A vietnamese – english cross – cultural study of the use of hedging before giving bad news

h tĩnh mới giải quyết được. Thằng con bác trưởng thôn chạy xe lập cà lập cập nên gây tai nạn trên phố rồi. Ma tà quỷ quái gì? Chỉ giở người. Con bé đang ở cái tuổi hâm hâm nên thế. Một vài năm nữa nó khắc sẽ khôn ra. (Nguyễn Thị Việt Nga, Ám Ảnh: 69) In daily conversation, “từ láy” are also considered an effective tool for hedging, particularly that is the repetition of “iếc”: ăn iếc, học hiếc, đi điếc …. (S does not highly appreciate what he is saying). Anh ta đi điếc thế nào mà đâm phải người đi bộ trên vỉa hè. Giờ học hiếc phải nghiêm túc vào con ạ, chứ cái Mơ nhà bác Hiền giỏi thế mà trượt đại học đấy. The study of hedges/ hedging by many authors is already the mirror for the researcher to make a comparison and analyze contrastively the data collected from survey questionnaire. CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 3.1. GENERAL VIEW 3.1. 1. Comments on the survey questionnaires The questionnaires used for this study are designed in Vietnamese and English with the same contents for Vietnamese and English native speakers respectively, aiming to collect authentic and reliable data. The questionnaire is comprised of two sections. To begin with, part 1 requests the respondents to fill in his/ her nationality, age, gender, marital status, living area (residence), occupation, and acquisition of language(s) other than his/her mother tongue. All of the obtained information about the respondent serves as a useful source for comments and later analyses. Apart from the MPQ questions to find out the functions of hedges in our social life in general and in giving bad news in particular, the other MPQ ones are based on Likert’s scale ranging from 1 to 5, i.e. from high advisability to strong inadvisability of giving bad news. There are four groups of situations under investigation. They are family life, social life, academic life, and business life. The situations are: Group 1: Family life S/he does not love him/ her any more Her/ his partner has another man/ woman Her/ his marriage is going to break up Group 2: Social life Her/ his relative just had a terrible accident S/he is suffering from fatal disease The cost for her/ his treatment is high Group 3: Academic life S/he failed the exam The book s/he needs cannot be found anywhere Her/ his assignment gets bad mark Group 4: Business life S/he is sacked Her/ his plan to improve the work is canceled S/he is forced to resign In this part, the informants were asked to put a tick in the column which they thought would appreciate to give bad news in a given situation. The initial purpose of the situations designed is to find out cross-cultural differences and to rate the assessment of possible choices by both Vietnamese and English native speakers in their real exchange, and hence to reach an initial understanding of the informants’ behavior, beliefs and norms when they encounter those situations. For the DCT questions, four situations from the MPQ section are chosen and modified with the hope of obtaining “really-be” utterances. The informants are requested to verbally give bad news to the following people: Best friend A person you dislike Colleague (same age, same sex) Colleague (same age, opposite sex) Acquaintance (about 10 years older than you) Acquaintance (about 5 years younger than you) Boss Employee 3.1. 2. Comments on the informants Firstly, the questionnaire aims at finding out the informants’ Age Gender Marital status Living area, and Acquisition of foreign languages All of the informants are Vietnamese and English native speakers. English speaking informants, who were asked to answer the questions, are from English-speaking countries such as the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. However, due to the author’s relationship, informants from Britain and the USA are more readily available. Table 1: Distribution on informants’ status parameters Informants’ status parameters VNSs ENSs No. of participants 50 50 Age > 20 18 20 > 30 18 20 > 40 14 10 Gender Male 21 23 Female 29 27 Marital status Single 20 32 Married 30 18 Living area urban 36 50 Rural 14 0 Occupation Student 20 0 Teacher 23 35 Accountant 07 0 Charity 0 15 3.2. FINGDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 3.2.1. Needs of hedging before giving bad news The aim of exposing some informative sentences containing some hedges is to find out the purposes of using hedges before giving bad news in everyday conversations. Your plan is rather good but I may think that it is not suitable for our work. “Well, could you please sit down and be calm? As you know, among 212 passengers, only two survived. And I regret to inform you that your husband is not among the lucky two”. Please tick (ν) where appropriate. More than one answer is possible. The italic phrases above are used in order to: Lessen the degree of directness Make it less unpleasant and shocking to the hearer Make the statement more polite Other (please specify) …………………………………………………………… Table 2: The main purposes of using hedges to inform bad news Purpose VNSs ENSs Lessen the degree of directness 48% 60% Make it less unpleasant and shocking to the hearer 90% 80% Make the statement more polite 20% 10% The table suggests that the reasons why VNSs and ENSs use hedges to inform bad news do not show many differences. 60% of ENSs confirmed that they used hedges to lessen the degree of directness whenever they wanted to inform bad news. Whereas, 48% VNSs agreed with the choice to lessen the degree of directness. Besides the purpose of lessening the degree of directness, hedges used to make the bad news less unpleasant and shocking to the hearer is chosen by 90% of VNSs and 80% of ENSs in addition to lessen the degree of directness. It is evident that they approve of the idea: hedging to make the bad news less unpleasant and shocking to the hearer because hedges have given the speakers a hand to let the other person know he/ she feels bad about it and hedging also makes the speaker more comfortable as the bearer of bad news. However, there is rather little difference in the aim: to make the statement more polite with the percentage 20% of VNSs and 10% of ENSs. In general, both VNSs and ENSs hedge not to make the statement more polite but to make the bad news less unpleasant and shocking to the hearer as well as to lessen the degree of directness in such fully emotional circumstances in order that they really long to show their truly feeling in minimizing the FTA. 3.2.2. Giving bad news in Vietnamese and English 3.2.2.1. Vietnamese findings and discussions Family life In situation 1 (“S/he does not love him/ her any more”), it is noted that data filled in column 1: highly advisable occupies the most with 60%. Then the percentage decreases dramatically into 25% with the choice advisable and 15% for yes/ no. In contrast, no one chose column 4 and 5. This leads to an initial conclusion that in Vietnam it is almost highly advisable to give the information “S/he does not love him/ her any more” to the hearer. Compared to what has been seen in situation 1, the rate of situation 2 “her/ his partner has another man/ woman” is rather different. “Yes/ No” (87%) proves to outweigh much those of other columns. Only 2% approves of “highly advisable”, 8% for “advisable”, and 3% of Vietnamese informants states that it is inadvisable to give the news “her/ his partner has another man/ woman”. Similarly, in situation 3 “her/ his marriage is going to break up”, most of the informants (90%) indicate that it is maybe yes or maybe no to inform the hearer that news. To inform that her/ his marriage is going to break up is certainly so sensitive that the speaker feels vague to speak out. Therefore, only 5% of informants asked are sure that it is highly advisable or advisable to inform the news, and 5% claims it is inadvisable or strongly inadvisable to give that news. Social life As can be seen in situation 4 “her/ his relative just had a terrible accident”, it is highly advisable (66%) as well as advisable (22%) to give the news to the hearer. Perhaps, this is plainly an important news that hearer should be informed immediately so only 4% of informants selects “inadvisable”. The data in situation 5 “S/he is suffering from fatal disease” expresses that it is unreasonable to inform the news since it is probably supposed not to be dealt with by the hearer but by a professor. In terms of the situation “the cost for the treatment is high”; it is probably said yes or no before deciding to inform the news. However, Vietnamese informants seem to feel like advisable to give that bad news because of the comparison between 32% of advisable and 20% of inadvisable. In brief, the informers always truly want to comfort the hearers’ curiosity of the cost for the treatment. Academic life As observed in the field of study including three situations: situation 7, 8, and 9, there are some differences in the percentage. The rate of situation 7 tends to say that it is inadvisable (50% stands for yes/ no and 27% of inadvisable) to inform s/he failed the exam whereas those collected from situation 8 and 9 has given a clear evident that the speaker had better give the news: the book s/he needs cannot be found anywhere and her/ his assignment gets bad mark. Business life Among 12 situations on study, the number of informants choosing strongly advisable in situation 12 demonstrated 25% is the highest. It can be proved evidently that it is absolutely inadvisable to give the news s/he is forced to resign. Nonetheless, the collector has enough data to be sure that it is necessary to inform the news s/he is sacked and his/ her plan to improve the work is canceled when the rate in situation 10 or 11 has revealed everything: it is 42% advisable and 34% yes/ no along with 38% highly advisable and advisable and 39% yes/ no. The reason for the differences in informants’ choice is guessed to be based on the sensitiveness of the news. To summarize, it can be seen that the frequency of YES/ NO in Vietnamese findings is rather high, which comes to a conclusion that this may affect the hedging strategies in the given situations. 3.2.2.2. English findings and discussions As can be shown in the chart of English findings, there are absolutely differences in the English informants’ choice to deliver such bad news in the given situations from Vietnamese findings. In terms of situation 1 “S/he does not love him/ her any more”, 76% of the informants confirm it is inadvisable, even strongly inadvisable to inform the news. Then 24% chooses yes/ no and no one really wants to give the news above. As for the rest situations in the field of home affair, it is not a good idea to speak out the news: her/ his woman has another man/ woman and her/ his marriage is going to break up because in situation 2, 68% say that they should not intervene with other private life in compared with only 32% advisable. Equivalently, the data in situation 3 refers to a conclusion that almost people realize it is inadvisable, even strongly inadvisable to inform her/ his marriage is going to break up that is too personal. However, situation 4 has shown a contrast idea, 98% of informants interviewed certainly deliver to the hearer the news his/ her relatives just had a terrible accident. This decision does come from the seriousness and urgency of the news. Continually, ENSs approve of giving bad news in situation 8 “The book s/he needs cannot be found anywhere with 68%, especially in situation 11 “her/his plan to improve the work is canceled” and situation 12 “S/he is forced to resign”, 100% agree with advisable. Regarding situation 5 “S/he is suffering from fatal disease”, situation 6 “The cost for her/ his treatment is high”, situation 7 “S/he failed the exam”, and situation 10 “S/he is sacked”, the percentage of people ticking the column “inadvisable” and “strongly inadvisable” is so much high with 73%, 82% and goes to the peak 100%. When being asked the reasons for their selection, most of English informants said that they should not be the person to deliver such bad news, but doctor should in situation 5 and 6, teacher should in situation 7 and boss had better in situation 10 as well. 3.2.2.3. Cross-cultural similarities and differences The MPQ data analysis shows not only the similarities but also the differences between the Vietnamese and English cultures in giving such bad news in given situations. The similarities help us more confident and the differences make us aware of potential culture shocks, thus avoid face threats in not only intracultural but also cross-cultural communication. At first glance, both the Vietnamese and English informants are dominantly in favor of delivering the bad news in situation 4 “Her/ his relative just had a terrible accident” and situation 8 “The book s/he needs cannot be found anywhere”. According to ENSs as well as VNSs informants’ idea, the two situations above are less personal along with sensitive so they are least affecting the face threats. Moreover, all people answering the questions requested, regardless of different countries and different cultures indicate their high vagueness and mitigation in the act of giving the news: “Her/ his assignment gets bad mark”. 80% of ENSs chooses the column yes/no in the findings while the equivalent percentage 40% chosen by VNSs is considerably high if compared with other rates of other columns. It is believed that the high frequency of Yes/ No results in an initial summary that this may affect hedging strategies in situation 9. Nevertheless, Vietnamese and English people asked are not of the same mind about what not to give bad news; hence the findings analyzed have revealed the contradictory trends. Most of the situations given in the survey questionnaire such as three situations belonging to home affair, situation 5 and 6 of social life, and situation 7, 10 as well are fundamentally considered to be too personal or vulnerable by ENSs so it is said not to be advisable to give the news in the above listed situations. Meanwhile, VNSs tend to show their high agreement in the act of bearing bad news in the same above situations. The opposite percentage between ENSs and VNSs is a mirror reflecting the different culture and mind about giving such bad news which helps communicators avoid culture shock and communication breakdown. The difference here also has a great effect on the use of hedging strategies by ENSs and VNSs proved in the later part. Another difference is the high rate of yes/ no choice from VNSs in all the situations which also bears an idea that VNSs feel more reluctant and unsure to give the bad news than ENSs. 3.2.3. Hedging before giving bad news in Vietnamese 3.2.3.1. In terms of communicating partners’ parameters Best friend It is clearly seen from the chart in giving bad news to their “close friend”, Vietnamese informants spend their first priority on strategy 5 “offering/ suggesting options” to support their best friends by proposing an option which he thinks could be possible for the hearer to take. Other strategies such as strategy 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are divided relative equally with 18%, 6%, 21%, or 12%. Also, it is worth saying from the chart that no one decides to use strategy 2 “self-abasing/ self-blaming” as well as strategy 10 “keeping silent”. The reason for their no choice may result from the relationship between the bearer and the hearer which is so close that they cannot keep silent or give some formal sayings. About 6% of VNSs, however, do not use any hedging strategies before delivering bad news; instead, they inform directly that bad news. For example: “Mày thi trượt rồi đấy”; “Mày không đỗ đâu, thiếu nửa điểm rồi”. According to the author’s collected statistics, Vietnamese informants usually hedge as follows: “Mày ơi, bỏ thằng đấy đi, nó không yêu mày thật lòng đâu”. “Mày là thằng đàn ông tuyệt vời, mày nên tìm một người tuyệt vời hơn cô ấy” “Bạn hãy suy nghĩ thật kỹ và nên rút lui”. “Mày nên quên hắn đi. Hắn đâu có yêu mình” “Hãy cho người con trai khác cơ hội đi, anh ta không yêu mày đâu”. “Tớ sẽ luôn bên bạn, hãy tin vào bản thân và sự tiến bộ của y học nhé.” “Mày ơi, cố gắng tập trung cho lần thi sau tốt hơn nhé.” “Đây là cơ hội để bạn tìm việc khác tốt hơn đấy.” Sometimes, they hedge according to strategy 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Strategy 7: “Bạn còn nhiều cơ hội để làm ở những nơi khác, không phải chỗ này nếu bạn biết sửa đổi sai lầm.” Strategy 1: “Mày biết không, hình như nó có người khác rồi, không hợp với mày đâu.” Strategy 8: “Số mày đen thế, công ty này đã không nhận thấy năng lực của mày”. Strategy 4: “Mình rất lấy làm tiếc, bạn mắc một bệnh y học chưa có thuốc chữa.” “Này, mày bị sa thải rồi đấy, tao lấy làm tiếc” Strategy 3: “Tao nghĩ bây giờ có nhiều việc phù hợp với mày, không chỉ mỗi việc này đâu nên mày không còn làm ở đây nữa” Strategy 6: “Tội nghiệp cho mày, lại phải ôn lại năm nữa”; “Xin thành thật chia buồn khi báo tin mày bị thôi việc”. Strategy 9: “Bác sĩ nói với mình, trong cuộc sống mỗi người đều có vấn đề về sức khỏe, sống lạc quan là liều thuốc tốt nhất dù bạn có đang mắc bệnh…..” Accordingly, VNSs suggest that offering H another option be the best. The one you dislike When addressing their communicating partner as “a person you dislike”, the Vietnamese informants use strategies 1 (3%), 2 (9%), 3 (3%), 4 (6%), 5 (6%), 7 (3%), 8 (21%), and 10 (30%). “Tôi thấy anh ấy không yêu bạn lắm đâu”. “Tuy rằng chúng ta có xích mích nhưng hãy nghe tôi thông báo một tin xấu đây” “Tuy rằng chúng ta chưa được sự tương đồng về quan điểm nhưng tôi vẫn biết bạn rất can đảm, bạn đã mắc bệnh nan y” “Mình rất tiếc nhưng bạn chưa may mắn trong kỳ thi đó” “Dù thế nào chị cũng tin lời Hải nói đi, người ấy đâu có yêu chị” “Hãy có niềm tin vào sự tiến bộ của y học…” “Chị phải nói thật, Lan không có cảm tình với em đâu” “Hãy chứng tỏ năng lực ở một môi trường khác đi” “Ông học hành thế nào mà điểm thi kém thế” And do not utilize strategies 6, and 9. Especially, the number of people do not use any hedging strategies is the most prominent (66%) in giving bad news in such the given situations; instead they inform the news directly. Apparently, the distance between the pair of communicating partners is too large for them to be friendly to each other, even in bad situations. Therefore, keeping silent or saying directly is the most favorite. “Anh ấy không thích bà đâu” “Chị bị mắc bệnh nặng lắm” “Anh thi trượt rồi” “Anh đã bị sa thải” “Hải à, Lan không hề yêu em” “Vị trí đó không phù hợp với bạn” Colleague (same age, same sex) As for colleague with same age and same sex, strategy 5 accounts for 27% and then come strategy 1, 8, and no hedging (18%). The lowest rank is strategy 3 (3%) and 10 (6%). Obviously, the most frequent sayings of hedging strategy 5 appear as follows: “Bạn hãy thật bình tĩnh nhận tin xấu này nhé….” “Hằng ơi, cố gắng giữ bình tĩnh nhé ……” “Thôi đừng buồn, mình thấy việc này không hợp với bạn nên bạn không phải làm công việc này rồi. Biết đâu bạn sẽ tìm được công việc tốt hơn” “Bình tĩnh và hãy cố gắng nghe tin này nhé” Besides, there are some other hedging strategies “Bạn có thể làm lại mọi thứ, không cần phải buồn khi mình báo tin này nhé: bạn bị sa thải.” “Không nên lãng phí thời gian cho kẻ không xứng đáng như hắn ta”. “Còn nhiều cơ hội tốt hơn kết quả kỳ thi này” “Mình rất lấy làm tiếc nhưng mình vẫn phải nói với bạn tin này” “Mình thấy anh ấy còn thiếu sự chân thành trong tình yêu?” Furthermore, a surprise coming to the author in the collection is the combination between two strategies used by the deliverers when giving bad news. For instance: Strategy 1 and 8: “Tao thấy có vẻ dạo này anh H khác lắm, mày xem thế nào đi” Strategy 1 and 5: “Tôi thấy ở đây không hợp với bà lắm nên bà có quyết định nghỉ việc ở đây rồi, bà thử tham gia làm ở công ty tài chính xem”. Last but not least, Vietnamese informants also use “exclamation words” in bearing bad news to H as: “thôi chết rồi, tội nghiệp cho mày…” Colleague (same age, opposite sex) In comparison with the analysis about colleague (same age, same sex), the number here share the same in the proportion of hedging strategy 5 which occupies the peak with 33%. Therefore, these sayings are so much popular in the collection: “Đức à, bạn thi trượt lần này rồi, đừng buồn nhé, hãy cố gắng lên lần sau thành công” “Bạn bị nghỉ việc ở đây rồi nhưng bạn sẽ tìm được công việc tốt hơn ở đây”. “Anh cố gắng lần sau nhé” “Cô ấy không yêu bạn đâu nhưng tôi tin bạn sẽ tìm được một người hiểu bạn” “Cậu hãy bình tĩnh khi nghe mình báo tin buồn này nhé”. “Bạn bị mắc bệnh nan y đấy nhưng chúng ta nên lạc quan vào cuộc sống, bây giờ y học tiến bộ rồi”. “Anh nên xem lại tình cảm của cô ấy dành cho anh..” Next, other strategies also demonstrate as small percentage as colleague (same age, same sex) such as strategy 1 (12%), strategy 3 (3%) and strategy 4 (6%) Strategy 1: “Mình nghĩ có lẽ cô ấy không thích cậu đâu”/ “Em nghĩ rằng anh ấy không yêu chị đâu”. Strategy 2: “Tôi không hiểu làm sao anh lại bị sa thải vậy” Strategy 4: “Tôi rất tiếc phải thông báo với ông là ông bị sa thải rồi”. Strategy 3: “Anh bị thôi việc vì công việc này không phù hợp với anh. Nếu tôi là anh, tôi sẽ thử sức trong một lĩnh vực khác”. However, the rate of informants saying directly, not hedging is smaller than those which of colleague (same age, same sex), only 6% equally one third of the same column. Moreover, the number of informants using strategy 8 in colleague (same age, opposite sex) is much higher with 24%. These differences, from the author’s viewpoint, may originate from the factor “gender”, which is analyzed and discussed later. Here come some sayings belonging to strategy 8 in this situation. “Ông thiếu ¼ điểm nữa thôi” “Tình yêu cần đến từ hai phía, nếu chỉ từ một phía ông là không đủ đâu” “Ông có rất nhiều người để lựa chọn, cô ấy không thích ông đâu” “Có lẽ từ ngày mai ông không phải đến công ty nữa đâu”. “Bệnh tật không phải là cái đáng sợ nhất, đáng sợ nhất là đánh mất niềm tin đấy”. Acquaintance (about 10 years older than you) The data witnesses the fact that strategies 5, 8 and 10 are the most privileged (39% and 36%). The second most used is strategy 1 with 18% and the least prime strategies are 3 and 7 numbered with low rate 3% and 4%. Since all the hedging strategies are resorted to, it might be the case that one is well aware of the risk of being respectful and perk when not using hedges in giving bad news to an acquaintance who is about ten years older. Strategy 5: “Hãy cố gắng, hãy bình tĩnh nghe tôi thông báo tin này…”/ “Công việc này không phù hợp với bạn, bạn sẽ tìm được công việc tốt hơn”/ “Anh nên xem lại tình cảm của cô ấy dành cho anh”. Strategy 8: “Tình hình điểm năm nay hơi căng anh ạ”/ “Em thấy anh ấy là người rất đào hoa”/ “Tôi nghĩ các sếp đã không đánh giá đúng năng lực của anh rồi”. Acquaintance (about 5 years younger than you) Statistically, to the author’s surprise, the number of people in favor of keeping silent (strategy 10) is too high: 60%. This is perhaps because S is afraid that what is said can hurt the addressee. That is why he chooses not to do any FTAs, thus not interfering H’s territory. By the same token, it may be cause of the age of the H to make S find it unnecessary to verbally give bad news. Continually, the second strategy mostly used is number 8 highlighted with 32% then strategy 5 with 21% and no hedging strategy 18%. In addition, how exciting it is when the S combines two strategies each other to make their utterance available. For example: Strategy 5 and 8: “Còn rất nhiều người tốt đang mong em cho họ một cơ hội, em đừng chạy theo cái bóng như anh ta”/ “Hãy dũng cảm lên em, mọi người đều bên em và yêu em, bệnh này của em vẫn có nhiều cách chữa mà”. Strategy 1 and 8: “Chuyện tình cảm của em với X chị nghĩ có nhiều vấn đề không phù hợp đâu”/ “Em thấy có lẽ cô ấy nên là một người bạn của em thì tốt hơn”. Strategy 3 and 5: “Em là một người vững vàng nên em bình tĩnh nghe tin này nhé” Boss Among the variables on analysis, this chart has shown the highest percentage of Vietnamese informants keeping silent, not giving any verbal utterances – 72%. This possibly results from the relationship between the S and H. At that moment, H is not anyone but S’s boss so to make up his mind what to say is really difficult. In the nutshell, to be forced to inform the bad news, they cannot know what to say except for making use of strategy 1 (33%), 4 (22%) and 8 (18%) with low rate of strategy 5 (6%) and saying directly without any hedges (6%) Strategy 1: “Em thấy cô ấy không xứng với sếp”/ “Em có điều này không biết có nên nói với sếp không?” Strategy 4: “Em lấy làm tiếc khi báo với sếp tin này ….” Strategy 5: “Sếp hãy bình tĩnh nghe em nói nhé”. Strategy 8: “Ai được sếp yêu sẽ rất hạnh phúc nhưng có lẽ sếp đã đặt tình yêu nhầm vào cô ấy rồi”/ “Ai cũng có những lúc thất bại, không ai hoàn hảo cả. Sếp cũng vậy”. No hedging strategy: “Thời gian vừa rồi sếp bận quá nên không qua kỳ thi đâu.”/ “Cô ấy không yêu sếp đâu sếp ạ”/ “Báo cáo sếp, sếp đã nghe tin gì chưa? Sếp bị sa thải”. Employee Overall, as can be seen in the chart, strategy 10 and using no hedge strategy is a prime selection in the situation with employee. The informants are thought to have much power on their employees so they do not have to investigate so many hedging strategies. Before giving that bad news, they are polite to use hedge: “Tôi lấy làm tiếc khi báo tin…”/ “Tôi nghĩ rằng, tôi thấy có vẻ…”/ “Anh/ em hãy cố gắng ….”/ “Hôm qua đi xem phim tôi gặp H đi với bạn trai cô ấy đấy….”. Additionally, S informs the news to H directly: “Cậu thi cử thế nào mà trượt thế?”/ “Anh bị sa thải”/ “Chị thường xuyên đi muộn, không có trách nhiệm với công việc nên chị bị sa thải…..” Summary After analyzing all the situations to find out the influence of communicating partners’ parameter on their decision to use hedge strategies, a table of summary is written to show the clearest similarities and differences among the relationships emerged above the situations. “S/he is your best friend” and “S/he is the one you dislike” make the differences inside the factor “social distance”; “S/he is your colleague” (same age, same sex/ opposite sex) proves the affect of “gender”; the factor of “age” is expressed in two situations: “S/he is your acquaintance” (about 10 years older than you/ about 5 years younger than you). The last one which should be considered is “power” in situations: “S/he is your boss” and “S/he is your employee”. Table 3: Communicating partners’ parameters Communicating partner Best friend One you dislike Colleague (same age, same sex) Colleague (same age, opposite sex) Acquaintance (about 10 years older) Acquaintance (5 years younger) Boss Employee (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Strategy 1 18 18 12 18 6 33 15 Strategy 2 9 3 Strategy 3 6 3 3 3 4 6 3 Strategy 4 15 6 12 6 9 8 22 27 Strategy 5 87 6 27 33 39 21 6 21 Strategy 6 21 Strategy 7 9 3 3 Strategy 8 12 21 18 24 36 32 18 6 Strategy 9 6 Strategy 10 30 6 6 36 60 72 35 No hedging strategy 6 66 18 6 18 6 40 In brief, as can be discussed from the table, seldom do VNSs informants use strategy 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9. Instead, they mainly investigate strategy 1, 5, 8, 10 and no hedging strategy. Nonetheless, the frequency of those above strategies is exploited differently based on relationship pairs. As for “social distance”, to the best friend, S is certainly willing to propose an option which he thinks could be possible for H to take, i.e. strategy 5 but they have already kept silent even have not hedged any to inform bad news to the one they dislike. Probably, S does not care so much of H’s emotion in situation 2 when being given that unwanted news. Next, as regards with giving the news to the colleague who has the opposite sex with S, s/he tends to be more vague than to the colleague who has the same sex with her/ him because the informer possibly feels uncomfortable to give that news. Furthermore, S informs the news more directly without using any hedging strategies to H with same sex than to H with opposite sex. Visibly, “gender” has much effect on the choice of using hedging strategy. It is also noted from the table the thesis author is convinced that power and age play a significant role in seeking and choosing hedging strategies. In other words, the bigger the generation gap is, the less strategy 10 (keeping silent) and no hedging strategy used are. Clearly, the informers dare not to say plainly or even ignore H who is much older than them. To add some more, one can take power into careful consideration when giving bad news to his/ her boss because inappropriate or straightforward informing can be regarded as ill-mannered, impertinent, and insolent. Accordingly, to the person who is much more powerful, the delivers have no other way but to keep silent. Silence to the boss in the parameter “power”, as a saying goes, is as precious as gold. However, when in a superior position, people tend to use more directness to their inferiors so the percentage of no hedging strategy in the column “employee” is much higher than the previous column with 40%. 3.2.3.2. In terms of informants’ parameters Table 4: Informants’ parameters Age Gender Marital status Occupation Living area Category > 20 > 30 > 40 Male Female Single Married Teacher Student Accountant Urban Rural S1 10 18 32 24 36 22 38 31 18 11 28 32 S2 6 6 6 9 S3 6 6 6 6 S4 17 18 11 28 18 21 25 12 30 4 30 16 S5 27 18 30 24 51 42 33 37 22 16 36 39 S6 3 3 3 3 3 S7 9 3 6 9 9 6 3 S8 15 13 25 21 32 18 35 26 9 18 33 20 S9 3 3 6 6 6 S10 18 37 30 60 35 52 33 21 37 27 48 37 No hedge 27 18 12 45 12 30 26 12 32 13 41 16 As can be shown in the table, all the hedging strategies are used differently depended on the informants’ parameters including age, gender, marital status, occupation and living area. Firstly, in terms of age, the older they are the more frequently they use strategy 1, 5 and 8. In contrast, the younger they are the more directly they inform the bad news (the rate of no hedging strategy chosen by informants over 20 is 27%). The highest number of people keeping silent is the one over 30. It is evident that the old tend to be more indirect than the young. Secondly, as for gender, in one word the number has exposed the fact that the female prefer indirect expression proved through their preference on strategy 1, 5 and 8. In the other word, the male’s best choice is strategy 10 (keeping silent) or informing the news directly without hedging. Thirdly, those who are single like the strategies “offering/ suggesting option”, “keeping silent” or delivering the news plainly. Furthermore, the people whose jobs are teachers tend to use more indirectness than those who do the accounts and be students with the high rate of strategy 1, 5, and 8. Last but not least, the rural population tends to use indirectness than the urban one. Seldom do they keep silent or give the bad news directly. In replacement, they apply strategy 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. The urban one go straightforward to the bad news after using some similar hedges such as: “Tôi nghĩ, tôi thấy....”, “Có lẽ, có thể….”, “Mình rất lấy làm tiếc”, “Bạn hãy cố gắng, hãy bình tĩnh…”. In conclusion, it is visible and totally reasonable that the above socio-cultural factors affect the directness and indirectness of utterances so the ways they hedge before giving bad news are different that has great influence on choosing hedging strategy. 3.2.4. Hedging before giving bad news in English 3.2.4.1. In terms of communicating partners’ parameters Best friend It is amazing when looking at the chart about communicating partners’ parameter: “Best friend” which expose very few strategy ENss have used. They consist of strategy 1, 4, 5, and 8. In addition, to their best friend, ENss like being vague, they really do not want to be direct that may cause much more hurt to the people they love. The vaguer they are the less number of FTAs they make. Thus, the highest proportion (45%) belongs to strategy 8: being vague. Here come some ways of hedging informers have done: “There is plenty of fish in the sea, she does not love you. No problem” “You are always beautiful for me, not for him”. “Failure will bring success to another occasion”. “Just enjoy your last remaining days” Then S would like to give some suggestions to H in order that s/he can find out a better way to solve such the bad circumstance. “Go for a drink, Looh and then look for another job. This does not suit you” “Now it is the moment you will do your best and give all your affection to your family and children” “Please calm down to listen to me….” Or possibly due to the fact that S is not sure about the accuracy of what he is saying, he must apologize before giving bad news. In this case, S also shows that he is reluctant to do such a thing that he should not have done: “Eli, I’m sorry but I think he’s got someone else” “I regret to inform that you don’t pass the exam” The one you dislike To make a comparison between two charts about “best friend” and “the one you dislike”, it is easy to realize that how contrary it is. ENSs are determined to ignore the person they dislike or if they have no other way to inform the news, the greatest selection for them will be not to hedge the news and sometimes they will attach some more exclamation words. For example: “Angie does not love you. Good luck and good bye!” “Oh dear, bad luck. He does not love you any more” “You failed the exam. Poor you” “Fail the exam. Serve you right!” “You are sacked. Good luck next time” Colleague (same age/ same sex – opposite sex) As can be observed from the comparative chart between colleague at same age but different sex, the percentage of hedging strategy is also different too. At first, in terms of strategy 1, no English informants use it to inform the bad news to the colleague with opposite sex but it can be done to the colleague with the same sex demonstrating up to 31%. They often hedge as follows: “I think perhaps she does not love you. Let’s go for a drink” “Could you please look around for another job?” “Possibly you do not pass the exam” “I wonder if I could inform you the news: Nicole loves Mary, not you” “I hope you may get better thanks to the development of medicine” Regarding strategy 3, the use of this strategy points out that S only wants to deliberately and implicitly flatter H’ status but the H in this situation has opposite sex with the S (46.5%) in order to decrease threats to H, hence not to make H hurt when hearing the following negative news from S: “You are always intelligent but unlucky in this exam. Try again next time” “You are always talented, find another job John” “Your strong mind will help you overcome the illness...” Next, strategy 4 and 5 are divided relative equivalently for colleague regardless different sex appearing on the percentage 13.5%-12% and 15%-17%. Nevertheless, strategy 10 with colleague opposite sex has a rate (58%) which outweighs one about same sex (42%). This prove to a fact that the English informants feels more difficult to inform the news to H who has opposite sex so the best thing they can do is to keep silent. Therefore, “gender” has also had a chief influence on the way people hedge before giving the bad news. Besides, most of English people asked to answer the given situations on paper said to the thesis author that the situations to those people on paper are so too personal that they had better keep silent, they would not give the news because the people should do instead are H’s doctor, teacher and boss. Acquaintance (about 10 years older than you/ 5 years younger than you) In this parameter, the number of strategies in the chart has revealed evidence that ENss informants are sure to be less direct to give the bad news to the acquaintance 10 years older than to the acquaintance about 5 years younger. Particularly, S use strategy 2, 3 to hedge before giving such bad news to the former more than to the latter with the percentage 17% compared with 15% or 13%. For instance, they always hedge as the following sentences: “It is difficult to say but I think there is a problem: she does not love you” “I feel uncomfortable to inform you this news: you failed the exam” “I really do not want to be the person to give you the news: you are sacked” “You are never too old to try again, she does not love you, no problem” “You are still young and handsome/ beautiful to find another man if he does not love you”. Additionally, strategy 6 and 8 are more frequently used to inform the news to the acquaintance about 10 years older. “Frankly, although you are suffering from this disease, at least you’ve lived longer than me”. “Honestly speaking, you do not pass the exam” “Grass is always greener on the other side of the garden. You are sacked, find another more suitable job”. “You’ve done your best. Find a better position”. “Do you need some time off from work to forget the betrayal boyfriend?” However, English informants prefer to apply strategy 1 and 5 to give the bad news to the acquaintance about 5 years younger than them because right after “I think, I hope, I wonder if, could you please…” is the bad news or they also has confidence and courage to suggest and offer the H some options. “The more you learn for the next exam, the older you become”. “Don’t worry; try again in the next exam”. “Keep on trying to find a suitable man because he does not love you”. “You’re still young so don’t worry if you are sacked” Although there is difference in hedge strategy to acquaintance about 10 years older and about 5 years younger, there is huge similarity in English informants’ keeping silent in the given situations. The reason they have pointed out is equivalent to other communicating partners, i.e. those bad news are not dealt with by them as they are too personal and individual. Boss – Employee It can be realized from the chart that English informants tend to hedge according to strategy 3(60%) and 5 (32%) to give bad news to their boss. “You have done enough in your life although you suffer from this disease” “You’re successful already although you failed the exam” “You’re handsome, rich, and talented. Poor her when she loves John” “You’ve worked too hard but you are still sacked. A chance to find a better thing” In contrast, English informants would prefer to use strategy 6 and say directly to employee “To tell the truth, you are sacked” “You are sacked” “You failed the exam” “Mary does not love you, try to find another girl” Nonetheless, the most preferable strategy in this parameter is strategy 10 – keeping silent. Plainly, as for the boss, nobody wants to inform bad news and in terms of employee, no boss wants to interfere to his/ her personal life. In general, silence is the best. 3.2.4.2. In terms of informants’ parameter Table 5: Informants’ parameters Age Gender Marital status Occupation Living area Category > 20 > 30 > 40 Male Female Single Married Teacher Student Charity Urban Rural S1 15 8 7 12 18 19 11 8 11 11 13 17 S2 9 6 5 10 7 8 6 5 4 12 3 S3 35 14 11 24 36 27 33 32 10 18 45 15 S4 11 9 5 15 12 8 6 6 8 12 8 S5 12 17 11 18 16 13 12 7 10 15 14 S6 6 6 4 2 3 3 4 2 S7 S8 14 6 10 13 17 16 14 12 10 8 18 12 S9 S10 45 25 30 45 55 52 48 35 35 30 55 45 No hedge 57 38 25 55 65 63 57 40 35 45 62 58 If compared with the number of Vietnamese informants, it can be concluded that the socio-cultural factors such as: age, gender, marital status, occupation and living area have little influence on the ways English hedge before giving bad news because after the analysis on communicating partners’ parameter, it should be summarized as follows: regardless of age, gender, marital status, occupation and living area, the English informants especially prefer keeping silent to using other hedging strategies. Hardly can they feel comfortable to be too curious about one’s personal life. 3.2.5. Cross-cultural similarities and differences 3.2.5.1. Similarities Both VNSs and ENSs are partly influenced by the communicating partner pairs. As regards with social distance, they apparently give bad news in a direct way to the one they dislike or they keep silent and ignore them. To the colleague whose gender is opposite with them, the informants usually find it difficult to inform the news, hence, S wants to deliberately and implicitly fatter H’s status to reduce threats to H. Moreover, the age of partners make S inform the bad news more indirectly and not dare to give the older advice or offer option. Above all, S always feels unconfident and ambiguous to communicate face-to-face with the people who is more powerful so the most preferable strategy is 3, 8, and 10. In contrast, to the inferior, S tends to be more direct in giving bad news by using mostly strategy 1, 5, 6, or even no hedging. 3.2.5.2. Differences Following are the typical differences in using the hedging strategies by both groups of informants. At the first glance, the Vietnamese informants have used variously more hedging strategies than the English ones (10/10 vs. 8/10). As far as “showing tentativeness and mitigation” and “keeping silent” are concerned, the distribution of these two strategies in the VNSs and ENSs informants are greatly dissimilar from each other. While the Vietnamese informants would rather use strategy 1, the ENSs ones rarely apply this strategy. In addition, VNSs tends to use much strategy 5 “suggesting/ offering option” before giving bad news whereas ENSs does not. Then “keeping silent” is mostly operated by ENSs in all the situations because the given ones are considered to be too personal apart from the fact that the communicating partner is their best friend whose individual life can be intervened by them. Therefore, in case of being forced to be the bearer of the bad news, English informants probably apply the same sentence stems such as “I regret to inform…”, “I’m sorry but I think ….”, “it is difficult but I think…” However, among the hedging strategies used by ENSs, strategy 3 “talking up” is more popular, thus, there is a trend that the S wants to flatter the person whose sex is opposite with him/ her or position is higher than. This fact has proved that cross-cultural similarities and differences at times are interwoven each other so difficultly that ELT and ELL always find it the most complicated to understand about one country’s culture. In conclusion, to raise Vietnamese learners’ awareness of these cross-cultural similarities and differences is really important in TEFL in order to avoid culture shock and communication breakdown. PART 3: CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATION IN TEFL 3.1. Conclusion 3.1.1. Main similarities To conclude, in learning a second foreign language, beside the necessity of language skills and professional knowledge, cross-cultural awareness is truthfully crucial to all language learners. In this study, the major characteristics of hedges in general and hedges as well as hedging strategies employed before giving bad news in particular have been discussed. In the first place, some main similarities are mentioned. To begin with, both VNSs and ENSs use hedges to lessen the degree of directness whenever they wanted to inform bad news. Moreover, they all also want to make the bad news less unpleasant and shocking to H to minimize the FTAs. Next, situation 4 “Her/ his relative just had a terrible accident” and situation 8 “The book s/he needs cannot be found anywhere” are highly popular to both Vietnamese and English informants’ choice to convey the bad news advisably. In terms of situation 9 “Her/ his assignment gets bad mark”, they clearly show their tentativeness and mitigation when choosing the column Yes/ No. It is observed that the communicating partners’ parameter including age, gender, distance and power has a great effect on the choice of hedging strategies of both ENSs and VNSs. As regards with social distance, they apparently give bad news in a direct way to the one they dislike or they keep silent and ignore them. Gender and the age of partners make S inform the bad news more indirectly and not dare to give the older advice or offer options. Above all, S always feels unconfident and ambiguous to communicate face-to-face with the people who is more powerful so the most preferable strategy is 3, 8, and 10. In contrast, to the inferior, S tends to be more direct in giving bad news by using mostly strategy 1, 5, 6, or even no hedging. 3.1.2. Main differences Nevertheless, the findings have revealed the contradictory trends between Vietnamese and English people. Most of the situations given in the survey questionnaire such as three situations belonging to home affair, situation 5 and 6 of social life, and situation 7, 10 as well are fundamentally considered to be too personal or vulnerable by ENSs so it is said not to be advisable to give the news in the above listed situations. In contrast, VNSs tend to show their high agreement in the act of bearing bad news in the same above situations. The opposite percentage between ENSs and VNSs is a mirror reflecting the different culture and mind about giving such bad information which helps communicators avoid culture shock and communication breakdown. In addition, informants’ age, gender, marital status, occupation, and living area have, to various degrees, affected the ways VNSs hedge before giving bad news whereas these factors do not seem to interfere with ENSs’ hedging strategies. It is also worthy to note that the respect for individuality and privacy seems to make most of the informants decide to keep silent (strategy 10) except for giving the news to their best friend. Therefore, to be effective cross-cultural communicators, in the first place, they must have basic background knowledge of the target culture and be aware of cross-cultural differences in ELT and ELL. 3.2. Implication for teachers and learners 3.2.1. Teachers as a means of learning a second culture With the aim of helping students appropriately use language in general and hedging strategies in particular, teachers should make their students be aware of cross-cultural differences in communication. Nevertheless, the awareness has not been put much emphasis on yet by some teachers. Rivers (1968: 17) argues that: “Any authentic use of the language, any reading from original texts (as opposed to those fabricated for classroom use), any listening to the utterances of native speakers, will introduce cultural concomitants into the classroom whether the teacher is conscious of them or not. By not acknowledging their presence and not making them explicit, the teacher allows misconceptions of the culturally-determined bases for the reactions and behavior of the foreign people can develop in the students’ concept for and hostility towards the S of the language they are learning”. To put it in another way, teaching goals should include developing cultural knowledge. Politzer (1959: 14) suggests: “As language teachers, we must be interested in the study of culture…If we teach language without teaching at the same time the culture in which it operates, we are teaching meaningless symbols or symbols to which students attaches the wrong meaning” Teachers should incorporate cultural knowledge into language teaching. Following suggestions are recommended: Access culture through the language being taught Make the study of cultural behaviors an integral part of each lesson Assist students to achieve the socio-cultural competence, which they feel needed. Point to cross-cultural differences and similarities at all levels of language acquisition 3.2.2. Suggestions for learners It should be born in mind that: “our culture influences our way of thinking and acting. To learn another language, we need to learn to appreciate the culture of which the language is a part. We can’t really learn a second language or more precisely, learn the use of that language unless we learn about culture because many of the meanings constructed in the language are culture specific.” (Pollock, 1990: 39). Therefore, students are recommended to: Work with authentic materials, compare, and contrast as much as possible ways of expression in the source and target languages and cultures. Expose themselves to native speakers whenever and wherever possible. Try to go native as much as possible. (Let’s take an example from the thesis: after studying the ways VNSs and ENSs hedge before giving bad news, it is advisable for VNSs to keep silent in the given situations) 3.3. Suggestions for further research For better understanding and more effective use of hedges before giving bad news, it is suggested that areas such as modality, address forms, paralinguistic and extra-linguistic factors be investigated in depth (ii) more detailed data analysis be made to bring more light to the area under investigation, thus, arriving at more convincing conclusions The thesis has been completed with the author’s greatest efforts and to the best of her knowledge and understanding. However, it is obvious that shortcomings and inadequacies are unavoidably there. The author wishes with sincere gratitude to receive constructive and insightful comments from the readers. Thank you very much!