Some australian-Vietnamese cross-cultural differences in student-to- teacher addressing

Vietnam national university - hanoi College of foreign languages - Post-graduate department ------***------ trần thị thanh bình Some Australian-Vietnamese cross-cultural differences in student-to- teacher addressing (Một số khác biệt giao văn hoá úc – việt trong cách xưng hô của sinh viên với giáo viên) Field: Linguistics Code: 50409 Course: K11 M.A minor - thesis Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Quang Hai Phong, July 2005 Acknowledgements I wish to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Quang, my supervisor, for his constant help throughout the study. I am indebted to all my lecturers in Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Post - Graduate Department for their lectures that enabled me to write this study. Also I would like to thank Australian and Vietnamese colleagues and friends who spent their precious time completing the questionnaires. I wish to thank my cousin, Tran Viet Cuong, who is living and studying at Sydney University, NSW for his help to my questionnaires and surveys. Finally I owe the completion of this study to my husband, my parents and my classmates who always encouraged me throughout the study and supported me with everything I need. Table of Contents *********************** Acknowledgements Table of contents Abbreviations Part I: Introduction Rationale Aims of the study Methods of the study Scope of the study Design of the study Part II: Development Chapter I : Theoretical background I.1. Speech acts. I.2. Cross – cultural differences. I.3. Cross – cultural translation of address terms. I.4. Addressing systems I.4.1. Addressing system in English I.4.2. Addressing system in Vietnamese Chapter II : Experimental research: Findings and discussions II.1. The survey questionnaire II.2. The informants II.3. Statistics research. II.4. Data analysis: Findings and discussions II.4.1. Responses in English II.4.1.1. Considerations in selection of address terms II.4.1.2. Frequency of address terms II.4.2. Responses in Vietnamese II.4.2.1. Considerations in selection of address terms II.4.2.2. Frequency of address terms II.4.2.2.1. The addressing dyad “thầy/cô-em” II.4.2.2.2. Other address terms used in the university II.4.2.2.3. Vietnamese students’ use of address terms to their teachers II.4.3. Some problems of cross-cultural translation of the English address terms into Vietnamese II.5. Limitations of the study Part III: Conclusion Major Vietnamese-Australian cross-cultural differences Australian findings Factors affecting address terms Frequency of addressing Vietnamese findings Factors affecting address terms Frequency of addressing 1.3. Major Vietnamese-Australian cross-cultural differences 2. Some implications for English language teaching (ELT) Bibliography Appendices Page i ii iv 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 7 10 11 12 14 17 17 18 18 21 21 21 24 25 25 26 26 27 29 30 32 34 34 34 34 34 34 34 35 35 36 Abbreviations A.Q. Academic qualification A.S. Australian Student (s) D. Distance F Female FN First name LN Last name M Male M (A) Mean (Average) N Number P. Power S.I. Situation of interaction St. Student (s) Te. Teacher (s) TLN Title and last name V.S. Vietnamese student (s) Part I: Introduction Rationale: People of different cultures often find it difficult to communicate with each other. There are many reasons why it happens. One of them is cultural differences among countries. It causes cultural shock, even cultural conflicts relating to specific speech acts such as addressing, thanking, greeting, complaining and so on. That is why cross-cultural research of address terms is imperative. In Vietnam, especially in Vietnamese Universities, teachers and students are aware of the fact that a suitable address term can establish and maintain a good relationship. For some international universities, it is all the more important because teachers and students of different cultures can meet and work together. The author herself has experienced such problems. Thus, how to address appropriately will help us communicate successfully. Aims of the study: The aims of the study are: - To investigate major differences in which Australian and Vietnamese teachers and students address in their own language. - To find out the linguistic basis that govern the addressing terms, especially the speech acts in some specific circumstances. - To identify some categorical dimensions in cross-cultural communication, which affect the use of addressing terms. - To suggest cross-cultural translation of addressing terms between English and Vietnamese in order to help learners of English avoid misunderstandings and miscommunication. Methods of the study The study begins by exploring some governing factors in addressing in general. They are believed to be the linguistic basis upon which addressing terms are to be analyzed. Speech acts, especially the illocutionary acts, is the first hypothesis that contribute to addressing terms. The second hypothesis is the cross-cultural categorical dimensions of addressing in which some are used effectively such as directness vs. indirectness; positive politeness vs. negative politeness. Besides, interlocutors’ parameters (e.g. age, gender, position, qualifications…) also affect strongly the use of addressing terms. The last hypothesis is three categories of translation and levels of translation that help us make an exact translation version in addressing in each certain circumstance. With the data collected from Australia and Vietnam, we shall have necessary linguistic input and information of addressing. On that basis, differences are to be found and discussed. In this thesis, the author focuses on the address terms used in teacher-student interactions. So, the investigation is centered on these informants only. Some Australian-Vietnamese cross-cultural differences in teacher-student addressing will then be compared. The data analysis methods are taken from “Doing Second Language Research” by James Dean Brown and Theodore S. Rodgers. Scope of the study The study focuses on the addressing terms used by two cohorts of teachers and students in Australia and Vietnam. These addressing terms will be analyzed in some specific situations in their universities. How the teachers address the students and how the students reply are very different. In the study, the author focuses on some main factors that exercise their influence on the use of addressing terms such as age, gender, marital status, occupation, power, social status, situation of interaction, academic qualification and the speakers’ preferences of addressing. Addressing is a vast area in cross-cultural communication. Due to special and temporal constraints, cross-cultural differences in ways of addressing will be roughly analyzed. Design of the study The study will consist of three parts: introduction, development and conclusion. The introduction addresses such issues as ‘Rational’, ‘Aims of the study’, ‘Methods of the study’, ‘Scope of the study’, and ‘Design of the study’. The second part, development, includes two chapters. Chapter 1 prepares theoretical issues and provides conceptual framework to background the practical analysis that follows. Chapter 2 begins with the discussion of the survey questionnaires and the comments on informants. The statistics research serves as the basis for data analysis. Data will be compiled and arranged into tables and some specific areas. The study ends with the exposure of major differences and the implications for ELT. Part II: development Chapter I: theoretical background i.1. Speech acts According to Yule, G. (1997) actions performed via utterances are generally called speech acts, and in English, are given more specific labels, such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, request etc. Also, the circumstances, in which, via utterances actions are perform to communicate are generally called speech events. In many ways, it is the nature of the speech event that determines the interpretation of an utterance as performing a particular speech act. For example, on the merry occasion like parties or festivals, the speaker meets a young lady wearing a beautiful red skirt, admires for a while and produces the utterance “The color looks good on you!” This utterance is likely to be interpreted as a compliment. Changing the circumstance to an unhappy occasion, for example a funeral service, with the same utterance produced, the meaning of this is likely to be interpreted as a delicately sarcastic remark. If the same utterance can be interpreted as different kinds of speech, then obviously no simple one utterance to one action correspondence will be possible. It also means that there is more to the interpretation of a speech act than can be found in the utterance alone. It is useful at this point to draw from Austin’s analysis of speech acts. He introduces a classification of acts performed when a person speaks. The first is a locutionary act producing a meaningful expression. For instance, if we make a simple sentence like “It’s terribly cold today”, we are likely to produce a locutionary act. Moreover, we mostly do not make utterance without having any purpose implied in them. Take the previous sentence as an example, we do not only simply say that sentence but also have an implication of inquiring the listener or people around to turn on the central heating or close the windows. This kind of acts via utterances we produce with purposes in mind is generally known as illocutionary acts. These acts are performed for communicative function. The third classification of speech acts given by Austin is named perlocutionary acts. “In communicating, we do not simply create an utterance without intending to have an effect.” (G, Yule-1997). For the sentence: “It’s terribly cold today”, we all wish the act of taking an action to turn on the central heating or close the windows. Once Hearer recognizes the speaker’s intention, the act is generally known as having the perlocutionary effect. From the point of view of Yule, G (1997), of the three dimensions, the most discursive one is illocutionary force. Indeed, the term speech act is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force of an utterance. (1996:49). For instance, the utterance can represent different illocutionary force, such as an apology, a compliment, and an offer. However, which illocutionary act is performed depends on how the utterance fits into the particular circumstance. Speech act classification: According to Yule, G (1997) there is one general classification system that lists five types of general functions performed by speech acts: declarations, representatives, expressives, directives, and commissives. Declarations are those kinds of speech acts that change the world via their utterance. The speaker has to have a special institutional role, in a specific context, in order to perform a declaration appropriately. For example: “Priest: I now pronounce you husband and wife.” Representatives are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker believes to be the case or not. Statement of fact, assertions, conclusions and descriptions are examples of the speaker representing the world as he or she believes it is. For example, “The Moon goes round the Earth.” or “It is windy today.” Expressives are those kinds of speech acts that state what the speaker feels. They express psychological states and can be statement of pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy and sorrow. For example: “What a great party!”. Directives are those kinds of speech acts that the speakers use to get the Hearer to do something. They express what the speaker wants. For instance: “Stand up, please!” or “Could you open the door?”. Commissives are those kinds of speech acts that speakers use to commit themselves to some future action. They express what the speaker intends. For example: I’ll give one hand.” or “I’ll be back.” Yule, G (1997) also presents a table showing speech acts classification: Table 1: Speech Acts Classification Speech act types Direction of fit S = Speaker X = Situation Declarations Representatives Expressives Directives Commissives words change the world makes words fits the world makes words fits the world make the world fits words make the world fits words S causes X S believes X S feels X S wants X S intends X Another approach to distinguish different types of speech acts is based on the relationship between the structure and the function. As Yule, G claims, three structural forms (declarative, interrogative, imperative) and three general communicative function (statement, question, command/request) can be combined to create two other types of speech acts: direct and indirect speech acts. E.g.: Could I have a glass of milk? The request can be understood in a structurally direct way to that the speaker needs a glass of milk. Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure and a function, we have an indirect speech act. E.g.: Do you have to stand in front of the TV? (Yule, G-1997) It is not only used as a question but also a request, hence it is considered to be an indirect speech act. The usefulness of speech acts analysis is illustrating the kinds of things we can do with words and identifying some of the conventional utterance forms we use to perform specific actions. However, we need to look at more extended interaction to understand how those actions are carried out and interpreted within speech events. However, to compare selected speech acts from two languages, the topic is still vast and couldn’t be treated exhaustively in any one work. The cultural norms reflected in speech acts differ not only from one language to another, but also from one regional and social variety to another. So, different cultures find expression in different system of speech acts, and that different speech acts become entrenched, and, to some extent, codified in different languages. In short, speech acts affect to all kinds of communication in which addressing plays a fair position. The illocutionary act of addressing makes it different from cultures. i.2. Cross – cultural differences According to Levine and Adelman (cited in Nguyen Quang, Intercultural communication), culture is a shared background (for example, national, ethnic, religious) resulting from a common language and communication style, customs, beliefs, attitudes, and values. It refers to the informal and often hidden patterns of human interactions, expressions, and viewpoints that people in one culture share. The hidden nature of culture has been compared to an iceberg: most of which is hidden underwater. Like the iceberg, much of the influence of culture on an individual cannot be seen. The part of culture that is exposed is not always that which creates cross – cultural difficulties: the hidden aspects of culture have significant effects on behavior and on interactions with others. Many of the factors that give rise to linguistic variation are sometimes discussed in terms of cultural differences. It is not unusual to find linguistic features quoted as identifiable aspects of ‘working class culture’ or ‘Black culture’. Give the process of cultural transmission that language is passed on from one generation to the next by which it is acquired. It makes a lot of sense to emphasize the fact that linguistic variation is tied very much to the existence of different cultures. However, one quite influential theory of the connection between language and worldview proposes a much more deterministic relationship. The term ‘cross-cultural’ usually refers to the meeting of two cultures or two languages across the political boundaries of nation-states. They are predicated on the equivalence of one nation – one culture – one language. There are many things that we do in our own culture that we never ask question about. We do things without thinking about them because we have always done them in the same way. When we are in another culture or with people from a different culture, we see that people do things in many different ways. One of the first differences we notice is the form of address that is used in the culture. The language that people use to address each other tells us many things about a culture. For example, the language of addressing people gives cultural information about customs, relationships, and communication style, both verbal and nonverbal. You will learn mainly about addressing people in other cultures. Being polite is a complicated business in any language. It is difficult to learn because it involves understanding not just the language, but also the social and cultural values of the community. There are two different types of politeness. Positive politeness is solidarity - oriented. It emphasizes shared attitudes and values. A shift to a more informal style using slang or swear words will function similarly as an expression of positive politeness. By contrast, negative politeness pays people respect and avoids intruding on them. Using title and last name (TLN) to your teacher is an example of an expression of negative politeness. In some languages, people often use address terms expressing solidarity semantic that is one of in-group identity markers. Vietnamese language has the same characteristic with some relationships as mentioned by Nguyen Quang (2002:161). Circular relationship: is widely used in the society and the family to express the inequality, the respect and the solidarity. Horizontal relationship – Type I: is used to express the power equals, the kinship terms or the solidarity among interlocutors. Dynamic relationship – Type I: is used in addressing the higher position person to express the respect. Dynamic relationship – Type II: is used in addressing the lower position person to express the respect. (In this type, we specially pay attention to the age.) Besides, there is one more in-group address term: a generic name that exists in other cultural-linguistic terms. In conclusion, to each culture, we have different address terms that are based on the different characteristics of that culture. Knowing about this can help us avoid misunderstanding among people of different cultures. i.3. cross – cultural translation of address terms ‘Translation is the transformation of a speech product in one language into that of other language keeping the content (or meaning) unchanged’. (L.S. Barkhudarov. 1975). The term ‘translation’ is the neutral term used for all tasks where the meaning of expressions in one language (the source language) is turned into the meaning of another (the target language), whether the medium is spoken or written. It has several meanings: it can refer to the general subject field, the product (the text that has been translated) or the process (the act of producing the translation, otherwise known as translating). The process of translation between two different written languages involves the translator changing an original written text in the original verbal language into a written text in a different verbal language. Jakobson (1959/2000:114) described three categories of translation as follows: Intralingual translation would occur when we rephrase an expression or text in the same language to explain or clarify something we might have said or written. Intersemiotic translation would occur if a written text were translated. Interlingual translation is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language. That the translators can work fast depends upon such factors as the translators’ experience, their familiarity with the subject matter, and whether they dictate the translation or have to type it themselves. There are three levels of translation: Word-for-word: Each word (or occasionally morpheme) in the