iii
ABSTRACT This thesis focuses on cross-cultural similarities and differences in
giving comments on contestants’ performance by judges in Vietnam Idol and
American Idol. Politeness strategies realized for giving comments are
analyzed with data taken from the video clips of the two shows.
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, and politeness
strategies.
Chapter II: “Data analysis and findings”: Video clips are used to collect data
for the study. Giving comments which resorts to various strategies of
politeness is a flexibly and effectively communicative act in both Vietnamese
and American cultures.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ABSTRACT
ABBREVIATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART A: INTRODUCTION
I. Rationale
II. Aims of the study
III. Scope of the study
IV. Methodology
V. Comments on the informants
VI. Design of the study
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: THEORITICAL PRELIMINARIES
I.1 Culture
I.1.1. Definition of culture
I.1.2. Language-culture interrelationship
I.1.3 Communication and cross-cultural communication
I.1.4 Culture shock
I.1.5 Communicative competence
I.2 Speech acts

10
12
14
15
15
16
19
19
22

vi
CHAPTER II: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
II.1 Information of American Idol and Vietnam Idol
II.1.1. American Idol
II.1.2. Vietnam Idol
II.2. Realisation of politeness strategies in giving comments on contestants’
performance by judges in American Idol and Vietnam
II.2.1 Giving comments with both positive and negative politeness strategies
II.2.2. Strategies realized and discussed
II.3 Data analysis of strategies in giving comments on contestants’
performance by judges in Vietnam Idol 2010 and American 2011
II.3.1 Data analysis
II.3.1.1 Top 4-judges’ choice- Vietnam Idol and top 4 perform American
Idol 2011
II.3.1.2 Top 3 Vietnam Idol and top 3 perform American Idol 2011
II.3.2 Major cross-cultural similarities and differences
II.3.3 Concluding remarks
PART C: CONCLUSION
I. Summary of major findings
II. Implications

1
PART A: INTRODUCTION

I. RATIONALE
It is of little doubt that language plays a very important role in human’s life. Then, English,
nowadays, has become an international means of communication in our modern life.
However, almost all of people learning English find very difficult to understand or to
convey English native speakers’ ideas or thinking, maybe, because of the cultural
difference between Vietnam and English speaking countries. Besides, the lack of the
learners’ awareness of the target language culture and the cultural differences is also the
source of culture shock in every aspect of cross-cultural communication. It is the reason
why those days, the study of communication and cross-cultural communication has
become an urgent need thanks to the popularity of mass media and the increasing demand
of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Doing research on communicative acts has,
therefore, been of great significance.
With the development of society, the need of entertainment has been increasing more
rapidly. People seek many ways to relax their mind such as go for holiday, go camping and
so on. However, the simplest way of entertainment is music. Many music shows and
games have been broadcasted on TV attracting the interest of most of people. Vietnam Idol
and American Idol are very famous shows of music nowadays. Besides selecting an
excellent contestant to become the idol of music, the audience also concern the manner the
judges give comments on the performance of contestants. Thus, Vietnamese – American
cross-cultural studies appear useful and vital in this way.
Commenting is common in many languages and cultures. It is realized by comforting,
showing concern or expressing likes or dislike or reaction, etc. with the hearer. Cross-
cultural study on judges’ commenting on contestants’ performance has not received much
concern form linguistics and researchers. Then, how do Vietnamese and American judges
give comments on contestants’ performance? How are the two manners different? Which
manner is a positive way? This leads the author to the decision to conduct a research into
“A Vietnamese-American cross-cultural study of giving comments on contestants’

research instruments, data collection procedure as well as data analysis procedure are put
into description and justification.
IV.1. Selection of subjects
In order to conduct this study, the researcher has employed top 4 and top 3 performs of
Vietnam Idol 2010 and also two ones of American Idol 2011. the research subjects in this
study have been chosen under the procedure of information-oriented sampling, as opposed
to random sampling. In these two performs of American Idol 2011, the researcher has 3
obtained 51 utterances of commenting; meanwhile, she has got 36 commenting utterances
of Vietnam version, which makes a total of 87 utterances. This size of the samples could
somehow be considered eligible enough for the researcher to carry out a reliable study.
IV.2. Research methods
To conduct the study, the researcher has employed two methods namely quantitative and
qualitative ones. The combination of these two methods has offered the researcher valid
data for later analysis.
Regarding the aim of the study, the researcher has found that quantitative is the most
feasible method to deal with the research problems. It is because in the social sciences,
quantitative research refers to the systematic empirical investigation of quantitative
properties and phenomena and their relationships. The objective of quantitative research is
to develop and employ mathematical models, theories and/ or hypotheses pertaining to
phenomena. The process of measurement is central to quantitative research because it
provides the fundamental connection between empirical observation and mathematical
expression of quantitative relationships.
Besides, qualitative research is a method of inquiry employed in many different academic
disciplines, traditionally in the social sciences, but also in market research and further
contexts. Qualitative researcher aims to gather an in-depth understanding of human
behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior. The qualitative method investigates
the why and how of decision-making, not just what, where, when. Hence, smaller but

males).
Details of the informants’ parameters are:
- Vietnamese group:
+ Two females: singer (Siu Black) and editor (Diem Quynh)
+ Two males: director (Quang Dung) and composer (Quoc Trung)
- American group:
+ One female: singer/actress and record producer Jennifer Lopez
+ Two males: singer-songwriter Steven Tyler and music manager Randy Jackson.
VI. 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 5
In this chapter, theories of culture, cross-culture, culture–shock, language-culture
interrelationship, speech act, and classifications of speech acts, politeness, politeness
principles and politeness strategies, definition of the two shows are critically discussed.
Chapter II: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
In this chapter, the author focuses on analyzing the manner of giving comments of judges
through the two shows with the illustration of video clips (if necessary). The similarities
and differences in the way of giving comments by Vietnamese and American judges are
drawn from detailed and critical analysis of data.
Part C: CONCLUSION
Summary of the major findings and suggestions for further research are mentioned in this
part.

culture.
Levine and Aleman (1993) think 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.”
Here, it means that culture consists of everything that happens in our daily life. Most
people in a country have same habits or same patterns of thinking or behave similarly,
these are called culture.
Wardhaugh (1992: 217) states that: “A society’s culture consists of whatever it is one has
to know or believe in order to operate in a manner acceptable to its members, and to do so
in any role that they accept for any one of themselves.”
Language and culture always keep changing, consequently, people’s behaviors and
attitudes seem to vary due in time and space.
According to Bock (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 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.”
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. Culture is always changing because culture consists of learned 7
patterns of behavior and belief. More clearly, language can not occur alone and is never
separated from social activities and its culture.
8
I.1.3 COMMUNICATION AND CROSS CULTURAL COMMUNICATION
Communication is a broad-ranging topic. Everyday we communicate with others in many
ways. Communication can be understood as the exchange and flow of information and
ideas from one person to another; it involves a sender transmitting an idea, information,
or feeling to a receiver (U.S. Army, 1983 cited at
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leadcom.html). Effective communication occurs
only if the receiver understands the exact information or idea that the sender intended to
transmit.
According to many linguists like Saville Troike (1982:25), speakers must have to
communicate effectively and appropriately. They have to have linguistic knowledge,
interaction skills and cultural knowledge. Lustig (1996:28) states that: “Communication is
a symbolic process in which people create shared meanings.” To him, symbols play a key
role in communication process because they represent the shared and specific meanings
that are communicated. Language and communication are always changing along with the
change of society because communication is considered as a process in which meanings
are created and shared by groups of people as they participate in the ordinary and
everyday activities that form the context of common interpretations.
Cross-cultural communication referred to as intercultural communication is defined as
“an exchange of ideas, information between persons from different cultural
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.” Richards (1983:92).
This is understood that cross-cultural communication is the exchange and negotiation of

recognizing from mild irritability to deep psychological panic and crisis. Culture shock is
associated with feeling in the learners of estrangement, anger, hostility, homesickness and
even physical illness.”
It is clear that many people face difficulty or anxiety when in strange and unexpected
situations as Harris and Moran (1998:226) say “culture shock is neither good or bad, and
necessary or unnecessary”.
In brief, culture shock is a common situation belonging to our mind. It is the stress of
moving to a new place and there are no fixed symptoms ascribed to culture shock as each
person is affected differently.
10
I.1.5 COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
Hymes' original idea was that “speakers of a language have to have more than
grammatical competence in order to be able communicate effectively in a language; they
also need to know how language is used by members of a speech community to accomplish
their purposes.”
Canale and Swain (1980 - Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second
language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1, 1-47.) defines communicative
competence in terms of three components:
 grammatical competence: words and rules
 sociolinguistic competence: appropriateness
 strategic competence: appropriate use of communication strategies
Sharing the same point of view, Saville Troike (1982) states there are three essential
components of communication. They are linguistic knowledge, interactional skills and
cultural knowledge.
These perspective show the fact that linguistic aspects only are far to be enough for
appropriate use and interpretation of language in a community. Therefore, new methods of
foreign language teaching and intensive cross-cultural studies have been conducted so far

The locutionary act is performed with some purposes or function in mind.
 Illocutionary act is an act performed via the communicative force of an utterance.
In engaging in locutionary acts we also perform illocutionary acts such as
informing, advising, offer, promise, commenting…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.
Of the three above acts, illocutionary act is of the most importance in communication as
an utterance can as it brings about various forces. The illocutionary act can account as a
prediction a promise or a warning. For example, the utterance “I’ll see you again” can be
interpreted as a promise or a warning. That is the reason why Yules (1997:52) explains
that “Speech act is generally interpreted quite narrowly to mean only the illocutionary
force of an utterance.”
According to the two other researchers Schmidt and Richards, “Speech act theory has to
do with the function 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 12
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.”
The theory of speech act has attracted the interest from a famous linguistics researcher
Blum-Kulka (1989:1) “Speech acts have been claimed by some (Austin, 1962; Searle,
1962, 1975) to operate by universal principles, and claimed by others to vary in
conceptualizations and verbalizations across cultures and languages. Their modes of
performance carry heavy social implications and seem to be ruled by universal principles
of cooperation and politeness (Brown and Levinson, 1978; Leech, 1993). And yet, cultures

For example: I promise you that I will come back soon.
4. Expressives: expressing feelings and attitudes about something. They may be
statements of pleasure, pain, likes, joy or sorrow…
For example: It was great!
5. Directives: getting the listener to do something. They are commands, orders,
requests and suggestions
For example: You should go out with her.
Yule (1997:55) summarizes the five general types of speech acts with their key
functions as 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 world
S believes X
Expressives
Make words fit the world
S feels X
Directives
Make the world fit words
S wants X
Commisives
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

Giving comments is also expressed in other acts.
For instance, Vietnamese judges give comments:
I will vote this song.
If I have a prize, I will give to you for your effort to this song.
These utterances are considered as the act of expressing the content or approval with the
performance of contestants in the light of speech act. This is a commisives act. Here, the
speaker makes promise with the hearer to express his approval or satisfaction with the
hearer. By promising something, the speaker offers his personal credibility in general as a
kind of guarantee that he will really perform the action.
When the speaker makes an utterance, he also has an intention in his speech. In term of
commenting, the speaker uses variety acts of expressing his opinion or reaction. In this
research, giving comments is analyzed in terms of verbal stimulus, with which the 15
utterances are expressed in the two shows: Vietnam Idol and American Idol. Non-verbal
communication, paralinguistic and extra linguistic factors of this act are not in the focus of the
study. Another factor should be considered is that the response of this stimulus is beyond the
scope of the study.
I.3 POLITENESS
I.3.1 Theory of politeness
The term “politeness” means something rather different from our everyday understanding
of it and focuses almost uniquely on polite language in the study of verbal interaction.
According to Richard J. Watts (2003:9), “politeness is not something we are born with,
but something we have to learn and be socialized into.”
The use of language is to carry out social behaviors where mutual face wants are respected,
can be labeled linguistic politeness. Yule (1996) says that, “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.”
Politeness, as defined by Blum-Kulka (1987:140), is “a function of redressive action with

- Could you possibly…?
There is a difference in power and status between the participants, such as a student and a
dean…This rule will avoid, or ask permission on apologize for making the addressee to
anything which he/she does not want to do.
Rule 2: Hesitation: offer options; let the hearer make his/her own decision
- I wonder if…
- I won’t be offended if you don’t want to…
The participants have approximately equal status and power, but are not socially close
such as a business person and a new client. Giving options means expressing oneself in
such a way that one’s opinion or request can be ignored without being contradicted or
rejected.
Rule 3: Camaraderie: make the hearer feel good
- I highly appreciate your suggestion…
- If it had not been for your help…
This is friendly or intimate politeness that encourages feelings of camaraderie. It is
appropriate to intimates or close friends.
According to Nguyen Quang (2005), a person’s negative face is the need to be
independent, to have freedom of action, and not 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.
Another researcher, Leech (1983:132) gives a politeness principles consisting of six
maxims. They are as follow: 17
 Tact maxim: minimize cost to other. Maximize benefit to other.
 Generosity maxim: Minimize benefit to self. Maximize dispraise of self.
 Approbation maxim: Minimize dispraise of other. Maximize dispraise of self.
 Modesty maxim: Minimize praise of self. Maximize praise of other.

politenes
s
Lesser

Greater
r

On
record
1. Without redressive
action badly
With redressive
action
2.Positive
politeness 18
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 (speaker 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 speaker 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.

In brief, when communicating or producing utterances, we might have a negative
impact on partner’s face. Then, besides off-record, individuals can choose positive or
negative politeness to avoid communicating partner’s discomfort.
I.3.3 POLITENESS STRATEGIES
I.3.3.1 Positive politeness strategies
The notion of positive politeness strategy attracts from various researchers in the
related fields.
Brown and Levinson assume that positive politeness is redress directed to the addressee’s
positive face, his perennial desire that his wants (or the actions/acquisitions/value resulting
from them) should be thought of as desirable.
Positive politeness strategies are those that are used to satisfy positive face.
According to Nguyen Quang (2005: 27), “Positive politeness is any communicative act
(verbal and or nonverbal) which is appropriately intended to show the speaker’s concern
to the addressee, thus, enhancing the sense of solidarity between them.”
What is the major contribution of Nguyen Quang’s definition to intracultural and cross-
cultural communication is his implicit suggestions of the sensitiveness and appropriateness
employed by those who wish to know each other well, or those who would like to be
polite to others by using verbal or nonverbal language in a solidary semantic and cultural
way. Positive politeness is realized in three main mechanisms:
 Claim common ground
 Display the sense of cooperation
 Satisfy hearer’s wants
More details:
 Mechanism 1: Claim common ground
 Strategy 1: Notice/attend to H (interest, wants, needs…)
When communicating, S cares for H’s wants or needs:
For example:
You must be thirsty. What about some drink?
 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

 Mechanism 2: Display the sense of cooperation
 Strategy 9: Assert or presuppose knowledge of and concern for hearer’s wants
This strategy indicates that S and H are cooperations 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.
I know you can not bear parties, but this one will really be good-do come. 21
 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 H.
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.
I believe you will pass the exam.
 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 upon the
cooperative assumptions and thereby redress FTAs. Noting that “let’s” in English is an
inclusive “we” form.
What about going out for dinner?
 Strategy 13: Give or ask for reasons.
Giving or asking for reasons is one way that S shows his/her concern towards H
Why don’t you tell the truth to me?
 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.
I will go out with you if you promise not to tell this to anyone.
Mechanism 3: Satisfy H’s wants