Đề tài A pragmatics and conversation analysis perspective

ABSTRACT This thesis takes as its main objective the description of the native perception and realization of the speech act of disagreeing in English and Vietnamese within the theoretical frameworks of pragmatics and conversation analysis and the help of SPSS, version 11.5, a software program for social sciences. It aims at yielding insights into such issues as politeness, its notions and relations with indirectness, strategies and linguistic devices used to express disagreement tokens in the English and Vietnamese languages and cultures. Linguistic politeness is carefully examined in its unity of discernment and volition on the basis of the data obtained from elicited written questionnaires, folk expressions, interviews and naturally occurring interactions. The meticulous and miraculous methods offered by conversation analysis are of great help in describing and exploring the structural organization of disagreement responses in preferred and dispreferred format, the relationships between disagreements and the constraint systems, and negotiation of disagreements by native speakers. The findings exhibit that the differences in choosing politeness strategies to perform disagreements by speakers of English in North America and speakers of Vietnamese in Hanoi result from the differences in their assessment of socio-cultural parameters and social situations. Although indirectness might be used in some contexts as a means to express politeness, there is no absolute correlation between politeness and indirectness in the two languages and cultures under investigation. Despite the English general preference for direct strategies and the Vietnamese tendency to indirect strategies, the former may be indirect in some contexts and the latter are prone to be direct or even very direct from time to time. Consequently, the study of politeness should be conducted in close relation to the study of the speakers’ wider socio-cultural milieus with systems of local norms, beliefs and values. In proffering disagreements to the prior evaluations or ideas, native speakers not only deploy individually volitional strategies but also observe socially determined norms of behavior, especially in the choice of formulaic expressions, speech levels, address terms, deference markers etc. Therefore, the deployment of the normative-volitional approach to politeness study is appropriate and reasonable. Conversation analysis sheds light on disagreements as dispreferred seconds to first assessments and opinions, and as preferred seconds to self-deprecations. English and Vietnamese speakers adopt the same strategies in regards to preference organization, compliment responses and negotiation of disagreements. On the whole, disagreements are inclined to be hedged or delayed by a variety of softeners and/or other devices. However, they tend to be overtly stated in responses to self-denigrations. It is of interest to explore the conflicting effects caused by the correlation between preference organization and self-compliment avoidance in responses to compliments. The English informants show a trend towards compliment acceptance and appreciation, while the Vietnamese prefer to refuse and negate prior complimentary tokens in spite of their similar strategies in adopting mid-positions. The accounts for this phenomenon can be found in the Vietnamese community-based solidarity and the Anglophone individualistic satisfaction. Conversation analytic tools help highlight the use of address terms (in Vietnamese), intensifiers (in English and Vietnamese) and other supportive means. By and large, the combined pragmatics and conversation analysis perspective is strongly recommended to speech act study as this integration maximizes the strengths and minimizes the weaknesses of each approach. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I ABSTRACT III TABLE OF CONTENTS V LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS X ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS XIII INTRODUCTION 1 1. RATIONALE 1 1.1. NECESSITY OF THE STUDY 1 1.1.1. Problem statement 1 1.1.2. Society, culture and language 2 1.2. MERITS OF THE STUDY 3 1.2.1. Academic merits 3 1.2.2. Practical merits 4 2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 4 3. RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY 6 3.1. RESEARCH QUESTION 6 3.2. GROUNDS FOR RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 6 3.2. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 6 4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY 7 5. METHODOLOGY 9 5.1. METHODS 9 5.2. PRAGMATICS AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS 10 5.2.1. Choice of conversation analysis 10 5.2.2. Combination of pragmatics and conversation analysis 10 5.2.3. Combination of pragmatics and CA in other studies 11 6. CREATIVITY 12 6.1. SYNTHETIC APPROACH – PRAGMATICS AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS 12 6.2. DATA FROM QUESTIONNAIRES AND NATURALLY OCCURRING CONVERSATION 12 6.3. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN DISAGREEING 12 7. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY 13 CHAPTER ONE 14 DISAGREEING – A COMMUNICATIVE ILLOCUTIONARY AND SOCIAL ACT 14 1.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES 14 1.1.1. Speech Act Theory 14 1.1.1.1. Speech acts and speech events 14 1.1.1.2. Three-dimension speech acts 15 1.1.1.3. Classification of speech acts 16 1.1.1.4. Disagreeing – a communicative illocutionary act 18 1.1.2. Conversation Analysis 20 1.1.2.1. Historical background 20 1.1.2.2. Co-text and context 22 1.1.2.3. Turn – turn taking and adjacency pairs 24 1.1.2.4. Disagreeing – a social act 27 1.1.3. Summary 29 1.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY 29 1.2.1. Aims and methodology 29 1.2.1.1. Aims 29 1.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents 30 1.2.2. Assessment of socio-cultural parameters by respondents 37 1.2.2.1. Data results 37 1.2.2.2. Comments 43 1.2.3. Assessment of situations by respondents 44 1.2.3.1. Data results 44 1.2.3.2. Comments 48 1.2.4. Summary 50 1.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS 51 CHAPTER TWO 52 POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING 52 2.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES 52 2.1.1. Notion of Politeness 53 2.1.2. Volitional Approach 55 2.1.2.1. Grice’s principle 55 2.1.2.2. Lakoff’s rules and Leech’s maxims 56 2.1.2.3. Brown & Levinson’s model 58 2.1.3. Normative Approach 60 2.1.3.1. Chinese research 60 2.1.3.2. Japanese research 62 2.1.3.3. Other non-Anglophone research 63 2.1.4. Normative-Volitional Approach 64 2.1.4.1. Literature by Vietnamese researchers 64 2.1.4.2. Literature by other researchers 68 2.1.5 Summary 69 2.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY 70 2.2.1. Aims and Methodology 70 2.2.1.1. Aims 70 2.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents 70 2.2.2. Politeness Level Rated by Respondents 71 2.2.2.1. Data results 71 2.2.2.2. Comments 80 2.2.3. Summary 81 2.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS 81 CHAPTER THREE 83 STRATEGIES OF POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING 83 3.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES 83 3.1.1. Brown & Levinson’s Model of Strategies 83 3.1.2. Manipulation of Strategies 84 3.1.2.1. Bald-on-record strategies 84 3.1.2.2. On-record strategies 86 3.1.2.3. Off-record strategies 89 3.1.2.4. No FTA 94 3.1.3. Indirectness in Disagreeing 95 3.1.3.1. Notion of indirectness 95 3.1.3.2. Factors governing indirectness 97 3.1.3.3. Indirectness and politeness 98 3.1.4. Summary 102 3.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY 103 3.2.1. Aims and Methodology 103 3.2.1.1. Aims 103 3.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents 103 3.2.2. Choice of Strategies by Respondents 104 3.2.2.1. Data results 104 3.2.2.2. Comments 115 3.2.3. Summary 115 3.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS 116 CHAPTER FOUR 118 STRATEGIES CONCERNING PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION 118 4.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES 118 4.1.1. Preferred Second Turns 118 4.1.1.1. Markedness 118 4.1.1.2. Structural organization 119 4.1.1.3. Dispreferred second turns in disagreeing 121 4.1.2. Preferred Sequences 125 4.1.2.1. Repair apparatus 125 4.1.2.2. Repair apparatus in disagreeing 130 4.1.3. Summary 133 4.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY 134 4.2.1. Aims and Methodology 134 4.2.1.1. Aims 134 4.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents 134 4.2.2. Strategies for Disagreements as Dispreferred Seconds 137 4.2.2.1. English corpus 137 4.2.2.2. Vietnamese corpus 141 4.2.2.3. Comments 148 4.2.3. Strategies for Disagreements as Preferred Seconds 149 4.2.3.1. English corpus 149 4.2.3.2. Vietnamese corpus 151 4.2.3.3. Comments 157 4.2.4. Summary 157 4.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS 158 CHAPTER FIVE 160 STRATEGIES FOR CONSTRAINT SYSTEMS AND NEGOTIATION OF DISAGREEMENTS 160 5.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES 160 5.1.1. Constraint Systems 160 5.1.2. Negotiation of Disagreements 161 5.1.2.1. Insertion sequences 162 5.1.2.2. Summons-answer sequences 162 5.1.2.3. Pre-sequences 163 5.1.2.4. Sequences in disagreeing 166 5.1.3. Some Frequently Used Devices in Disagreements 168 5.1.3.1. Intensifiers 168 5.1.3.2. Person referring terms 170 5.1.4. Summary 174 5.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY 175 5.2.1. Aims and Methodology 175 5.2.1.1. Aims 175 5.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents 175 5.2.2. Strategies for Constraint Systems 176 5.2.2.1. English corpus 176 5.2.2.2. Vietnamese corpus 178 5.2.3. Strategies for Negotiation of Disagreements 181 5.2.3.1. English corpus 181 5.2.3.2. Vietnamese corpus 184 5.2.4. Summary 190 5.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS 192 CONCLUSION 193 1. MAJOR FINDINGS 193 1.1. POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN DISAGREEING 193 1.2. NORMATIVE-VOLITIONAL POLITENESS AND INDIRECTNESS 194 1.3. STRATEGIES CONCERNING PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION 195 1.4. STRATEGIES FOR NEGOTIATION OF DISAGREEMENTS AND CONSTRAINT SYSTEMS 196 2. IMPLICATIONS 197 2.1. EFL & VFL IMPLICATIONS 197 2.2. PRAGMATICS AND CA PERSPECTIVE IN SPEECH ACT STUDY 198 3. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 200 APPENDIXES I APPENDIX 1 I TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS I APPENDIX 2 III SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES III BIBLIOGRAPHY XIII ENGLISH XIII VIETNAMESE XXVIII

doc246 trang | Chia sẻ: maiphuongtl | Lượt xem: 2668 | Lượt tải: 3download
Bạn đang xem trước 20 trang tài liệu Đề tài A pragmatics and conversation analysis perspective, để xem tài liệu hoàn chỉnh bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
London: MIT Press. Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction Process Analysis. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1996). Pragmatics and language teaching: Bringing pragmatics and pedagogy together. In L. F. Bouton (Ed.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Monograph Series Vol. 7). Urbana-Chanpaign, USA: University of Illinois, Intensive English Institute. Barker, R. G., & Wright, H. F. (1955). Midwest and its Children. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Bauman, R., & Sherzer, J. (eds.) (1974). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bayraktaroglu, A., & Sifianou, M. (eds.) (2001). Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Beebe, L. M., Takahashi, T., & Uliss-Weltz, R. (1990). “Pragmatics transfer in ESL refusals”. In R. C. Scarcella, E. Andersen, & Stephen, D. Krashen (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 55-74). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Bentahila, A., & Davies, E. E., (1989). Culture and language use: a problem for foreign language teaching. University Fez Morocco. IRAL, vol. XXVII/2, May 1989. Berlin, B. & Kay, P. (1969). Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bernard, R. H. (2002). Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (3rd ed.). Altamira Press. Blount, B. G. (ed.) (1995). Language, Culture, and Society. A Book of Readings. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Blum-Kulka, S. & Snow C. E. (eds.) (2002). Taking to Adults: The Contribution of Multiparty Discourse to Language Acquisition. LEA, Publishers. Blum-Kulka, S. (1987). “Indirectness and politeness in requests: same or different?” Journal of Pragmatics, 11, 145-160. Blum-Kulka, S. (1989). “Playing it safe: The role of conventionality in indirectness”. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 37-70). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, S. (1992). “The Metapragmatics of Politeness in Israeli Society”. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (eds.), Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter. Pp. 255-80. Blum-Kulka, S. (1997). Dinner Talk: Cultural Patterns of Sociability and Socialization in Family Discourse. LEA, Publishers. Blum-Kulka, S., & Kasper, G., (eds.) (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blum-Kulka, S., Danet, B., & Gerson, R. (1985). “The language of requesting in Israeli society”. In J. Forgas (Ed.). Language and social situation (pp. 113-141). New York: Springer Verlag. Blundell, J., Higgens, J. & Middlemiss N. (1996). Function in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bouton, L. F. (1994). “Can NNS skill in interpreting implicature in American English be improved through explicit instruction? – A polite study”. In L. F. Bouton, & Y. Kachru (Eds.), Pragmatics and Language Learning, (Monograph Series Vol. 5). Urbana-Chanpaign, USA: University of Illinois, Intensive English Institute. Bouton, L. F. (1996). Pragmatics and Language Learning. (Monograph Series Vol. 7). Urbana-Champaign, USA: University of Illinois, Intensive English Institute. Briggs, C. L. (1986). Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, Cecil. (1985). “Polysemy, Overt Marking, and Function Words”. Language Sciences 7/2: 283-332. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1989). Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press. Brown, P. (2002). “Everyone Has to Lie in Tzeltal. In S. Blum-Kulka & C. E. Snow (eds.), Taking to Adults – The Contributions of Multiparty Discourse to Language Acquisition (pp. 327-342). LEA. Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. (1978). “Universals of Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena”. In E. N. Goody (ed.), Questions and Politeness Strategies in Social interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge University Press. Brown, Penelope and Stephen Levinson. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Button, G. & Lee, J. R. E. (eds.) (1987). Talk and Social Organization. Multilingual Matters Ltd. Button, G., & Casey, N. (1985). “Topic nomination and topic pursuit”. Human studies, 8, 3-55. Cameron, D. (2002). Working with Spoken Discourse. Sage Publications. Campbell-Kibler, K., Podesva, R., Roberts S. J., & Wong, A. (2002). (eds.). Language and Sexuality: Contesting Meaning in Theory and Practice. CSLI Publications. Chang, Hui-Ching. (1999). “The ‘well-defined’ is ambiguous – indeterminacy in Chinese conversation”. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 535-56. Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon. Coates, J. (1996). Women Talk: Conversation between Women Friends. Blackwell Publishers. Coates, J., & Cameron, D. (eds.) (1989). Women in Their Speech Communities: New Perspectives on Language and Sex. Longman Group UK Limited. Cohen, A. (1996). “Investigating the production of speech act sets”. In S. M. Gass, & J. New, (Eds.), Speech acts across cultures: Challenges to communication in a second language. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Cole, P., & Morgan, J. L. (eds.) (1975). Syntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: an Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, B. (1989) (2nd ed.). Language Universals and Language Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Coupland, J. (ed.) (2000). Small Talk. Longman. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, D. (ed.) (2003). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (5th ed.). Blackwell. Dascal, M. (1983). Pragmatics and the philosophy of mind 1. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins. Davis, W. A. (1998). Implicature: Interaction, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Kadt, E. (1998). The concept of face and its applicability to the Zulu language. Journal of Pragmatics 292, 173-91. Doi, Takeo. (1973). The anatomy of dependence. [Translated by J. Bester]. Tokyo: Dodansha. Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Questionnaires in second language research: construction, administration, and processing. LEA Publishers. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (eds.) (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duncan, S. & Fiske, D. W. (1977). Face to Face Interaction: Research, Methods and Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Duncan, S. (1974). “Some Signals and Rules for Taking Speaker Turns in Conversations”. In S. Weitz (ed.). Nonverbal communication. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 298-311. Duranti, A. (1981). “The Samoan Fono: A Sociolinguistic Study”. Pacific Linguistics Monographs, Series B, Vol. 80. Canberra: Australian National University, Dep. of Linguistics. Duranti, A. (1985). “Lauga and Talanoaga: Two Speech Genres in a Samoan Political Event”. In Brenneis & Myers (eds.), Dangerous Words Language and Politics in the Pacific, pp, 217:37. New York: New York University Press. Duranti, A. (1988). “Intentions, Language and Social Action in a Samoan Context”. Journal of Pragmatics 12: 13:33. Duranti, A. (1992). “Language in Context and Language as Context: The Samoan Respect Vocabulary”. In Another Context. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. (pp. 77-99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duranti, A. (1993). “Intentions, Self, and Responsibility: An Essay in Samoan Ethnopragmatics”. In J. H. Hill and J. T. Irvine (eds.), Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse (pp. 24-47). Cambridge University Press. Duranti, A. (1996). Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duranti, A. (ed.) (2001a). Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader. Blackwell Publishers. Duranti, A. (ed.) (2001b). Key Terms in Language and Culture. Blackwell Publishers. Durkheim, E. (1915). The elementary forms of the religious life. George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London. Eisenstein M. & Bodman J. (1993). “Expressing Gratitude in American English”. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 64-81). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, C. (1996). Culture Shock! Vietnam. Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company. Portland, Oregon. Ellis, R. (1991). Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press. Ervin-Tripp, S. (1979). “Children’s Verbal Turn-taking”. In E. Ochs & B. B. Schieffelin (eds.) Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. pp. 391-414. Finegan, E. (2004). Language: its structure and use. 4th ed. Thomson Corp. Warsworth. Fishman, P. (1983). “Interaction: the Work Women do”. In B. Thorne, C. Kramarae, & N. Henley (eds.), Language, Gender, and Society. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Pp. 89-101. Foley, W. A. (1984). “Nature versus Nurture: The Genesis of Language. A Review Article”. Comparative Studies in Society and History (1984): 335-44. Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History (U.S.) Ford, E. C., Fox, A. B., & Thompson A. S. (eds.) (2002). The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fowler, R. (1985). “Power”. In van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press. Fox, B. A., Hayashi, M. & Jasperson, R. (1996). “A cross-linguistic study of the syntax and repair”. In E.Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, and S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 185-237. Fraser, B. (1985). “On the universality of speech act strategies”. In S. George (Ed.), From the linguistic to the social context (pp. 43-49). Bologna, Italy: CLUEB. Fraser, B. (1990). “Perspective of politeness”. Journal of Pragmatics, 14, 219-236. Fraser, B., & Nolen, W. (1981). “The association of deference with linguistic forms”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27: 93-109. Furo, H. (2001). Turn-Taking in English and Japanese: Projectability in Grammar, Intonation, and Semantics. Routledge: New York and London. Gardner, R. (2001). When Listeners Talk. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. (Paperback edition. 1984. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge, UK; Polity Press.) Garfinkel, H., & Sacks, H. (1970). “ On Formal Structures of Practical Actions”. In H. D. McKinney and E. A. Tiryakian (eds.), Theoretical Sociology, pp. 337-66. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Garrett, P. B., & Baquedano-López, P. (2002). “Language Socialization: Reproduction and continuity, Transformation and Change”. Annual Review of Anthropology 31: 339-61. Gass, S. M. & Neu, J. (eds.) (1996). Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter. Gass, S., M. (1996). “Introduction”. In Gass, S. M., & Neu, J. (eds.), Speech Acts Across Cultures: Challenges to Communication in a Second Language. Mouton de Gruyter. Geis, M. L. (1995). Speech Acts and Conversational Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gillham, B. (2000). The research interview. Continuum: London and New York. Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding Figurative Language: From Metaphors to Idioms. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. Goffman, E. (1967). Interactional ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. New York: Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1976). “Replies and Responses”. Language in Society 5: 257-313. Goodenough, W. (1957). “Cultural Anthropology and Linguistics”. In P. L. Garvin (ed.), MonoGraph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 9: 167-173. Washington, DC: Institute of Languages and Linguistics. Goodwin, C. (1979). “The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation”. In G. Psathas (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology (pp. 23-78). Irvington Publishers, Inc. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers. New York: Academic Press. Goodwin, C. (1984). “Notes on Story Structure and the Organization of Participation”. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 225-46. Goodwin, C. (1996). Transparent Vision. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schefgloff, & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 370-404). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). “Rethinking Context: An Introduction”. In A. Duranti & D. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. (pp. 1-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin M. H. (1987). “Concurrent Operations on Talk: Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments”. IPRA Papers in Pragmatics, Vol. 1, No. 1, July 1987: 1-54. Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). “Assessments and the Construction of Context”. In A. Duranti & D. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. (pp. 147-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goodwin, M. H. (1983). “Aggravated Correction and Disagreement in Children’s Conversations”. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 657-77. Goody, E. N. (ed.) (1978). Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Green, B. S. & Salkind, J. N. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh. 3rd ed. Prentice Hall. Greenberg, J. (1963). “Language Universals”. In Sebeok, T. (ed.) Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. 3 (Theoretical Foundations), pp. 61-112. The Hague Mouton. Revised and published in J. Greenberg (1966), Language Universals with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague Mouton. Grice, H. P. (1975). “Logic and conversation” in P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press. Gu, Y. (1990). “Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese”. Journal of Pragmatics, 14 (2), 327-257. Gumperz, J. J. & Hymes, D. (eds.) (1964). “The Ethonography of Communication” [Special issue, part 2]. The American Anthropologist, 66. Gumperz, J. J. & Levinson, S. C. (eds.) (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge University Press. Gumperz, J. J. (1978). “The conversational analysis of interethnic communication”. In: E. Lama Ross (ed.), Interethnic Communication. Southern Anthropological Society proceedings 12, 13-31. Gumperz, J. J. (1996). “The linguistic and Cultural Relativity of Conversational Inference”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 374-407). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ha, Cam Tam. (1998). Requests by Australian native speakers of English and Vietnamese learners of English. Unpublished M. A. Thesis, La Trobe University. Hall, K., & Bucholtz, M. (1995). (eds.). Gender Articulated: Language and the Socially Constructed Self. Routledge: New York and London. Hare, R. M. (1979). Social Being: A theory for social psychology. England: Basil Blackwell. Harold, W. S. (1976). “The Meaning of Kinship”. In Basso, K. & Shelby, H. (eds.), Meaning in Anthropology, pp. 57-91. University of New Mexico Press. Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hatim, B. (1997). Communication across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. University of Exeter Press. Held, G. (1989). “On the Role of Maximization in Verbal Politeness”. Multilingua 8: 167-206. Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Heritage, J. (1984b). “A change-of-state Token and Aspects of its Sequential Placement”. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, pp. 299-345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J. (1998). “Oh-prefaced Responses to Inquiry”. Language in Society 27(3): 291-334. Heritage, J. (2002). “Oh-prefaced Responses to Assessments: a Method of Modifying Agreement/Disagreement”. In C. Ford, B. Fox and S. Thompson (Eds.), The Language of Turn and Sequence. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pp. 196-224. Heritage, J. (forthcoming). The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-interaction. Heritage, J., & Sorjonen, M. (1994). “Constituting and Maintaining Activities across Sequences And-prefacing as a Feature of Question Design”. Language in Society 23: 1-29. Hernández-Flores, N. (1999). “Politeness ideology in Spanish colloquial conversation: the case of advice”. Pragmatics 91, 37-49. Hester, S. & Eglin, P. (eds.) (1997). Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America, Washington, D. C. Hill, B., Ide, S., Ikuta, S., Kawasaki, A., & Ogino, T. (1986). “Universals of Linguistic Politeness: Quantitative Evidence from Japanese & American English”. Journal of Pragmatics 10: 347-71. Hill, J. H., & Irvine, J. T. (eds.) (1993). Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hill, J. H., & Mannheim, B. (1992). “Language and World View”. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 381-406. Ho, D. Y-F. (1994). Face dynamics: from conceptualization to measurement. In: Ting-Toomey, S. (Ed.). The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues. State university of New York Press, Albany. Pp. 3-13. Hockett, C. F. (1960). “The Origin of Speech”. Scientific American 203.3: 88-96. Hornby, A. S. (1988). Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. House, J. (1984). “Some methodological problems and perspectives in contrastive discourse analysis”. Applied linguistics, 5 (3), 245-254. House, J. (1989). “Politeness in English and German: The functions of Please and Bite”. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House & G. Kasper (eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 96-119). Norwood, N. J.: Ablex. Hsien, Chin Hu. (1944). “The Chinese concepts of face”. American Anthropologist 46: 45-55. Hwang, Juck-Ryoon. (1990). “Deference” versus “Politeness” in Korean Speech. The International Journal of the Sociology of Language 82: 41-55. Hymes, D. (1962). “The Ethnography of Speaking”. In T. Galdwin & W. C. Sturtevant (eds.), Anthropology and Human Behavior (pp. 13-53). Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington. Hymes, D. (1972a). “On Communicative Competence”. In J. B. Pride & J. Holmes (eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269-293). London: Penguin. Hymes, D. (1972b). “Models of the Interaction of Language and Social Life”. In J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics. New York: Hold, Rinehart and Winston. Pp. 35-71. Hymes, D. (1974a). Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethonographic Approach. Philadelphia. University of Pennsylvania Press. Hymes, D. (1974b). “Ways of Speaking”. In R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hymes, D. (1995). “The Ethnography of Speaking”. In B. G. Blount (ed.), Language, Culture, and Society. Waveland Press, Inc. pp. 248-82. Hymes, D. (ed.) (1964). Language in Culture and Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology. New York: Harper & Row. Ide, S. (1982). “Japanese Sociolinguistics: Politeness and Women’s Language”. Lingua 57, 357-385. Ide, S. (1986). “Sex Differences and Politeness in Japanese”. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 58: 25-36. Ide, S. (1987). “Strategies of ‘discernment’ and ‘volition’ for Linguistic Politeness”. Paper delivered at the International Pragmatics Conference, Antwerp. Ide, S. (1988). “Introduction”. Multilingua 7-4: 371-374. Ide, S. (1989). “Formal Forms and Discernment: Two Neglected Aspects of Universals of Linguistic Politeness”. In S. Ide et al. (eds.), Linguistic Politeness II: Multilingua 8-2/3: 223-248. Ide, S. (1993). “Preface: The research of integrated universals of universals of linguistic politeness. Multilingua 12-1: 7-11. Ide, S. (2001). “Preface”. In Bayraktaroglu, A., & Sifianou, M. (eds.), Linguistic Politeness across Boundaries: The Case of Greek and Turkish. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Ide, S., Hill, B., Carnes, Y. M., Ogino, T., & Kawasaki, A. (1992). “The Concept of Politeness: An Empirical Study of American English and Japanese”. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide and K. Ehlich (eds.) Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter. Jackson, H., & Stockwell, P. (1996). Investigating English language – nature and function of language. Stanley Thornes Publishers Ltd. Jefferson, G. (1974). “Error Correction as an Interactional Resource”. Language in Society, 2: 181-99. Jefferson, G. (1978). “Sequential Aspects of Story Telling in Conversation”. In J. N. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. New York: Academic Press, pp. 219-48. Jefferson, G. (1979). “A Technique for Inviting Laughter and its Subsequent Acceptance/Declination”. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Erlbaum, pp. 79-96. Ji, Shaojun. (2000). ‘Face’ and polite verbal behaviors in Chinese culture. Discussion note. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1059-62. Johnson, S., & Meinhof, U. H. (1997). (eds.). Language and Masculinity. Blackwell Publishers. Jones, L. (1981). Functions of English (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, J. (1972). “Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education”. In Language Learning 16, 1-20. Kasper, G. & Blum-Kulka, S. (1993). “Interlanguage Pragmatics: An Introduction”. In G. Kasper & S. Blum-Kulka (eds.), Interlanguage Pragmatics (pp. 3-17). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kasper, G. (1990). “Linguistic Politeness: Current Research issues”. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 193-218. Kasper, G., & Blum-Kulka, S. (eds.) (1993). Interlanguage Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kecskes, I. (2003). Situation-Bound Utterances in L1 and L2. Mouton de Gruyter. Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kiesling, S. F. (2001). “Now I Gotta Watch What I say”: Shifting Constructions of Masculinity in Discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 11(2): 250-73. Kieu, Thi Thu Huong. (2001). Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese. Unpublished M. A. Thesis. C. F. L, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Kieu, Thi Thu Huong. (2003). Conversation Analysis and Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese. Unpublished paper submitted for a credit of “Conversation Analysis”. Department of Anthropology. University of Toronto, Canada. Kieu, Thi Thu Huong. (2003). Politeness and Disagreeing in English and Vietnamese. Unpublished paper submitted for a credit of “Advanced Topics in Linguistics”. Department of Anthropology. University of Toronto, Canada. Krashen, S. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Krashen, S. 1987. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd. Kroger, R. O. (1892). “Explorations in Ethogeny. With special reference to the rules of address’. In American Psychologist, vol. 37, #7: 810-820. Kummer, M. (1992). “Politeness in Thai”. In R. J. Watts, S. Ide, & K. Ehlich (eds.) Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Lakoff, R. (1973). “The logic of politeness: Or, minding your p's and q's”. Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292-305). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. Lakoff, R. (1975). Language and Woman's Place. New York: Harper and Row. Leech, G. N. (1980). Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (The chapter 'Language and tact' first published by the Linguistic Agency University of Trier, Series A, Paper 46, University of Trier, 1977). Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman. Lee-Wong, S. M. (2000). Politeness and Face in Chinese Culture. Peter Lang. Levine, D. R., Baxter, J., & McNulty, P. (1987). The culture puzzle: Cross-cultural communication for English as second language. Prentice Hall Regents. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. Levinson, S. C. (1996). “Relativity in Spatial Conception and Description”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 177-202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lightbown, P. M. & N. Spada. 1999. How Languages are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Littlewood, W. T. 1984. Foreign and second language learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lucy, J. A. (1997). “Linguistic Relativity”. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 291-312. Luong, Van Hy (1987). “Plural Markers in Vietnamese Person Reference: An Analysis of Pragmatic Ambiguities and Native Models”. Anthropological Linguistics 17: 49-70. Luong, Van Hy (1990). Discursive Practices and Linguistic Meanings: The Vietnamese System of Person Reference. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lyon, J. [(1977), 1987] Semantics. Vol. 1 & 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malinowski, B. (1923, 1946). “The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Language”. Supplement to C. Ogden & A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning, pp. 296-336. Mao, Lu Ming Robert. (1994). Beyond politeness theory: ‘face’ revisited and renewed. Journal of Pragmatics 21, 451-86. Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associaties, Publishers. Matsumoto, Y. (1988). “Reexamination of the Universality of Face: Politeness Phenomena in Japanese”. Journal of Pragmatics 12 (1988), pp. 403-426. Maynard, D. W. (2003). Bad News, Good News: Conversational Order in Everyday Talk and Clinical Settings. University of Chicago Press. Maynard, S. K. (1997). Japanese Communication: Language and Thought in Context. Hololulu: University of Hawaii Press. Merritt, M. (1976). “On Questions Following Questions (in Service Encounters)”. Language in Society, 5.3: 315-57. Mey, J. L. (1993). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers. Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Blackwell Publishers. Mey, J. L. (2003). Introduction: ‘About Face’. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003), p. 1451. Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture: ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Mori, J. (1999). Negotiating Agreement and Disagreement in Japanese: Connective Expressions and Turn Construction. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Nakane, Chie. (1970). Japanese society. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Nash, T. (1983). American and Chinese politeness strategies; 'It sort of disturbs my sleep' or 'Health is important.' University of Hawaii Working Papers, 2, 2: 23-39. Nguyen, Duc Hoat. (1995). Politeness markers in Vietnamese requests. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis, Monash University. Nguyen, Phuong Suu (1990). A Cross-cultural Study of Greeting and Addressing Terms in English and Vietnamese. Unpublished M. A. Thesis, University of Canberra. Nguyen, Thi Thanh Binh (2001). The Diversity in Language Socialization: Gender and Social Stratum in a North Vietnamese Village. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. University of Toronto, Canada. Nguyen, Van Do (1996). Politeness phenomena in Vietnamese and English cultures and some implications in teaching language – Evidence from forms of requests. Unpublished M. A. Thesis. Hanoi Foreign Studies University. Nofsinger, Robert E. (1991). Everyday Conversation. SAGE Publications. Nwoye, Onuigbo G. (1992). Linguistic politeness and socio-cultural variations of the notion of face. Journal of Pragmatics 18, 309-328. Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing Gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 335-58). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1996). “Linguistic Resources for Socializing Humanity”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity (pp. 407-37). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E. (1997). “Narrive”. In T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as Structure and Process. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (pp. 185-207). London: Sage Ochs, E., Gonzales, P., & Jacoby, S. (1996). “When I Come Down I’m in the Domain State”: Grammar and Graphic representation in the Interpretive Activity of Physicists. In E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, & S. A. Thompson (eds.), Interaction and Grammar (pp. 328-69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E., Schegloff, E. A., & Thompson, S. A. (eds.) (1996). Interaction and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Park, Y. (1999). “The Korean connective nuntey in conversational discourse”. In N. Akatsuka, S. Iwasaki, and S. Strauss (Eds.), Japanese Korean Linguistics 5. Stanford: CSLI Publication, pp. 131-147. Pittenger, R. E., Hockett, C. F., & Danehy, J. J. (1960). The First Five Minutes. Ethaca, NY: P. Martineau. Polanyi, L. (1985). “Conversational Storytelling”. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol. E: Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press. Pomerantz, A. (1975). Second Assessments: A Study of Some Features of Agreements/Disagreements. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Irvine. Pomerantz, A. (1978). “Compliment Responses: Notes on the Co-operation of Multiple Constraints”. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversation Interaction. Academic Press. pp. 79-112. Pomerantz, A. (1984a). “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes”. In J. Heritage & J. M. Atkinson (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 57-101. Pomerantz, A. (1984b). “Pursuing a Response”. In J. Heritage & J. M. Atkinson (eds.), Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 152-64. Pomerantz, A., & Fehr, B. J. (1997). “Conversation Analysis: An Approach to the Study of Social Action as Sense Making Practices”. In van Dijk (ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 2. pp. 64-91. Sage Publications. Pridham, F. (2001). The Language of Conversation. Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group. Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction. Sage Publications. Psathas, G. (ed.) (1979). Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Irvington Publishers, Inc. Psathas, G. (ed.) (1990). Interaction Competence. International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & Universtiy Press of America Washington, D. C. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G. & Svartvik J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. Longman Group Ltd. Rathmayr, R. (1999). “Metadiscours et realité linguistique: I’example de la politesse russe”. Pragmatics 91, 75-96. Richards, J. C. (1983). “Communicative Needs in Foreign Language Learning”. In Wolfson & Judd (eds.), Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Newbury House Publishers. Richards, J., Platt, J & Webber, H. (1990). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Longman. Roger, D. & Bull, P. (1989). Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Multilingual Matters LTD. Rosaldo, M. Z. (1982). “The Things We Do with Words: Ilongot Speech Acts and Speech Act Theory in Philosophy”. Language in Society 11: 203-37. Sacks, H. (1963). “On Sociological description”. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 8:1-16. Sacks, H. (1972a). “An Initial Investigation of the Usability of Conversational Data of Doing Sociology”. In D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press, pp. 31-74. Sacks, H. (1972b). “On the Analyzability of Stories by Children”. In J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, pp. 325-45. Sacks, H. (1974). “An Analysis of the Course of a Joke’s Telling in Conversation. In R. Bauman & J. Sherzer (eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 337-53. Sacks, H. (1975). “Everyone Has to Lie”. In M. Sanches & B. Blout (eds.), Sociocultural Dimensions of Language Use, pp. 57-80. New York: Academic Press. Sacks, H. (1978). “Some Technical Considerations of a Dirty Joke. In J. Schenkein (ed.), Studies in the Organization of Conversation Interaction. Academic Press. pp. 249-269. Sacks, H. (1987). “On the Preferences for Agreement and Contiguity in Sequences in Conversation” (from a tape recording of a public lecture originally delivered in 1973). In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.). Talk and social organisation (pp. 54-69). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Sacks, H. (1995) Lectures on Conversation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Sacks, H., & Schegloff, E. A. (1979). “Two Preferences in the Organization of Reference to Persons in Conversation and Their Interaction. In G. Psathas (ed.) (1979), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. Irvington Publishers, Inc. pp. 15-21. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50: 696-735. Also in J. Schenkein (1978) (ed.) Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. Academic Press. pp. 7-55. Sankoff, G. (1974). “A quantitative paradigm for the study of communicative competence”. In: R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (eds.). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sapir, E. (1963). Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture and Thought. In D.G. Mandelbaun (Ed.), Berleley and Los Angeles. University of California Press. Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1989). Course in General Linguistics, eds. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, in collaboration with Albert Riedlinger, translated from the French by Wade Baskin. New York: Philosophical Library. Schegloff, E. A. (1972a). “Sequencing in Conversational Openings”. In J. J. Gumperz and D. Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolinguistics: The EthnoGraphy of Communication (pp. 346-80). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Schegloff, E. A. (1972b). “Notes on a Conversational Practice: Formulating Place”. In D. Sudnow (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press. Schegloff, E. A. (1979a). “Identification and Recognition in Telephone Openings”. In G. Psathas (ed.), Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. (pp.23-78). Irvington Publishers, Inc. Schegloff, E. A. (1979b). “The Relevance of Repair to Syntax-for-conversation”. In T. Givon (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. XII: Discourse and Syntax. New York: Academic Press, pp. 261-88. Schegloff, E. A. (1984). “On some Gestures’ relation to talk”. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), Structures of Social Action. (pp. 266-96). Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A. (1992). “In Another Context”. In A. Duranti and C. Goodwin (eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. (pp. 191-227). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, E. A. (1995). “Introduction”. In Harvey Sacks: Lectures on Conversation. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson and Harvey Sacks. (1977). “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation”. Language 53: 361-82. Schenkein, J. (1978). (ed.). Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction. Academic Press. Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). “Language Socialization”. Annual Review of Anthropology 15: 163-91. Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (eds.) (2001). The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Blackwell Publishers. Schultz, E. A. (1990). Dialogue at the Margins: Whorf, Bakhtin, and Linguistic Relativity. The University of Wisconsin Press. Searle, J. R. (1965). “What is a Speech Act?” In M. Black (ed.), Philosophy in America Essays, pp. 221-239. Ithaca, N.Y. Cornell University Press. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Searle, J. R. (1975). “Indirect speech acts”. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 59-82). New York: Academic Press. Searle, J. R. (1976). “A classification of illocutionary acts”. Language in Society 5, 1-23. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Sherzer, J. (1987). “A Discourse-Centered Approach to Language and Culture”. American Anthropologist 89: 295-309. Sidnell, J. (2001). “Conversational Turn-taking in a Caribbean English Creole”. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 1263-1290. Silverstein, M. (1976). “Shifters, Linguistic Categories, and Cultural Description”. In K. H. Basso & H. A. Selby (eds.). Meaning in Anthropology (pp. 11-56). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Silverstein, M. (1977). “Language as a Part of Culture”. In Tax, S. & Freeman, L. (eds.). Horizons of Anthropology. Snow, C. E. & Blum-Kulka, S. (2002). “From Home to School: School-Age Children Talking with Adults”. In S. Blum-Kulka & C. E. Snow (eds.), Taking to Adults – The Contributions of Multiparty Discourse to Language Acquisition (pp. 327-342). LEA. Sorjonen, M. (1997). Recipient activities: particles nii(n) and joo as responses in Finnish conversations. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles. Sperber, D., & Wilson. D. [1995(1986)]. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. London. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Storry, M., & Childs, P. (eds.) (1997). British Culture Identities. Routledge. Stross, B. (1973). “Acquisition of Botanical Terminology by Tzeltal Children”. In Meaning in Mayan Languages. (ed.). M. Edmonson, pp. 107-42. The Hague: Mouton. Sturtevant, W. C. (1964). “Studies in Ethnoscience”. In A. K. Romney & R. G. D’Andrade (eds.), Transcultural Studies in Cognition [Special issue, part 2]. The American Anthropologist 66(3): 99-131. Sudnow, D. (ed.) (1972). Studies in Social Interaction. New York: Free Press. Svennevig, J. (1999). Getting Acquainted in Conversation: A Study of Initial Interactions. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Takahara, K. (1986). “Politeness in English, Japanese, and Spanish”. In cross-cultural communication: East and West. J. H. Koo & R. N. St. Claire (Eds.), 181-194. Tannen, D. (1981). “Indirectness in discourse: Ethnicity as conversational style”. Discourse Processes, 3 (4), 221-38. Tannen, D. (1989). Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tannen, D. (1999). The Argument Culture: Stopping America’s War of Words. The Ballantine Publishing Group. Tannen, K. (1990). You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: William Morrow and Co. Tarone, E. E., Gass, S. M. & Cohen, A. D. (1994). Research Methodology in Second-Language Acquisition. LEA, Publishers. Thomas, J. (1983). “Cross-cultural pragmatic failure”. Applied linguistics, 4, 91-112. Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An Introduction to Pragmatics. USA, England: Longman. Ton, Nu My Nhat. (2005). A discourse analysis of travel advertisements in English and Vietnamese. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. College of Foreign Languages, VNU. Tracy, K. (2002). Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities. The Guilford Press. New York – London. Trudgill, P. (1972). “Sex, Convert Prestige and Linguistic Change in the Urban British English of Norwich”. Language in Society I: pp. 179-195. Upadhyay, Shiv R. (2003). Nepali requestive acts: Linguistic indirectness and politeness reconsidered. Journal of Pragmatics 35 (2003): 1651-77. Valdes, J. M. (1987). Culture bound: Bridging the culture gap in language teaching, (2nd printing). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. van Dijk, T. A. (1979). “Relevance Assignment in Discourse Comprehension”. Discourse Processes 2: 113-127. van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) (1985). Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol. 3: Discourse and Dialogue. London: Academic Press. van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) (1997). Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Vol. 1 & 2. Sage Publications. van Ek, J. A. (1976). The threshold level for modern language teaching in schools. London: Longman. Verschueren, J. (1984). “Linguistics and cross-cultural communication” (review article). Language in Society 13, 489-509. Vu, Thi Thanh Huong (1997). Politeness in Modern Vietnamese: A Sociolinguistic Study of a Hanoi Speech Community. Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. University of Toronto, Canada. Wallace, A. & Atkins, J. (1960) “The Meaning of Kinship Terms”. American Anthropologist 62: 427-51. Wanning, E. (2000). Culture Shock! USA. Graphic Arts Center Publishing Company. Portland, Oregon. Wardhaugh, R. (1991). How conversation works. Blackwell, Oxford U. K. and Cambridge U. S. A. Watts, R. J., Ide, S., & Ehlich, K. (eds.) (1992). Politeness in Language: Studies in its History, Theory and Practice. Mouton de Gruyter. Whorf, B. L. (1956). “Grammatical Categories”. In J. B. Carroll (ed.), Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (pp. 87-101). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Whorf, B. L. (1956). “The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language”. In J. B. Carroll (ed.), Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (pp. 134-59). Cambridge: MA: MIT Press. Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wierzbicka, A. (1985). “Different cultures, different languages, different speech acts”. Journal of Pragmatics, 9, 145-178. Wierzbicka, A. (1987). English speech act verbs: a semantic dictionary. Academic, New York. Wisker, G. (2001). The postgraduate research handbook: succeed with your MA, MPhil, EdD and PhD. Palgrave. Witkowski, S. & Brown, C. “Lexical Universals” (1978). Annual Review of Anthropology 7: 427-451. Wolfson, N. & Judd, E. (eds.) (1983). Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Newbury House Publishers, Inc. Wolfson, N. (1989). Perspectives Sociolinguistics and TESOL. Newbery House Publishers. Wright, A. (1987). How to communicate successfully. Cambridge University Press. Wu, R. R. (1997). “Transforming participation frameworks in multip-party Mandarin Chinese conversation: the use of discourse particles and body behavior”. Issues in Applied Linguistics 8 (2), pp. 97-118. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press. Zellermayer, M. (1991). “Intensifiers in Hebrew and in English”. Journal of Pragmatics 14: 43-58. Zimmerman, D., & West, C. (1975). “Sex Roles, Interruptions and Silences in Conversation”. In B. Thorne, & N. Henley (eds.), Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Pp. 105-29. VIETNAMESE §ç H÷u Ch©u & Bïi Minh To¸n. (2002). §¹i c­¬ng Ng«n Ng÷ Häc (TËp I). Nxb GD. §ç H÷u Ch©u & Bïi Minh To¸n. (2003). §¹i c­¬ng Ng«n Ng÷ Häc (TËp I). Nxb GD. (T¸i b¶n lÇn thø 2) §ç H÷u Ch©u. (1995). Gi¸o tr×nh gi¶n yÕu vÒ ng÷ dông häc. Nxb GD. HuÕ. §ç H÷u Ch©u. (2003). §¹i c­¬ng Ng«n Ng÷ Häc (TËp II). Ng÷ Dông Häc. Nxb. GD. (T¸i b¶n lÇn thø 1) §inh Träng L¹c. (1998). TiÕng ViÖt. Nxb. Hµ Néi. §inh V¨n §øc (1986). Ng÷ ph¸p tiÕng ViÖt – Tõ lo¹i. Nxb. §H & THCN. Bïi Minh YÕn. (1996). “X­ng h« trong gia ®×nh ng­êi ViÖt”. Trong NguyÔn V¨n Khang (Chñ biªn), øng xö giao tiÕp trong gia ®×nh ng­êi ViÖt, tr. 83-157. Nxb. V¨n ho¸ th«ng tin. Cao Xu©n H¹o. (1991). TiÕng ViÖt: S¬ th¶o ng÷ ph¸p chøc n¨ng (QuyÓn 1). Nxb KHXH. Cao Xu©n H¹o. (1998). TiÕng ViÖt: MÊy vÊn ®Ò ng÷ ©m – ng÷ ph¸p – tõ vùng. Nxb. GD. DiÖp Quang Ban & Hoµng V¨n Thung. (2003). Ng÷ ph¸p tiÕng ViÖt (TËp I). Nxb GD. (T¸i b¶n lÇn thø 7) DiÖp Quang Ban. (2004). Ng÷ ph¸p TiÕng ViÖt (TËp II). Nxb GD. (T¸i b¶n lÇn thø 7) Hoµng Phª (Chñ biªn). (1988). Tõ ®iÓn tiÕng ViÖt. Nxb. X· héi. Hoµng Träng PhiÕn. (1991). “Nghi thøc lêi nãi tiÕng ViÖt Nam”. Trong Nghiªn cøu NghÖ thuËt vµ V¨n ho¸, 42. Hoµng V¨n V©n. (1999). “Dông häc víi viÖc d¹y ng«n ng÷ giao tiÕp: ThuËn lîi vµ khã kh¨n”. Trong Nh÷ng vÊn ®Ò ng÷ dông häc - Kû yÕu Héi th¶o khoa häc 'Ng÷ dông häc' lÇn thø nhÊt Hµ Néi (tr. 210-219). 4-1999. §HNN-§HQG. Hoµng V¨n V©n. (2005). Ng÷ ph¸p kinh nghiÖm cña có TiÕng ViÖt: M« t¶ theo quan ®iÓm chøc n¨ng hÖ thèng. Nxb KHXH, Hµ Néi. KiÒu ThÞ Thu H­¬ng (2001). “C¸c yÕu tè phi ng«n ng÷ vµ viÖc d¹y-häc ngo¹i ng÷”. Trong Ng«n Ng÷ sè 9-2001. Tr. 24-30. ViÖn ng«n ng÷ häc. KiÒu ThÞ Thu H­¬ng (2005). “C¸ch biÓu ®¹t sù kh«ng t¸n ®ång vµ cÊu tróc ®­îc ­a dïng: B×nh diÖn ph©n tÝch héi tho¹i”. Trong T¹p chÝ Khoa häc, sè 4/2005, tr. 26-40. §HQG HN. KiÒu ThÞ Thu H­¬ng (2005). “Mét vµi côm tõ ®Þnh danh trong tiÕng ViÖt - nh×n tõ gãc ®é v¨n ho¸. Trong Ng«n ng÷ vµ §êi sèng, sè 12 (122) - 2005, tr. 28-30. KiÒu ThÞ Thu H­¬ng (2005). “Ph©n tÝch héi tho¹i: th­¬ng l­îng khi bÊt ®ång ‎ý kiÕn”. Trong T¹p chÝ Khoa häc Ngo¹i Ng÷, sè 4/2005, tr. 49-58. §HNN HN. KiÒu ThÞ Thu H­¬ng (2006). “C¸ch ®¸p l¹i lêi khen trong tiÕng Anh vµ tiÕng ViÖt: B×nh diÖn ph©n tÝch héi tho¹i. Trong Ng«n ng÷, sè 1/2006, tr. 32-43. L­¬ng V¨n Hy. (2000). “BiÕn thÓ có ph¸p vµ vÞ thÕ x· héi: Mét nghiªn cøu lÞch ®¹i vµ ®ång ®¹i t¹i hai céng ®ång miÒn B¾c ViÖt Nam”. Trong L­¬ng V¨n Hy (Chñ biªn) Ng«n tõ, giíi vµ nhãm x· héi tõ thùc tiÔn tiÕng ViÖt (tr. 230-265). Nxb KHXH, Hµ Néi. Lª Hïng TiÕn. (1999). “§éng tõ ng÷ vi – ph­¬ng tiÖn ngo¹i ng÷ quan träng gãp phÇn biÕn v¨n b¶n thµnh qui ph¹m ph¸p luËt”. Trong Nh÷ng vÊn ®Ò ng÷ dông häc - Kû yÕu Héi th¶o khoa häc 'Ng÷ dông häc' lÇn thø nhÊt Hµ Néi (tr. 210-219). 4-1999. §HNN-§HQG. Mai Xu©n Huy (DÞch) (1996). Functions in English. Blundell, J., Higgens, J., & Middlemiss N. Nxb. Hµ Néi. Mai Xu©n Huy. (1996). “C¸c cung bËc cña giao tiÕp vî chång ng­êi ViÖt”. Trong NguyÔn V¨n Khang (Chñ biªn), øng xö giao tiÕp trong gia ®×nh ng­êi ViÖt, tr. 34-54. Nxb. V¨n ho¸ th«ng tin. Ngò ThiÖn Hïng (2003). Kh¶o s¸t c¸c ph­¬ng tiÖn tõ vùng, ng÷ ph¸p biÓu ®¹t tÝnh t×nh th¸i nhËn thøc trong tiÕng Anh vµ tiÕng ViÖt. LuËn ¸n tiÕn sÜ ng÷ v¨n. §HKHXH & NV, §HQGHN Nguyễn Phương Chi. (2005). Một số đặc điểm ngôn ngữ-văn hoá ứng xử của hành vi từ chối trong tiếng Việt (có sự đối chiếu với tiếng Anh). Luận án tiến sỹ ngữ văn. Viện ngôn ngữ học - Viện KHXH Việt Nam. NguyÔn §øc D©n . (1997). LogÝc - Ng÷ nghÜa - Có ph¸p: Nxb §H & THCN. NguyÔn §øc D©n. (1996). LogÝc vµ TiÕng ViÖt: Nxb GD. NguyÔn §øc D©n. (1998). Ng÷ dông häc: Nxb GD. NguyÔn Hoµ. (1999). “Lùc trung ng«n vµ c¸c kiÓu c©u”. Trong Nh÷ng vÊn ®Ò ng÷ dông häc - Kû yÕu Héi th¶o khoa häc 'Ng÷ dông häc' lÇn thø nhÊt Hµ Néi (tr. 262-266). 4-1999. §HNN-§HQG. NguyÔn Kh¾c ThuÇn. (2002). §¹i c­¬ng lÞch sö v¨n ho¸ ViÖt Nam. Nxb GD. NguyÔn Kim Th¶n. (1982). Lêi ¨n tiÕng nãi cña ng­êi Hµ Néi. Nxb. Hµ Néi. NguyÔn Phó Phong. (2002). Nh÷ng vÊn ®Ò ng÷ ph¸p TiÕng ViÖt: Lo¹i tõ vµ chØ thÞ tõ. Nxb §HQGHN. NguyÔn Quang. (1998a). “Trùc tiÕp vµ gi¸n tiÕp trong dông häc giao thoa v¨n hãa ViÖt-Mü”. TËp san ngo¹i ng÷ 4-1998. NguyÔn Quang. (1998b). Mét sè kh¸c biÖt giao tiÕp lêi nãi ViÖt-Mü trong c¸ch thøc khen vµ tiÕp nhËn lêi khen. LuËn ¸n tiÕn sÜ khoa häc ng÷ v¨n. §H KHXH & NV, §HQGHN. NguyÔn Quang. (2004). Mét sè vÊn ®Ò giao tiÕp néi v¨n ho¸ vµ giao thoa v¨n ho¸. Nxb §HQGHN. NguyÔn ThiÖn Gi¸p & §oµn ThiÖn ThuËt &, NguyÔn Minh ThuyÕt (2004). DÉn luËn ng«n ng÷ häc: Nxb GD. (T¸i b¶n lÇn thø 9). NguyÔn ThiÖn Gi¸p. (2000). Dông Häc ViÖt Ng÷. Nxb. §¹i häc Quèc Gia. NguyÔn ThÞ Thanh B×nh. (2000). “X­ng vµ gäi: B»ng chøng vÒ giíi trong ng«n tõ cña trÎ em tr­íc tuæi ®Õn tr­êng ë Hµ Néi vµ Hoµi ThÞ.” Trong L­¬ng V¨n Hy (Chñ biªn) Ng«n tõ, giíi vµ nhãm x· héi tõ thùc tiÔn TiÕng ViÖt. (tr.115-134). Nxb. KHXH Hµ Néi. NguyÔn V¨n ChiÕn. (1992). Ng«n ng÷ häc ®èi chiÕu vµ ®èi chiÕu c¸c ng«n ng÷ §«ng Nam ¸. §HSPNN Hµ Néi. NguyÔn V¨n Khang. (2000). Ng«n ng÷ häc x· héi. Nxb. KHXH Hµ Néi. Phan ThÞ YÕn TuyÕt & L­¬ng V¨n Hy. (2000). “Vµi nÐt vÒ ng«n ng÷ giao tiÕp trong c¸c cuéc nãi chuyÖn gi÷a 3 thÕ hÖ “¤ng bµ - cha mÑ – con ch¸u” t¹i mét sè gia ®×nh ë Thµnh phè Hå ChÝ Minh”. Trong L­¬ng V¨n Hy (Chñ biªn) Ng«n tõ, giíi vµ nhãm x· héi tõ thùc tiÔn TiÕng ViÖt (tr.98-114). Nxb. KHXH Hµ Néi. Quang §µm. (1994). Nho Gi¸o x­a vµ nay. ViÖn KHXHVN – ViÖn §«ng Nam ¸. T«n DiÔn Phong. (1999). “T×m hiÓu sù sai lÖch ng÷ nghÜa cña ng­êi thô ng«n trong ng«n giao xuyªn v¨n ho¸”. T¹p chÝ Ng«n ng÷ Sè 7-1999. Tr.26-29. ViÖn ng«n ng÷ häc. TrÇn §×nh H­îu. (1994). §Õn hiÖn ®¹i tõ truyÒn thèng. Nxb. Hà Néi. TrÇn H÷u M¹nh. (1999). “Quy chiÕu & néi suy – Hai kh¸i niÖm trong dông häc vµ viÖc d¹y vµ häc tiÕng Anh ë bËc ®¹i häc”. Trong Nh÷ng vÊn ®Ò ng÷ dông häc - Kû yÕu Héi th¶o khoa häc 'Ng÷ dông häc' lÇn thø nhÊt (tr. 238-247). Hµ Néi, 4-1999. §HNN-§HQG. TrÇn Ngäc Thªm. (1997). C¬ së v¨n hãa ViÖt Nam. Nxb GD. TrÇn Quèc V­îng (Chñ biªn) (2004). C¬ së v¨n ho¸ ViÖt Nam. Nxb GD. Vò ThÞ Thanh H­¬ng. (2000). “Gi¸n tiÕp vµ lÞch sù trong lêi cÇu khiÕn tiÕng ViÖt”. Trong L­¬ng V¨n Hy (Chñ biªn) Ng«n tõ, giíi vµ nhãm x· héi tõ thùc tiÔn tiÕng ViÖt (tr. 179-211). Nxb KHXH, Hµ Néi. Vò ThÞ Thanh H­¬ng. (2000). “LÞch sù vµ ph­¬ng thøc biÓu hiÖn tÝnh lÞch sù trong lêi cÇu khiÕn tiÕng ViÖt”. Trong L­¬ng V¨n Hy (Chñ biªn) Ng«n tõ, giíi vµ nhãm x· héi tõ thùc tiÔn tiÕng ViÖt (tr. 135-178). Nxb KHXH, Hµ Néi.

Các file đính kèm theo tài liệu này:

  • docPh.D. Thesis.doc
Tài liệu liên quan