Vietnam national university - HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES VŨ THÙY LINH AN AMERICAN AND VIETNAMESE CROSS-
CULTURAL STUDY ON TEACHERS’ CRITICISMS
TO STUDENTS’ PRESENTATIONS

NGHIÊN CỨU GIAO VĂN HÓA VIỆT MỸ VỀ CÁCH THỨC PHÊ BÌNH
CỦA GIÁO VIÊN ĐỐI VỚI CÁC BÀI THUYỂT TRÌNH CỦA SINH VIÊN

M.A. MINOR THESIS
Major: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15


NGHIÊN CỨU GIAO VĂN HÓA VIỆT MỸ VỀ CÁCH THỨC PHÊ BÌNH
CỦA GIÁO VIÊN ĐỐI VỚI CÁC BÀI THUYỂT TRÌNH CỦA SINH VIÊN

M.A. MINOR THESIS
Major: English Linguistics
Code: 60 22 15
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. VÕ ĐẠI QUANG (PhD) HANOI, 10/2009

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1.3.2 Directness and Indirectness in Culture
10
1.4. Oral Presentation
12
1.4.1 Definition of Presentation
12
1.4.2 Class Presentation Assessment Criteria
12
Chapter 2: The Study
15
2.1 Comments on Participants and Questionnaires
15
2.2 Data collection procedure
17
2.3 Data coding
17
Chapter 3: Results and Discussion
20
3.1 Criticizing strategies used by American and Vietnamese teachers
20
3.1.1 Direct criticisms
20
a. Negative evaluation
20
b. Disapproval
21
c. Identification of problem
22

v

attention on speech acts such as apology, request, and compliment. However, the speech
act of criticism remains to be an area less explored by scholars at home and abroad.
According to Brown and Levinson (1987: 62), criticism is a face-threatening act
that threatens the hearer’s positive face, which is “the want of every individual that his
wants be desirable to at least some others”. Therefore, the speaker tends to adopt various
strategies to save face for the one being criticized. However, cultural differences could
result in variance in criticism strategy preferences and an interlocutor may inappropriately
choose some criticism strategies according to his own culture with another interlocutor
from different culture, thus leading misunderstanding in the cross-cultural communication.
The fact that criticism plays a very important in teaching and learning is
undeniable. This is because students may learn from mistakes of one another as well as
from the comments that they receive. Teachers, however, form different cultures have
different ways of giving criticisms to their students’ presentations. Some may be open and
direct in their criticisms while others may resort to indirect strategies. Thus, misusing this
may have counter-productive effects on the relationships between the interlocutors.
All the aforementioned reasons have encouraged us to carry out a study entitled
“An American and Vietnamese Cross – Cultural Study on Teachers’ Criticisms to
Students’ Presentations”. We do this study with the hope of raising the awareness of
cross-cultural differences in American and Vietnamese ways of criticizing in general and
criticizing students’ presentations in particular.
2. AIMS OF THE STUDY
The study aims to make a comparison in the ways of criticizing students’ presentations
between American and Vietnamese teachers.
To reach this aim, two objectives need to be achieved. First, the study examines what
politeness strategies are employed by American and Vietnamese teachers when they
give criticisms to their students’ presentations. Second, the study also analyzes the

2
similarities and differences between two groups of teachers in the use of politeness
strategies in their criticism to students’ presentations.


3
Chapter 1: Literature Review lays the theoretical foundation for the research by
discussing (1) theory of speech act, (2) speech act of criticizing, (3) directness and
indirectness in language and culture, and (4) an overview of presentation and criteria for a
good presentation.
Chapter 2: Study details the methods that have been used and the procedures that
have been followed by the researcher.
Chapter 3: Results and Discussion presents the findings from the survey and
discuss them in detail.
Part III: CONCLUSION
This part ends the study by summarizing its main points as well as points out the
limitations and suggestions for further studies. 4
PART II: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 SPEECH ATCS

The notion of speech acts dates back the British philosopher of language John Austin
(1962). In his very influential work, ‘How to do things with words’, Austin defines speech
acts as the actions performed in saying something or actions performed using language. In
fact, when speaking, we perform certain linguistic actions such as giving reports, making
statement, asking questions, giving warnings, making promises and so on. In other words
speech acts are all the acts we perform through speaking – all the things we do when we
speak. Austin (1962) distinguished between the three kinds of acts, namely locutionary,
illocutionary and perlocutionary then. Of these, a locutionary act is the act of saying
something in the full sense of “say”. An illocutionary act is the one of using the sentence to

of usages and of references”, e.g. accept, agree
However, this classification is criticized for basing mainly on the performative verb
through which a speech act is expressed and having no clear or consistent principle or set
of principles based on which Austin constructed his taxonomy. Thus, many speech acts
according to his classification, may belong to two different categories.
Searle (1979), finding fault with Austin’s, suggests his own classification of speech acts.
These speech acts are further described as follows:
(1) Representatives: representing states of affairs (e.g.: assertions, conclusion, or
description).
(2) Directives: getting the hearer to do something (e.g.: suggestion, commands or
requests).
(3) Commissives: committing the speaker to doing something (e.g.: threats, refusals, or
promises.)
(4) Expressives: expressing feelings about states of affairs (e.g.: apologies,
compliments or congratulation).
(5) Declarations: bringing about changes of some states of affairs (e.g.: resignition,
declaration or baptism.)

Wardhaugh (1992) summarized and explains Austin’s (1962) and Searle’s (1975)
speech act theories and then concludes:
In contrast to Austin, who focused his attention on how speakers realize their
intentions in speaking, Searle focused on how listeners respond to utterances, that is, how

6
one person tries to figure out how another is using a particular utterance [ ] what we see
in both Austin and Searle is a recognition that people use language to achieve a variety of
objectives.
Wardhaugh (1992: 287)
Another approach to distinguish types of speech acts can be made on the relationship
between structure and function (Yule, 1996: 54). He divided speech acts into direct speech

include ‘measuring words’ (to avoid being too negative), ‘soft-pedaling’ (i.e. using internal
and external modifications to lessen the harshness of the criticism), ‘using affirmative
language’ such as comforting messages, ‘distancing and neutralizing’ (to depersonalize the
criticism) and ‘using negotiating language’ (to avoid imposing on the addressee).
(Wajnryb, 1993; cited by Minh, 2005:15). That point of view seems to be supported by
Wajnryb (1995) who preferred a direct and ‘economical’ criticism rather than indirect,
wordy, and ‘time-wasting’ one.
Along these perceptions, Toplak and Katz (2000) focused an the difference
between the speaker and the addressee when giving their judgments of the criticism given,
“The addressee tented to view sarcasm as more severe than the speaker intended”.
However, they also discovered that sarcasm was not perceived by the recipient as having
as negative an impact on the relationship between the interlocutors as direct criticisms.
Tracy and Eissenberg (1990) in their investigation into the preferences for message
clarity and politeness in giving criticism found that among people from different races and
gender the superiors tender to given more weight to message clarity that did subordinates
and that this preference also varied according to gender and race.
Overall, the speech act of criticizing has attracted many researchers thanks to its
great contribution to thoroughly deep understanding of the field. Yet, the definition of this
speech act is still not mentioned, which makes it difficult to compare and contrast the
findings of the various studies.
One of the most widely-used definition in the study of the field is Tracy et al’s
(1987), in which they consider both criticizing and complaining as the act of ‘ finding
fault’ and define these two speech acts as ‘negative evaluation of a person or an act for
which he/she is deemed responsible’. However, Tracy et al’s (1987: 56) suggest two main
points to distinguish between criticizing and complaining, which are “content and form and
the salient role identity” of the giver and the receiver, criticisms are usually associated with
higher social status and complaints with lower social status, although there may also be
exceptions.
Another definition of criticism is found in House and Kasper (1981), who consider
criticisms, accusations, and reproaches as different kinds of complaints. Their reasons for

Saville- Troike (1986) noticed that directness and indirectness have relation with
language and that all kinds of speech acts can be classified as either direct. She
differentiated these two kinds based on the relationship between the surface from and the
interactional function. In a direct act, they match while in an indirect act, they do not. To
illustrate this, she cited examples of asking others to be quiet. While ‘Be quiet!’ is a direct
act used as command, statements like ‘It’s getting noisy here’ or ‘I can’t hear myself think’
are indirect speech acts used for the same purpose.
In his book ‘Pragmatics’ (1996), Yule, a discourse analyst offered another way to
distinguish between direct and indirect speech acts. He claimed that ‘whenever there is a
direct relationship between a structure and a function, we have a direct speech act.

9
Whenever there is an indirect relationship between a structure and a function we have an
indirect speech act’.
However, among the various ways off differentiating direct and indirect speech
acts, Searle’s way seems much clearer and simpler. As for him, in direct speech acts, the
speaker says what he means while in indirect speech act, the speaker means more than he
says. Therefore, direct speech acts are clear enough to hearers to understand. Meanwhile,
to grasp the massager of an indirect speech act, one needs some inferential work.
At discourse level, indirectness can be understood as: in a sequence of sentences,
the first sentence paves the way for the information, which is embedded in the sentence
that comes later.

1.3.2 Directness and Indirectness in Culture

The most influential factors found in people’s ways of thinking and expressions are
the cultural factors. In turn, each culture influences in communication may verify. The
variations are distinguished in linguistic description via the terms “directness” and
“indirectness”. While our culture pays great attention to indirectness in communication,
another culture prefers a more direct style in communication by considering roundabout

In the study of directness and indirectness, Nguyen Quang (2003) gives an example
of what he terms the “By the way phenomenon”, which is widely and practically used by
the Vietnamese.
Anh ạ, đợt này em xây nhà bận quá. Đúng là “làm ruộng thì ra, làm nhà thì tốn” thật. Anh
biết không, lúc đầu dự trù khoảng 230 triệu là thoải mái thế mà mới xây xong phần thô đã
mất đến hơn 160 triệu rồi. Em còn có 70 triệu mà theo dự toán phải mất khoảng 90 triệu
nữa mới hoàn thiện được. Em cũng ngại quá nhưng cũng chẳng biết nhờ vả ai. Em qua hỏi
anh xem anh có thể cho em vay khoảng 20 triệu đươc không ạ? Em xin gửi lại anh tiền vào
đầu quí tới anh ạ”

You know, I have been so busy with a new house. It is said that “Farming is productive,
Building a new house is unproductive”. At first, the estimation of about 230 million VND
was enough for the whole construction but only the frame completed counts for 160 million

11
VND. It is estimated that it needs about 90 million VND for the finishing while I have only
70 million VND left. I’m so worried but I have no one else to depend on. Thus, I have to
call at you wondering whether you could lend me 20 million VND. If you could, I would
pay your money back at the beginning of the next quarter”.

In the case of borrowing a car, the Anglicist tent to be more direct, for example:
Andy: Hello
Jack: Hi, Andy. This is Jack
Andy: Oh, hi Jack
Jack: I was wondering if you could do me a favor
Andy: That depends.
Jack: Well, I have to go a wedding this weekend. Would it be OK if I borrow your
brand – new car?
Andy: Oh, sure. No problem.
Jack: Thanks a lots, I’ll come by and pick it up tonight

of verbal and nonverbal communication as well as visual aids.
Presentation comes in many forms, one of which is training form or class
presentations. (Templeton and FitzGerald, 1999: 4) Each class presentation normally
consists of three sections, namely, presentation, question-and-answer and feedback. In the
presentation section, students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their understanding
of a topic and to explain it to an audience. The question-and-answer section, as its name, is
the one in which the presenters answer questions from the audience. Finally, students can
learn a lot from the cogent feedbacks from teachers and peers in the feedback period.
However, in some cases, the presentation and the question-and-answer periods can be
combined to the preference of the presenters.

1.4.2 Class Presentation Assessment Criteria

As mentioned above, at the end of a class presentation, there is a feedback section
in which teachers and students give their comments to the presentation. When a
presentation is assessed, an extensive list of criteria will be considered. In their studies,
Mandel (1987), Templeton and FitzGerald(1999), Koch and Felber (1985) offered a
variety of criteria as such. However, within the scope of this present research, only the
most relevant criteria will be reviewed, i.e. criteria in terms of Content, Organization,
Delivery and Question-handling skills.
13
 Content
All the authors agreed that a good presentation should have clearly stated purpose
and clear arguments. Also, it should be focused, i.e. at no time should the presenter wander
off the topic they are presenting.
 Organization
According to Koch and Felber (1985) a well- organized presentation not only helps

posture, facial expressions, eye contact, gestures, and body movement. The two authors
also suggested that nonverbal communication had to be matched which the verbal content.
 Visual aids
Visual aids are anything used to support the speaker’s message such as read
objects, slide projections, videos, flip charts, etc. As Templeton and FiztGerald (1999) put
in, ‘one picture…a thousand words’, good visual aids add credibility to the presentation
and keep the attention of the audience. Thus, it is suggested that visual aids should be kept
simple and made meaningful to support the content.
 Handling questions
In Templeton and FiztGerald’s (1999) opinion, it is important to be honest, in
control, and confident. Mandel (1987) also agreed with this idea. He even suggested some
tips to deal with question such as saying ‘I don’t know the answer but I will find out and
get back to you’’ in case the presenter does not know the answer to a question.
Additionally, he advised the presenters not to preface, i.e , avoiding starting an answer
with such statements as ‘that’s a very good question, I am glad you asked it’ as it may be
the sign that they are unsure of the answer.
To sum up, to assess a presentation, one may base on a variety of criteria, among
which the most popular are those about content, organization, and delivery and question-
handling skills. These criteria were also the basis for the researcher to design
questionnaires to elicit criticisms of teaches in the present study.

15
CHAPTER 2: THE STUDY

2.1 COMMENTS ON PARTICIPANTS AND QUESTIONNAIRES
2.1.1 Participants

The present study is involved two groups of participants, i.e. American teachers and
Vietnamese teachers. To check whether the participants were suitable to the study or not,
related questions were added to the personal information part in the questionnaire.

student’s presentation. What would you say in the following hypothetical situations? You
are expected to give your verbal comments to the presenter in class time. Your comments
should be in direct speech (E.g. “I think you should keep eye-contact with the
audience…”) rather than in reported speech (E.g. I would tell him/her to keep eye-contact
with the audience.)”
(1) What would you say to your student if you thought he or she sometimes
strayed far from the topic he/she had identified from the beginning? (E.g.
He/she spent time mentioning something irrelevant to what he/she was
talking about)
(2) What would you say to your student if you thought some of his or her
arguments were not logical and did not support his /her assertions?
(3) What would you say to your student if you thought his or her presentation
was not very well organized so it was rather difficult to follow his or her
ideas?
(4) What would you say to your student if you thought his or her gestures were
not natural enough and sometimes distracted the audience?
(5) What would you say to your student if you thought his or her voice was not
strong and clear enough so sometimes you could not hear him or her?
(6) What would you say to your student if you thought the visual aids he/she
used detracted from the presentation? (E.g. small font size, too colorful
slides, etc.)
(7) What would you say to your student if you thought he/she seemed to lack
confidence when giving answers to the audience’s questions?
Additionally, the researcher also followed the suggestion of Oppenheim (1996, cited
in Nguyen, 2005) when providing sufficient space under each hypothetical situation for the
respondents to write their answers. 17
2.2 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE

Table 1: Categorization of criticism strategies
Type
Characteristics
1. Direct criticisms
Explicitly point out the problem with H’s choice/
actions/ work/ products, etc.
a. Negative evaluation
Usually expressed via evaluative adjectives with
negative meaning or evaluative adjective with positive
meaning plus negation.
b. Disapproval
Describing S’s attitude towards H’s choice, etc.
c. Expression of disagreement
Usually realized by means of negation word “No” or
perfomatives “I don’t agree” or “I disagree” (with or
without modal) or via arguments against H.
d. Identification of problem
Stating errors or problems found with H’s choice, etc.
e. Statement of difficulties
Usually expressed by means of such structure as “I find
it difficult to understand …”, “It’s difficult to
understand…”
f. Consequences
Warning about negative consequences or negative
effects of H’s choice, etc. for H himself or herself or for
the public.
2. Indirect criticism
Implying the problems with H’s choice/ actions/
work/ product, etc.
a. Correction

awareness of the inappropriateness of H’s choice, etc.
i. Asking/ presupposing
Rhetorical questions to raise H’s awareness of the
inappropriateness of H’s choice, etc.
j. Other hints
Including other kinds of hints that did not belong to (h)
and (i). May include sarcasm.
20
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 CRITICIZING STRATEGIES USED BY AMERICAN AND
VIETNAMESE TEACHERS
As stated in 2.3, a criticism can be realized by both direct or indirect strategies and
semantic formulas.
3.1.1 Direct criticism
Direct criticisms are ones which explicitly point out the problem with H’s behavior,
acts, choices, words, work, products and etc. Direct strategies of criticism in English and
Vietnamese used by teachers can be realized via four main sub-strategies such as negative
evaluation, disapproval, identification of problem and consequences.
a. Negative evaluation
 In English
When deliver a direct criticism, teachers can give out a negative evaluation on
student’s presentation by using some negative-evaluative adjectives. For instances:
(1) Your presentation is rather messy. (S3)
(2) Your gesture is poor. (S4)
(3) Your answer was wrong. (S7)
In all the above examples, we face with three adjectives with different meanings
(messy, poor, wrong, etc.), but they are all used to serve the same purpose- to give negative

(15) Trả lời như vậy là lạc đề. (S7)
(Your answers were out of topic)
 person/thing criticized + không/chưa + positive-evaluative adjective
(16) Câu trả lời của em chưa thỏa đáng.
(Your answers were not satisfactory.)
(17) Chất giọng của em chưa cuốn hút người nghe.
(Your voice was not attractive enough)
b. Disapproval
 In English
Another way to deliver a criticism directly is to describe S’s attitude towards H’s
behavior, acts, choices, words, work, products and etc. This type of criticizing is
categorized as disapproval strategies.
The S who disapproves of an action thinks that it is bad things to do, and imagines
that he could prevent this action from happening by expressing his negative opinion of it,
he mentally expresses his opinion.