Different cultural values

A Contrastive Analysis

As we all know, different cultural values are reflected in speech Acts of the Apostless. As a normally and widely used address act both in Vietnam and English-speaking states, the address act of congratulating is non an exclusion. In add-on, matter-of-fact transportation does be in regards by Vietnamese scholars of English. Above all, the fundemental purpose of linguistic communication teachinging is to assist scholars better their communicative competency in the mark linguistic communication, research workers pay much attending on the incompatible analysis between pupils ‘ native linguistic communication and the mark linguistic communication. With this thought in head, in this paper, I focus on English and Vietnamese regards, and pull out some differences in footings of common subjects for complimenting, syntactic and semantic expressions used to give regards, and compliment response schemes between the two mentioned linguistic communications.

Harmonizing to Wolfson and Manes, a compliment is defined as “ a favorable opinion, or sentiment, stating something nice to another person ” ( 1980, p.339 ) . Besides, in Holmes ‘ position, “ a compliment is a address act which explicitly or implicitly attributes recognition to person other than the talker, normally the individual addressed, about their ‘goods ‘ ( ownerships, features, accomplishments, etc. ) ” ( Holmes,1986, p.485 ) . It seems that the major map of regards is to set up and keep societal “ resonance ” ( Manes and Wolfson, 1981, p.124 ) and smoothness between participants. In analyzing their American informations, Manes and Wolfson point out that the major map of regards is “ the support and / or creative activity of solidarity between the complimenters and complimentee ” ( 1981, p.124 ) . Meanwhile, Holmes ( 1986 ) holds the similar position that compliments map as “ societal lubricates ” which “ addition or consolidate the solidarity ” between middlemans ( p.486 ) . However, the address act of congratulating can be really complicated and confusing, non merely cross-culturally, but even within the same community. Therefore, how to pay appropriate regards, place them and give appropriate responses is an of import facet of communicative competency everyone in a given society demands to develop in order to avoid pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic failure ( Holmes & A ; Brown, 1987, p. 524 ) .

Previous surveies pay an equal attending to regards and compliment responses as they both take an contiguity brace format and have a close relationship with each other. Consequently, when analyzing regards, many research workers focussed on syntactic forms and lexical distribution. However, they shift their attending to semantic and functional features when analyzing compliment responses.

It has been clear that regards and compliment responses reflect cultural values and norms of behaviour ( Manes, 1983, p. 115 ) . As the consequence, how to give and to react to regards is rather different in Vietnamese and English owing to the cultural spread between the two civilizations. The impression that is profoundly rooted in the English-speaking civilization is individuality ( Samover & A ; Porter, 2000, p. 67 ) . Here are some of the features of individuality: people ‘s personal ends take precedence over their commitment to groups. That is ground why the trueness of persons to a given group is non strong and people feel they belong to many different groups and are ready to alter their rank every bit long as it suits them, go forthing one employer for another, for case. It emphasizes a individual ‘s desire to be free in one ‘s behaviours. Under this cultural premise, all people should be entitled with the rights to their ain sentiments, privateness, feelings, wants, etc. On the contrary, Vietnam has a long history of feudal system. The theory of Confucianism has influenced and dominated Vietnamese sociopolitical life for 1000s of old ages. The Confucian tradition encourages and maintains the harmoniousness among the society, which consequences in a conflict-free and group-oriented civilization. In other words, Vietnamese civilization is, in general, corporate one. “ Collectivism means greater accent on the positions, demands, and ends of the in-group instead than oneself, on societal norms and responsibility defined by the in-group instead than beliefs that distinguish ego from in-group and on great preparedness to collaborate with in-group members ” ( Samover & A ; Porter, 2000, p. 67 ) . Another difference lies in self-image. To a native talkers of English, self-denigration or modestness, which is close to self-humiliation ( Brown & A ; Levinson, 1987, p. 68 ) , ever does damage to his/her ain face. Therefore, when having a compliment, they seldom low themselves. In Vietnamese civilization, on the other manus, modestness is one of the most of import constituents of niceness. Therefore, modestness is extremely valued and profoundly rooted in the Vietnamese people ‘s outlook. This does non intend that the Vietnamese do non care about the grasp of the complimenter ; instead, the societal norm is that the complimenter does non anticipate an understanding in such state of affairs. Nor does it intend that the Vietnamese do non believe positively of themselves. All they need to make is to look low in order to keep and heighten their face and image. The Vietnamese talker, accordingly, chooses to take down themself when reacting to regards, believing that making so will by no agencies damage their self-pride. If a Vietnamese talker is promoting himself, he will be thought chesty or self-praise. Hence, as a mean to increase a positive consequence on interpersonal dealingss, both the regards and compliment responses need to be handled suitably.

When it comes to the address act of complimenting, compliment subjects are one of the major elements to analyze. To be seen as a compliment, an vocalization must mention to something valued by the talkers and attributed to the addressee. One may believe that there would be an infinite scope of possible subject for regards. Nevertheless, old surveies of congratulating in different linguistic communications draw out that most of regards fall into “ merely a few general subjects ” ( Ye, 1995, p. 212 ) and acceptable subjects of regards surely vary cross-culturally. ” ( Holmes, 1986, p. 497 ) . In Manes and Wolfson ‘s ( 1981 ) and Wolfson and Manes ‘ ( 1980 ) surveies affecting over 12 hundred illustrations collected in a great assortment of mundane address state of affairss, for illustration, most of the regards focus either on visual aspect and/or ownerships or abilities and/or achievements. “ Appearance ” , in this sense, refers to one ‘s expressions, including vesture, haircuts, decorations, and so on. “ Possessions ” refers to material ownerships such as furniture, cars. “ Ability ” refers to the “ quality of something produced through the addressee ‘s accomplishment or attempt: a well-done occupation, a skilfully played game, a good repast ( Manes, 1983, p. 101 ) ” . “ Accomplishments ” refers to one ‘s acquired accomplishment.

In add-on, systematic surveies conclude that regards are “ unusually formulaic address Acts of the Apostless ” ( Holmes & A ; Brown, 1987, p. 529 ) . As Manes and Wolfson ( 1981, p. 123 ) pointed out, “ the address act of complimenting is characterised by the formulaic nature of its syntactic and semantic composing ” . This formulaic nature can be traced by the limited scope of lexical points, which are the positive semantic bearers of regards, and some often used syntactic forms and constructions which convey the regards.

It is true that cognizing what and how to pay regards is necessary in pragmatics surveies. However, get the hanging how to react to regards suitably in a peculiar state of affairs is even more complicated and needs more elaborate researchs. As to Pomerantz ( 1978 ) finds out, reacting to regards is restricted by two contradictory conditions: “ Agring with the complimenter to be polite and disagrreing with the complimenter to avoid boast ” ( p. 81-2 ) . To her, these two conditions have to be met at the same clip, therefore making troubles to the complimentee because seeking to run into either of the conditions will necessarily conflict with the other. Harmonizing to Herbert ( 1986 ) , there are 12 response schemes: ( 1 ) grasp token ; ( 2 ) congratulations up-grade ; ( 3 ) remark credence ; ( 4 ) remark history ; ( 5 ) reassignment ; ( 6 ) return ; ( 7 ) inquiring ; ( 8 ) non-acknowledgement ; ( 9 ) making ; ( 10 ) dissension ; ( 11 ) graduated table down ; ( 12 ) petition for reading ( p. 33 ) .

Initially, it is widely accepted that native talkers of English spring and have more regards than the Vietnamese. The latter tend to be thrifty on giving regards to other people, even their friends. May be chiefly because Vietnamese people appreciate modestness. Additionally, they sometimes are diffident and they feel if they give a compliment, they are blandishing.

Sing compliment subjects, the most often happening subjects in American English were regards on personal visual aspect such as vestures and hair-dos, and ability or achievement which involve great attempts.

Vietnamese talkers, likewise, tend to congratulate their addressees on their visual aspect or ability instead than on their personalities and their properties. In peculiar, the huge bulk of regards focus on personal visual aspect ( e.g. , hair, tegument, vesture and figure ) . Particularly, Vietnamese people like to congratulate one another on any alteration in their visual aspect, such as a dilutant visual aspect, loss of weight or a new hairdo. This provides more support to Wolfson ‘s ( 1989, p.114 ) statement that when the quality of newness is extremely valued in a society, so a compliment is appropriate whenever an familiarity is seen with something new. A compliment indicates that the addresser has noticed a alteration, thereby turn outing that he/she considers the addressee worthy of attending. As a consequence, the compliment receiving system might be pleased by the compliment on his/her visual aspect.

Subjects for regards reflect culture-specificity and besides grade of relationship. In English-speaking civilization, most of the regards are extremely motivated from niceness. Yet in Vietnamese civilization, they express something emotional. In general, native talkers of English give more regards than those of Vietnamese. This is because giving regards excessively on a regular basis can be seen as an act of blandishing. Apart from some safe subjects for both males and females, some others are sensitive, or even tabus. Age, particularly, is non expected as a subject for regards in English-speaking civilization whereas it is high appreciated by the aged in Vietnamese civilization. The compliment receiving systems are really pleased although you are speaking about their age. In fact, the the older people is extremely regarded in Vietnamese society. Obviously, the difference between the two civilizations affects the congratulating behavior.

Besides, there are two differences between the Vietnamese and English linguistic communication in footings of the compliment subject of ability. First, English regards concentrate more on the accomplishments by a listener as a consequence of great attempt or difficult work, and less on the endowment or ability of the listener. I take the vocalizations: “ You ‘ve done a great occupation! ” and “ You made a great presentation! ” as typical illustrations. In contrast, Vietnamese talkers tend to congratulate an addressee ‘s quality or endowment. The vocalization: “ & A ; ETH ; & A ; uacute ; ng cubic decimeter & A ; agrave ; m? t ngu? I pH? n? vitamin D? m dang! ” is an illustration. The 2nd difference is that in English-speaking society, regards on one ‘s ability are normally made by the talker of higher societal position because they are serious judgements that have to be made merely by capable people. Normally, it would be inappropriate for an addresser with lower societal position to do such regards to an addressee with higher societal position. In the Vietnamese context, nevertheless, it is non uncommon at all for a junior functionary to give compliment on his or her superior. For illustration: “ Ki? N Thursday? c degree Celsius? a Gb & A ; aacute ; o su Thursday? T cubic decimeter & A ; agrave ; r? nanogram. Gi? Thursday & A ; igrave ; em d & amp ; atilde ; hi? u. ” Clearly, this vocalization would be really inappropriate in English context. In fact, it could be regarded as a flattery instead than a compliment.

As mentioned before, “ regards in American English are formulaic in nature ” ( Wolfson & A ; Manes, 1980, p. 115 ) . In the following portion of the essay, we examine the two types of compliment expressions, that is syntactic expressions and semantic expressions individually.

The most commonly happening syntactic forms in English linguistic communication are: noun phrase is/looks adjectival ( e.g. , Your jumper is truly nice! ) , I ( intensive ) like/love noun phrase ( e.g. , I truly like your auto! ) , pronoun is ( intensive ) ( a ) adjectival noun phrase ( e.g. , that ‘s truly a good inquiry! ) . Consequently, irrespective of idiom or sex, the form “ noun phrase is/look adjetive ” appeared to be the most widely used English compliment expression. In add-on to these three, merely six other forms are found to happen with any regularity. They are: you verb. ( a ) ( truly ) adjectival noun phrase ( e.g. You did a great occupation. ) , you verb noun phrase ( truly ) adverb ( e.g. You sang that vocal truly good. ) , you have ( a ) ( truly ) adjectival noun phrase ( e.g. You have a beautiful life room. ) , What ( a ) adjectival noun phrase! ( e.g. What a pretty skirt! ) , adjectival noun! ( e.g. Good shooting! ) , Is n’t noun give voice adjectival! ( e.g. Is n’t that pealing reasonably! )

Syntactic expressions employed to pay comliments in Vietnamese linguistic communication is rather restricted. The most familiar form is “ Ch & A ; uacute ; c m? ng noun phrase ” ( e.g. , Ch & A ; uacute ; c m? ng s? Thursday & A ; agrave ; nh c & amp ; ocirc ; ng c? a anh – Praises on your success. ) . Another forms used are: noun phrase verb adverb ( e.g. , Anh cubic decimeter & A ; agrave ; m r? t T? T! – You done really good! ) , noun phrase verb preposition phrase ( e.g. , Ch & A ; uacute ; x? ng vitamin D & A ; aacute ; ng v? I K? T qu? vitamin D & A ; oacute ; – You deserve that good consequence. ) , noun phrase intensive verb verb ( Anh th? T vitamin D & A ; aacute ; ng kh & amp ; acirc ; m ph? c – You are worthy to be admired. ) , Th? T cubic decimeter & A ; agrave ; noun adjectival ( e.g. , Th? T cubic decimeter & A ; agrave ; chi? c V & A ; aacute ; y d? P! )

One characteristic difference from regards in English is a pronounced rarity of first individual regards in Vietnamese linguistic communication. Vietnmamse seldom employ the talker ‘s perspective “ I ” when congratulating. Specifically, for Vietnamese people, the 2nd most normally used syntactic form in English linguistic communication “ I ( truly ) like/love NP ” is a instead unusual form for the address act of congratulating. There are several grounds for its low frequence of happening. First, “ Thursday & A ; iacute ; ch ” is semantically stronger than English “ like ” . While “ like ” can be applied to anything towards which the talker has a positive feeling or attitude, “ Thursday & A ; iacute ; ch ” is comparatively limited to something the talker evaluates as more than merely positive. As a affair of fact, “ Thursday & A ; iacute ; ch ” is frequently used to demo the talker ‘s penchant and willingness. Because of this intension, the expression “ T & A ; ocirc ; i th & amp ; iacute ; ch ” might be used for an indirect petition more frequently than a compliment. On hearing the vocalization “ T & A ; ocirc ; i th & amp ; iacute ; ch ” , the listener might construe the vocalization as a petition for what follows “ th & A ; iacute ; ch ” . This sort of look is conventionalized though it is non ever meant by the talker as a petition. As a consequence, Vietnamese people rarely use the form “ I love/like noun phrase ” particularly when congratulating person on his or her properties, which might be regarded as an indirect petition or an look of enviousness. It seems that Vietnamese do non desire their complimentee to construe a compliment as an invasion of personal privateness or as a petition for the object complimented.

In footings of semantic expressions, based on the survey of 686 English regards, Manes and Wolfson ( 1980 ) have found that “ the overpoweringly bulk of regards contain one of a extremely restricted set of adjectives and verbs ” ( p. 116 ) . Almost all the English regards contain either an adjective semantic bearer or a positive semantic verb. The most normally used adjectives are those with positive semantic burden, such as “ nice ” , “ good ” , “ beautiful ” , “ pretty ” and “ great. Akin to English “ nice ” and “ good ” , most of the adjectives lack specificity and are useable with about any compliment topic. Besides, there is a little figure of semantically positive verbs appeared in regards. Such verbs are “ like ” , love ” , “ admire ” , “ enjoy ” and “ be impressed by ” . All in all, the most often used are “ like ” and “ love ” . These two verbs can be applied to virtually any subject because of their comparatively weak semantic burden.

It is interesting to observe that, on the semantic degree, although it is non so restricted for a Vietnamese compliment to incorporate one of a few adjectives or verbs as it is in English, a Vietnamese compliment may, to some extent likewise, be realised through the usage of some semantically positive adjectives or adverbs such as “ Gb? I ” , “ hay ” , “ T? T ” , “ vitamin D? P ” , “ tuy? T V? I ” , “ di? u ngh? “ , “ di & A ; ecirc ; u luy? n ” . Due to the complexnesss of the Vietnamese linguistic communication, adjectives can besides be used as verbs or adverbs in a different place in a sentence. Look at these illustrations:

• Anh Ta R? T Gb? I! ( He is good. )
• Anh Ta Gb? I Ti? ng Anh. ( He is good at English. )
• Anh Ta N & A ; oacute ; i Ti? ng Anh R? T Gb? I. ( He speaks English really good )

In these illustrations, “ Gb? I ” can be classified as an adjective, a verb or a adverb. Whereas there is merely one intensifier “ truly ” used in English regards, intensives used in Vietnamese are rather legion: ” R? T ” ( really ) , “ Thursday? T ” ( really ) , “ qu & A ; aacute ; ” ( really ) , “ cubic decimeter? m ” ( really ) , “ kh & A ; aacute ; ” ( rather ) .

Another difference between Vietnamese and English compliment fomulas is that a big proportion of the regards are worded in the signifier of inquiries, bespeaking information about the object/action or the agent of the compliment focal point. By making so, the complimenter shows his designation of the common involvement or gustatory sensation with the complimentee, hence making common land for both of them and shortening the distance between them. These regards are more inexplicit if standing entirely, without any other remarks made. More often, the petitions for farther information will either precede or follow a more expressed compliment, as shown below:

• D? Y T & A ; ocirc ; one choi du? degree Celsius kh & A ; ocirc ; ng? Kh & A ; ocirc ; ng ng? anh choi B & A ; oacute ; ng G.I. ? i V? Y. ( Can ( you ) learn me? I did n’t cognize you play football so good. )
• B? n mua degree Celsius & A ; aacute ; i G.I. ? n & A ; agrave ; y? vitamin D & A ; acirc ; u V? Y? Tr & A ; ocirc ; ng r? t vitamin D? P! ( Where did you purchase this pocketbook? ( It looks ) so nice ) .

The last portion of the essay discuss the compliment responses. Harmonizing to Herbert ( 1989 ) , the compliment response scheme is divided into five classs: credence with amendment ; credence ; non-acceptance ; no response and combination. Under these classs there are sub-categories as in the followers:

( 1 ) Credence:

• Appreciation item: vocalizations that recognize the position of a old vocalization as a compliment by demoing gratitude.

e.g. , Thanks / Thank you

• Agreement: vocalizations to hold with the complimenter.

e.g. , I like it, excessively

• Pleasure: vocalizations to demo the complimentee is pleased.

e.g. , I am really happy to hear that.

• Smile: acknowledging the compliment by smiling.

( 2 ) Credence with amendment:

• Tax return: vocalizations to scale down the congratulations of a compliment by offering congratulations to talker.

e.g. , You are non bad, either

• Downgrade: vocalizations to scale down the congratulations of a compliment of a old vocalization.

e.g. , Just so so

• Ascent: vocalizations to increase the complimentary force of a old vocalization.

e.g. , Do n’t you see who wrote that? [ Of class, my authorship is good! ]

• Confirmation: vocalization to corroborate and reassure the old vocalization.

e.g. , Is it true? Do you truly think it ‘s non bad?

• Transportation: vocalization, which switches the focal point of the regards.

e.g. , Have more since you like it.

• Comment history: vocalizations to impersonalize the complimentary force by giving impersonal or irrelevant inside informations.

e.g. , A friend gave it to me.

( 3 ) . Non-Acceptance

• Denial: vocalizations to deny the content of the compliment.

e.g. , No, No.

• Qualification: vocalizations to deny the quality complimented.

e.g. , It ‘s far from it.

• Parlance: vocalizations which are composed of idiomatic looks to demo the complimentee feels embarrassed or abashed.

e.g. , [ I am ] embarrassed.

• Diverge: vocalizations to deny the complimentary force by directing it to other Acts of the Apostless.

e.g. , No kidding/Do n’t do merriment of me.

• Avoidance: vocalizations that avoid reacting to the complimenting content.

e.g. , You are being excessively polite.

( 4 ) . No response: It besides means “ zero realisation ”

e.g. , F1: That ‘s a beautiful jumper.

F2: Did you complete the assignment for today?

( 5 ) Combination: The respondents may utilize two or more sub-categories mentioned above to react to regards. For illustration:

• Confirmation + Appreciation item.

e.g. , Is it true? Thank you.

• Appreciation token + scale down

e.g. , Thanks. Actually my accomplishment is merely so so.

Sing English compliment responses, Herbert ( 1989 ) noticed that 66 % of the American responded to regards with understanding, out of which 29 % are “ Acceptance Tokens ” , and merely 0.4 % responded with dissension. Similarly, Holmes ( 1986 ) finds that 61 % of the New Zealand compliment responses are besides “ credences ” .

Virtually all talkers of English, when questioned on this affair in general ( e.g. “ What does one say after being complimented? ” ) or peculiar ( e.g. “ What would you state if person admired your shirt? ” ) footings, agree that the right response is thank you ( Herbert, 1989, p. 35 ) .

In Vietnamese civilization, nevertheless, when person receives a compliment from others, he/she may experience a small abashed ; he/she is likely to reject the compliment with an look of self-praise turning away. From a closer observation of the signifiers of compliment responses uttered Vietnamese native talkers indicate that the modesty shown by the compliment responses may non truly intend that the compliment receiving systems dislike the regards. Furthermore, analyzing the talkers ‘ tone of voice, we conclude that most of the dissension responses do non really accuse the complimenter of making something incorrect, but instead merely contradict the proposition. One outstanding feature of the rejecting scheme is that most of the responses are combinations of a few rejecting expressions and other schemes. It seems that Vietnamese talkers rarely reject a compliment merely with a expression intending a level “ no ” . This is different from what people from outside the Vietnamese linguistic communication and civilization by and large believe that Vietnamese would merely state “ no ” to every compliment. In add-on, question-type responses are the 2nd most often used type. This is the type most often combined with other response stategies, as illustrated in the undermentioned illustration:

1. F1: H & A ; ocirc ; m nay tr & A ; ocirc ; ng b? n Thursday? T vitamin D? P vitamin D? Y! ( You look so beatiful today. )

F2: V? Y & A ; agrave ; ? Th? Y B? n degree Celsius & A ; ograve ; n d? p hon m & A ; igrave ; nh n? a. ( Truly? You look even more beatiful. ) ( Confirmation + Return )

2. F1: B? N m? c qi? degree Celsius & A ; aacute ; o r? t vitamin D? P! ( Your shirt is really nice. )

F2: Th? T kh & A ; ocirc ; ng? Th? Y cung du? degree Celsius du? degree Celsius Thursday & A ; ocirc ; i m & amp ; agrave ; . ( Truly? Just so so. ) ( Confirmation + Downgrade )

In the two illustrations above, the compliment receiving system reacts to a compliment with a inquiry in a impersonal mode, which may take to a verification uttered by the compliment giver. We find that compliment responses of this type exhibit some understanding and some dissension, similar to the class identified as the “ inbetween-ness ” by Pomerantz ( 1978 ) . The often used phrases: ” V? Y & A ; agrave ; ” , “ V? Y H? “ , “ Thursday? T kh & A ; ocirc ; ng ” ( truly ) might be interpreted as a petition for verification, which reveals that the talker has received the information and is beging farther information. These phrases may non be the same as the inquiry type for English, typically realized in “ Do you truly believe so? ” . Although their semantic significances seem to be similar, their matter-of-fact significances may non be. This compliment response type give the complimetee an chance to go to to their middleman ‘s positive face wants, i.e. , carry throughing the desire of a individual to be appreciated, liked and approved by others, instead than an invasion of his/her negative face demands. Such a round exchange of regards might lend to heightening a resonance between the complimenter and the complimentee.

Communication dislocation between English and Vietnamese talkers can easy happen due to the large difference in compliment response. In Vietnamese civilization, people frequently respond to regards negatively or reject the regards to demo modesty. ( Tran, 2007, p.170 ) . In English, a simple compliment response is “ thank you ” . In other word, English talkers tend to accept the regards while the Vietnamese talkers prefer to reject them. To many Vietnamese talkers, reacting to a compliment with ‘thank you ‘ implies either haughtiness or formality, and this should be avoided. Further, to a Vienamese complimenter, stating “ degree Celsius & A ; aacute ; m on ” ( thank you ) can disrupt farther conversation. When having a compliment, Vietnamese people tend to response with a combination of different schemes and stating “ degree Celsius & A ; aacute ; m on ” is non necessary. As to the same regards: “ Nh & A ; agrave ; anh Thursday? T vitamin D? P! ” – “ Your house is really beautiful! “ / ” Ti? ng Anh degree Celsius? a B? n Gb? I qu & amp ; aacute ; ! ” – “ Your English is really good! ” . English response will be: “ Thank you. ” While Vietnamese responses will be: “ & A ; ETH ; & A ; acirc ; u degree Celsius & A ; oacute ; . Nh & A ; agrave ; anh c & amp ; ograve ; n d? p hon! – No. Your house is even more beatiful. “ / ” Chua Gb? I d & amp ; acirc ; u, t & A ; ocirc ; i c & amp ; ograve ; n ph? i degree Celsius? g? ng nhi? u – Not really good, I have to rehearse more ” . The differences between the English talkers ‘ and the Vietnamese talkers ‘ compliment responding, evidently, reflect the differences of societal values between the two civilizations. In English-speaking society, the norm seems to be to have the compliment ‘gracefully ‘ , that is, to accept it to fulfill the conplimenter ‘s positive face. The norm of Vietnamese society, on the contrary, is to deny it in a delicate manner to be modest.

Furthermore, the combination of “ Disagreement ” and “ Compliment Downgrade ” was frequently found in the Vietnamese regards, but it was non recorded in the English linguistic communication ( Tran, 2008, p.4 ) . This combination is besides normally found as in the undermentioned illustrations.

• F1: & A ; Ecirc ; , c & amp ; oacute ; c & A ; aacute ; i & A ; aacute ; o so mi m? I pH? I kh & amp ; ocirc ; ng? Tr? I oi & amp ; aacute ; o n & amp ; agrave ; y d? P gh & A ; ecirc ; nghe. ( Hey, got a new shirt? Gosh it looks good ) .

F2: C & A ; oacute ; vitamin D & A ; acirc ; u anh oi. & A ; Aacute ; o n & amp ; agrave ; y cu m? degree Celsius Lu & A ; ocirc ; n? y m & A ; agrave ; . ( It ‘s non good. It ‘s merely an old shirt ” )

In this illustration, the “ Disagreement ” ( “ It ‘s non good ” ) co-occurred with a “ Compliment Downgrade ” ( “ It ‘s merely an old shirt ” ) which downplayed the object of the compliment.

• F1: Ch? degree Celsius ch? degree Celsius. C & A ; aacute ; i & A ; aacute ; o c? a B? n thi? T cubic decimeter & A ; agrave ; h? t s? y. ( Wow. Your frock is truly fancy )

F2: & A ; ETH ; & A ; acirc ; u degree Celsius & A ; oacute ; . Coi V? y ch? m & A ; igrave ; nh h & amp ; agrave ; ng d? m cubic decimeter? m. Gi & A ; aacute ; cung R? R? H & A ; agrave ; . ( It ‘s non. It looks like that but the stuff is really bad. The monetary value is besides really inexpensive ) .

The “ Disagreement ” ( “ It ‘s non ” ) in the illustration co-occurred with two “ Compliment Downgrades ” ( “ It looks like that but the stuff is really bad. The monetary value is besides really inexpensive ” ) .

• F1: Xenon anh vitamin D & A ; oacute ; h? ? Tr? I oi Xe vitamin D? P qu & A ; aacute ; h & A ; aacute ; . Xe ten? n gh & A ; ecirc ; vitamin D & A ; oacute ; nhe. ( Oh is it your minibike? Gosh it ‘s cool. It ‘s really good )

F2: Um cung ch? ng ten? n g & A ; igrave ; vitamin D & A ; acirc ; u. Cung B & A ; igrave ; nh thu? ng Thursday & A ; ocirc ; I. ( Uhm it ‘s non good. It ‘s merely normal ” .

The “ Disagreement ” ( “ It ‘s non good ” ) preceded the “ Compliment Downgrade ” ( “ It ‘s merely normal ” ) which qualified the congratulations force.

In brief, due to the differences between English and Vietnamese civilizations, the manner people compliment and respond to regards is non similar, which requires our attending when larning the mark linguistic communication.

When it comes to larning a 2nd linguistic communication, scholars have already possessed and normally bring with them the native talker ‘s cognition of their first linguistic communication ( s ) and civilization. The influence of the first linguistic communication and civilization on the 2nd linguistic communication usage is described in proficient footings as matter-of-fact and discourse transportation. Based on incompatible analysis between English and Vietnamese regards including compliment subjects, compliment expressions and compliment response schemes given above, I discuss some deductions of the survey for linguistic communication instruction and acquisition.

First, it is necessary for a instructor of English to raise pupils ‘ consciousness of cultural similarities and differences between regards and compliment response forms in Vietnamese civilization and English civilization. The conflicting forms may necessitate an account, as an inappropriate response to a compliment can do communicating dislocation or offense. Learners must be sufficiently cultural consciousness to be able to do informed picks, to hold a natural conversations with the native talkers of English.

Second, English instructors should supply input every bit much as possible to develop pupil ‘s sociopragmatic and pragmalinguistic competency. Together with the progress in engineering in linguistic communication instruction, it is easier for instructors to supply pupils with a assortment of compliment schemes and response schemes. Real state of affairss can be seen on the cyberspace, on telecasting, or through pictures. In order to help pupils in giving and having regards, instructors in charge of speech production classs compile or design those which sound suitably sociopragmatically and pragmalinguistically for usage in category. Students need more options as input for giving and having regards. These options may be a small spot different from the needed text editions used for speech production classs.

Finally, It is more of import, nevertheless, that pupils have many chances to rehearse, to role-play imaginatively in a assortment of contexts in which different societal factors are taken into history. In other words, instructors try their best to make communicative chances for pupils to pattern giving and having regards in English. Through role-play ( and simulations ) , furthermore, instructors can hold the opportunity to demo their pupils the rightness of vocalizations, and how talkers negotiate certain state of affairss ( accepting/ rejecting regards ) . Gradually these activities enable pupils to prosecute in successful exchanges of regards and compliment responses with native talkers of English.

Mentions

• Brown, P. & A ; Levinson, S. ( 1987 ) . Politeness: Some universals in linguistic communication usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Kasper, G. ( 1992 ) . Matter-of-fact transportation. Second linguistic communication research, 8 ( 3 ) , 203-231.
• Herbert, R. K. ( 1989 ) The Ethnography of English Compliments and Compliment Responses: A Contrastive Sketch. In W. Olesky ( Ed. ) . Contrastive pragmatics. Dutch capital: John Benjamins, 33-35.
• Holmes, J. ( 1986 ) . Regards and compliment responses in New Zealand English. Anthropological Linguistics,28, 485-508.
• Holmes, J. & A ; Brown, D. F. ( 1987 ) . Teachers and pupils larning about regards. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 523-546.
• Manes, J. ( 1983 ) . Regards: A Mirror of Cultural Value. In N. Wolfson & A ; E. Judd ( explosive detection systems ) , Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newsbury House, 96-102.
• Manes, J. & A ; Wolfson, N. , ( 1980 ) The Compliment Formula. In F.Coulmas ( ed. ) Conversational Routine. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 115-132.
• Manes, J. & A ; Wolfson, N. ( 1981 ) . The Compliment expression. In F. Coumas ( erectile dysfunction ) , Colloquial Routine: Explorations in Standardized Communication Situations and Prepatterned Speech. The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 115-132.
• Nguyen, D. T. ( 2005 ) . Giving and Receiving Regards: Viewed from Textbooks and Respondents. In Le, T. ( erectile dysfunction ) , Proceedings of the International Conference on Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory into Research. Australia: University of Tasmania Press, 562-573.
• Pomerantz, A. ( 1978 ) . Compliment responses: Notes on the co-operation of multiple restraints. In J. Schenkein ( Ed. ) , Studies in the organisation of colloquial interaction. New York: Academic Press, 79-112.
• Samover, L.A. & A ; Porter, R.E. ( 2000 ) . Intercultural communicating: A reader. USA: Wadsworth Publisher, 67-68.
• Tran, Q. G. ( 2007 ) . The Nature of Pragmatic and Discourse Transfer in Compliment Responses in Cross-Cultural Interaction. The Linguistics Journal, 3, 167-205.
• Tran, G. Q. ( 2008 ) . Matter-of-fact and discourse transportation of combination of compliment response schemes in 2nd linguistic communication acquisition and use. Asiatic EFL diary, 10, 1-16.
• Wolfson, N. ( 1981 ) . Regards in Cross-cultural Positions. TESOL Quarterly 15 ( 2 ) , 117-123.
• Wolfson, N. ( 1983 ) . An Empirically based analysis of congratulating in American English. In N. Wolfson and E. Judd ( Eds. ) , Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 82-95.
• Wolfson, N. ( 1989 ) . Positions: Sociolinguistcs and TESOL. Boston: Heinle & A ; Heinle Publishers.
• Wolfson, N. , & A ; Manes, J. ( 1980 ) . The compliment as a societal scheme. Documents in Linguisticss: International Journal of Human Communication, 13 ( 3 ) , 410-451.
• Ye, L. ( 1995 ) . Complimenting in Mandarin Chinese. In G. Kasper ( Ed. ) , Pragmatics of Chinese as a Native and Target Language. Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press, 207-295.