An investigation on some types of verbal responses to questions in English and Vietnamese conversation

1.2. Indirect responses As Thomas (1998) proposes, in stead of repetitively saying “Yes”/ “No” or supply the information blatantly, a variety of reasons has been put forward for the universal use of indirectness. An utterance with indirect acts always has multiple meanings with interpretation of the indirect acts based on the direct act and the context. They require certain extent of mutual knowledge between participants. Most of the indirect acts are used purposefully, but mostly for politeness/ regard of “face”. Grice (1975) states that in direct speech act the speakers say what s/he means, while in indirect speech acts the speaker means more than s/he says, i.e. the speaker performs one illocutionary act implicitly by way performing another illocutionary act explicitly. As discussed above, in this section, we present some indirect response patterns to questions on the basis of “implcature”. When a speaker blatantly fails to observe a maxim, not with any intention of deceiving or misleading, but because the speaker wishes to prompt the hearer to look for a meaning which is different from, or in addition to, the expressed meaning. This additional meaning is “conversational implicature”. In addition, when a speaker blatantly fails to observe a maxim at the level of what is said, with the deliberate intention of generating an implicature. 1.2.1. Indirect responses fail to observe the maxim of Quantity (Flouts exploiting the maxim of Quantity) A flout of the maxim of quantity occurs when a speaker blatantly gives more or less information than the situation requires. Petruchio has come to ask Baptista for his daughter’s hand in marriage: Pet: And you, good Sir! Pray, have you got a daughter Call’d Katherina, fair and virtuous? Bap: I have a daughter, sir, call’s Katherina. (61: 69) By confirming that he has a daughter called Katherina, but omitting any mention to her fairness or virtue, Baptista implies that she does not possess these qualities to any marked degree. Doobie: Did you invite Bella and Cathy? Mary: I invited Bella. (71: 40) Mary did not mention Cathy in her response. Mary gives indirect response to Doobie with implicature that Mary did not invite Cathy in the party. Q: Where’s my shirt? A: Is it in the drawer? Indirect responses can be a statement, or a question. In (26) A’s question implicates her husband’s might be in the drawer. A is asking B about a mutual friend’s new boyfriend: A: Is he nice? B: She seems to like him. (61: 66) B could simply have replied: “No” – this would give the maximum amount of information possible in the situation. In stead, B gives a much weaker and less informative response. B cannot say for certain whether the new boyfriend is nice or not, and speaks only on the basis of evidence he has. In (27), there is a clash of non-observance of the maxim of Quantity and Quality. A great number of similar cases are available in Vietnamese. These patterns of responses are rich, flexible and diversified. Q: Ngµn b¸o thÇy §øc vµ thÇy Hµ ®i häp ch­a? A: Em b¸o cho thÇy §øc råi. (17: 135) Q: Con muèn bè mua quÇn bß vµ ¸o thun. A: Bè ®· mua c¸i quÇn bß nµy. (17: 134) Q: Anh biÕt anh DÞu chø? A: ¤ng ThiÕu uý lß g¹ch Êy µ? (25: 129) Q: ChÞ ®Ñp l¾m ph¶i kh«ng? A: Cã lÏ ph¶i ®em n¨m b¶y chÞ phô n÷ kh¸c nÐn l¹i may ra míi b»ng ®­îc chÞ. (2: 65) In (30), A gives the response that could be interpreted as an indirect confirmation to Q’s doubt. 1.2.2. Indirect responses fail to observe the maxim of Manner (Flouts exploiting the maxim of Manner) Ann: Where are you going with the dog? Sam: To the V-E-T. (Vi- I- Ti) (71: 43) Sam produces a more elaborate, spelled out version of his massage, implicating that he does not want the dog to know the answer to the question just asked, because the dog may be recognize the word “vet”, and hate being taken there. Chång: BÐ Trµ Mi h«m nay rÊt ngoan, ph¶i th­ëng cho bÐ mét c¸i g× chø? Vî: Cê – Em – Mê nhÐ. (KEM) (16: 287) The wife exploits the maxim of Manner when replying her husband’s question. She indirectly implicates they should not let their daughter know about their plan. 1.2.3. Indirect responses fail to observe the maxim of Relation (Flouts exploiting the maxim of Relation) The maxim of Relation is exploited by making a response or observation which is very obviously irrelevant to the topic in hand. Leila: Whoa! Has your boss gone crazy? Mary: Let’s go get some coffee. (71: 43) Q: Are you coming to the cinema? A: I’ve got an exam tomorrow. (61: 139) In (34), the speaker gives indirect response implicates that he does not want to go to the cinema. It is raining very hard and the driver (D), stops to offer of a walker (W) a lift. D: Do you want a lift? W: Well, if you’re going near the campsite. (61: 132) W gives indirect response to D’s question by implying that he/she would only accept a lift to the campsite if the drive was going in that direction anyway. In Vietnamese, indirect responses that exploit the maxims of Relation are various. Consider the following: Q: Anh C d¹o nµy khoÎ kh«ng? A: Nã s¾p ®i V¨n §iÓn råi. (17: 201) Q: Sao? ThÕ gÆp mô Bä Muçm ch­a? A: Nã ®¸nh t«i gÊy mÊt mét cµng råi. (6: 44) Q: Anh cã muèn chÕt kh«ng? A: Anh nµy hái míi dë chø. (6: 98) In (36), the speaker gives indirect response “s¾p ®i V¨n §iÓn” implying that Mr. C is seriously ill, close to death. While in (37), the speaker implies his injury, a broken leg, to the questioner that he met his enemy. In (38), the speaker who violates the maxim of Relevance implies that no one want to die, and so does he. In both English and Vietnamese, the speaker often uses some “rhetorical questions”: “Do chickens have lips?”/ “Who understands Piaget?”/ “Why is the sky blue?” or some expressions, such as “War is War”/ “Boy is Boy”, “Woman is Woman”, “Fact is Fact” as indirect responses to questions. Consider the followings: Bert: Do you like ice-cream? Ernie: Is the Pope Catholic? (71: 43) Bert: Do vegetarians eat hamburgers? Ernie: Do chickens have lips? (71: 44) In the example (39) above, Ernie’s response does not provide a “Yes” or “No” answer. Ernie’s response also implicates that the answer to the question is “Obviously, yes”. In (40), Ernie gives indirect response by implicating that the answer is “Of course not!” Q: CËu cã cho r»ng nã sÏ thi vµo ®­îc ®¹i häc kh«ng? A: ThÕ cËu ®· thÊy chã cã v¸y lÜnh bao giê ch­a? (16: 387) Q: Tay C¸n d¹o nµy thÕ nµo? A: C¸n vÉn lµ C¸n th«i. (16: 132) Q: ChÞ nhµ d¹o nµy nãi nhiÒu n÷a kh«ng? A: §µn bµ vÉn lµ ®µn bµ. (2: 140) 2. Challenges According to Tsui (1994), any utterances which do not provide information, disconfirm the speaker’s assumption, disagree with the speaker’s goal, fail to repeat or clarify what being said before are realized as challenges. When the addressee does not fulfill the illocutionary intent of the questioner’s elicitation, the addressee is said to challenge its pragmatic presupposition. 2.1. Inability in supplying the expected information On some occasions, the speaker expresses his/her inability to provide information because it may be their lack of information needed, or their ignorance. Consider the followings: Q: Do you know where a good restaurant is? A: Sorry, I’m new around here. (60: 57) In (44), the addressee does not provide the information that the questioner needs because the fact is that he/she really does not know. Q: And now you’re married, so when’s your anniversary? A: I can’t remember. (60: 59) Q: When was the last time you went sailing? A: I can’t remember. Inside, p.122 Q: Where and how did you first meet? A: Oh, I don’t know. (50: 134) Q: Do you think you are faithful to your wife? A: I can’t tell you. (50: 192) Q: So what do you want to be? A: Uh…I’m not sure. I’m not sure. (48: 128) Q: And what sort of thing are you looking for? A: I don’t really know. (50: 136) In the above examples, the addressee seems to ignore the speaker’s elicitation or give a declaration of unwillingness to supply information. The situations are relatively common in Vietnamese. The Vietnamese seem sensitive to the kind of face-threatening responses to questions. They often use hedges, excuses or apologies for the failure to advance questioner’s goal. Q: Nã ®ang t¸n tØnh con nµo? Con kia ng­êi ngîm ra sao? MÆt mòi thÕ nµo? A: Em kh«ng biÕt n÷a, H×nh nh­ ch­a cã ai c¶. (2: 82) Q: T¹i sao anh kh«ng b¾n t«i? A: T«i…t«i kh«ng râ. (2: 57) Q: §Õn nhµ hé sinh cã ph¶i xuÊt tr×nh giÊy gi¸ thó kh«ng? A: Em chÞu th«i. (7: 136) The above illustrations of challenges are not significantly between English and Vietnamese. The English often use some expressions, such as “I don’t know”, “I’m really not sure”, “I couldn’t tell you”, “I can’t remember”, “I have no idea”, “Sorry, I am a stranger here” or some hesitations responding “Well, let me see”, “Well, let me think”, “Where should I start?” to give a declaration of ignorance; or a declaration of unwillingness to supply information, the lack of information. Meanwhile, the Vietnamese also have corresponding types, such as “Kh«ng râ l¾m”, Kh«ng biÕt”, “Kh«ng thÊy g×”, “ChÞu/ ChÞu th«i”…to give their inability to supply information that the speaker needs. 2.2. Evasion in supplying information According to Thomas (1998), there are many expressions of evasion that the addressee uses in their responses. 2.2.1. Topic – changing responses Leila has just walked into Mary’s office and noticed all the work on her desk: Leila: Whoa! Has your boss gone crazy? Mary: Let’s go get some coffee. (71: 43) Mary cannot answer the question in that context because the boss may be nearby. So she changes the topic in order to preserve the assumption of cooperation. Sybil is in hospital; waiting an operation for an in-growing toenail. Her husband, Basil, is hovering about: Basil: I said you’re sure you’ll be all right? Sybil: Will you get me my bed jacket? (61: 202) Similar cases appear in Vietnamese: Q: Nh­ng nÕu chÞ Lý ch­a ®i lÊy chång th× anh tÝnh sao? A: Tèi nay nhiÒu kh¸ch ®Õn ch¬i l¾m ®Êy. Nhµ cßn chÌ kh«ng? (10: 26) In (55), the husband evades his wife’s question about his old girlfriend by changing the topic with the questioning act. Q: §µn «ng cã vî cã kh¸c, anh mÊy ch¸u råi? A: T«i…t«i…B©y giê m×nh ®Õn nhµ nµo tr­íc nhØ? (2: 412) Q: Anh ®· gÆp chÞ Êy ch­a? ChÞ Th¸i Êy? A: N¨m nay em häc líp mÊy råi? (2: 234) Q: CËu Êy lµm nghÒ g× Êy nhØ? A: ¤ng lµ c«ng an hé tÞch Êy µ? (2: 313) 2.2.2. Delayed responses In the conversation, the addressees, sometimes, use the “delayed responses” pattern that challenges the speaker’s elicitation, to evade the questions. They may have to clarify the questioner’s presupposition before giving the answer. Consider the followings: Q: Is that your car? A: Why do you want to know? (61: 141) Q: Are you sure you don’t want to see me? A: And then? Any more? (50: 136) Similarly, in Vietnamese: Q: Thu Thuû lµm g× ®Ó sèng? A: Hái thÕ ®Ó lµm g×? (17: 78) Q: TiÕn nã vÒ ch­a? A: Hái nã cã viÖc g×? (17: 79) Q: Anh mÊy tuæi? A: ChÞ thö ®o¸n xem. (2: 170) Q: Em cã thÓ vµo xem phim kh«ng? A: Em ®Õn 18 tuæi ch­a? (17: 71) The addressee can delay because they need time to think for a moment, or check their facts: Q: So, what’s your favorite class? A: Uh…I really…I really like…English, you know, …um…science, science is good…um…history…Hmm…I like…let’s me think… (48: 128) Q: Xong ch­a thÝm? A: µ…Cã...§Ó t«i hái ch¸u. Mai ¬i!... (2: 103) 2.2.3. Outright lies When the addressees are not willing to give the information, they often use the simplest and straightforward cases, those are outright lies. Thomas (1998) proposes that often an individual tries to deflect unwelcome attention by giving an improbable or obviously untrue response. Consider the follows:      Q: What’s your name?  A: I’m the Queen of Sheba.  (61: 68) In (67), the speaker asks the addressee about her name and she does not want to tell, so she might say like that. Similarly, in Vietnamese, there are many responses as outright lies, such as:    Q: D¹o nµy tr«ng Lan xinh l¾m. Lan lµm g× ®Ó sèng? A: Lµm vî tæng thèng. (2: 472) Q: C« ®Õn ®©u thÕ? A: §Õn cæng trêi, th­a anh. (2: 34) 2.2.4. Implicit responses The addressee gives implicit responses when he/she can not provide the expected answer, perhaps for legal or ethical reasons; or he/she assumes his/her information would hurt the questioner’s feeling. Q: Will you give me a truthful answer? Is there another man? A: I thought you know the answer more clearly than me. (61: 141) Q: What do you think of our boss’s comments? It is bad, isn’t it? A: I see it the way you see. (32: 137) Implicit responses are also a preferred type to evade the question found in Vietnamese: Q: Tøc lµ mÑ muèn ®uæi con ®i, ph¶i kh«ng mÑ? A: C¸i ®ã tuú c« hiÓu. (2: 315) Q: Con sÏ kh«ng bá nã chø? A: C©u hái Êy th× kh«ng ph¶i m×nh con tr¶ lêi ®­îc. (10: 25) 2.2.5. Refusals Refusal to answer the question is considered a serious FTA to the addressee’s face. The addressee, sometimes, denies the assumption that he interprets from the question, or when being asked a question that he/she thinks its presupposition is untrue or inappropriate, will reject the speaker’s presupposition. Consider the following samples: Q: Well, what about credit cards? Are American credit cards accepted? A: How would I know? (66: 167) Q: Now, David, when did you meet Rossie? A: Uh…where can I start? (48: 137) Q: Sao thÕ? A: Ch¼ng sao c¶. (6: 127) Q: §Ó lµm g× ¹? A: Ch¼ng ®Ó lµm g× c¶. (6: 127) Q: Nã hái g× hë b¸c? A: Hái g× ®©u. (17: 14) In Vietnamese, denial patterns are usually common with “g× ®©u”, “ch¼ng…g× c¶”, “ch¼ng …c¶”, used to deny the questioner’s assumption. Another kind of question responses occurs quite commonly in Vietnamese and often denies the questioner’s implicit meaning embedded in his question: Q: H­¬ng hay giËn ng­êi yªu l¾m ph¶i kh«ng? A: Em cã ng­êi yªu ®©u mµ giËn. (17: 122) Q: Bao giê th× cËu gi¶ tiÒn cho m×nh? A: Tí vay tiÒn cña cËu bao giê mµ gi¶? (5: 366) Q: Lóc Êy ®Ìn trong kho cã bËt s¸ng kh«ng? A: T«i cã ë ®Êy ®©u mµ biÕt? (16: 120) In some cases, the speakers blatantly refuse to answer the question without any excuse for their failure to do so. This way of responding to a question can be considered objection-raising responses. Q: What does John do for a living? A: What have you got to do with that? (52: 334) Q: What’s the time? A: Ask Jack. (66: 213) Q: MÊy giê råi? A: §i mµ hái con Lan Êy. (5: 331) Q: Trêi vÉn m­a ®Êy µ? A: Cø nh×n qua cöa sæ kh¾c biÕt. (5: 331) The most face-threatening act in verbal communication is to challenge the speaker’s right to as; some kind of “mind your own business”. Consider the followings: Q: How do you know the devil can’t die? A: I’m just TELLING you. (66: 167) Q: Why must I leave her? A: Shut up, you want to be killed? (46: 73) Q: T¹i sao c« l¹i ®Õn ®©y? HÑn gÆp nhau ë ®©u nµo? A: Lµm g× mµ anh hÐt lªn nh­ thÕ? T«i lµ g× cña anh nµo? Vî anh hay lµ ng­êi ®¸nh xe cho anh. (10: 25) Q: Sao nhµ con cø nghÌo m·i thÕ? A: H·y hái «ng trêi ©y? (2: 322) 3. Special types of question responses 3.1. Incomprehension responding The addressee often gives incomprehension responses when he/she misunderstands or has inattentiveness and difficulty in hearing. Q: What colour does your girlfriend usually wear? A: What? Oh dear… (50: 136) Q: How do you say companero in English? A: Pardon? (50: 5) Q: Where is the parking lot? A: Sorry, sir? (60: 52) Q: Excuse me! Can I get past? A: Pardon? (48: 127) Q: Bao giê anh Tïng mua b¸nh cho HuyÒn? A: Anh nãi c¸i g× c¬? (17: 150) Q: Anh ®· gÆp chÞ Êy ch­a? A: C¸i g×? (2: 79) Q: Em mÖt µ? Bé phim cã hay kh«ng? A: G× c¬ ¹? (17: 81) Q: Sao thÕ anh? Anh cã gièng nh­ vËy kh«ng? A: H¶. (2: 417) Q: Kh«ng hiÓu c¸c anh tá t×nh víi b¹n g¸i nh­ thÕ nµo nhØ? Ch¾c còng l¹i… anh yªu em v×: thø nhÊt…thø hai µ? A: Xin lçi? (2: 405) In English, some expressions, such as: “Pardon?” “What?” “What was that?” “Sorry?” are used as incomprehension responses, while, in Vietnamese, the addressee uses corresponding types as “H¶?” “G× c¬ ¹?” “C¸i g×?”, “Ai c¬?”… 3.2. Disbelief responding Q: The ball was made of leather. It always- it felt really different from a basketball or a volleyball. Do you remember? A: Really? (49: 53) Q: ChÞ vÊt v¶ l¾m hay sao mµ gÇy thÕ? A: ThÕ ­? (6: 75) 3.3. Compliment responding In English, the speaker often uses some expressions: “Thank you”, “You’re well come” “That’s very kind of you”, “Well done” to give complement responding. In Vietnamese, there are also some corresponds like that “C¶m ¬n”, “Chµo mõng b¹n”, “RÊt vui lßng” Q: You need my hand, my darling? A: Thank you. (66: 153) Q: Who is the first in our group? A: You’re well come. (46: 90) Q: Cßn d­a muèi, c¸ kho, ngon l¾m! anh ¨n kh«ng? A: C¶m ¬n. (2: 233) Q: Em tham gia vµo nhãm cña anh ®­îc kh«ng? Em thuéc ®­êng l¾m ®Êy? A: RÊt vui. (2: 217) Interestingly, the data analysis indicates these kinds of question responses in English and Vietnamese are much the same. The different attitudes can be seen through the challenges. This also reflects the differences between English and Vietnamese features. We have just and discussed various patterns by native speakers of English and Vietnamese. The next table is the summary of response types to question in English and Vietnamese Response types Pragmatic function and examples Replies These kinds of response patterns fulfill the speaker’s goal directly or indirectly. Direct The responders supply the missing information without misleading or confusing the addressee. The responders observe the maxims when giving the direct answers: informative, brief, sincere, relevant. Indirect The responders give indirect answer with flouting the maxims, but fulfill the addressee’s goal. Challenges The responders do not provide information, disconfirm the speaker’s assumption, disagree with the speaker’s goal, and fail to clarify what being said before. Ignorance Inability in supplying the expected information: “I’m not sure” “No. I’ve no idea”, “Kh«ng biÕt”, “Kh«ng hiÓu”… Evasion Avoiding to answers: Outright lies, Topic-changing, implicit replies, Hesitation: “Well, let me see”; “Hmm…I…err … you know…”; “Anh còng biÕt råi ®Êy”… Refusals Unwilling to answer: Denials to the speaker’s presupposition; Objection-raising responses; Challenges to speaker’s right: “How should I know?”; “Don’t ask”, “Mind your own business”; “G× ®©u”; “ViÖc cña anh ®Êy µ?”… Other types Compliment responding For example: “You’re welcome!”; “Well done!”; “Thank you”; “C¶m ¬n”, “RÊt vui lßng”… Incomprehension response Inattentiveness or difficulty in hearing: “Pardon?”; “You said what?”, “G× c¬?”, “Nãi c¸i g×?”…. Disbelief responding “Really?”, “Is that right?”, “ThÕ µ?”, “VËy ­?” Table 4. Summary of response types to question in English and Vietnamese Chapter 4: Findings and discussion In this chapter, we will present the findings obtained from the data collected through the questionnaires in terms of status, closeness of relationship and gender. 465 utterances are obtained from the two sets of questionnaires, of which 210 utterances are made by 14 native speakers of English and 255 utterances by 14 Native Speakers of Vietnamese. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the response patterns to questions are grouped into: direct answers, indirect answers, challenges that consist of evasions, refusals, ignorance and some other special types. Based upon the model suggested by Tsui (1994), in this chapter, the data is classified and analyzed. The analysis on similarities and differences in the choice of response types to questions by native speakers of English and Native Speakers of Vietnamese are presented. Table 5 shows the results obtained from the two groups of informants. Response types NSE NSV No % No % Replies Direct 129 61.4 107 42 Indirect 11 5.2 36 14.1 Challenges Ignorance 3 1.5 15 5.9 Evasion 42 20 66 25.9 Refusal 25 11.9 31 12.1 Total 210 100 255 100 Table 5. Overall response types to questions by native speakers of English and Native Speakers of Vietnamese The findings from Table 5 show that the NSE use more direct answers, 61.4% (129 responses) versus 42% (107 responses). Only 5.2% of NSE employs indirect answers while the percentage of NSV using indirect answers is 14.1%, approximately three times of that of NSE. Hence, NSE tend to be much more direct in responding to questions than NSV. This can be explained by the differences of cultural values that NSE and NSV hold. NSE highly appreciate directness, for according to them, “Time is money”; “Direct and assertive personality is a virtue” (Tiersky.1990, p.22). On the contrary, the Vietnamese favour indirectness. They are inclined to hesitate “not get to the point” and to “beat about the bush” (Them, p.156). The Vietnamese also value “time”. They place great emphasis on time in action. However, in the most cases of communication, the idea of “time” is yielded to the lines of conduct like “Lêi nãi lµ gãi vµng” or “Lêi nãi kh«ng mÊt tiÒn mua, lùa lêi mµ nãi cho võa lßng nhau”. In the term of challenges, NSE use evasion (20%) and ignorance (1.5%) responding types at a lower frequency while NSV use evasion and ignorance responding types are 25.9% and 5.9%. However, both the English and the Vietnamese do not significantly differ in the frequency of refusals to answer, 11.9% versus 12.1% respectively. The similarities and differences in question response types in English and Vietnamese are made clearer in the term of status; gender; closeness of relationship. 1. In term of status Tsui (1994) proposes that the status factor is counted as an important social variable that affects the language the interlocutors use to respond to questions. The questionnaire is designed in three degrees in terms of status: one responds with someone of higher status, one with someone of lower status and one with someone of equal status. Consider the following Tables: 1.1. Higher to lower status Response types NSE NSV No % No % Replies Direct 54 66.7 71 66.4 Indirect 4 5 7 6.5 Challenges Ignorance 0 0 1 0.9 Evasion 9 11 10 9.4 Refusal 14 17.3 18 16.8 Total 81 100 107 100 Table 5.1. Frequencies of Response Types to Questions by Native speakers of English and Native Speakers of Vietnamese In the situations, we deal with response patterns between someone of a high status (a manager) and someone of lower status (an assistant, a staff). The response patterns occurring in the survey fall into different categories with various percentages as shown in Table 5.1 Similarly, both NSE and NSV share approximately the same percentage (66.7% and 66.4% respectively) in employing direct answers to questions when they are in a higher status. Likewise, the percentage of both NSE and NSV using refusal strategy to questions is fairly the same (17.3% by NSE and 16.8 NSV). As most clearly seen in Table 5.1, the total number of evasive and indirect strategies realized by NSV is 10 (9.4%) and 7 (6.5%) while those of NSE is 9 (11%) and 4 (5%). This means NSE are blunter and more direct than NSV. 1.2. Lower to higher status Response types NSE NSV No % No % Replies Direct 27 49 19 22 Indirect 4 7.4 25 29 Challenges Ignorance 2 3.6 8 9.4 Evasion 20 36.4 28 32.6 Refusal 2 3.6 6 7.0 Total 55 100 86 100 Table 5.2.Frequencies of Response Types to Questions by Native speakers of English and Native Speakers of Vietnamese In the situations, the response patterns are expressed from the lower-status assistant or staff to his or her manager. The response frames fall into various strategies with different proportion shown in Table 5.2 Table 5.2 also reveals that NSE occupy higher proportion in direct answer usage. NSE’s direct responses show 49% against 22% of NSV’s direct responses to questions. In contrast, as for indirect answer usage, NSE hold lower percentage than NSV. While there are only 4 indirect responses by NSE (7.4% of the corpus), NSV responses are 25 (29% of the corpus) From the result of the data collected in the situations, the major generalizations we can make are that native speakers of English tend to place more emphasis on directness; they use more direct answers to questions and most importantly, fewer indirect ones to a higher status interlocutor. Conversely, Native Speakers of Vietnamese do not sound blunt and direct when they are in an inferior status. They are likely to create the social distance in his interaction with a higher-status interlocutor by using more indirect answers to questions but fewer direct ones realizations. This finding applies what Thomas (1998) argues “speaker tends to use a greater degree of indirectness with the addressee who is superior to him than to the other who is not”. The Table 5.2 demonstrates that NSV are more sensitive than the NSE. There is a relative significant difference by the informants in responding to their employers’ or colleagues/ friends’ questions. For NSE, these results might be well matched with the remarks by sociolinguistics like Tiersky (1990). According to Tiersky, NSE follow an ideology of an egalitarian, classless society and NSE have a democratic outlook, a strong belief that all people are entitled to equal respect. This results in the fact that they assess power as small. For the Vietnamese, the findings could be interpreted due to the fact that under the influence of Confucian rituals, the Vietnamese pay much respect not only the elderly but also to the people of high social status. This reflects the hierarchy of Vietnamese culture in terms of age and status. The superior has the option to be authoritative or to be friendly with his subordinate, but the subordinate is bound to deferential and respectful and obedient toward the superior. The kinship relation is hierarchical, too. It is the lifestyle that “experience” is given prominence to attach the importance to the respect for “«ng, bµ, cha, mÑ” in order. Especially, the elderly are held in great esteem for according to them “the more you respect the elderly, the longer you live” 1.3. Two informants are at equal status Response types NSE NSV No % No % Replies Direct 48 64.9 17 27.4 Indirect 3 4 4 6.4 Challenges Ignorance 1 1.4 6 9.7 Evasion 13 17.5 28 45.2 Refusal 9 12.2 7 11.3 Total 74 100 62 100 Table 5.3. Frequencies of Response Types to Questions by Native speakers of English and Native Speakers of Vietnamese In the situations, the informants are asked to give responses with a friend or a colleague. The two conversationalists share the equal power and their relationship is categorized into social solidarity. The data collected are presented in Table 5.3 In regard to the similarities, Table 5.3 reveals that both NSE and NSV achieve higher frequencies in the use of direct answers than that of indirect answers, i.e. 64.9% and 27.4% obtained by two groups respectively in giving direct answers. Concerning the differences, indirect answers expressed by NSV overwhelm the ones by NSE (6.4% of the NSV group compared with 4% of the NSE data). Overall, the results in Table 5.1; Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 show a preference to directness by both groups of NSE and NSV to their counterparts. However the similarities do not outweigh the relative differences between the English and Vietnamese in the choice of responding types and strategies. Although the direct answers account for a large proportion of the whole numbers, the evasions and refusals as well as ignorance are preferred by the Vietnamese. Besides, the finding also indicates two English elderly informants (over 45) declare their answer to their manager blatantly and directly. For example, to the question 2, an English male gives his answer directly to his manager by using refusal devices: “I have other plans. I can’t change”. Or to the question 6, an Australian male answers to his boss: “It is not my fault as I did not place coffee stains on them” This finding might follow Thomas (1998) account that the elders may sometimes be very direct with those younger than themselves. Status factor has an important role in the choice of response types by the Vietnamese. Most Vietnamese males and females seem to interpret the question by someone of higher authority as a doubt of their honour, so they prefer to expose their ignorance to their boss as much as possible. For example, to the question 7, a Vietnamese male’s response is “Th­a SÕp, kh«ng cã g× ®©u ¹” or to the question 4, a Vietnamese female’s response is “Xin lçi B¸c, ch¸u kh«ng biÕt.” However, to the question by someone lower or equal authority, they calculate the meaning as a personal curiosity or sarcasm that intrudes their territories, so they often refuse to answer or challenge speaker’s right to ask. For example, to the question 7, a Vietnamese male’s response to his friend: “Mµy ®iªn µ? Hái ®Ó lµm g×?” or “Tao kh«ng biÕt mµy ®ang nãi chuyÖn g×?” Or to question 6, a Vietnamese female answers to her colleague: “T«i kh«ng râ l¾m”; “Sè t«i ®en thËt kh«ng biÕt ai lµm n÷a” 2. In term of gender In regard to gender, the results obtained from 7 males and 7 females in each group are presented in Table 5.4 and Table 5.5 below: Response types Male Female Total No % No % Replies Direct 68 60.1 61 62.9 129 Indirect 2 1.8 9 9.3 11 Challenges Ignorance 2 1.8 1 1 3 Evasion 25 22.1 17 17.5 42 Refusal 16 14.2 9 9.3 25 Total 113 100 97 100 210 Table 5.4: Frequencies of Response Types to Questions by Native Speakers of English Response types Male Female Total No % No % Replies Direct 53 38.4 54 46.1 107 Indirect 21 15.2 15 12.8 36 Challenges Ignorance 6 4.3 9 7.7 15 Evasion 39 28.3 27 23.1 66 Refusal 19 13.8 12 10.3 31 Total 138 100 117 100 255 Table 5.5. Frequencies of Response Types to Questions by Native Speakers of Vietnamese With regard to cross-gender, the findings reveal that no gender-based differences found significantly affect the choice of question responses in both groups of informants. Both English and Vietnamese males and females generally prefer directness to indirectness (60.1% and 62.9% versus 38.4% and 46.1%). The English males and females in the database differ in their choice of indirect responses (1.8% of English males compared with 9.3% of English females). The finding also applies to Vietnamese males and females of using indirect responses (15.2% versus 12.8%). More than three times as many English males are found in using indirect responses as English females. This is consistent with the finding of Holmes (1995) who assumes that men more willing than women to give direct responses. Tsui (1994) proposes for this assumption focused on the personality that males and females own. Males appear to be more competitive, aggressive and more concerned with dominating others and asserting status than women do in discussion with others. For example, to Question 2, an English female answers to her boss: “Well, I would be pleased to help out but I should let you know that I’m very tired and I need to be up early for work tomorrow. If you can’t find anyone else I’ll help out” A Vietnamese female answers to her colleague that “M×nh e lµ m×nh bÞ c¶m cóm mÊt råi, nÕu cËu cÇn th× m×nh sÏ tr«ng lò trÎ gióp cËu. M×nh chØ sî l©y sang tôi nhá th«i.” Whereas for the same situation, the English male responds “That’s alright” or “Yes, bring him here.” And the Vietnamese male’s responses are “V©ng, em sÏ gióp”; “õ, nhí vÒ sím nhÐ.” For example, to the Question 3, English female answers to the owner of the party: “It’s a great party and I am very glad, I come and wish you and your wife all the best. I am sorry that I can’t stay longer, but I am quite sensitive to the noise and therefore will leave soon”. Whereas for the same situation, the English male’s responses can be “The party is fantastic yet the music seems to be a little bit noisy”; “Very nice thanks, just a bit loud for me” Table 5.4 and 5.5 indicate that avoiding to give the expected answers, English and Vietnamese males and females like to use the evasive and refusal strategy more than the ignorance. However, the English males and females use less ignorance devices to avoid answering than the Vietnamese, 1.8 % compared with 4.3 % males, and 1% compared with 7.7% by females respectively. It is interesting to note that Vietnamese female’s responses seem more moderate, affective and elaborative than the males’. The differences in responding behavior by the Vietnamese demonstrates what Homels (1985: 3) points out that women’s language is more affective and men’s more referential. The referential function of language is to convey information, facts or contents while the affective function of language expresses feelings and reflects social relationships. For example, to Question 7, a Vietnamese female answers to her boss: “Kh«ng cã chuyÖn ®ã ®©u anh ¹. Anh ph¶i lµ ng­êi hiÓu râ c«ng viÖc cña em chø?” Or her answer to her collegue: “M×nh ®ang ®au ®Çu vÒ chuyÖn ®ã ®©y. H·y tin m×nh, lµm g× cã chuyÖn ví vÈn ®ã” For the same situation, a Vietnamese male responds to his boss, such as “Th­a SÕp, mèi quan hÖ gi÷a t«i vµ c« ta chØ lµ mèi quan hÖ c«ng viÖc th«i”; or the answer to his friend can be “V× c«ng viÖc Êy mµ” In contrary, English males and females like to give brief and informative responses to questions than responses relating to the side of affective language. For the same situation in the Question number 7, both of English males and females responses can be “We’re only collogues”; “Just because of the job”; “we are working together and have to go on business trips” Overall, both English and Vietnamese males and females pay more attention to give direct responses to questions. To avoid giving the expected answers, they use evasive strategies much more than refusal strategies or ignorance to question responses. However, the differences in responding to questions in different contexts by the two languages might reflect the cultural characteristics of men and women. 3. In terms of closeness of relationship Response types Intimates Strangers NSE No % No % No Replies Direct 87 79.8 42 41.5 129 Indirect 6 5.5 5 5 11 Challenges Ignorance 1 0.9 2 1.9 3 Evasion 9 8.3 33 32.7 42 Refusal 6 5.5 19 18.8 25 Total 109 100 101 100 210 Table 5.6. Frequencies of Response Types to Questions by Native speakers of English Response types Intimates Strangers VSE No % No % No Replies Direct 65 57 42 29.8 107 Indirect 19 16.7 17 12 36 Challenges Ignorance 6 5.3 9 6.4 15 Evasion 17 15 49 34.8 66 Refusal 7 6 24 17 31 Total 114 100 141 100 255 Table 5.7. Frequencies of Response Types to Questions by Native Speakers of Vietnamese Table 5.6 and Table 5.7 summarize the similarities and differences of responding strategies by NSE and NSV. It is clearly to note that both groups of informants appreciate directness to their intimates (79.8% by NSE and 57% by NSV, respectively) and directness to strangers (41.5% and 29.8%, respectively). The Table 5.6 shows that NSE are willing to give the expected answer when responding to their intimates (79.8% for directness and 5.5% for indirectness). However, NSE show their reluctance to provide the information to the strangers (only 41.5% for directness and 5% for indirectness). The Table 5.7 shows the same tendency found in Vietnamese responses. Indirect responses to questions are preferred by NSV to NSE (16.7% for intimates and 12% for strangers by NSV versus 5.5% for intimates and 5% for strangers by NSE). The preference of indirect answer to strangers by NSV might demonstrate the remark by Tsui (1994). According to Tsui (1994), indirectness is usually preferable because this give others the chance to refuse a request without directly saying no, or to evade a question that is felt to be too personal for a subject that the listener does not want to discuss. Overall, both NSE and NSV are more open and sincere to their intimates; close friends or relatives than to the strangers or acquaintances. Most of the informants choose to tell the truth regardless of face damage. The tables also reveal the significant difference of the interpretation of questioning behaviour between English and Vietnamese. The English do not appear to overestimate the negative side of the questions and then interpret them as information-seeking ones. Consequently, their answers are quite simple, straightforward and informative. In contrast, the findings reveal that the Vietnamese often think over before deciding what strategies will be employed to provide the information needed. In the situation assigned to them, they seem to try their best to figure out the underlying intentions the speaker means and address to it. The meaningful differences between Vietnamese and English might originate from the cultural differences and ways of thinking. The results presented in the above tables reveal the significant differences between the NSE and NSV. After researching 465 responses by two groups, we found that the Vietnamese has a tendency to expose their non-involvement in any delicate situation and to declare their innocence straightforwardly. The English give priority to direct and informative answers showing their straight ideas while the Vietnamese care about much more indirect ones. In addition, the Vietnamese tend to interpret the speaker’s intentional meaning; the answers might often be an evasion or a refusal to provide information. The comparison also offers more striking contrast between English and Vietnamese in terms of status, gender and relations. Wardhaugh (1997) remarks that gender has played an important role of deciding what kind of language the people use to communicate in a context. In some specific situations we collected, the face-saving act is equally employed by both groups regardless of sex. However, the Vietnamese females seem more moderate and less offensive to the questioning behavior than the males. When the Vietnamese are asked by a “difficult or embarrassed” question by a higher- status person, the addressee might reason the question as an interrogation and then take a great effort, time to prove their innocence. In contrast, the Vietnamese often feel uneasy and uncomfortable to the same questions by someone of equal or lower status. This might be from the traditional habits of the Vietnamese due to the influence of the Confucianism. Tsui (1994) observes that because the Orient countries have the hierarchical relation, the asymmetric distribution of power might lead to the use of more of the indirect or evasive strategies by the superior and more of the direct or refusing strategies by the inferior to respond to questions. Searl (1976) proposes the frequent use of indirect answers and evasion to the questions reflects a concern for individual faces or rights. This account seems to be truer for the English than for the Vietnamese. According to Nguyen Thien Giap (2000), what is considered face in Western societies is not necessarily interpreted in the same way in Asian ones. The Westerners and the Vietnamese differ from aspects of face apply. For the Vietnamese, this centres around the self as “interdependent with the surrounding contexts”, for the English, the self is viewed as “an independent, self-contained, and autonomous entity”. The investigation into question response types demonstrates that Vietnamese responses are rich with honorifics and particles which convey hints about the speaker’s attitude or emotion. Ton Nu My Nhat (2001) points out the priority is frequently given to the tendency of emotion-based communication by the Vietnamese. This means that the Vietnamese hedges in question responses do not express the speaker’s respect to the addressee as NSE but an expose of feelings, self-esteem, attitudes and so on. The findings are also the same with what Thompson (1991) observes about Vietnamese responses that absolute minimal replies (one-word utterances) are unusual. Thompson argues that “this stems partly from a speaker’s usual desire to convey some kind of attitude he or she has about things, partly from the notion that a somewhat longer utterance is more polite”. We have discussed some types of verbal responses to question by NSE and NSV. The differences and similarities of responding strategies depend on sociocultural variables: status; gender; closeness of relationship between the speaker and the hearer. Gumperz (1982: 166) proposes that “each culture having its own constraints not only on content but also on the ways in which particular activities are carried out and signaled”. The following Graph shows the Frequencies of Response Types to Questions by Native Speakers of English and Native Speakers of Vietnamese: Graph 1. Frequencies of Response Types to Questions by Native Speakers of English and Native Speakers of Vietnamese PART C: CONCLUSION 1. Recapitulation Through the four chapters, the study has given necessary information about the pragmatic aspects of response types to questions in English and Vietnamese conversation. The study has given consideration on the nature of response types, from which the involved elements in its representation and pragmatic use have been described, observed and analyzed in their contrastive analysis in English and in Vietnamese. The study has identified different types of verbal responses to questions in English and Vietnamese conversation. Various types of responses to questions collected in English and Vietnamese reflect diversified culture- specific phenomenon between two languages. It has also found out that personal relationships between interlocutors as the factors of contexts which strongly affect response types, the way they affect response types and appropriate use of the linguistic forms to relationship in response types to questions. In verbal communication, the interlocutors are not always information suppliers but can be a information negotiator. This means they can not only provide the expected answers directly or indirectly but also evade the question, refuse to answer, even ignore to answer or challenge the speaker’s presuppositions in different contexts. The findings in the study of response types to questions by NSE and NSV illustrate some certain similarities and differences. In terms of similarities, respondents of the two groups favour directly answer to question when they are in a higher status, with friends or colleagues. In terms of differences, NSE are more direct than NSV in responding to questions. This reflects the strong influence of culture of each group on the way they employ politeness strategies. In line with other studies in response types to questions, the findings of this study are also consistent with the hypothesis of the researchers like Tsui (1994); Coates (1993); Holmes (1995); Le Dong (1985) that men appear direct than women. Women tend to use more hedging devices to express responses to questions. In contexts, both groups highly appreciate directness and straightforwardness to their intimates and indirectness to strangers. Some ignorance to questions; or evasive and refusing strategies are employed in the cases the speakers find the questions so personal or face-threatening to their image. The study also meaningful show a significant difference in choice of response types in English and Vietnamese. The Vietnamese are often under pressure of social relations and power. In the Vietnamese hierarchical system, people with higher status would enjoy more privilege. That is the reason why the people with lower status seem to take responsibilities for ill- performed things they never do. This tendency is rarely found in English informants’ responses. In conclusion, we have conducted the investigation into some types of verbal responses to questions in English and Vietnamese conversation. The study hopes to provide a comprehensive picture of response patterns to question both in English and in Vietnamese. Due to the differences in response type usage to questions across cultures, it is unavoidable for Vietnamese learners of English to have some problems in responding to questions. On the basis of analyzing these problems, some suggestions for better teaching and learning of English in Vietnamese are presented. 2. Some recommendations for foreign language learning and teaching After observing some conversations between Native Speakers of English and Vietnamese Speakers of English in our company as well as between The English teachers and Vietnamese learners of English in the classrooms, we have realized some disadvantages in answering and asking questions in interactional process. The Vietnamese learners of English have showed their difficulties in dealing with Native Speakers of English. In the conversations, their talk is mostly full of pause, fillers, hesitation or silence. They often use “yes” or “no”, smile for their responses. Some situations show that Vietnamese learners of English are passive in verbal interaction with NSE. This may be due to their ability to memorize what has been said to them. Their short-term memory undoubtedly makes them unable to respond appropriately. The reality indicates the Vietnamese learners of English are very cautious about making errors in what they say, for making errors would be a public display or ignorance, which would be an obvious occasions of losing face. Learning to perform response types to questions in an appropriate, nativelike manner is not an easy task for Vietnamese learners of English. The findings highlight the fact that learners face some problems in their social interaction. Accordingly, we would like to have some suggestions for the teachers in helping students to achieve ability to interact effectively with members of the target language speech community and for learners in improving the communicative competence. First, in stead of smile or nods, the addressee should give feedback to let the speaker know that she/ he is listening. Feedback is an essential element of communication. Asking and answering questions needs the contribution of feedback. This can make the partner say more. Feedback used to asking for a clarification or repairs can be: “Pardon?” “I’m sorry” “What do you mean?” or some supportive verbal responses, such as “Yeah” “Well” “Oh, really?” and so on. Second, the interlocutors in conversation should be sensitive to different levels of usage, the way in which the particular situation will effect the choice of verbal language. Vietnamese learners of English should be guided to effectively communicate by using various kinds of questioning and responding strategies. They should be trained how to negotiate the utterance meaning in a conversation, how to avoid answering difficult or controversial questions. As much as possible, the teachers can consider encouraging students to verbalize respond to questions in English in different situations or according to cooperative behavior by observing maxims for an effective conversation. If the maxims are not followed, what one hears should be interpreted as utterance meaning not sentence meaning. The frequent practice helps students produce correct utterance naturally. It is necessary that practice exercises require student – centered interaction. Activities such as role play, simulation and drama will engage students in different social roles and in many communicative situations as well. Such activities provide opportunities to practice the wide range of pragmatics and sociolinguistic abilities that students need in interpersonal encounters outside classroom. 3. Suggestions for further research This study has been an attempt at analyzing some types of verbal responses to question in English and Vietnamese conversation. Also, the study has investigated the differences and similarities in the choice of response patterns to questions by both NSE and NSV. However, this study is just a point of departure for further study. So it remains some limitations. Obviously, the results from the questionnaire data are not adequate enough because the sample is small and the situations are confined to eight different cases, not covering varied relationships. Moreover, all of the participants’ oral responses were put into written form when they answered the questionnaire and thus might be slightly different or biased from what actually said in real life. If time and situation permit, further study of this issue with a large sample and varied situations in terms of overall aspects in sociolinguistics, psychology and non-verbal language will surely a better image of response types to questions made NSE and NSV. As mentioned earlier, there is a differentiation in the degree of response types to questions in different cultures. This leaves a room for further research observe the similarities and differences in the ways of employing response strategies by other English- speaking groups, the British; the Canadian, etc. These features more or less reflect the cross-cultural values concerning different English – speaking countries.