Luận văn To know another’s language and not his culture is a very good way to make a fluent fool of one’s self

PART A: INTRODUCTION Rationale With the trend of globalization and integration, cross-border contacts appear more and more frequent. However, differences among cultures are one of the biggest barriers for successful cross-cultural communication. It is widely accepted that English has been an international language in the world. In Vietnam, for the past few decades, we have witnessed a dramatic change in English teaching and learning. Communicative approach plays a key role in that big change. That is to say, language in use is paid more attention and becomes a core in language teaching and learning for learners’ benefit. Language is part of a culture and also its reflection. Therefore, teaching a language means teaching its culture. It is obvious that learners cannot master a language without grasping its culture. In England, when greeting someone, people tend to use two questions: health questions (How are you? How are you doing?) and work questions (How are things?) as greeting routines while the Vietnamese ask food questions (what do you have today?), display questions (Are you reading books?) besides health and work questions. Or at the first meeting, the Vietnamese often ask about others’ age, marital status or income which can be seen as DON’Ts to Western people. If it is not observed with the understanding of Vietnamese culture – a positive politeness oriented culture, it is easily misinterpreted as curious and nosy behavior, thus threatening others’ faces. According to Lado (1957), to be successful in another language learning and to communicate effectively, linguistics knowledge is not enough. Besides that, interacting skills and cultural knowledge are required. As a result, to raise learners’ awareness of cross-cultural differences is essential to avoid culture shock or communication breakdown. As Brembeck rightly puts it, “To know another’s language and not his culture is a very good way to make a fluent fool of one’s self”. Aims of the study The aims of study are: To find out safe and unsafe topics for the first encounter in Vietnamese and Anglophone cultures. To examine politeness strategies employed by Vietnamese and Anglophone informants under the influence of age, gender and power. To point out cross-cultural similarities and differences. Methodology Quantitative method is mainly exploited for the practical aspects of the cross-cultural interaction under study. The following methods are used: Survey questionnaire Analysis of the collected data: statistic, descriptive, interpretive, comparative and contrastive Reference to home and foreign publication Consultation with supervisor, Vietnamese and foreign colleagues. Scope of the study Non-verbal factors are believed to be very important for keeping face at the first encounter. However they are beyond the scope of this study. The study only focuses on the verbal aspects and the data analysis of politeness and safe and unsafe topics. The study is limited within the first encounter conversation in five groups and 3 situations The survey questionnaires are given to 100 native speakers of Vietnamese (NSVs) people and 100 native speakers of English (NSEs) people. However, 50 questionnaires of the NSVs and 50 questionnaires of NSEs are selected for. Design of the study The study consists of 3 parts: Part A: Introduction Part B: development Chapter 1: Theoretical Preliminaries Chapter 2: Methodology Chapter 3: Results and discussion Part C: conclusion PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES I.1. Culture and communication I.1.1. What Culture? Up to now, there have been many definitions of “culture”. It can be defined as “what makes you a stranger when you are away from home. It includes all those beliefs and expectations about how people should speak and act which have become a kind of second nature to you as a result of social learning. When you are with members of a group who share your culture, you do not have to think about it, for you are all viewing the world in pretty much the same way and you all know, in general terms, what to expect of one another” (Bock, 1970:1). According to Claire Kramsch, “culture can be defined as membership in a discourse community that shares a common social space and history, and common imaginings. Even when they have left that community, its members may retain, wherever they are, a common system of standards for perceiving, believing, evaluating and acting.” (1998: 10). Actually, people in one community acquire common ways of viewing the world, common attitudes, beliefs and values… through their interactions. They “share the same background (for example, national, ethnic, religious) resulting from a common language and communication style, customs, beliefs, attitudes and values” (Quang, N, 1998: 3). However, we can hardly see the influence of culture on each individual as “it refers to the informal and often hidden patterns of human interactions, expressions, and viewpoints that people in one culture share” (Quang, N, 1998: 3) Adapted from Levine 1987:42) I.1.2. What Communication? Communication is “the process of sharing meaning through verbal and nonverbal behavior” (Quang, N, 1998: 3). Communication is also defined as “any process in which people share information, ideas, and feeling. That process involves not only the spoken and written word, but also the body language, personal mannerism and style, the surroundings – anything that adds meanings to a message” (Hybels and Weaver, 1992: 5). In a communication, meaning can be shared directly to hit the issues or indirectly to avoid issues. It is called direct communication and indirect communication respectively. They all concern the relation between the speakers’ communicative intention, the interlocutors’ expectation of the message and the communicative effects of the message. Problems in communication, especially cross-cultural communication can fall into two types: Non-communication – where no message is communicated; and Miscommunication - where an unintended message is communicated (Clyne, 1994: 26) It is the fact that for successful communication, the communicative effects should be matched to the intention, therefore, there should be sensitiveness and understanding of others’ production and the way they play with various identities which are available to them. Hence, it is so important for a good communicator to realize the surrounding of others’ identities. I.1.3. Culture shock in communication. As discussed above, culture is “a complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, customs and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society” (Tylor, 1978: 59, cited in Holliday, Hyde and Kullman, 2004). Living in the same society, we do not think about our culture for we all see it in the same way. Moreover, we can also expect other’s behavior without surprising. We cannot separate our life from cultures. Cultures impact on our daily activities in general and on our communication styles in particular. This is all too obvious when we communicate with others who do not share the same culture. Actually, communication styles can and do create misunderstanding and shock in conversations among people from different cultural backgrounds. This can be illustrated with one example below: “The Italian made a strong political statement with which he knew his American friend would disagree. The Italian wanted to involve the American in a lively discussion. The American, rather than openly disagreeing, said, “Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I accept that your opinion is different than mine.” The Italian responded, “That’s all you have to say about it? In general, the American did not enjoy verbal conflicts over politics or anything else. The Italian actually became angry when the American refused to get involved in the discussion. He later explains to the American, “a conversation isn’t fun unless it becomes heated” (cited in Quang, N, 1998: 40) With this example, it is obvious that communication is much influenced by cultures. Before we arrive in a new land, we can think much about the new things which will happen differently there. However, no matter how much we are prepared for the new culture, we find it hard to understand and accept the unfamiliar behaviors and sometimes hard to overcome the new situations. The result is we still feel shocked. “Culture shock is neither good nor bad, necessary nor unnecessary. It is a reality that many people face when in strange and unexpected situations” (Harris and Moran, 1998: 226). Culture shock is related to the feelings in the hearers (Hs) or speakers (Ss) of “estrangement, anger, hostility indecision, frustration, unhappiness, sadness, loneliness, homesickness and even physical illness” (Valdes, 1995: 35). I.1.4. Communicative Competence (C.C) CC is understood as the knowledge that interlocutors need in communication. It is not only the grammatical forms but also the knowledge which is the ability for both Ss and Hs to use in the appropriate way in any contexts. It is a whole of knowledge and many other elements concerned in communication in general and in the intercultural communication in particular. Saville – Troike (1985: 215) assumes: Communicative competence extends to both knowledge and expectation of who may or may not speak in certain settings, when to speak and when to remain silent, whom one may speak to, how one may talk to persons of different statuses and roles, what appropriate nonverbal behaviors are in various contexts, what the routines for turn – taking are in the conversation, how to ask for and give information, how to give commands, how to enforce discipline, and the like – in short, everything involving the use of language and the other communicative dimensions in particular social settings. Along the line, Richards et al. (1992: 65) gives out his definition of CC which consists of: a, knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of the language. b, knowledge of rules of speaking (e.g. knowledge how to begin and end a conversation, knowing what topics may be talked about in different types of speech events, knowing which address forms should be used with different persons one speaks to and in different situation). c, knowing how to use and respond to different types of speech acts such as requests, advice, apologies, thanks and invitations. d, knowing how to use language appropriately. Upon this view, it is vitally important to build up the socio-cultural rules for language use as an integral part for a successful communication. I.1.5. Small talk in communication Sue: It’s nice to meet you. My friend told me about you. Have you lived in Seattle long? Mark: No, only three months. How about you? Sue: I moved here three years ago from California. Mark: Oh really? I am from California too! Where did you live in California? Sue: In Gilroy, not far from San Jose. Mark: This is really coincidence. I am from Gilroy too. I like telling people I am from the garlic capital of the world. Did you usually go to the summer garlic festival? Sue: I used to go every summer. How about you? Mark: I went to most of them. I thought the one in 1980 was great. Did you go to that one? (Levine and Adelman, cited in Quang, N, 1998: 47). In this conversation, the two participants are asking small talk questions before they found that they share some common backgrounds. It can be seen that the conversation is working easily with small talk questions and this kind of conversation above is called “small talk”. A small talk is defined as an everyday conversation about everyday matters, usually at social events. Normally, small talk is not considered important but it is “an essential aspect of conversation in that it provides a means of easing things along” (Clyne and Michael, 1994: 84). It is used to initiate a conversation after the introduction and functions for maintaining conversations such as keeping them going on, leading to interesting debates. However, small talk requires common expectations among participants about its appropriateness and a common willingness and cultural understanding to take part in. I.2. Politeness I.2.1. What Face? The nature of politeness has been debating for a very long time by the linguists and still not agreed on exactly what it is. Face is the central notion discussed in the area of politeness. Language users are social beings whose various social beliefs, motives and goals are brought into their verbal interaction. The nature of their conversation is affected by these variables; over time they play a role in development of language. It is certain that social motives and goals impact the use of language. When we are in a particular contact, especially at the first encounter where we do not know much or even anything about the others, we need to make our partners see our pleasure to communicate to them. Here face - a social psychological concept and face-work entailed are needed to maintain the communication. According to Goffman (1967), face, or one’s public identity, is a “scared thing”; so people are strongly motivated to protect and manage their face. Face is something which is not located in our of our body but “rather something that is diffusely located in the flow of events in the encounter” (Goffman, 1967: 7) According to Brown and Levinson (1987, 61), face can be defined as “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself”. It is the emotional and social sense of self that everybody has and expects others to recognize. Face consists of two related aspects: negative and positive face. Negative face is the basic claim to territories personal preserves, right to non-distraction, i.e.: to freedom of action and freedom from imposition. And positive face is the positive consistent self-image or “personality” (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants. In other words, negative face is a person’s want to be unimpeded by others and the desire to be free to act as s/he chooses and not be imposed on: a desire for autonomy and positive face represents a desire for approval, a person’s want to be highly appreciated and approved by selected others in terms of personality, desires, behavior, values and so on. Yule (1996: 60) supports the idea that face is “the public self – image of a person”. The emotional and social sense exists in ourselves and also is something which is expected to be recognized by others. According to him, “politeness is the means employed to show awareness of another’s face”. If someone says something which threatens others’ self-image, it is called a “face threatening act” (FTA). And alternatively, when something is said in order to lessen the threat to others’ individual expectations, it is named a “face saving act” (FSA). In any social communication, people are strongly motivated to protect and manage their positive image which reflects the values and beliefs of themselves. Moreover, because face can only be given by others, it is in everyone’s best interest to maintain each other’s face. When this fails, their feeling may be hurt and “loss of face” is a consequence in the communication. In the social meetings of the human beings, the participants do their best to communicate with their positive face which reflects their values and beliefs. Face-work is involved in the social communication and is the efforts by the participants to avoid losing others’ face. Face-work entails both avoidance strategies (e.g., avoiding unsafe topics or violating another’s territory) and approach-based strategies (e.g., greeting, compliments, and salutations to support one’s relationship). I.2.2. What Politeness? Politeness can be viewed as essentially the linguistic means by which face-work is accomplished. Although politeness is driven by face concerns, these concerns can over the time, settings, individuals, cultures and so on. It lies at the intersection of cultural, social, cognitive, and linguistic processes. Politeness carries a significant role in human interaction in the society. Politeness theory can be seen as a sub-discipline of pragmatics, it can be viewed as an aspect of speech which is governed by the rational rules. They are nothing but the human’s need to maintain the social relationship, peace and to avoid or lessen the conflicts. Hence, politeness, as Brown and Levinson (1987: 13) defines, “is basic to the production of social order and a pre-condition of human cooperation”. According to Richards et al (1985:281), politeness is also considered as a matter related to face which is used to maintain the social interaction: How languages express the social distance between speakers and their different role relationships. How face-work, that is, the attempt to establish, maintain and save face during conversation, is carried out in a speech community. Languages differ in how they express politeness. According to Yule (1997: 60), Politeness is viewed as “the idea of “polite social behavior”, or etiquette within a culture”. In other words, politeness is “a number of different general principles for being polite in social interaction within a particular culture”. I.2.3. Politeness Strategies Politeness up to now has been addressed in different ways by linguists, e.g., Blum-Kulka et al (1985), Blum-Kulka (1987,1990), Janney and Arndt (1992), Mao (1994), Kasper (1990), Fraser (1990), Lakoff (1990), Leech (1983), Brown and Levinson (1987)… However, some general principles are agreed for politeness in the human socio-communicative verbal interaction. They are Politeness Rules by Lakoff (1990), Politeness Strategies by Brown and Levinson (1987) and Politeness Principles – Maxims by Leech (1983). Of all, Brown and Levinson’s theory is the most outstanding and most quoted. In the Politeness theory by Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness is considered as a complex system for softening face-threatening acts. The concept of face is a fundamental construct in this theory. More importantly, it can be seen as a meditating variable, a construct which is used to meditate between language use and a host of social psychological variables. As a result, five strategies of politeness so as to minimize the loss of face are set up by Brown and Levinson (figure No 1). In social communication, the choice of strategy which is made depends on the interlocutors’ background, education, culture etc. According to Brown and Levinson (1987), negative politeness seems to be more polite. Hence, it is put at a higher degree of politeness than positive one. However, this appears controversial cross-culturally. In the Western cultures, negative politeness is preferable in communication for its conventionalization but it seems opposite to the Asian cultures, particularly to the Vietnamese one. Positive politeness tends to be their preferred choice for saving face for narrowing the gap among the interactants as well as making their relationship closer in the talk. Although Brown and Levinson’s chart is highly appreciated, Quang, N. (1998) offers another figure (figure No2) with some comments on its universal values. According to him, negative politeness is as powerful as positive politeness is on equal footing in communication. I.2.3.1. Positive Politeness Strategies According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 101), “positive politeness is redress directed to the addressee’s face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the action, acquisitions, values resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable. In positive politeness the sphere of redress is widened to the appreciation of other’s wants in general or to the expression of similarity between ego’s and other’s wants”. Quang, N, (2003: 24) holds that “positive politeness is any communicative act which is intentionally an