (1972). The Watchful Gods and Other Stories. Fawcett Publication, Inc.

33. Trần Bảo Thoa (dịch) (2001) Lazy Jack. In Truy ện Cổ Tiếng Anh. NXB Giáo Dục.

99

34. Verne, J. (1989). Round The World in 80 Days. MacMillan.

35. Waler, D. E. (?) Judge. In Nguyễn Thị Ái Nguyệt. (1996). 20 Truyện Ngắn Chọn Lọc.

NXB Thành Phố Hồ Chí Minh.

B.IN VIETNAMESE:

36. Amanda Chong Wei-Zen. Cô gái đi tìm hạnh phúc. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 33, 2004.

37. Bích Ngân. Ám ảnh dòng sông. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 39, 2002.

38. Cấu Vân Khánh. Điệp Khúc. Trong Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh Niên, 2007.

39. Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. Sứ quán Mỹ. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 45, 2003.

40. Chu Lai. Ăn mày dĩ vãng. NXB Hội Nhà văn, 1995.

41. Chu Thu Hằng. Con tàu chở tinh yêu. Truy ện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh

Niên, 2007.

42. Dương Kỳ Anh. Ha, ha, ha. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 44, 2005.

43. Đinh Nga. Ngày về. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 11, 2006.

44. Đỗ Bích Thủy. Gió lùa qua cửa. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh Niên, 2007.

45. Đỗ Quang Hiếu. Ngày mới. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 07, 2005.

46. Đỗ Thành Vân. Tiếng lạ. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 25, 2005.

47. Đỗ Tiến Thụy. Chuyện không muốn kể. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh Niên,

2007.

48. Đường Chi. Chồng chị chồng em. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh Niên,

2007.

49. Hà Vân. Chọn lựa. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 19, 2005.

50. Hạnh Đính. Phép Thử. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 22, 2003.

51. Hạt Cơ. Bức Thư. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 4, 2003.

52. Hoài Phương. Báo hiếu. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 14, 2003.

53. Hòang Tường. Một ngày cuối tuần. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 27, 2005.

54. Hồ Tấn Vũ. Đêm đông tháng tám. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 40, 2005.

55. Hồ Vĩnh Tâm. Bến sông ngân ngấn nước. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 5, 2002.

100

56. Huệ Minh. Đêm nay có nguyệt thực không? Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh

Niên, 2007.

57. Khôi Vũ. Lỗ mọt. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 10, 2006.

58. Kim Lân, Làng. Truyện ngắn Viêt Nam 1945-1985. NXB Văn học Hà Nội, 1985.

59. Kiran Desai. Chuyện um sùm trong vườn ổi. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 47, 2006.

60. Lê Hồng Nguyên. Mái tóc. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 12, 2007.

61. Lê Minh Hà. Chiều cà phê quán nhỏ. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No.32, 2005.

62. Lê Minh Hà. Bia rượu. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 9, 2006.

63. Lê Minh Nhựt. Xóm Ven Sông. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 4, 2007.

64. Mạc Can. Cuộc hành trình về buổi sáng. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 20, 2005.

65. Manual Rivas. Lưỡi Bướm. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 24, 2005

66. Michael Bratt. Kẻ lừa đảo. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 11, 2005.

67. Nam Cao. Tuyển tập Nam Cao, Tập 1 + 2 NXB Văn học Hà Nội, 1993.

68. Ngô Thị Giáng Uyên. Hội Chợ Phù Hoa. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 1, 2006.

69. Ngô Khắc Tài. Trái tim mùa đông. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 51, 2002.

70. Ngô Phan Lưu. Câu hỏi vô vọng. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 46, 2006.

71. Ngô Thị Thu Vân. Những ngày mưa bão. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 31, 2004.

72. Nguyên Hương. Chuyện tình tôi. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 21, 2003.

73. Nguyễn Đình Tứ. Đay gieo mùa thương nhớ. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh

Niên, 2007.

74. Nguyễn Hòang Lược. Phóng sinh. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 7, 2007.

75. Nguyễn Khánh Linh. Ngọn roi. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 29, 2005.

76. Nguyễn Khánh Linh. Đi về hướng núi. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 14, 2006.

77. Nguyễn Lập Em. Bến nước kinh cùng. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 7, 2003.

78. Nguyễn Lê My Hòai. Cô tha thứ cho em. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh Niên,

2007.

79. Nguyễn Minh Hải. Chàng Thủ Môn Tội Nghiệp. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 35, 2003.

80. Nguyễn Ngọc Thuận. Đường về nhà. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 25, 2003.

81. Nguyễn Ngọc Tuyết. Người còn lại trong hộ khẩu. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 15, 2005.

101

82. Nguyễn Ngọc Tuyết. Tình Hoa Kiểng. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 3, 2007.

83. Nguyễn Ngọc Tư. Núi lở. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 49, 2006.

84. Nguyễn Thế Hoàng Linh. Mất. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 18, 2005.

85. Nguyễn Thế Hùng. Người ở cồn thương. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh Niên,

2007.

86. Nguyễn Thiên Ngân. Cầu vồng tình yêu. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 26, 2005.

87. Nguyễn Thị Giang Châu. Chợ Tình. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh Niên, 2007.

88. Nguyễn Thị Hòang Oanh. Cô giáo rừng. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 13, 2005.

89. Nguyễn Thị Thu Huệ. Coi như không biết. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 47, 2005.

90. Nguyễn Thị Tuyết Hạnh. Đường Chân Trời. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 9, 2003.

91. Nguyễn Thị Việt Hà. Mắt. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 50, 2006.

92. Nguyễn Vĩnh Nguyên. Bông nhạt. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh Niên, 2007.

93. Nhã Lam. Chiếc áo ấm. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 43, 2006.

94. Niê Thanh Mai. Không dưng mà khóc. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh Niên,

2007.

95. O. Herry. Quà giáng sinh của đồng hoang. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 51, 2006.

96. Phạm Duy Nghĩa. Tiếng gọi lưng chừng dốc. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh

Niên, 2007.

97. Phạm Kim Anh. Chạm Tới Thiên Đường. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 48, 2003.

98. Phạm Thanh Hương. Dòng sông tật nguyền. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh

Niên, 2007.

99. Phạm Thị Ngọc. Về nơi xa ngái. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 12, 2006.

100. Phan Hồn Nhiên. Bưu thiếp từ Stuttgart. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh Niên,

2007.

101. Phan Thanh Nhã. Những trái mận xanh. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 28, 2003.

102. Phong Diệp. Trở về. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh Niên, 2007.

103. Phương Trinh. Quả táo. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 31, 2003.

104. Quế Hùng. Tiên ngồi khóc. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 45, 2005.

105. Thái Nguyễn Bạch Liên. Cuộc sống. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 6, 2003.

102

106. Thụy Anh. Bến xe. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 48, 2006.

107. Tôn Thành Danh. Bụi cỏ trên đường làng. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 08, 2004.

108. Trần Hạnh Nguyên. Chat room. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 38, 2005.

109. Trần Hòang Thiên Kim. Trưa vắng. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh Niên,

2007.

110. Trần Kim Trắc. Con mắt thứ 3. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 39, 2005.

111. Trần Lâm Trung. Lối Chung. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 32, 2002.

112. Trần Minh Thuận. Gánh Hát Bầu Tèo. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 41, 2003.

113. Trần Nguyên Ý Anh. Tiếng Sáo bay xa. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 49, 2002.

114. Trần Tân. Láng giềng. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 23, 2005.

115. Trần Thanh Hà. Huyền thọai cỏ mặt trời. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh Niên,

2007.

116. Trần Thị Hồng Hạnh. Chuyện ngày sinh nhật. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh

Niên, 2007.

117. Trịnh Bửu Hoài. Tiếng hót trong lòng. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 10, 2003.

118. Trinh Lan Thương. Công trình lấn biển và khoai tây chiên. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 04,

2006.

119. Trương Hòang Minh. Lưới Tình. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 28, 2005.

120. Trương Thị Thanh Hiền. Thưởng Trăng. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 50, 2002.

121. Trương Thị Thanh Hiền. Làm mẹ. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 19, 2004.

122. Uống Thái Biếu. Mùa hoa bần năm cũ. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 5, 2005.

123. Việt Hòa. Quá khứ trên đường. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 3, 2006.

124. Võ Minh Hòang. Quả bóng là tôi. . Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 41, 2005.

125. Vũ Đình Giang. Thở dài trong đêm. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 11, 2003.

126. Vũ Đình Giang. Căn hộ ở tầng 8. Truyện ngắn 50 tác giả trẻ. NXB Thanh Niên, 2007.

127. Vũ Thảo Ngọc. Búp bê gỗ. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 49, 2003.

128. Vũ Trọng Phụng. Cuộc vui ít có. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 41, 2002.

129. Vũ Văn Vinh. Vĩnh Biệt Huyền Trân. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 43, 2003.

130. Wendy Laing. Tấm vé số. Tuổi Trẻ Chủ Nhật, No. 30, 2005.

103

131. Nguyễn Như Ý. (1999). Đại từ điển Tiếng Việt. NXB Văn hóa thông tin.

104

105