Vietnam national university - hanoi College of foreign languages - Post-graduate department *** trÇn thị bình Some Australian-Vietnamese crosscultural differences in student-toteacher addressing (Một số khác biệt giao văn hoá úc việt cách xng hô sinh viên với giáo viên) Field: Linguistics Code: 50409 Course: K11 M.A minor - thesis Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr NguyÔn Quang Hai Phong, July 2005 M.A thesis 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 M.A thesis Table of Contents *********************** Acknowledgements Table of contents Abbreviations Part I: Introduction Pag i ii iv 1 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 4 10 11 12 14 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 17 17 18 18 21 M.A thesis 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 M.A thesis 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 M.A thesis 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 teacherstudent 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 M.A thesis 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 prepares theoretical issues and provides conceptual framework to background the practical analysis that follows Chapter 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 M.A thesis 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 not make utterance without having any purpose implied in them Take the previous sentence as an example, we 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 M.A thesis 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 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 M.A thesis 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 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 Direction of fit S = Speaker Declarations words change the world X = Situation S causes X Representatives makes words fits the world S believes X Expressives makes words fits the world S feels X Directives make the world fits words S wants X Commissives make the world fits words S intends X Speech act types 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 10 M.A thesis 20 21 21 21 20 20 21 21 20 20 20 20 19 20 19 20 20 22 21 21 19 21 22 F F F M F F F F F F F F M F F F F F F M F F F St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St St S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 8 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 8 6 6 7 5 4 5 3 7 Note: M: Male; F: Female; St: Student; S: Single Age Gender Marital status Occupation The time you have known each other Situation of interaction Academic qualification Power Data compiled Table 11: (Question 2) Survey Questionnaire (For Vietnamese Speakers) 55 5 8 8 6 6 1 5 7 7 2 5 6 8 2 M.A thesis Age Gender Job Married 22 14 21 23 23 22 24 22 21 15 19 23 21 22 20 20 21 21 20 21 19 19 21 20 20 21 21 21 20 20 20 20 F F F M M M M M M F F M F F F F M F M M F F M F M F F F F F F F S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 0 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 2 2 0 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 Age Gender Job Married 21 21 21 F F M S S S N N N 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 56 M.A thesis 20 20 21 21 20 20 20 20 19 20 19 20 20 22 21 21 19 21 22 F F F F F F F F M F F F F F F M F F F S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Note: M: Male; F: Female; St: Student; S: Single First name Last name Full name Diminutives Kindship term Career title Career title and First name Data compiled Table 12: (Question 3) Survey Questionnaire (For Vietnamese Speakers) 57 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 2 3 2 2 M.A thesis Age Gender Job Married 22 14 21 23 23 22 24 22 21 15 19 23 21 22 20 20 21 21 20 21 19 19 21 20 20 21 21 21 20 20 20 20 F F F M M M M M M F F M F F F F M F M M F F M F M F F F F F F F S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 0 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 0 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 0 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 Age Gender Job Married 21 21 21 F F M S S S N N N 1 0 0 0 0 2 58 M.A thesis 20 20 21 21 20 20 20 20 19 20 19 20 20 22 21 21 19 21 22 F F F F F F F F M F F F F F F M F F F S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 Note: M: Male; F: Female; St: Student; S: Single First name Last name Full name Diminutives Kindship term Career title Career title and First name Data compiled Survey Questionnaire (For Vietnamese Speakers) Table 13: (Question 1) 59 3 2 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 M.A thesis Age Gender Job Married Thầy/Cô Thầy/Cô+ Thầy/Cô+ FN Subject 60 em cháu trò M.A thesis 21 18 22 24 23 22 23 20 24 22 21 23 19 18 24 21 21 22 21 21 20 19 19 18 18 23 19 20 19 20 20 20 F F M M M F M F M F F M F F F F F M M M M F F F F M F F F F F F S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S Age Gender Job 21 20 21 F F F S S S N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Married Thầy/Cô N N N 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Thầy/Cô+ Thầy/Cô+ FN Subject 0 61 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 em 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ch¸u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 trß 0 M.A thesis 20 20 20 20 21 22 20 20 20 20 20 20 21 21 20 20 20 20 21 21 20 21 20 20 F F F M M F F F F F F M F F F F F F F F F F F F S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Note: M: Male; F: Female; St: Student; S: Single Appendix 7: Results for survey Questionnaire (Question1) Table 14 (by number) 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M.A thesis Category N M Age Marital Occupatio Gender Power n status The time Situation His/Her own you have Academic preferences of known qualificatio interactio of n each n addressing other Age Gender M 20 22,3 - - - - - - - - - 10 22,2 - - - - - - - - - F Occupation Students 10 22,5 - - - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - - - - Others Marital status Married - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Single 20 - - - - - - - - - - 20 2,5 0 0 0 0 20 20 7,3 13 1 0 0 20 5,6 4 20 6,1 5 20 5,5 1 20 4,1 2 20 7,5 20 5,3 2 20 2 Items for considerations Appendix 8: Results for survey Questionnaire (Question1) Table 15 (by percentage) 63 M.A thesis Category N M His/Her The time own Marital you have Situation of Academic preferenc Occupatio Power Age Gender status known interaction qualificatio n4 es of n each addressin other g9 Age Gender M 20 22,3 - - - - - - - - - 10 22,2 - - - - - - - - - F Occupation Students 10 22,5 - - - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - - - - Others Marital status Married - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Single 20 - - - - - - - - - - 20 2,5 0 0 0 0 100 20 7,3 65 5 0 25 0 20 5,6 20 15 20 35 20 6,1 15 10 25 20 15 20 5,5 10 30 15 35 5 20 4,1 10 15 25 10 20 10 10 20 7,5 15 25 10 35 10 20 5,3 15 20 10 10 25 15 20 40 10 10 25 10 Items for considerations Appendix 9: Results for Questionnaire (Question2) Table 16 (by number) 64 M.A thesis Category N M First name Last name Full Diminutives name Title and Career Social last Teacher title title name Age 20 22,3 - - - - - - - - Gender M 10 22,2 - - - - - - - - F 10 22,5 - - - - - - - - Occupation Students 20 - - - - - - - - - Others - - - - - - - - - - Marital status Married - - - - - - - - - - Single 20 - - - - - - - - - 20 - 0 0 20 - 15 16 20 20 20 - 20 20 0 20 Items for frequency Note : 1: Always 2: Sometimes 3: Never Appendix 10: Results for Questionnaire (Question2) Table 17 (by percentage) 65 M.A thesis Category N M First name Last name Full Diminutives name Title and Career last title name Social title Teach er Age 20 22,3 - - - - - - - - Gender M 10 22,2 - - - - - - - - F 10 22,5 - - - - - - - - OccupationStudents 20 - - - - - - - - - Others - - - - - - - - - - Marital status Married - - - - - - - - - - Single 20 - - - - - - - - - 20 - 20 0 20 0 20 - 40 75 80 100 100 20 - 40 100 25 100 0 100 Items for frequency Note : 1: Always 2: Sometimes 3: Never Appendix 11: Results for Questionnaire (Question3) Table 18 (by number) 66 M.A thesis Category N M First name Last name Full name Diminutives Title and last name Neutral addressing "you" Age 20 22,3 - - - - - - Gender M 10 22,2 - - - - - - F 10 22,5 - - - - - - OccupationStudents 20 - - - - - - - Others - - - - - - - - Marital status Married - - - - - - - - Single 20 - - - - - - - 20 - 0 0 0 20 - 20 20 0 20 - 20 20 20 20 Items for frequency Note : Always Sometimes Never Appendix 12: Results for Questionnaire (Question3) Table 19 (by percentage) 67 M.A thesis Category N M First name Last name Full name Diminutives Title and last name Neutral addressing "you" Age 20 22,3 - - - - - - Gender M 10 22,2 - - - - - - F 10 22,5 - - - - - - OccupationStudents 20 - - - - - - - Others - - - - - - - - Marital status Married - - - - - - - - Single 20 - - - - - - - 20 - 0 0 0 20 - 100 100 0 20 - 100 100 100 100 Items for frequency Note : Always Sometimes Never Appendix 13: Results for Questionnaire Table 20 (by number) 68 M.A thesis Category N M Teacher Teacher Social Social Social Teacher Social title and and title title and title and Teacher and Full and Last First Last Mr.,Mrs., First Full Thầy/Cô name name name name Madam name name 69 t«I 10 Career title 11 Em 12 ... soạn điều tra nhằm tìm hiểu cách xng hô giáo viên - học sinh Việt nam số tình cụ thể Các liệu thu thập đợc đợc sử dụng cho phần phân tích luận văn không dành cho mục đích khác Xin bạn vui lòng giúp... soạn điều tra nhằm tìm hiểu cách xng hô giáo viên, học sinh Việt số tình cụ thể Các liệu thu thập đợc đợc sử dụng cho phần phân tích luận văn không dành cho mục đích khác Xin bạn vui lòng giúp... Theo bạn, học sinh thờng xng hô với thầy cô nh lớp ? (Cả cách gọi cách xng hô) C©u hái 2: Theo bạn, cách xng hô với thầy cô giáo nh thÕ nµo