i

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT

I hereby certify that the thesis entitled

A VIETNAMESE-ENGLISH CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF
PROMISING

Is my study in the fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of

Arts at College of Foreign Languages, Vietnam National University- Hanoi.

Ha noi, 2008

Dinh Thi Be
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervior, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen
Quang, for his useful guidance, insightful comments, and encouragement without which my
thesis would not have been completed
My special thanks go to all my lecturers in Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Post
Graduate studies Department for their precious assistance, scholarly knowledge and
enthusiasm.
I am grateful to Miss Collen and Mr John, English teachers at Aseam centrer, Nghe An
colleage for their assistances in my data collection.
Especially, I am indebted to my friend, Bui Thanh Mai, for her great support
Last but not least, I would like to express my indebtedness to my family, especially my
husband, my grand parents who have given me constant support and love during the
completion of the thesis.

Dinh Thi Be
 ABBREVIATIONS

CUP: Cambridge University Press

D: Social Distance
E: English
FTA: Face Threatening Act
FSA: Face Saving Act
H: The Hearer
M: The married
NP: Negative Politeness
NPO: Negative Politeness Oriented
PP: Positive Politeness
PPO: Positive Politeness Oriented
P: Relative Power
R: Ranking of Imposition
S: The Single
S: The Speaker
V: Vietnamese
 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1: The five general functions of speech acts. ( Yule: 1996)……………………... 7

Table 2: The informants’ status parameters ……………………………………………. 25
Table 3: Strategies realized in promising ……………………………………………… 26
Table 4: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of age ……………………… 42
Table 5: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of gender …………………... 43
Table 6: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of marital status …………… 44
Table 7: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of living area ………………. 45
Figure 1: Possible strategies for doing the FTAs ( Brown and Levinson, 1987)………... 15
Figure 2: Politeness strategies in promising to close friend …………………………… 32
Figure 3: Politeness strategies in promising to brother/ sister………………………….. 33
Figure 4: Politeness strategies in promising to colleague ( same age, same sex)……….. 34
Figure 5: Politeness strategies in promising to colleague( same age, opposite sex)……. 34
Figure 6: Politeness strategies in promising to accquaintance …………………………. 35
Figure 7: Politeness strategies in promising to boss (5 years younger)………………… 36
Figure 8: Politenes strategies in promising to boss (5 years older)……………………. 37
Figure 9: Politeness strategies in promising to subordinate…………………………….. 38
 ABSTRACT

This thesis focuses on cross-cultural similarities and differences in promising in

Vietnamese and English. Politeness strategies realized for promising are analysed with data
taken from two questionnaires for the Vietnamese and the English informants.
The thesis falls into two major chapters:
Chapter I : “Theoretical preliminaries” deals with the notion of culture, cross-culture, speech
acts, classifications of speech acts, politeness, politeness principles and politeness strategies.
Chapter II : “Data analysis and findings”: Questionnaires are used to collect data for the
study. Making promises which resorts to various strategies of politeness is a flexibly and
effectively communicative act in both Vietnamese and English cultures.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
* Certificate of originality of study project report..............................................................i
* Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................ii
* Abbreviations.....................................................................................................................iii
* List of tables and figures …………………………………………………………… iv
* Abstract..............................................................................................................................v
* Table of contents................................................................................................................vi

PART A: INTRODUCTION....................................................................1
I. Rationale …………………………………………………… 1
II. Aims of the study …………………………………………… 1
III. Scope of the study.....................................................................1
IV. Methodology...................................................................................2
V. Design of the study ………………………………………… 2
PART B: DEVELOPMENT......................................................................3
CHAPTER I: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES............................3
I.1. Culture............................................................................................3
I.1.1 What culture....................................................................................3
I.1.2 What cross-culture?........................................................................4
I.1.3. Culture-shock..................................................................................4
I.1.4 Relation of language and culture....................................................5
I.2. Speech acts......................................................................................5
I.2.1. What a speech act?..........................................................................5
I.2.2.
Classifications of speech acts..........................................................7
I.2.3
Promising as a speech act …………………………………… 8
I.3 Politeness........................................................................................10
I.3.1. What politeness ?...........................................................................10
I.3.2. Politeness principles........................................................................11
I.3.3. Social factors affecting politeness strategies..................................15
 I.3.4. Politeness strategies …………………………………………… 16
I.3.4.1. Positive politeness strategies ………………………………….. 16
I.3.4.2. Negative politeness strategies ………………………………… 20

CHAPTER II: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS………………….. 24

II.1. Comments on the survey questionnaires …………………… 24
II.2. Comments on the informants ………………………………… 24
II.3. Strategies realized in promising …………………………… 25
II.4. Promising as seen from communicating partners’ 32
parameters…………………………………………………
II.4.1. Data analysis ………………………………………………… 32
II.4.2. Cross-cultural similarities and differences ………………….. 39
II.4.2.1. Similarities ………………………………………………….... 39
II.4.2.2. Differences ………………………………………………….... 40
II.5. Promising as seen from informants’ parameters ………… 42
II.5.1. Data analysis …………………………………………………. 42
II.5.2. Cross-cultural similarities and differences …………………… 45
II.5.2.1. Similarities …………………………………………………… 45
II.5.2.2. Differences …………………………………………………... 46
PART C: CONCLUSION..........................................................................47
1. Summary of major findings …………………………………. 47
2. Suggestions for further research................................................47
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
 1

PART A: INTRODUCTION
I. RATIONALE Language plays an important role in our life. Language is
not only for communication but also for cultural exchange
among nations. It is difficult to imagine what our lives would be
like without language. Language is a sign that makes human
different from all other species in the animal Kingdom. People
use it to communicate their ideas and thoughts to express their
feelings, (anger, love, hate, or friendship) and to convey their
hopes and dreams.
Cross-cultural communication is interesting and attractive
field for us to find out the similar and different language when
studying speech acts such as: greeting, advising, promising,
among countries in the world.
There are many ways to make promises in Vietnamese
and English. But to “promise” in an effective way is by no means
easy. People often have difficulties in making appropriate
promises in another language. It is exactly the case to many
students of English in Vietnam, especially students from the
thesis author’s training institution.
This leads the author to the decision to conduct a research
into “Vietnamese-English cross-cultural study of Promising” to
find out the similarities and differences in making promises in
Vietnamese and English.
II. AIMS OF THE STUDY
The aims of the study are:
- To investigate ways of promising in Vietnamese and English
- To compare and contrast the use of politeness
strategies in the two languages and cultures to point out
similarities and differences in the ways the Vietnamese and the
English promise in given situations.
- To contribute to raising language teachers’ and
students’ awareness of cross-cultural differences in the speech
 2

act of and extralinguistic ones are important, they are beyond the scope
promisi of the thesis.
ng.
III. SCOPE OF
THE
STUDY
T
he study
is
limited
within
the
verbal
aspects
of the
act of
promisi
ng, in
the light
of the
politene
ss
theory
by
Brown
and
Levinso
n.
Althoug
h others
factors
such as
paraling
uistic
 IV. METHODOLOGY
The following methods are resorted to:
- Conducting survey (with questionnaires as a data collection instrument)
- Consulting the supervisor
- Reading relevant publications
- Conducting personal observations
V. DESIGN OF THE STUDY
The thesis consists of three parts
Part A: INTRODUCTION
This part includes the rationale, aims, scope of the study, methodology and design of
the study.
Part B: DEVELOPMENT
This part is divided into two chapters
Chapter I: THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES
In this chapter, theories of culture, cross-culture, culture-shock, language-culture
interrelationship, speech acts, classifications of speech acts, politeness, politeness principles
and politeness strategies are critically discussed.
Chapter II: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In this chapter, data analysis and findings of the study are presented with the illustration
of tables and charts. The similarities and differences in promising between Vietnamese and
English languages and cultures are drawn from detailed and critical analysis of data.
Part C: CONCLUSION
Summary of the major findings and suggestions for further research are presented in
this part.
 PART B. DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES
I.1. CULTURE
I.1.1. What is culture?
Culture is often thought of as shared behavior and beliefs, but in any society, even the
simplest one, all individuals never think and act exactly the same. Different authors have
different definitions of culture.
According to Block (1970:1), “Culture, in its broadest sense, is what makes you a stranger
when you are away from home. It includes all beliefs and expectations about how people should speak
and act which have become a kind of second nature to you as a result of social learning. When you are
with members of a group who share your culture, we or you do not have to think about it, for you are
all viewing the world in pretty much the same way and you all know, in general terms, what to expect
of one another”.
Hoopes (1979:3) defines that: “Culture is the sum of ways of living, including valuablness,
beliefs, esthetic standards, linguistic expression, patterns of thinking, behave norms, and styles of
communication which a group of people develop to assume its survival in a particular physical and
human environment. Culture and the people who are part of it interact. So culture is not static. Culture
is the response of a group of human beings to valid and particular needs of its members. It, therefore,
has an inherent logic and an essential balance between positive and negative dimensions”.
Levine and Alelman (1993) consider culture as “ a shared background (for example
national, ethnic, religious) resulting from a common language and communication style, customs,
beliefs, art, music and all the other products of human thought made by a particular group of people at
a particular time. It also refers to the informal and often hidden patterns of human interactions,
expressions and view points that people in one culture share”.
Culture is always the result of human intervention in the biological processes of nature.
It is the product of socially and historically situated discourse communities, created and
shaped by language. So culture is always changing because culture consists of learned patterns
of behavior and belief, cultural traints can be unlearned and learned a new as human need
change. Obviously, language cannot occur alone and is never separated from social activities
and its culture.
I.1.2. What is cross-culture?
Cross-culture can be understood as “the meeting of two cultures or languages across
the political boundaries of nation-states” (Kram, 1998: 81).
The term “cross-culture” or “interculture” usually refers to the meeting of two
cultures”. They are predicated on the equivalence of one nation-one culture-one language and
on the expectation that a “culture-shock” may take place upon crossing national boundaries.
cross-culture seeks ways to understand the other on the other side of the border.
According to Richards (1985: 92), “cross-cultural communication is an exchange of ideas,
information, etc…between persons from different backgrounds. There are more problems in cross-
cultural communication than in communication between people of the same cultural background. Each
participant may interpret the other’s speech according to his or her own cultural conventions and
expectations. If the cultural conventions and misunderstandings can easily arise, even resulting in a
total break down of communication. This has been shown by research into real life situations, such as
job interviews, doctor-patient encounters and legal communication”. Thus, cross-cultural
communication is the exchange and negotiation of information ideas, feelings and attitudes
between individuals who come from different cultural backgrounds.
I.1.3. Culture-shock
According to Wikipedia, culture-shock is a term used to describe the anxiety and
feelings (of surprise, disorientation, confuse, etc.) felt when people have to operate within an
entirely different cultural or social environment, such as a foreign country. It grows out of the
difficulties in assimilating the new culture, causing difficulty in knowing what is appropriated
and what is not. This is often combined with strong disgust about certain aspects of the near or
different culture. Harries and Moran (14: 226) state “culture shock is neither good or bad, and
necessary or unnecessary”. It is a reality that many people face when in strange and
unexpected situations.
Foster (1962: 87) assumes that “culture-shock is mental illness, and is true of much mental
illness, the victim usually does not know he is affected. He finds that he is irritable, depressed, and
probably annoyed by the lack of attention shown him”.
Valies states that “culture-shock is a common experience for a person learning a second
language in a second culture. Culture-shock refers to phenomena recognizing from mild irritability to
deep psychological panic and crisis. Culture-shock is associated with felling in the learners of
estrangement, anger, hostility, homesickness and even physical illness”.
I.1.4. Language-culture interrelationship
In the “Oxford advanced learner’s Dictionary” (Encyclopedic edition, 1992: 506),
language is defined as “system of sounds, words, patterns etc. used by human to communicate
thoughts and feelings”. Thus, it is clear that whether we talk about food, colors, love, science,
religion, all the meanings are conveyed in not only one language but different languages of the
world.
Language is the principal means whereby we conduct our social lives. It is used in
contexts of communication, it is bound up with culture in multiple and complex ways. Thus,
language is a system of signs that is seen as having itself a cultural value.
According to Sapir (1970: 207), “Language does not exist apart from culture, that is, from
the socially inherited assemblage of practices and beliefs that determines the texture of our lives. He
defines culture as “what society does and thinks” and language is “a particular how of thought”.
In all in, culture influences the way language is used. And in its turn, language plays an
essential role in expressing cultural values and perceptions, as well as preserving and breeding
culture from generation to generation. Language and culture are, thus, interrelated and
inclusive of one another
I.2. SPEECH ACTS
I.2.1. What is a speech act?
Speech act is a term taken from the word of philosophers of language, John Searle and
John Austin in particular who assumes that in saying something, a speaker also does
something.
Making a statement may be the paradigmatic use of language, but there are sort of
other things we can do with words. We can make requests, ask questions, give orders, make
promises, give thanks, offer, apology and so on. Morever, almost any speech act is really the
perform of several acts at once, distinguished by different aspects of the speakers’ intention:
there is the act of saying something, what one does in saying it, such as exclaiming,
requesting, promising and how one is trying to affect one’s audience.
 Factually, speech act theory was first formulated by the phylosopher John Austin
(1962). According to him, all utterances should be viewed as actions of the speakers, stating or
describing is only one function of language. He points out that the declarative sentences are
not only used to say things or describe states of affairs but also used to do things.
John Austin (1962) defines speech acts as the actions performed in saying something.
When people produce utterances, they often perform actions via those utterances. These
actions are called speech acts: such as apology, complaint, compliment, invitation, promise, or
request. A speech act is part of a speech event. The speech act performed by producing an
utterance, consists of three related acts, namely locutionary act, illocutionary act and
perlocutionary act.
• Locutionary act is the basic act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression.The
locutionary act is performed with some purposes or functions in mind.
• Illocutionary act: is an act performed via the communicative force of an utterance. In
engaging in locutionary acts we generally also perform illocutionary acts such as informing,
advising, offer, promise, etc. In uttering a sentence by virtue of conversational force associated
with it.
• Perlocutionary act is what we bring about or achieve by saying something, such as
convincing, persuading, deterring perlocutionary acts are performed only on the assumption
that the hearer will recognize the effect you intended.
Speech act is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary force
of an utterance. The illocutionary act can account as a prediction a promise or a warning.
The two other famous linguistic researchers are Schmidt and Richards who reaffirm
that: Speech act theory has to do with the functions of languages, so in the broader sense we
might say that speech acts are all the acts we perform through speaking, all things we do when
we speak. The theory of speech acts is partly taxonomic and partly explanatory. It must
systematically classify types of speech acts and the ways in which they can succeed or fail. It
must reckon with the fact that the relationship between the words being used and the force of
their utterance is often oblique.
 Generally speaking, speech acts are acts of communication. To communicate is to
express a certain attitude, and the type of speech act being performed corresponds to type of
attitude being expressed. For example, a statement expresses a belief, an exclamation
expresses a feeling, a request expresses a desire, and an apology expresses a regret. As an act
of communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience identifies in accordance with the
speaker’s intention, the attitude being expressed.
I.2.2. Classification of speech acts
Searle (1976) classifies speech acts into 5 types
• Declaration: these are words and expressions that change the world by the utterance, such as
I bet, I declare, I resign…I hereby pronounce you husband and wife
• Representatives: These are acts in which the words state what the speaker believes to be
the case such as describing, claiming, hypothesis, insisting and predicting.
It was a warm sunny day
• Commissives: This includes acts in which the worlds commit the speaker to future action,
such as “promising, offering, threatening, refusing, vowing and volunteering.
I promise you that I will clean up the kitchen.
• Directives: are speech acts that speakers use to get someone else to do something.They are
commands, orders, requests and suggestions: Oh ! It is five, you had better leave now.
• Expressive are speech acts that state what the speaker feels. They may be statements of
pleasure, pain, likes, dislikes, joy, or sorrow: The meal was delicious!
Similarly, Yule, G. (1996: 55) presents the five general types of speech act which are
shown in the table below:
Speech act types Direction of fit S= Speaker X= Situation
Declarations Words change the world S causes X
Representatives Make words fit the word S believes X
Expressives Make words fit the word S feels X
Directives Make the world fit the word S wants X
Commissives Make the world fit words S intends X
Table 1: The five general functions of speech acts ( Yule, 1996)
Speech acts may be either direct or indirect speech acts depending on the direct and
indirect relationships between their structures and functions.
 Discussing the aspect of direct and indirect speech act, Searle [40] agrees that the
simplest cases of meaning are these in which the speaker utters a sentence and means exactly
and litterally what he says and defines indirect speech acts as cases where an illocutionary act
is perform directly by way of performing another.
More simply, Yule [54] writes: “Wherever there is a direct relationship between a
structure and a function, we have direct speech act. Whenever there is an indirect relationship
between a structure and a function, we have an indirect speech act”.
Different structure can be used to accomplish the same basic function.
Let us take a look at the following sentences:
a. How thoughtful her grandmother is! c. I don’t refuse to solve that problem for you!
b. How many things he knows! d. What a silly boy he is! Such a big fool!
The basic function of all utterances is exclaiming but only structure in (a) represents a
direct speech act, the negative structure in (b) and (d) are indirect speech act and the
affirmative structure in (c) are also indirect pieces of promising.
I.2.3. Promising as a speech act
When one promises to do something one says, essentially, one is going to do it. As
Searle (1969: 57) puts it, in promising the speaker “ predicates a future act A of S”.
Boguslawaski (1983) has disputed this claim, pointing out that one can also promise that
someone else will do something. In Boguslawski (1983: 612) stresses that words such as want,
wish and similar expressions are inadequate since a formula containing such expressions
would predict that a promise can normally be made by using phrases like I want. This,
however, is by no means, a promise. “ I wish to come your place tomorrow”, “ I intend to
come your place tomorrow”
In Searl’s analysis promise implies that the addressee wants the act to take place. In fact the
speaker seems to assume not only that the addressee wants the act to take place but to assume
that the addressee wants it. On the other hand, from the addressee’s point of view the promised
act must indeed be uncertain, as well as desirable.
According to Vescuneren (1983: 630), promise is the “obligation” which the act imposes on
the speaker. The speaker feels that having promised to do something he will now have to do it
(simply because he promised). In other words, by promising something, the speaker offers his
personal credibility in general as a kind of guarantee that he will really perform the action in question.
As regards the illocutionary point of promising, Searle (1979: 2) suggests “the point or
purpose of promise is that it is an undertaking of an obligation by the speaker to do something.
The obligation undertaken in a promise is not an aim in itself. Rather, it is a means of
strengthening”. The assurance given to the addressee, there are many ways to express promise
in English. The words like pledge, vow, assure, swear, certain…we use them in different ways
and situations,
One can say: He promised her that he would do it
As one can say: He assured her that he would do it.
Speech acts can be either explicit or implicit. An explicit promise is one in which the speaker
actually says I promise…For example: I promise that I will return the money tomorrow.
That is, the utterance contain’s an expression, usually a verb, which make the intended act
explicit by naming it. But we do not have to say I promise in order to make a genuine promise.
We can merely say I will return the money tomorrow. When the speech act is not named by a
specific verb in the sentence, we are performing the speech act implicit.
What matters in performing a speech act is not whether it is explicitly named but
whether the act meets certain contextual or background conditions, called felicity or
unappropriated conditions. For examples imagine a situation in which you promise your
teacher to finish an assignment by the beginning of the next class period. For this to count as a
genuine promise, you must say something to the effect that you will finish the assignment by
the next class period, the teacher must want you to complete the assignment by that time, you
must be carried out this task, you must sincerely intend to finish the assignment by that time,
and you must intend your teacher to interpret your remarks as your commitment to finish the
assignment by the next class time.
Promises are distinct from threats, a promised act is one desired by the addressee,
whereas a threatened act is one which the addressee would prefer not to happen.
There are 4 types of felicity conditions.
 + The propositional content condition expresses the content of the act. Thus, I will
return the book tomorrow denotes the promised act.
+ The preparatory conditions expresses the contextual background required for a
particular act. For example, I will constitutes a marriage vow only in the context of a real
wedding, a promise requires that the proPmiser be able to perform what s/he promises, a
speaker making an assertion must have evidence to support the assertion.
+ The sincerity condition requires that the speaker be sincere. For example, a
promiser must willingly intend to keep the promise, a speaker who makes an assertion must
believe what she asserts.
+ The essential condition is that the speaker intends the utterance to have a certain
force. For example, someone uttering I promise to return tomorrow, must intend the utterance
to be a commitment to return tomorrow, an assertor must intend the utterance to represent a
true representation of state of affairs.
No doubt, these conditions all seem perfectly ordinary. However, articulating them
makes explicit what we usually take for granted and which we pay attention to only when
things go wrong they are also very useful in helping us to characterize the differences between
speech acts. Promisees are distinct.
I.3. POLITENESS
I.3.1. What is politeness?
Politeness is something that is very abstract, but it plays an important role in
interaction and has a great effect on the use of speech acts in human communication.
Politeness has been suggested that the principle of politeness governs all of the
communication behave.
It is generally believed that, in everyday social interactions, people act in such a way as
to show respect for the face wants or needs of their conversational partners. It is a story,
simply of “you respect my public self-image and I’ll respect yours”. The use of language to
carry out social actions where mutual face wants are respected, can be labeled linguistic
politeness. According to Yule (1996), “politeness in an interaction, can be then defined as the
means employed to show awareness of another’s face” . Culturally, politeness is seen as “the idea
of polite social behave or etiquette within a culture”.
Brown and Levinson (1978) view politeness as “a complex system for softening face-threatening acts”.
Hill et al (1986: 349) define politeness as “ one of the constraints on human interaction,
whose purpose is to consider other’s feelings establish levels of mutual comfort, and promote
rapport”. Lakoff (1975: 64), one of the pioneers in politeness research sees politeness as
consisting of forms of behave which have been “developed in societies in order to reduce friction
in personal interaction”. This view is supported by many other researchers in the field. He
defines politeness as: “A system of interpersonal relations designed to faliciate interaction by
minimizing the potential for conflict and confrontation inherent in all human interchange”
Leech (1983: 104) interprets politeness as forms of behavior aimed at creating and
maintaining harmonious interactions.
According to Nguyen Quang (2005: 185), “Politeness refers to any communicative act
(verbal and/ or non-verbal) which is intentionally and appropriately meant to make others feel better
or less bad”.
When we make a promise to somebody, we are showing our politeness by expressing
our awareness of another person’s face. In this sense, politeness can be accomplished in
situations of social distance and closeness. To the former, showing awareness for another
person’s face is described in terms of respect or deference. To the latter, it would be
friendliness, camaraderie or solidarity.
Politeness can be accomplished in situations of social distance or closeness. Showing
awareness for another person’s face when that other seems socially distant is often described
in terms of friendliness, camaraderie, or solidarity.
Therefore, the norms of problems are quiet culturally specific in a particular culture.
I.3.2. Politeness principles
A linguistic interaction is a social interaction in which various factors relating to social
distance and closeness are at play. Some of these factors are external to the interaction (social
status, age, power of participants). Other factors are negotiated during the interaction. There
are internal factors. The investigation of the impact of these factors is carried out in terms of
politeness. A speaker says something that is a threat to another personal’face (self- image), it
is called a face threatening act. When a speaker says something to lessen a possible threat it is
a face saving act.
According to Nguyen Quang (2005), a person’s negative face is the need to be
independent, to have freedom of action, and not to be imposed on by others. A face saving act
oriented to a person’s negative face is called negative politeness. A person’s positive face is
the need to be accepted by others, to be treated as a member of the same group. A face saving
act concerned with a person’s positive face is called positive politeness.
Lakoff (1975) suggests three politeness rules
Rule 1: Do not impose
There is a difference in power and status between the participants, such as a student and a dean, a
factory worker and the vice- president in charge of personnel. This rule will avoid, or ask permission or
apologize for making the addressee to anything which he/she does not want to do.
Rule 2: Offer options
The participants have approximately equal status and power, but are not socially close such as a
business person and a new client. Offering options means expressing oneself in such a way that one’s
opinion or request can be ignored without being contradicted or rejected.
Rule 3: This is friendly or intimate politeness that encourages feelings of camaraderie. It is
appropriate to intimates or close friends.
According to Grice, these maxims are an intuitive characterization of conversational principles
that would constitude guidelines for achieving maximally efficient communication they must be stated
briefly as follow:
Maxims of Quality: Be non-spurious (speak the truth, be sincere)
Maxims of Quantity: a) Don’t say less than is required
b) Don’t say more than is required
Maxims of relevance: Be relevant
Maxims of maner: Be perspicuous, avoid ambiguity and obscurity.
Another author, Leech (1983: 16) assumes that a politeness principle in order to “minimize the
expression of impolite beliefs” with its six maxims as following:
1 Tact maxim: Minimize cost to other. Maximize benefit to other.
2 Generosity maxim: Minimize benefit to self. Maximize dispraise of self.
3 Approbation maxim Minimize dispraise of other. Maximize dispraise of self.
 4 Modesty maxim: Minimize praise of self. Maximize praise of other.
5 Agreement maxim: Minimize disagreement between self and other
Maximize agreement between self and other.
6 Sympathy maxim: Minimize antipathy between self and other
Maximize sympathy between self and other
Above all the maxims, Leech considers the maxim of “Tact” as the most important
kind of politeness in the English-speaking societies. Leech claims that his model could be
applied universally across cultures. But in reality, it can be best applied to English culture
where social distance is given higher value, especially in formal situations. It proves
unsuitable for all situations and societies where social intimacy is highly valued.
According to Brown and Levinson, politeness strategies are developed in order to save
the hearer’s “Face”. Face refers to the respect that an individual has for him or herself, and
maintaining that “self-esteem” in public or in private situations. Usually, you try to avoid
embarrassing the other person, or making them feel uncomfortable. Face Threatening Acts
(FTA’s) are acts that infringe on the hearer’s need to maintain his/self-esteem, and be
respected. Politeness strategies are developed for the main purpose of dealing with these FTA’s.
Face:
Face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or
enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction. In general, people cooperate in
maintaining face in interaction, such cooperation being based on the mutual vulnerability of
face. That is, normally everyone’s face depends on everyone else’ being maintained, and since
people can be expected to defend their faces if threat, and in defending their own to threaten
others’ faces, it is in general in every participant’s best interest to maintain each others’ face,
that is to act in ways that assure the other participants that the agent is heedful of the
assumptions concerning face.
Face, the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in
two related aspects.
Negative face: is our wish not to be imposed on the others and to be allowed to go
about our business unimpeded with our rights to freedom and independence. Negative face is
the want of self-determination. The word “negative” does not mean “bad”, it is just the
opposite pole from “ positive”. Thus, telling someone they cannot see the doctor at the time
they expected to is a threat to their negative face.
Positive face: is a person’s wish to be well thought of its manifestation may include
the desire to have what we admire by others, the desire to be understood by others, and the
desire to be treated as a friend and confident. Positive face is the want of approval. Thus, a
complaint about the quality of someone’ work threatens their positive face.
In simple terms, Negative face is the need to be independent and positive face is the
need to be connected.
In short, the concepts of positive face and negative face give rise to different politeness
strategies.
There are four types of politeness strategies, described by Brown and Levinson, that
sum up human “politeness” behavior: Bald on record, Negative politeness, Positive politeness,
and Off- Record-indirect strategy.
On record: a speaker can potentially get any of the following advantages, he can enlist public
pressure against the addressee or in support of himself.
Bald-on-record: efficiency (S can claim that other things are more important than face, or that
the act is not a FTA at all.
Off record: on the other hand, a speaker can profit in the following ways, he can get credit for
being tactful, non-coercive, he can run less risk of his act entering the gossip biography that others
keep of him, and he can avoid responsibility for the potentially face-damaging interpretation.
Positive politeness: a speaker can minimize the face-threatening upsets of an act by assuring
the addressee that S considers himself to be of the same kind.
Negative politeness: A speaker can benefit in the following ways, he can pay respect,
deference to the addressee in return for the FTA, and can thereby avoid incurring
According to Brown and Levinson (1978), strategy types are presented
diagrammatically in figure. The scale given on the left is the degree to which these model
linguistic politeness.
 Brown and Levinson
Lesser Estimated risk of face-loss to addressee
1. Without redressive action badly
On record 2. Positive politeness
Do the FTA With redressive action

4. Off-record 3. Negative politeness

5. Don’t do the FTA
Greater

Figure 1: Strategies for doing the FTAs (Brown and Levinson, 1987)
Brown and Levinson (1978) assume that every individual has two types of face:
positive and negative. Positive face is defined as the individual desire that her/his wants be
appreciated and approved of in social interaction, whereas negative face is the desire for
freedom of action and freedom from imposition.
I.3.3. Social factors affecting politeness strategies
According to Brown and Levinson (1978), in broad terms, research seems to support
the claim that three sociological factors are crucial in determining the level of politeness which
a speaker (S) will use to an addressee (H); there are relative power (P) of H over S, the social
distance (D) between S and H, and the ranking of the imposition (R) involved in doing the
face-threatening act (FTA).
D is a symmetric social dimension of similarity/difference within which S and H stand for the purposes
of this act. In many cases (but not all ), it is based on an assessment of the frequency of interaction and the kinds
of material or non-material goods (including face) exchanged between S and H (or parties or representing S or H,
or for whom S and H are representatives). An important part of the assessment of D will usually be measures of
social distance based on stable social attributes. The reflex of social closeness is, generally, the reciprocal giving
and receiving of positive face.
P is an asymmetric social dimension of relative power is the degree to which H can impose his own
plans and his own self-evaluation (face) at the express of S’s plans and self-evaluation. In general there are two
sources of pragmatics, either of which may be authorized and authorized-material control (over economic
distribution and physical force) and metaphysical control (over the actions of others, by virtue of metaphysical
forces subscribed to by those others). In most cases an individual’s power is drawn from both these sources, or is
thought to overlap them.
R is a culturally and situationally defined ranking of impositions by the degree to which they are
considered to interfere with an agent’s wants of self-determination or of approval (his negative and positive face
wants). In general, there are probably two such scales or ranks that are emically identifiable for negative-face
FTAs: a ranking of impositions in promotion to the expenditure (a) of services (including the provision of time)
and (b) of goods (including non-material good like information, as well as the expression of regard and other

payments).

In any case, the function must capture the fact that all three dimensions P, D and R
contribute to the seriousness of the FTA, and thus to a determination of the level of politeness
with which, other things being equal, the FTA will be communicated.
I.3.4. Politeness strategies
I.3.4.1. Positive politeness strategies
Brown and Levinson (1978) assume that positive politeness is redress directed to the
addressee’s positive face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the actions/acquisitions/values
resulting from them) should be thought of as desirable. Redress consists in partially satisfying
that desire by communicating that one’s own wants (or some of them) are in some respects
similar to the addressee’s wants
Positive politeness strategies (PPS) are those that are used to satisfy positive face
wants. They include:
Strategy 1: Notice/attend to H (interest, wants, needs…)
When communicating, S cares for H’s wants or needs:
Vietnamese: Mình nghi rang cu®c song không phai lúc nào cung hanh phúc. C¾u hãy gang
vwot qua nhung khó khǎn này.
( I think that life is not always happy. Try to overcome these difficulties)
Hôm nay trông c¾u dep quá, c¾u có chuy¾n gì à?(Today, you look so beautiful. Something new?)
English: You must be hungry. How about some cakes?
Strategy 2: Exaggerate (interest, approval, sympathy with H)
It is the way S shows his/her concern by expressing that he/ she is really interested in H’s news
Vietnamese: English:
Ban th¾t là tuy¾t vòi . ( You are exellent!) I am really
honored! Strategy 3: Intensify interest to H
S communicates with H, he shares some of his wants to intensify the interest of his own
contributions to the conversation.
Vietnamese: M®t ch% ó co quan em có chong là nhà báo. M®t lan dã di thnc te viet bài ve
nan phá rùng dã b% bQn lâm t¾c phcc kích và hành hung. Ðwong yên dwong lành thì tn nhiên
bây giò lai thành tàn phe nhân, ngoi xe lǎn, ǎn com dút. Ðay, moi ngwòi m®t ph¾n, nên anh b%
the này còn nhe lam.
(A woman’s husband at my work place is a journalist. Once on a business trip to collect
information about deforestation, he was ambushed and assaulted. Form a very fit man now he
is a disabled one on trolley and fed by his wife every day. See, every one has his own fate,
therefore, you are lucky at your pain.)
English : Last night I went to that shop. I buy some things from him, he is all right, isn’t
he? He speaks nicely. Today I heard that he has dead and gone and I was very surprised.
Strategy 4: Use in-group identity markers.
Some ways of address forms can be used flexibly and effectively in this strategy.
Vietnamese:
Chúng mình se di xem phim lan khác nhé. (We will go to the cinema another time!)
Anh cú yên tâm, em se làm cho dám cwói cúa cháu nhà mình th¾t vui vé
(Take it eassy. I will make our kid’s wedding so happy.)
English: Mate! I will help you. Take it easy.
Strategy 5: Seek agreement.
With this strategy, S stresses his/her agreement with H, and therefore, satisfies H’s desire to be
“right”, or to be corroborated in his opinions. There are 4 different policies in order to reach
agreement between S and H.
Using safe topics Using minimal encouragers
Repeating Agreeing.
Vietnamese: Tôi rat tán thành vói ý kien cúa anh. ( I quite agree with your idea)
Tôi dong ý giúp anh. Tôi húa. ( I agree to help you. I promise!)
English: If you want me to conduct your wedding, I will be
OK. Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement.
In communication, Brown and Levinson suggest 4 policies:
Token agreements White lies
Pseudo-agreement Hedging opinions
Vietnamese: English:
Em ghét anh lam à? ( Do you hate me?) A: Do you understand what I am
saying? Thinh thoang thôi. (Sometimes.) B: More or less
Strategy 7: Presuppose, raise, assert common ground.
3 policies are realized in this strategy.
Small talk Deixis inversion Presupposition manipulations.
Vietnamese: Chang le thông minh nhw bQn mình mà c¾u lai không hieu mình dang nghi gì
à (Perhaps, intelligent as we are, you can see what is in my mind. You are such an intelligent person)
English: We both are surely tired now. Let’s relax for some minutes.
Strategy 8: Joke.
Making jokes is considered to be one of the useful way to communicate between S and H. S
can share background knowledge, values, goals and sensitivity to H.
Vietnamese: Con gì ǎn lam nói nhieu, mau già lâu chet dòi yêu suot dòi
(What eats and talks too much, soon old, loving a live, everlasting asking for love)
English: OK if I tackle those cookies now?
Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose knowledge of and concern for H’s want.
This strategy indicates that S and H are cooperators of and thus potentially to put pressure on
H to cooperate with S, is to assert or imply knowledge of H’s wants and willingness to fit
one’s own wants in with them.
Vietnamese: Mình tin rang c¾u se tha thú cho mình.(I firmly believe that you will forgive me!)
English: I know you cannot bear parties, but this one will really be good-do come!
Strategy 10: Offer, promise.
This strategy is used to gain the solidarity or cooperation between S and H, S often offer or
promise to do something in order to satisfy for the H.
Offers or promises are divided in to two types (indefinite and definite) through 2 main deixis:
time and space:
If time and space are definite, the promise/offer is definite
If time and space are indefinite, the promise/offer is indefinite.
In this case, the offer/promise is called unreal invitation, or lip-service
Vietnamese: Tôi húa se không l¾p lai nua. (I promise not to do it
again!) English: I promise, it will not happen again
Strategy 11: Be optimistic.
This strategy shows that S tries to establish a close or intimate relationship between S and H.
Vietnamese: C¾u se giúp mình chú. ( You will help me, OK?)
Tôi hy vQng ban se tha thú cho tôi. ( I hope, you will forgive me!)
English: I believe that you will succeed in the near
future. Strategy 12: Include both S and H in the activity.
By using an inclusive “we” form, when S really means “you” or “me”, he can call upon the
cooperative assumptions and thereby redress FTAs. Noting that “let’s” in English is an
inclusive “we” form.
Vietnamese: Chúng mình có lúc lam loi, chi mong c¾u dùng làm to chuy¾n, mình biet loi roi
(We go wrong at times. I hope that, you do not make fuss. I know my errors)
English: Let’s drink some coffee
Nguyen Quang (2003) suggests a list to express the various and useful use of “ chúng ta”
( inclusive “we”) and “chúng tôi” ( inclusive “we”) in Vietnamese. By using “ chúng tôi,
chúng ta” (we) the Vietnamese can shorten the gap between S and H and their relationship
become closer and more friendly.
Strategy 13: Give or ask for reasons.
Giving or asking for reasons is one way that S shows his/ her concern towards H
Vietnamese: Mình không hieu noi tai sao ban lai hành d®ng nhw the. ( I do not understand
myself why do you act like that)
English: Why do you tell a lie?
Strategy 14: Assert reciprocal exchange.
The existence of cooperation between S and H may also be claimed or urged by giving
evidence of reciprocal rights or obligations obtaining between S and H.
Vietnamese: Neu anh ch% bó qua cho em lan này, em húa se không tái pham nua. (If
you forgive me this time, I will not do it again. I promise)
English: I will help you if you promise not to tell my secret to anyone.
Strategy 15: Give gifts to H (goods, sympathy, understanding, cooperation).
S may satisfy H’s positive-face wants by actually satisfying some of H’s wants. S can give
gifts or share the sadness or happiness to H.
Vietnamese: Tó vùa mua cho c¾u m®t cái vòng co, không biet c¾u có thích không?( I have
just bought a necklace for you. Do you like it?)
English: I have just been out shopping. Here is hot dog for you. Like it?
Nguyen Quang (2003) adds 2 more strategies
Strategy 16: Condole, encourage.
In this strategy, S expresses his/her concern, and good will to H.
Vietnamese: Hãy co gang het mình, còn nhieu co h®i dang ó phía
trwóc.
( There are a lot of good chances in the future. Try your best!)
English: Do not worry! I will try my best.
Keep calm! You will do it well.
Strategy 17: Ask personal questions.
People from the negative politeness-oriented culture may get shocked. When someone they
meet the first time asks such personal questions as:
How old are
you?
Are you married?
Negative politeness strategies are those that are used to satisfy negative face wants.
According to Brown and Levinson (1978), they include.
1.3.4.2. Negative politeness strategies
Strategy 1: Be conventionally indirect.
This strategy solves a dilemma or in other words it satisfies two different communicative
points at the same time.
Assuring on-record the obvious illocutionary force.
Expressing off-record the speaker’s reluctance to produce it.
Vietnamese: Làm on hãy cho em m®t co h®i? (Could you please give me a chance?)
English: I am shy. I do not think I make you sad. I promise not to do it again.
 Please, believe me! I have no intention. It will not happen again.
Strategy 2: Question, hedge.
A “ hedge” is a particle, word, or phrase that modifies the degree of membership of a predicate
or now phrase in a set, it says of that membership that it is partial, or true only in certain
respects, or that it is more true and complete than perhaps might be expected.
There are different ways of classifying hedges but the most common one is basing on the 4
principles provided by Grice (1975). They are quantity, quality, relation and manner.
Vietnamese: Neu ban không phien , cho tôi vay m®t ít tien.
(I would like to borrow some money, if you do not mind)
English: Perhaps it is a lesson I never forget in my life.
If you do not mind, we will go to the cinema another time.
Strategy 3: Be pessimistic
Being pessimistic strategy is an important one of negative politeness. When S maintain a
distance from his/ her communicative partner and minimize the imposition of utterances as
well as avoiding imposition on H.
Nguyen Quang (2003: 150, 159, 160, 161) suggests 3 main sub-strategies
Using hypothesis Using down toners Using negative form
Vietnamese: Giá nhw em dã không làm anh ch% buon. ( If only I had not made you sad)
Em không biet anh ch% có the tha thú cho em không?( I do not know could you forgive
me)? English: I do not think you can understand my problem.
I wonder whether you will forgive me or not?
Strategy 4: Minimizing the imposition
This strategy seeks to minimize the R factor in P-D-R paradigm.
Vietnamese: Em chi muon anh ch% tin rang dieu dó se không bao giò xay ra
nua. ( I just want you to belive that, it will not happen a gain)
English: I want to ask you if you could lend me some
money. Strategy 5: Give deference.
The social hierarchy and power are two essential factors of this strategy.
Vietnamese: Neu sep tha thú cho em, em se mang on sep ca dòi.
 ( If you forgive me , I will indebt you all my life)
Mòi bác den ǎn toi cùng vói gia dình.( Would you like to have dinner with my family, please?)
English: Excuse me, officer. I think I might have parked in the wrong
place Strategy 6: Apologize.
By apologizing for doing the FTA, the speaker can indicate his reluctance to impinge on H’s
negative face and thereby partially redress that impingement. There are 2 main sub- strategies
Apologizing directly
Expresses direct way by such words as “ sorry”, “apologize”.
Apologizing indirectly
There are 5 main ways in indirect apology
Admitting trouble
Expressing reluctance
A basing and complaining about self
Raising unavoidable reasons
Hoping and promising
Vietnamese: Tôi xin loi ve nhung chuy¾n dã xay ra. ( I am sorry for what
happened.) Hãy tha loi cho tôi. ( Forgive me!)
English: I am sorry. Please, forgive me!
Sorry, I make you upset
Strategy 7: Impersonalize S and H. Avoid the pronoun I and You
When using this strategy, S does not want to impinge on H. Both S and H avoid mentioning in
communication. Thus, S can lower S’s power and reduce the imposition of the act as well as
minimizing the threat over H. There are 5 sub- strategies in this strategy
Avoiding performative verb
Using imperatives
Using passive voice
Using indefinite pronouns instead of “I” and “you”
Using impersonalized subject
Vietnamese: Van de th¾t không don gian. ( The problem is not simple)
English: Do not worry, everything will be OK.
Strategy 8: State the FTA as an instance of a general rule
This strategy is served many aims, S can give requests, advice, orders as general rules for a
group of H and distances S and H through the cool and distant utterances.
Vietnamese: Ðe dam bao súc khoé, ta nên di ngú sóm.
(One should go to bed early in order to keep your health)
English: Parking on the double yellow lines is illegal, so I am going to have to give you a fine
Strategy 9: Nominalize to distance the actor and add formality.
It is noticeable point that the more nouns, are used, the cooler the statement becomes.
Vietnamese: Ðe ngh% mQi ngwòi không nói chuy¾n ó dây.
(It is required everyone here not to talk)
English: It is my regret to inform you that your application has turned
down. Strategy 10: Go on record as incurring a debt or as not indebting H
This strategy is shown that S can redress the FTA by explicitly claiming his indebtedness to H,
or by disclaiming any indebtedness of H
Vietnamese: Tôi se rat biet on anh, neu anh bó qua cho tôi lan này.
(I would be grateful to you if you could forgive me this time)
Tôi no c¾u m®t lòi xin loi. ( I am indebted to you for a
sorry.)
English: I am very happy to help you
It is not too difficult to pass the examination.
Nguyen Quang (2003) adds one more strategy.
Strategy 11: Avoid asking personal questions.
In a negative politeness oriented community personal questions prove to be inappropriate. On
the other hand, in a positive politeness oriented community, personal questions are
comfortably accepted.
 CHAPTER II: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
II.1. Comments on survey questionnaires
The data are collected from the survey questionnaire. This questionnaire is designed to
investigate how informants verbally promise others in given situations.
Situation 1: How would you verbally promise the following person after you spoke ill of him/her?
Situation 2: How would you verbally promise with the following person when you agree to host a
wedding ceremony for him/her?
Situation 3: How would you verbally promise with the following person after you could not take them
to the cinema?
Informants are requested to promise the following persons
1. Brother/sister
2. Close friend
3. Colleague (same sex, same age)
4. Colleague (opposite sex, same age)
5. Acquaintance.
6. Boss (about 5 years younger than you)
7. Boss (about 5 years older than you)
8. Subordinate
The informants are advised to write exactly what they would say when promising with
these persons in each situation.
Some factors that may effect communication are taken into consideration in the
questionnaires. They are:
Paralinguistic factors: pitch, volume, rate, silence, vocal quality…
Non-verbal factors: facial expressions, gestures, eye contact…
Environment settings: place, time, lighting system, setting arrangement...
Mood of participants: happy, angry, sad, disappointed…
II.2. Comments on the informants
There are two groups of informants: one is the Vietnamese and the other is the
Anglophone. The Vietnamese informants all live in Northern Vietnam. The Anglophone
informants are native speakers. The status parameters of the informants are believed to the
way people communicate, therefore, the following parameters are requested for provision:
* Age
* Gender
* Marital status
* Area where they spend most of their time.
The informants’ status parameters are presented in the table below
Status parameters INFORMANTS
Vietnamese English
Number of informants
25 25
Above 30 8 10
Age Below 30 17 15
Male 11 12
Gender Female 14 13
Married 12 7
Marital status Single 13 18
Where they spend most of their Rural 10 5
time Urban 15 20
The table 2: The informants’ status parameters
II.3. STRATEGIES REALIZED IN PROMISING
The findings from the questionnaires reveal that, most of the tokens collected fall into
the following 9 strategies:
Strategy 1: Promisse
Strategy 2: Exaggerate
Strategy 3: Be conventionally indirect
Strategy 4: Apologize
Strategy 5: Use in group identity makers + promise
Strategy 6: Apologise+ promise
Strategy 7: Be conventional + promise
Strategy 8: Seek agreement + promise
Strategy 9: Wish + regret
 The Vietnamese informants employ eight of nine strategies. (Except strategy 2) and the
English informants resort to eight of nine strategies (except strategy 3). Following are the
percentages of strategies employed by the Vietnamese and the English informants:
Strategies VIE ENG
1 Promise (25.7%) (32.83%)
2 Exaggerate 0 (0%) (3.50%)
3 Be conventionally indirect (2.33%) (0%)
4 Apologize (0.33%) (10.50%)
Use in group identity makers
5 (3.83%) (0.83%)
+Promise
6 Apologize +Promise (47.50%) (37.50%)
7 Be conventional +promise (12.33%) (6.0%)
8 Seek agreement+ promise (6.17%) (8.0%)
9 Wish + regret (2.33%) (0.83%)
Table 3 : Strategies realized in promise
Strategy 1:
Promise
This strategy is used to gain the solidarity or cooperation or at least good impression
between S and H. S often promise to do something for the H. They demonstrate S’s good
intention in satisfying H’s positive face wants. It expresses a commissive of speakers and a
promised act that is one desired by the addressee.
This strategy expresses the commitment of the speaker and a promised act is the one
desired by the addressee. For example:
Vietnamese: English:
Em húa, em se không nói doi nua. It will not happen again
(I promise, I will not tell a lie again) A: Will you come to my wedding?
Tôi húa, tôi se giúp ban. B: Ok
(I promise, I will help you) Of course/Certainly!
Tôi dong ý giúp anh. (I agree with helping you) Exactly, I will help
you
It is easily observed that the Vietnamese informants often use “promise”, while the
English informants seem to neglect this performative. Promise is divided in two kinds:
definitive promise and indefinitive promise.
+ Definitive promise: I will attend your wedding on Sunday.
+ Indefinitive promise: It will not happened again, I promise.
 The collected data suggest that the English informants use this strategy more
frequently than the Vietnamese ones. (E: 32.83%; V: 25.17%). When communicating with
sister, colleague, boss and subordinate, the English informants resort to this strategy more than
other ones. In order to display the sense of the solidarity and cooperation or at least good
impression between S and H, this strategy is fully activated in both cultures.
Strategy 2: Exaggerate
Exaggeration is expressed by intonation, stress, and other aspects of prosodics, as well
as with intensifying modifiers. The exaggerative or emphatic use of words or particles, they
include expressions like for sure, really, exactly, absolutely
This strategy shows the good feeling, attitude and interest of the speaker to the hearer.
It is found that when promising, the Vietnamese informants make no use of exaggeration.
Conversely, the English informants often use the exaggeration to intensify the positive feeling,
approval or appreciation. For examples:
I am really honored. Wonderful!
I am very happy How excellent!
When making serious mistakes, (telling a lie, speaking ill, wrong appointment), the
English informants resort a lot to this strategy. For example: What a terrible thing! / Awful!
Words frequently used are really, very, wonderful, honored, excellent…
Strategy 3: Be conventionally indirect..
This strategy a speaker is faced with opposing tensions. The desire to give H an “out”
by being indirect, and the desire to go on record. In this case it is solved by the compromise of
conventional indirectness, the use of phrases and sentences that have contextually
unambiguous meanings which are different from their literal meanings. In this way the
utterance goes on record, and the speaker indicates his desire to have gone off record.
Conventional indirectness encodes the clash of wants, and so partially achieves them both.
This strategy is used frequently in dilemmas or complicated situations.
In Vietnamese, using conventional indirectness for negative politeness with such
phrases as “làm on, hãy tha thú, th¾t lòng, không muon. ” is a very effective way.
Vietnamese: Em th¾t lòng xau ho ve dieu dó. (I am really ashamed of that)
 Em thay mình là ngwòi vô tích sn quá. (I am good-for-nothing)
Em rat biet on sep, neu sep cho em m®t co h®i.
(I would be grateful if the boss gave me an
opportunity) Hãy tha thú cho tôi m®t lan. (Please,
forgive me once)
Ca dòi này em mang on anh. (All the life, I am deeply indebted to you)
Không ai song ca dòi mà không mac loi, rat mong anh bó qua cho tôi 1 lan.
(Noone lives without making mistakes all the life, please forgive me once!)
In another cases, they express their willingness to help others or do the good work for others
Anh cú yên tâm, em se co gang het súc mình. (Take it easy, I will be my best effort)
Th¾t không gì quý bang, em có the làm dwoc 1 vi¾c tot giúp anh ch%.
(It is not precious that I can do the good work for you)
Tôi rat hanh phúc neu có the giúp dwoc ban. (I am extremely happy if I can help you)
It is worthy of note that the English informants do not resort to this strategy.
Strategy 4. Apologise.
By apologizing for doing the FTA, the speaker can indicate his reluctance to impinge
on H’s negative face and thereby partially redress that impingement. The deferential use of
hesitation and bumbliness discussed above is one way of showing this reluctance, but there are
many expressions in common use that have the same effect. There are (at least) four ways to
communicate regret or reluctance to do the FTA.
+ Admit the impingement: S can simply admit that he is imigining on H’s face.
I hope this is not going to bother you too much.
+ Indicate reluctance: S can attempt to show that he is reluctant to impinge on H with the use
of hedges or by means of expressions.
I do not want to bother you but… / I hesitate to trouble you, but…
+ Give overwhelming. S can claim that he has compelling reasons for doing the FTA, thereby
implying H’s negative face
Can you possibly help me with this, because there is noone else I could ask.
+ Beg forgiveness: S may beg H’s forgiveness, or at least ask for “acquittal” that is, that H
should cancel the debt implicit in the FTA. I hope you will forgive me.
This strategy is used by both groups. Some words and phases are often employed such as:
sorry, apologize, apologizes, regrets...
The English informants use this strategy much more frequently than the Vietnamese ones. For
examples:
Vietnamese English:
Xin loi dã làm ban phien lòng. Sorry/ What a pity!
(Sorry, to make trouble you) I am really sorry for my mistakes
Cho mình xin loi nhé. (Sorry!) Please, forgive
me! Xin loi, mình không co ý. (Sorry, I have no intention) I am wrong
Hãy chap nh¾n lòi xin loi cúa tôi. I am going to bother you
(Please, accept my sorry) Sorry, I have nothing to say
Strategy 5. Use in group identity makers + promise:
By using any of the innumerable ways to convey in group membership, S can
implicitly claim the common ground with H that is carried by that definition of the group.
These include in group usages of address forms, of language or dialect, of jargon or slang, and
of ellipsis.
This is combined strategy of using in-group identity makers and Promising.
The findings reveal that the Vietnamese informants use in-group identity markers more
frequently than the English ones.
Vietnamese: Ch% tha thú cho em, em húa se không tái
pham. (Forgive me! I will not do it again)
Sep hãy bó qua cho em, em the không tái pham nua. (Forgive me, I pledge not to do it again)
Above example shows unequal power of age and status ( Ch%-em, Sep-nhân viên)
Mình húa vói c¾u se không xay ra lan nào nua. (I promise you that It will not happen again)
C¾u hãy tin vào tài nǎng cúa tó, tó se làm cho dám cwói cúa c¾u th¾t vui vé.
(You believe my ability, I will make your wedding so happy)
Chúng mình se di xem phim lan khác nhé! (Let’s go to the cinema another time)
All examples show equal power of age
 When using this strategy the speaker expresses the close and friendly relationship
between the speaker and the hearer. This suggests the sense of solidarity and warm
relationship.
Pet names, generic names, nick names such as honey, mate, mummy, kitty, dearest…
and mèo, cún con, chàng…are often employed in both languages.
Dearest! Let’s go to the cinema other
chance Mate! It will not happen again
Strategy 6. Apologise+ promise
When communicating with brother/sister, boss, even colleague, the Vietnamese
informants use this strategy more frequently than the English ones (V: 47.50% and E: 37.50%).
Vietnamese: Mình th¾t lòng xin loi c¾u, mình mong c¾u hãy tha thú cho mình, mình húa tù nay se
không nói doi nua.
(I am really apology. I wish you will forgive me since then I never tell a
lie) Mình xin loi chac chan se không l¾p lai van de này nua.
(I am sorry , certainly, it will not happen again)
In the above examples, the speaker and the hearer are age-equals and power-equals. The
following example is token from someone lower status to someone of higher status.
Xin hãy tha loi cho em, em húa se không l¾p lai.(Please, forgive me, I promise not to happen again)
English: Sorry. It will not happen again.
I am sorry, never repeat
Strategy 7. Be conventional + promise
The Vietnamese informants choose this strategy with high frequency. It is often
accompanied by promises and expression of thanks.
Vietnamese: Tôi xin loi vì sn lo dãng cúa tôi, tôi se không bao giò làm phien ban nua.
(I beg your indulgence. I will never trouble you).
Ðieu này se không l¾p lai nua, tôi húa. (It will not happen again, I promise)
Tôi se rat biet on neu ban cho tôi m®t co h®i, tôi se không bao giò làm ban that vQng.
(I would be very grateful if you give me a chance. I will never make you disappointed)
Neu ban còn nghi den tình ban lâu nǎm xin ban dùng làm to chuy¾n, mình húa se thay doi. (If you
think about the friendship for a long time, please you do not make a fuss , I will change)
Le ra tôi không nên ích ki v¾y, tôi sai roi. (Perhaps, I should not be selfish. I am wrong).
English: I am so bad. It will not happen again
If you want me to help, I will be ready
I expect that this will never happen
I do not mind if I can help you.
When using this strategy the Speaker often have especial reasons not to speak directly to the
Hearer. Thus, Be conventional indirectness is chosen. Both groups prefer this strategy.
Strategy 8. Seek agreement+ promise
Seeking agreement allows S to stress his agreement with H and therefore to satisfy H’s
desire to be “right” or to be corroborated in his opinions.
Seeking agreement+promise is considered a positive politeness strategy. Using
this strategy the Speaker wants the Hearer to show a common ground with H. For examples:
Vietnamese: Neu anh tin twóng em, em se không làm anh that vQng.
(If you believe me, I would not make you disappointed)
Tôi se làm tat ca neu anh tha thú cho tôi lan này. (I will do all if you forgive me this time)
Tôi quyet tâm se co gang het súc mình. (Definitely, I will try my best)
Di nhiên tôi se giúp anh, anh yên tâm. (Of course, I will help you, take it easy!)
English: Wonderful! It is good news
I will be very happy if I help you
If you agree, let’s go to the cinema another
chance Would you like to go to the cinema next
Sunday?
It is more popular for the English informants to use this strategy. In some cases, the
informants also make exclamations for the expression of happiness or surprise.
Strategy 9. Wish + regret
In this strategy the speaker always tries to express her/his feelings such as: sorrow,
happy, glad, unhappy, disappointed. For examples:
Vietnamese: Tôi mong rang dieu dó se không bao giò xay ra nua.
(I wish that would not happen again.)
Uóc gì tôi dã không làm dieu dó. (If only I had not done it).
Giá mà tôi biet dwoc mQi vi¾c lai tram trQng the này.
 (If only I had known it was such a serious problem)
Tôi không biet nói gì nua giá nhw tôi dã can th¾n
hon.
(I do not know what to say more If only I had been carefully)
English: I wish it will not happen again
I am really regretable!
If only I had not done that
I wish, that would not be happened
I regret that I made you sad.
II.4. Promising as seen from communicating partner’s parameters
II.4.1. Data analysis
1. Close friend V
80.00
E
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) 6(%) 7(%) 8(%) 9(%)
V 23.33 0 0 1.00 20.83 32.50 7.00 8.50 6.83
E 18.3 2.33 0 16.17 2.50 32.50 0 24.83 3.33

Figure 2 : Politeness strategies in promising to close friend

Vietnamese findings
When making promises to close friend, the Vietnamese informants employ strategy 6
at the highest rate (32.50%) followed by strategy 1 (23.33%). Strategy 5 (20.83%) comes the
third. The lowest rates belong to strategy 4 (1.00%), 7(7%), 9 (6.83%) and 8 (5.50%). None
of the Vietnamese informants choose strategies 2 and 3 (0%).
English findings
It is worthy of note that, the English informants like the Vietnamese ones, resort to
strategy 6 (32.50%) at the highest rate. The English informants also prefer strategies 1, 4 and 8
(18.33), (16.17) and (24.83). They, like the Vietnamese, find it more or less unimportant to
promise their close friend. The lowest percentages belong to strategy 2 (2.33%) and 5 (2.50%).
 The data shows that when communicating with close friends, the Vietnamese
informants prefer strategy 5 much more than the English informants.
Both the Vietnamese and the English informants employ the same rate with strategy 6.
Both the Vietnamese and the English informants tend to be much more positive politeness-
oriented (PPO) than negative politeness-oriented (NPO).
2. Sister/Brother: 80.00

60.00
VE
40.00

20.00

0.00
1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) 6(%) 7(%) 8(%) 9(%)
V 7.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 62.50 16.50 8.50 5.00
E 38.33 1.33 0.00 14.83 0.00 32.83 3.83 6.67 2.17

Figure 3 : Politeness strategies in promising to brother / sister

Vietnamese findings
With communicating partner as their brother/sister, the Vietnamese informants employ
five out of nine strategies. None of the Vietnamese informants choose strategies 2, 3, 4, 5.
Strategy 6 is used at the highest rate (62.50%), the second rank belongs to strategy 7 (16.50%).
Then come strategy 8 ( 8.50%), 9 (5.00%) and 1 (7.50%).
English findings
The English data shows that the English informants consider strategy 1 to be the most
important (38.33%). The second rank belongs to strategy 6 (32.83%). The rates glide down
from strategy 4 (14.83%) to strategy 8 (6.67%), strategy 7 (3.83%), strategy 9 (2.17%) and
strategy 2 (1.33%).
Overall, the data analysis reveals that the Vietnamese informants are more aware of
kindship relation. Therefore, they resort to strategies 6 and 7 more frequently than the English
informants. With the absence of strategies 3, 4 and 5 the Vietnamese informants tend to be
more NPO than the English informants. However, the later seem to be more liberal and
independent. Thus, they are not concerned with strategies 7 and 9 as much as the Vietnamese
informants.
3. Colleague (same age, same sex)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00 V
30.00 E
20.00
10.00
0.00
1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) 6(%) 7(%) 8(%) 9(%)
V 19.67 0.00 7.50 0.00 4.00 35.00 14.67 15.67 3.50
E 31.00 3.83 0.00 11.67 1.17 34.67 5.00 12.50 0.17
Figure 4: Politeness strategies in promising to colleague (same age, same sex)

Vietnamese findings
The Vietnamese informants choose all strategies (except strategies 2 and 4). They are
aware of showing strategies 1, 6, 7, 8 are used with the highest rate (85.01%). It proves that
respect to their colleague. Strategies 2 and 4 are not resorted to.
English findings
It is note worthy that the English informants seem to be negative politeness oriented in
making promises to their colleague of the same sex. Strategies 1 and 6 account for the
majority (34.67%) and (31%), followed by strategies 4 and 8 (11.67%) and (12.50%).
Strategies 2 and 7 are occasionally used (3.83%) and (5.0% respectively) and the lowest rate
are strategies 5 and 9 (1.17% and 0.17%).
4. Colleague (opposite sex, same age)
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00 V
E
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) 6(%) 7(%) 8(%) 9(%)
V 19.67 0 5.83 0 1.67 40.83 15.83 14.83 1.33
E 29.17 3.83 0 10.83 1.00 39.17 7.50 8.33 0.17
Figure 5: Politeness strategies in promising to colleague (same age, opposite sex)
Vietnamese findings
When the communicating partner is colleague (same sex and age), strategy 6 is used at
the highest rate (35%), followed by strategy 1 (19.67%), strategy 7 (15.83%), strategy 8
(14.83%). The lowest rank is strategy 3 (7.50%), strategy 5 (4.00%) and 9 (3.50%), whereas
with colleagues who are of the same age but opposite sex, strategies 6 and 7 are used much
more than the ones of the same age and sex. Next come strategy 8 (14.83%), 3 (5.83%), 5
(1.67%) and 9 (1.33%). It is also noticeable that strategy 1 (19.17%) is employed at the same
rate both with colleagues (same sex and opposite sex). Strategies 2 and 4 are not resorted to.
English findings
All of strategies are the most commonly employed to make promises with same sex,
same age partners and opposite sex-same-age ones. Strategy 6 (34.36% and 39.17%), strategy
1 (31.00% and 29.17%), strategy 4 (11.67% and 10.83%), strategy 5 (1.17% and 1.00%),
strategy 7 (7.50% and 10.50%) and strategy 8 (8.33% and 5.83%) respectively. None of the
English informants use strategy 3 ( 0%). It is noticeable that strategies 2 and 7 are equal rate
both same sex-same-age partners and opposite-sex-same-ages (3.83% and 0.17%).
Contrast to the Vietnamese informants, the English informants make a little bit more
use of strategy 6 in the first kind of partners ( English: 74.34% compared to Vietnamese
75.83%) but quite more use of strategy 1 ( E: 60.17% compared to V: 39.34%).
5. Acquaintance
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
VE
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) 6(%) 7(%) 8(%) 9(%)
V 64.50 0 2.67 0.83 3.33 16.67 8.67 1.83 1.50
E 33.17 0 0 16.67 2.00 31.50 10.50 5.83 0.33

Figure 6: Politeness strategies in promising to Acquaintance

Vietnamese findings
This strategy that accounts for the highest rank in making promises with acquaintance
is strategy 1 (65.50%) and resort (16.67%) with strategy 6. It shows that the effects of the
distant relationship in society can be observed. Next to, strategies 7, 5 are employed (8.67%)
and (3.33%), then comes strategies 3, 8, 9. The Vietnamese informants employ (6%). The
Vietnamese ones tend to be more PPO than NPO
English Findings
With acquaintance, the English informants do not use strategies 2 and 3, meanwhile,
strategies 1 and 6 give their top priority (33.17%) and (31.50%), strategy 4 is resorted to the
second rank (16.67%) and next to strategy 7 (10.50%). The English informants prefer using
strategy 8 more than the Vietnamese ones, it accounts for (5.83%). Strategy 5 is employed
(2.0%), making up the possible minimum rank (0.33%) belongs to strategy 9.
It is noticeable that when communicating partner is Acquaintance, the English
informants tend to be more NPO than the Vietnamese ones.
The English ones employ strategy 1 as equally as strategy 6. The Vietnamese
informants are aware of strategy 1 with the highest rate. Secondly, it is strategy 6.
6. Boss (5 years younger)
1 0 0 .0 0

8 0 .0 0

V
6 0 .0 0 E

4 0 .0 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
2 0 .0 0
1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) 6(%) 7(%) 8(%) 9(%)
V0 .0 0 0.83 0 0 0 0 82.17 17.00 0 0
E 18.67 8.33 0 0.67 0 61.33 10.17 0.83 0
Figure 7: Politeness strategies in promising to Boss (5 years younger)
Vietnamese findings
It is note worthy that none of the Vietnamese informants use strategies 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9. The
Vietnamese ones use strategy 6 (82.17%) at the highest rate to make promises with boss (5
years younger), next to strategy 7 (17%), strategy 1 (0.83%) comes the third.
English findings
Like the Vietnamese informants, the English informants employ strategy 6 at the
highest rate (61.33%). Next to, strategy 1 (18.67%). It is noticeable that, strategies 2 and 4 are
not used by the Vietnamese informants, but the English informants employ strategies 2 and 4
(8.33%), (0.67%). It seems that the English informants are more preferable exaggeration with
boss than the Vietnamese informants. Then comes strategy 7 (10.17%), they, like the
Vietnamese informants, find it more or less unimportant to their boss. The lowest percentages
belong to strategy 8 (0.83%).
All in all, both the Vietnamese and the English informants tend to be more NPO than PPO
Strategies 3, 5, 9 are not used by both groups.
The English informants prefer strategy 2 when communicating with boss, but the
Vietnamese informants is not used
Both the Vietnamese and the English informants employ strategy 6 at the highest rate.
The English informants are not affected by the power of age as much as the Vietnamese ones.
7. Boss ( 5 years older)

90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00 V
30.00 E
20.00
10.00
0.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) 6(%) 7(%) 8(%) 9(%)
V 0.33 0 0 0 0 80.67 19.00 0 0
E 11.17 8.33 0 0.33 0 68.00 11.00 1.17 0

Figure 8: Politeness strategies in promising to Boss (5 years older)

Vietnamese findings
Vietnamese findings.
There is no difference between boss (5 years younger and older). The Vietnamese informants
use strategy 6 at the higest rank (80.67%), the second rate is strategy 7 (19%). The lowest rate
is resorted to strategy 1 (0.33%). Strategies 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 are not employed by the Vietnamese
informants.
English findings
The English informants have big change of ratio among strategies with boss ( 5 years
older). The old boss is more careful making promises than the young boss. The highest rate
belongs to strategy 6 (68%), followed by strategy 1 (11.17%). The young boss and the old
ones are at the same rate with strategy 2 (8.33%), next to strategy 7 (11%), then come
strategies 4 and 8 rather equivalent rate (0.33 %) compared with (1.17 %) respectively.
Overall, both the Vietnamese and the English informants tend to be more NPO than
PPO. None of the Vietnamese informants employ strategies 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 whereas the English
ones are not employ strategies 3, 5, 9.
This is also a clear manifestation of large power distance of a collectivistic culture.
8. Subordinate.
90.00
80.00
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00 V
30.00 E
20.00
10.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1(%) 2(%)
9 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) 6(%) 7(%) 8(%) 9(%)
V 65.50 0 2.67 0.83 0.83 29.67 0 0 0.50
E 82.83 0 0 12.83 0 0 0 3.83 0.50

Figure 9: Politeness strategies in promising to Subordinate

Vietnamese findings
The Vietnamese informants do not make use of strategies 2, 7, 8. Firstly, strategy 1 is at the
highest rate (65.50%). Next to, strategy 6 is employed (29.67%) and then comes strategy 3
(2.67%). It is worthy of note that the ratio between strategies 4 and 5 are equivalent to
(0.83%).
The Vietnamese informants show their high interest in PPO when making promises to
subordinate.
English findings
Like the Vietnamese informants, the English informants tend to be more PPO in making
promises. When the communicating partner is subordinate, the English informants employ
strategies 1, 4, 8, 9. The data reveals that strategy 1 is resorted to the highest rank (82.83%).
Followed by strategy 4 (12.83%), the percentages of strategies 8 and 9 are quite small (3.83% and
0.50% respectively). None of the English informants use strategies 2, 3, 5, 6, 7.
Come to conclusion, both the Vietnamese and the English informants tend to be more
PPO than NPO
None of informants of both groups at all use strategies 2, 7.
II.4.2. Major cross-cultural similarities and differences.
II.4.2.1. Similarities
* Close friend:
- Both the Vietnamese and the English informants employ strategies 1, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9.
- Strategy 3 is not used by the two groups.
* Sister:
Both the Vietnamese and the English informants tend to be more NPO.
The Vietnamese and the English informants do not employ strategies 3 and 5 to make
promises with their sister/brother.
* Colleague: (same sex, same age)
- Both the Vietnamese and the English informants employ strategies 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9
- Both groups are more NPO (V: 60.67% and E: 54.51%)
- Strategies 1 and 6 are given top priority (V: 54.67% and E: 64.67%)
* Colleague (same age, opposite sex)
- Both the Vietnamese and the English groups tend to be more NPO
- Strategy 6 is employed by the two groups at almost the same rate (40.83% and 39.17%)
* Acquaintance
- All strategies 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 are employed by both the Vietnamese and the English
informants
- Both groups are used strategy 5 with little percentages (V: 3.33% and E: 2%)
- The most preferable strategy is strategy 1 (making promise) with the highest rate (V:
64.50% and E: 33.17%)
- None of informants of the two groups use strategy 2
* Boss (5 years younger)
- Strategies 1, 6, 7 are used by both groups.
- The highest proportion falls on strategy 6 with both the Vietnamese and the English
communicative partners.
- Both the Vietnamese and the English informants tend to be more NPO.
- Strategies 3, 5, 9 are not used by both groups.
* Boss (5 years older)
- Strategies 3, 5, 9 are not used by the Vietnamese and the English informants.
- Both groups tend to be more NPO.
- There is no noticeable changes between bosses (older or younger).
- Strategy 6 is the most preferable choice of both groups.
* Subordinate
- Both the Vietnamese and the English groups use strategy 1 at the highest rate when the
communicative partner is subordinate.
- None of the Vietnamese and the English informants employ strategies 2 and 7.
- Both of the two groups are highly PPO.
II.4.2.2. Differences
1. Close friend
- The English informants tend to be more NPO than the Vietnamese informants.
- Strategy 2 is not resorted to all the Vietnamese informants whereas strategy 7 is also not used
by all the English informants.
- The Vietnamese informants use strategy 5 at a much higher rate than the English informants
(V: 20.83% and E: 2.50%).
2. Sister/Brother
- The Vietnamese informants do not employ strategies 2 and 4 to make promises whereas the
English informants do (1.33% and 14.83%)
- For the Vietnamese informants, strategy 6 is the most frequently used for their sister/brother
(62.50%) whereas the English informants choose strategy 1 with the highest proportion
(38.33%)
3. Colleague (same sex, same age)
Strategies 2 and 4 are used by the English informants (15.5%) but the Vietnamese
informants do not make any choice of it.
Although the Vietnamese informants employ strategy 3 (7.50%), this is not resorted to
the English informants. The Vietnamese informants explain the reason by indirect ways
meanwhile the English informants often use direct ones.
The English informants tends to be more PPO than the Vietnamese ones.
4. Colleague (same age, opposite sex)
- The Vietnamese informants use strategy 1 at a lower rate than the English informants do
(19.67% and 29.17%).
- None of the Vietnamese informants use strategies 2 and 4 whereas the English informants
resort to it at a remarkable rate (14.66%).
- The Vietnamese informants use strategy 3 at a significant rate (5.83%), but this is not the
case with the English informants.
- When making promises, the Vietnamese informants generally do not tend to exaggerate.
They think that it is inappropriate to make promises.
5. Acquaintance
- The English informants tend to be more NPO than the Vietnamese ones.
- When communicating with acquaintance, the English informants rarely use strategy 2 but the
Vietnamese informants do not resort to it.
- The percentage of strategy 1 is resorted to the Vietnamese informants doubt that of one by
the English informants (64.50% and 33.17%) while strategy 6 is vice versa (V: 16.67% and E:
31.50%).
- The Vietnamese informants use strategy 3 (2.67%), this is not resorted to the English informants.
6. Boss (5 years younger)
- The Vietnamese informants employ three strategies (1, 6, 7) mean while, the English
informants employ strategies (1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8) much more than the Vietnamese ones.
- The English informants pay attention to social distance or status power in communication
with boss. Thus, the English informants prefer exaggerating with boss (8.33%).
- The English informants tend to be more PPO than the Vietnamese one (V: 0.83% and E: 27.83%).
7. Boss (5 years older)
- The Vietnamese informants always show their respects towards the older people much more
than the English informants.
- Their boss (5 years older) is often given high appreciation than their young boss.
- The English informants tend to be a little bit more NPO than the Vietnamese ones.
- The Vietnamese informants do not use strategies 2, 4, 8 whereas the English informants
resort to (11.17%, 0.33% and 1.17%).
8. Subordinate
- The Vietnamese informants employ strategies (1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9) while the English informants
use strategies (1, 4, 8, 9).
- The Vietnamese informants tend to be more NPO than the English ones.
II.5. Expressing promise as seen from informants’ parameters
II.5.1. Data analysis
1. Age:
Strategies 1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) 6(%) 7(%) 8(%) 9(%)
Above30 22.40 0 3.65 0 1.04 65.10 3.65 3.13 1.04
VIE
Under30 26.47 0 1.72 0.49 5.15 39.22 16.42 7.60 2.94
Above30 40.42 3.33 0 13.75 0.83 33.75 5.42 1.67 0.83
ENG
Under30 27.78 3.61 0 8.33 0.83 40.00 6.39 12.22 0.83
Table 4: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of age
Vietnamese findings
Both informants above 30 and those under 30 do not use strategy 2. The Vietnamese
informants above 30 make use of all strategies (except strategies 2 and 4) whereas the
Vietnamese informants under 30 employ strategy 4 (0.49%). Informants under 30 employ
strategy 5 more than informants above 30 (5.15% and 1.04%). It is noticeable that informants
above 30 employ strategies 3 and 7 at the same rate (3.65%). Both of groups are more NPO.
However, the older tend to be more NPO than the younger (73.44% and 60.79%).
English findings
The English data shows that, none of informants employ strategy 3 (0%). All the
English informants employ strategies 5 and 9 (0.83%) at the same rate. Informants above 30
resort to strategies 1 and 4 (40.42% and 13.75%) more frequently than informants under 30.
However, the younger use strategy 8 more highly than the older. It is no noticeable change for
both informants to employ strategies 2, 6, 7.
All in all, both the Vietnamese and the English informants employ strategies 1, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9. The older tend to be NPO than the younger. The English informants employ strategy 4, it
comes the third rank (13.75% and 8.33%). Contrast to the English informants, none of the
Vietnamese informants above 30 employ strategy 4 and few informants below 30 resort to it (0.49%).
2. Gender
Strategies 1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) 6(%) 7(%) 8(%) 9(%)
Male 47.35 0 1.52 0.38 6.44 32.95 4.17 5.68 1.52
VIE
Female 7.74 0 2.98 0.30 1.79 58.93 18.75 6.55 2.98
Male 40.97 5.90 0 14.24 1.74 26.39 0 10.07 0.69
ENG
Female 25.32 1.28 0 7.05 0 47.76 11.54 6.09 0.96
Table 5: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of gender
Vietnamese findings
From Vietnamese data, males use strategies 1 and 6 at the highest rank (47.35%) and (32.95%)
while females employ strategies 6, 7 at the highest rate (58.93% and 18.75%). Both females
and males display rather similar tendency towards strategies (3, 4, 5, 8, 9) employed.
However, females tend to be more NPO than males (83.94%) and (40.54%).
English Findings
The English data reveals that the highest rate belongs to strategy 1 (40.97% and 25.32%),
followed by strategy 6 (26.39% and 47.76%), strategies (4, 8) come the third. Then come
strategies (2, 9). It is worthy of note that, strategy 7 is not used by males, and this is vice-versa
for females with strategy 5.
It might be concluded that. The English informants find it more or less unimportant to resort to
strategies (5, 7, 9). In particular, English females give no chances to strategy 5 and males with
strategy 7 (0%). Compare to the English informants, the Vietnamese informants regard as less
important to strategy 4 (0.38 and 0.33%). Both of the two sexes give their top priority to
strategies 1, 6, 8, 9.
The English informants tend to be more PPO than the Vietnamese ones.
3. Marital status:
Strategies 1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) 6(%) 7(%) 8(%) 9(%)
M 29.86 0 2.78 0 2.78 34.38 17.01 9.38 3.82
VIE S 20.83 0 1.92 0.64 4.81 59.62 8.01 3.21 0.96
M 39.88 0.60 0 18.45 0.60 20.83 11.90 5.36 2.38
ENG
S 30.09 4.63 0 7.41 0.93 43.98 3.70 9.03 0.23
Table 6: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of marital
status Vietnamese findings
Both Vietnamese married and single informants employ strategy 6 at the highest rate
(M: 34.38% and S: 59.62%), followed by strategy 1 (M: 29.86% and S: 20.83%). Strategy 4 is
not resorted by the married and (0.64%) for the single. The Married prefer using strategies 3,
7, 8, 9 more than the single whereas the single make use of strategy 5 more than the married
(M: 2.78% and S: 4.81%). The married employ strategies 3 and 5 (2.78%) at the same rate.
The Married tend to be more NPO than the single.
English findings
The data from the table reveals that strategies 1 and 6 are employed at the highest rate
(69.97% and 64.81%) for both English married and single informants. Single informants
prefer using strategy 2 (4.63%) and strategy 8 (9.03%) whereas married informants employed
strategies 4 and 7 (18.46%), (11.90%). Both the single and the married find it less important
to employ strategy 5 (M: 0.60% and S: 0.93%). In addition, the married use strategies 4
(18.45%), 7 (11.90%), 9 (2.38%) more frequently than the single (7.41%), (3.70%) and
(0.23%) respectively.
In short, the Vietnamese and the English informants resort to strategies 1, 6 at the
highest rates. The Vietnamese informants prefer strategies 5, 3, 7, whereas the English
informants use strategy 4 more frequently than the Vietnamese ones.
4. Where they live
Strategies 1(%) 2(%) 3(%) 4(%) 5(%) 6(%) 7(%) 8(%) 9(%)
Rural 27.92 0 3.75 0.42 2.08 43.75 1.67 2.08 3.33
V Urban 23.33 0 1.39 0.28 5.0 50.00 9.44 8.89 1.67
Rural 23.33 8.33 0 5.83 1.67 43.33 15.00 0 2.50
E Urban 35.21 2.29 0 11.67 0.63 36.04 3.75 10.00 0.42
Table 7: Politeness strategies according to the parameter of living area
Vietnamese findings
The choice of strategies is affected by residential area. The residential rural informants
employ strategy 6 (43.75%) at the highest rate. The second rank belongs to strategy 1
(27.92%). The rates glide down from strategy 7 (16.67%) to strategy 3 (3.75), strategy 9
(3.33%), strategies 5 and 8 are at the same rate (2.08%) and strategy 4 (0.42%). They used the
being conventionally indirect to make promises. This is the dominant feature of Vietnamese
culture, especially the countryside in Vietnamese. Contrary to the rural areas informants, the
urban areas informants resort to strategies 1 and 6 (23.33% and 50%) at the highest rates. The
second position belongs to strategies 5, 8, 7 with the rates of (5.0%, 8.89% and 9.44%).
Strategies 3, 4, 9 ( 1.39%, 0.28% and 1.67%) come the third
English findings
The English data reveals that none of rural informants use strategy 8 (0%), whereas
urban informants employ (10%). All strategies have influence on both rural and urban
informants ranking. The highest rate belongs to strategy 6 (43.33% and 36.04%), next to
strategy 1 (23.33% and 35.21%), then come strategy 7 (15% and 3.75%), strategy 4 (5.83 and
11.67%), strategy 2 (8.33% and 2.29%). The rural and urban informants are more careful to
employ strategy 9 than other ones with (2.50% and 0.42%).
In brief, the Vietnamese informants tend to be more NPO than the English ones.
The overlap of both NP and PP the Vietnamese informants is higher rate than the English
informants.
II.5.2. Cross-cultural similarities and differences
2.5.2.1. Similarities
- Both the Vietnamese and the English informants employ strategies 1 and 6 at the highest
rate.
- Both groups are careful to employ strategy 9.
- Making promise informants of two groups tend to be more NPO than PPO
- Females and rural informants use the overlap (NP+PP) more fluently than males and urban
informants respectively.
- Males, single, and below 30 age prefer strategy 5 much more than females, married and
above 30 age.
- It is noticeable that both informants support strategies 1, 6, 9 respectively.
2.5.2.2 Differences
- The Vietnamese informants do not use strategy 2 to make promises.
- The English informants are fond of strategy 2 when making promises
- None of the English informants employ strategy 3 because the English informants explain
the reason by directly. Contrast to the English informants, the Vietnamese ones use strategy 3
more frequently than others in the daily communication.
- Above 30 age and the Vietnamese married informants are careful to make promises. None
of the Vietnamese informants employ strategy 4 whereas the English ones often use strategy 4.
- None of English females employ strategy 5 meanwhile the Vietnamese informants resort to it
(1.79%)
- That is affected by culture, all The Vietnamese informants use strategy 5 to show friendly
and sodality, even equal status. Strategy 7 is not employed by English males informants. The
rural English informants do not use strategy 8 (0%). The English informants prefer strategies 1
and 4 more than strategies 6 and 7 while the Vietnamese informants are vice- versa.
- It is aware of that the English informants tend to be more PPO than the Vietnamese
informants.
 PART C: CONCLUSION
1. SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS.
The data analysis reveals that the Vietnamese and the English informants resort to similar and
different promising strategies in given situations ( as clearly pointed out in chapter II).
In particular, it is discovered that the Vietnamese informants prefer combining both NP and
PP when making promises. The Vietnamese informants tend to be more NPO than the English
ones. It might be the case that the Vietnamese informants are more in favour of indirectness
and conventionality while the English informants speak their mind and express things directly.
Strategies 1 and 6 are employed at the highest rate by both groups of informants.
It is beyond the thesis author’s expectation that the English informants seem to prefer
exaggeration strategy while none of the Vietnamese informants choose this strategy. In
contrast, the Vietnamese informants use strategy 3 while the English informants do not resort
to it. The data also shows that the Vietnamese informants prefer strategies 5, 7, 9 whereas the
English informants use strategies 4 and 8 more frequently.
2. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY.
This research is only a partial investigation into the act of promising by the Vietnamese
and English native speakers. Many important factors are not mentioned, such as:
- Formality-informality in promising
- Directness and Indirectness in promising
- Non-verbal cues in promising
- Paralinguistic factors in promising
Investigations into these areas are belived to be of academic and practical interest.
Although this thesis author has tried her best, shortcomings and mistakes are
unvoidable. Constructive comments are most welcome!
 I

REFERENCES
In English
1 Austin J.L (1962), How to do things with words, CUP, London- Oxford- New york.
2 Bock P. K.(1970), Culture Shock- A reader in modern Cultural Anthropology published
in the United States by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc, Newyork
3 Brown P., Levinson S. (1987), Politeness some universals in language usage, CUP.
4 Brown P., Yule G. (1989), Discourse Analysis, CUP.
5 Clyne M. (1981), Culture and discourse culture Journal of pragmatics, Journal of Pragmatics.
6 Clyne M. (1994), Inter- cultural communication at work. Cultural values in Discourse, CUP.
7 Cook G. (1990), Discourse, OUP.
8 Condon J.C. (1975), An introduction to Intercultural communication,
Macmillan publishing company, New York.
9 Do Thi Phi Nga (2003), Some Vietnamese - English Cross-Cultural differences in
Expressing sympathy, MA thesis, VNU- CFL.
10 Downes W. (1998), language and society, CUP.
11 Ember C. R & M. (1990), Cultural Anthropology, Prentice Hall.
12 Delahunty G.P., Gurvey J.J. (1994), Language grammar and communication, MC
Grow- Hill, Inc.
13 Green G. M. (1989), Pragmatics and natural language understanding, Lawrence
Eribaum Associates.
14 Geis M. (1998), Speech Acts and conversational interaction, CUP.
15 Hymes D. (1966), Language in culture and society, Haprper international Edition.
16 Hymes D. (1972), Socio linguistics, CUP.
17 Hudson R.A. (1990), Sociolinguistics, CUP.
18 Kramsch C. (1998), Language and culture, Oxford University Press.
19 Lakoff G. (1977), What can you do with words, politeness, pragmatics and performatives, In
Roger, Andy, Wall, Bob and Murphy, John (eds.), Proceddings of the Taxas Conference.
20 Longman group UK, limited (1992), Dictionary of English language and culture,
Longman House.
21 Lado R. (1962), Linguistics across cultures, the Abraham Lincoln University.
22 Leech G. W. (1983), Principles of Pragmatics, London and New York, Longman.
23 Levinson S. C. (1983), Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press.
24 Lyons J. (1977), Semantics, CUP.
25 Nguyen Quang Ngoan (2004), Some Vietnamese- American Cross- Cultural similarities
and differences in disagreeing with power - unequals, MA, Thesis, VNU, CFL.
26 Nunan D. (1992), Research methods in language learning, Cambridge, CUP.
27 Pham Anh Toan (2005), A Vietnamese– American Cross –Cultural study on Expressing
Gratitude to people with differences social distances, M.A, thesis, VNU, CFL.
28 Searle J. R. (1969), Speech acts An Essay in the philosophy of language, Cambridge
University Press.
29 Searle J. R. (1971), Speech acts, Cambridge, England, OUP.
30 Tomalin B., Stempleski S. (1993), Cultural Awareness, Oxford University Press
31 Trudgill P. (1983), Sociolinguistics, An introduction to Languge and Society, Penguin Books.
32 Valdes J. M (ed). (1995), Culture Bound, Cambridge, CUP.
33 Verderber R. (1981), Communicate, Wadsworth publishing company.
34 Warhaugh R. (1992), An introduction to sociolinguistics, Oxford and UK, Blackwell.
35 Wanning E. (1991), Culture – Shock, USA Oregon, Graphic Arts Center Pulishing company
36 Watts R. J. (2003), Politeness, CUP.
37 Wesley A. (1998), Longman Dictionary of language and culture, Longman
38 Wierzbicka. (1987), An English speech Act verbs, Academic press.
39 Yule G. (1996), Pragmatics, OUP.
40 Yule G. ( 1997), Pragmatics, OUP.
In Vietnamese:
1 Ðo Huu Châu (1995), Giáo trình giãn yeu ve dnng hQc, Nxb Giáo dnc
2 Nguyen Vǎn Chien (1992), Ngôn ngu hQc doi chieu và doi chieu các ngôn ngu Ðông
Nam Á, Nxb, TrUòng Ðai hQc SU Pham Ngoai Ngu, Hà Nô%
3 Nguyen Thi¾n Giáp (2002), Dnng hQc Viêt Ngu, Nxb, ÐHQG – Hà N®i.
4 Hoàng Phê (1992), Tù dien Tieng Vi¾t. Nhà xuat bãn Khoa hQc Xã h®i, Hà N®i
5 Nguyen Quang (1999), M®t so khác bi¾t giao tiep lòi nói Vi¾t- My trong cách thúc
khen và tiep nh¾n lòi khen, Lu¾n án Tien sy, ÐHKH–XHNV, ÐHQG Hà N®i.
6 Nguyen Quang ( 2002), Giao tiep và giao tiep giao vǎn hoá, ÐHQG Hà N®i.
7 Nguyen Quang ( 2003), Giao tiep n®i vǎn hoá và giao vǎn hoá., Nxb ÐHQG Hà N®i.
8 Tran NgQc Thêm (1997) , Co sõ vǎn hoá Vi¾t Nam, Nxb, Giáo Dnc.
 APPENDICES
Bãn câu hõi khão sát
(For Vietnamese informants)
Chúng tôi thiet ke ban dieu tra này nham phnc vn cho de tài nghiên cúu ve nhung
khác bi¾t giao vǎn hoá Vi¾t-Anh trong cách thúc húa hen. Các du li¾u thu th¾p DUoc se dUoc
su dnng cho phan phân tích cua chúng tôi. Xin quý v% vui lòng bót chút thòi gian tra lòi
câu hoi trong ban dieu tra này de chúng tôi hoàn thành vi¾c nghiên cúu khoa hQc cua mình.
Xin khang d%nh cùng quý v% rang chúng tôi se không nêu danh tính cua quý v% trong bat cú
trUòng hop nào. Xin cam on quí v%.
Xin quí v% cho biet m®t vài thông tin ve ban thân quí v% (bang cách dánh dau (v) vào ô chQn)
▪ Tuoi cua quí v%:
+ DUói 30
+ Trên 30
▪ Giói tính cua quí v%
+Nam
+Nu
▪ Tình trang hôn nhân cua quí v%
+Ðã l¾p gia dình
+ChUa l¾p gia dình
▪ Noi quí v% song lâu nhat:
+Thành th%
+Nông thôn
Tình huong 1: Ban se húa the nào vói nhung ngUòi sau dây sau khi ban nói xau hQ và b%
hQ phát hi¾n DUoc.
1. NgUòi ay là ban thân cua ban
……………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
2. NgUòi ay là anh ch% cua ban
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
3. NgUòi ay là dong nghi¾p cua ban (cùng tuoi, cùng giói tính).
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
4. NgUòi ay là dong nghi¾p cua ban (cùng tuoi, khác giói tính)
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
5. NgUòi ay là ngUòi ban mói quen.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
6. NgUòi ay là sep cua ban (tre hon ban 5 tuoi).
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
7. NgUòi ay là sep cua ban (lón hon ban 5 tuoi).
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
8. NgUòi ay là nhân viên cua ban
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Tình huong 2: Ban húa the nào vói nhung ngUòi sau dây neu ban dong ý làm chu hôn cho
dám cUói cua cô ay ho¾c anh ay.
1. NgUòi ay là ban thân cua ban
 …………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
2. NgUòi ay là anh ch% cua ban
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
3. NgUòi ay là dong nghi¾p cua ban (cùng tuoi, cùng giói tính).
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………

4. NgUòi ay là dong nghi¾p cua ban (cùng tuoi, khác giói tính)
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
5. NgUòi ay là ngUòi ban mói quen.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
6. NgUòi ay là sep cua ban (tre hon ban 5 tuoi).
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
7. NgUòi ay là sep cua ban (lón hon ban 5 tuoi).
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
8. NgUòi ay là nhân viên cua ban
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Tình huong 3: Ban se húa the nào vói nhung ngUòi sau dây neu ban dã không dUa hQ di
xem b® phim mà cô ho¾c anh ay yêu thích.
1. NgUòi ay là ban thân cua ban
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
2. NgUòi ay là anh ch% cua ban
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
3. NgUòi ay là dong nghi¾p cua ban (cùng tuoi, cùng giói tính).
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………

4. NgUòi ay là dong nghi¾p cua ban (cùng tuoi, khác giói tính)
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
5. NgUòi ay là ngUòi ban mói quen.
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
6. NgUòi ay là sep cua ban (tre hon ban 5 tuoi).
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
7. NgUòi ay là sep cua ban (lón hon ban 5 tuoi).
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
8. NgUòi ay là nhân viên cua ban

…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
 SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
(For native speakers of English)
This survey questionnaire is designed for my research in to “A Vietnamese-
English cross-cultural study of Promising”. Your assisstance in completing the following
items is greatly appreciated you can be confident that this survey questionnaire is for
research purpose only and you will not be identified in any discussion of the data .
Thank you very much for your assisstane
Please tick (v) where appropriate:
Your age.
Below 30
Above 30
Your gender:
Male
Female
Your marrital status
Married
Single
Area where you spend most of your time
Urban
Rural
Situation 1: How would you verbally promise the following person after you had spoken ill
of him / her?
She / He is your close friend
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your brother/sister
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your colleague (same sex, same age)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your colleague (opposite sex, same age)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your acquaintance
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your boss (about 5 years younger than you)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your boss (about 5 years older than you)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your subordinate.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Situation 2: How would you verbally promise the following person if you agree to conduct
a wedding ceremony for him /her ?
She / He is your close friend
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your brothe/sister
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your colleague (same sex, same age)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your colleague (opposite sex, same age)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your acquaintance
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your boss (about 5 years younger than you)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your boss (about 5 years older than you)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your subordinate.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Situation 3: How would you verbally promise the following person if you could not take
him / her to the cinema?
She / He is your close friend
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your brother / sister
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your colleague (same sex, same age)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your colleague (opposite sex, same age)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your acquaintance
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your boss (about 5 years younger than you)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your boss (about 5 years older than you)
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………
She / He is your subordinate.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………

Thank you for your co-operation!

i