Part A: Introduction
I. Rationale
In order to become competent in a foreign language, it is important for language
learners not only to acquire new vocabularies and a new set of phonological and syntactic
rules but also to learn what Wilson (1986) calls the rules of speaking: the patterns of
sociolinguistic behavior of the target language. The rules of speaking involve us in knowing
when and how it is suitable to open a conversation, what topics are appropriate to particular
speech events, how speech acts are to be given and interpreted. In many cases, this
interpretation goes beyond what the language learners might intend to convey and includes
assessments such as “polite” and “impolite”.
In Vietnam, as the economy grows and international business develops, English
proficiency becomes a master tool for young people to get a job. They encounter foreigners
in everyday settings where communication is necessary. In the modern society, the need for
communication is increasing, especially in the process of globalization, when communication
spreads beyond the boundary of a country. During the last decades, linguistic researchers
have broadened their focus of their interests from the development of grammatical
competence to other areas of target language development, such as discourse and pragmatic
competence, common speech routines, for example, requests, apologies, complaints,
compliments, refusals, and the like have been most frequently studied in cross-cultural and
interlanguage pragmatics. According to Tsui (1994), there seems to be little empirical
research that has been conducted in responses to questions. For a long time, question-
response has been considered one of the most basic structures of conversation (Schegloff,
1974) but as Tsui (1994; p. 160) points out: “responses have been given little attention in the
speech acts literature. Most of the acts characterized and listed in the various taxonomies
are illocutionary acts which are often done by making the function of utterance in discourse,
and as many responding acts do not have a corresponding responding performative verb,
this kind of analysis inevitably neglects responses”
A characterization of utterances (based on observation of real-life discourse) is not
likely to neglect the importance of responses. Let’s consider an example illustrated by Tsui
(1994)
A: What’s the time?

The study will also try to present difficulties as well as some practical recommendations for
the process of teaching and learning English.
II. Aims of the study
In order to distinguish the different ways of replies and responses to questions as well
as different responding strategies in English and Vietnamese, this research aims at:
- describing and analyzing different types of responses to questions in English and
Vietnamese conversation
2
- investigating how verbal responses to question express cultural values by examining
the relationship between gender, closeness of relationship and status of the interlocutors and
the kinds of responses to questions.
- putting forward some implications for teaching and learning the functions of
responses to questions in everyday conversation.
III. Scope of the study
In this research, we mainly concentrate on some types of responses to seeking-
information questions. The term, “question”, whose illocutionary focus is to elicit
information and knowledge, is defined as a functional or speech act label. A question is
asked when the questioner does not really know the answer and wants the addressee to
supply a piece of information (Tsui, 1994). As we mentioned the name of the study “An
investigation on some types of verbal responses to questions in English and Vietnamese
conversation” above, non-verbal responses such as silence, gestures, movements and the like
will be outside the scope of the study.
IV. Research questions
1. What are the various types of verbal responses to questions in English and
Vietnamese conversations?
2. What are the differences and similarities in the choice of response patterns to
questions between native speakers of English and Vietnamese?
V. Organization of the study
The study contains three parts. Part A: Introduction establishes the rationale of the
study, the aims, and the scope of the study; the research questions and organization of the

the beginning and end of conversation, and make corrections when they are needed ”
1.2. Conversation structure
When we are talking to each other we are not just pronouncing words. By saying
something we are also doing something. An utterance such as “Could you close the door?”
can function as a request for information or a warning depends on the circumstances. When
we say something, we also expect the addressee to respond in one way or another, by
answering a question, by agreeing or disagreeing to a proposal, by acknowledging receipt of
information, and so on, in other words by being an active partner. This is what interaction is
about. The term “interaction” could actually apply to a very large number of quite different
social encounters. For example, a teacher talking to a student in a classroom is one kind of
interaction. Others include a boss talking to his assistant at the workplace, a doctor to patient
in a clinic The basic pattern “I speak – you speak – I speak – you speak” is what…
linguists call the structure of conversation. The study of question responding acts in
conversation is necessary. There are two approaches to examine the conversation structure:
conversation analysis and discourse analysis.
4
1.2.1. Conversation analysis
Many conversational analysis researchers have defined ordinary conversation as the
kind of casual, social talk that routinely occurs between friends and acquaintances, either
face-to-face or on the phone. According to Markee (2000) “conversation analysis concerned
with naturally occurring instances of everyday talk follow still another, separate academic
tradition of inquiry, which concentrates on the actual discourse mechanisms that serve to
allocate turns of speaking, to negotiate changes in focus and to manage and direct the flow
of interaction”. Conversation analysis, like ethnomethodology, focuses on the common,
everyday competencies that make the social interaction possible. It examines oral dialogue to
determine the social and pragmatic principle whereby speakers and hearers negotiate,
structure and interpret conversation. The general strategy in conversation analysis is to
examine actual verbal interactions in order to bring the structural properties of talk. The
descriptive units that the conversation analysis has been using in describing the structure of
conversation are Turn, Adjacency pair and Sequence.

next act and the dispreferred is the structurally unexpected next act. The following general
patterns are presented by Levinson (1983, p. 336)
First part Second part
Preferred Dispreferred
Assessment Agree Disagree
Invitation/Offer Accept Refuse
Request Accept Refuse
Question Expected answer Unexpected answer or non-answer
Blame Deny Admission
Table 1. Correlation of content and format in adjacency pair
 Sequence
The structure of adjacency pair described so far has been linear: The first pair part
followed by the second pair part. However, there are also cases of embedding: one pair
occurring inside another. Sometimes, either because the listener does not understand or
because he does not want to commit himself until he knows more or because he is simply
stalling, a next speaker produces not a second part but another first pair part. This
conversational fragment is referred to as insertion sequence. Tapes of sequence are illustrated
in <3> and <4>:
<3> Agent: Do you want the early flight? (=Q1)
Client: What time does it arrive? (=Q2)
Agent: Five-fifty (=A2)
Client: Yeah – that’s great (=A1)
(71: 78)
This sequence takes the form of Q1 - Q2 - A2 - A1, A1 is the answer of Q1, and A2
is the answer of Q2. Therefore, the middle pair Q2 - A2 is called an insertion sequence.
6
<4> A: Your jewellery looks very nice (Assessment)
B: Which one do you mean exactly? (Question)
A: The necklace (Answer)
B: Well, I don’t think the same (Disagreement)

(Tsui, 1994). Tsui supposes a tourist in Birmingham City Centre asks a passer-by “Can you
tell me where New Street station is?” The followings are examples of the choices that are
available to the passer-by:
<7> Tourist: Can you tell me where New Street station is?
Passer-by: (a) It’s just round the corner.
(b) Do you know where the shopping centre is?
(c) Sorry, I’m a stranger here.
(66: 20)
The illustration shows the passer-by the choice of supporting the utterance or
rejecting it altogether. If he chooses the former, then he has the choice of producing a
response, which supplies the information (7a). Or he may produce another elicitation before
supplying the information (7b). If the choice is to reject the utterance, he may reject the
assumption that he is able to supply the requested information (7c).
1.3. Conversational principle
1.3.1 Co-operation and implicature
It has become clear from the studies of conversation that conversation proceeds on
the basis that participants are “reasonable” people who can be expected to deal decently with
one another. In considering the suitability of participants’ moves in conversation, Grice
(1975, p. 45) formulates a rough general principle which participants will be expected to
observe as follows: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the state“
at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you
are engaged. One might label this the cooperative principle .”
Grice has described four categories of special cases of this principle which he called
“Maxims”. These maxims can briefly be characterized in modified form below:
1) Maxim of Quantity: Be brief. Make your contribution as informative as is
required and no more.
2) Maxim of Quality: Be true. Do not say what you believe to be false and do not say
that for which you lack adequate evidence.
3) Maxim of Relation: Be relevant.
4) Maxim of Manner: Be clear. Avoid obscurity and ambiguity.

1.3.2. Politeness principles
In the aspects of politeness, different ways of responses to questions ultimately
influence someone’s behavior or attitude. According to Green (1996), politeness is seen as
trade in commodity called face. Face is defined as consisting of the freedom to act
unimpeded (Negative Face) and the satisfaction of having one’s value approved of (Positive
Face). To maintain face requires the cooperation of others’ actions and value systems, so
interactants trade face, paying face whenever they must perform a face-threatening act in
9
the course of accomplishing their goals. Brown and Levinson (1987) argues that when
speaker does an act, which he believes may threaten addressee’s face, speaker must calculate
how much he is risking in performing the face – threatening act. Therefore, there are some
factors affecting to this calculation: speaker’s estimates of the social distance assumed to
separate speaker and hearer, the relative social power of speaker and hearer, and the extent to
which the act contemplated is considered to be an imposition in the culture of which speaker
and hearer are members.
1.4. Verbal communication
Communication can be understood as “the exchange of ideas, information, etc.
between two or more persons”. Successful communication should not only send information
to another but also ensure that this information is understood by the receivers in more or less
the way it is intended by the sender.
Communication can take in many different ways. Generally speaking, two categories
of communication can be identified. The first is verbal communication, that is
communication using language and speech to share or exchange information. The second is
non-verbal communication; that is communication without the use of language but
depending rather on other channels such as body language, eye contact, physical appearance,
attitude distance and physical contact. Due to the limitation of the small study, we only
research verbal communication that verbal responses to questions in English and Vietnamese
conversations are specifically taken into the consideration.
2. Speech act theory
The theory of speech act was first discussed in Austin’s book entitled How to do things

this utterance conveys the assumption that the hearer A will recognize it as a signal of
disagreement. This is generally known as perlocutionary act.
According to Searle (1976), speech acts are categorized into five types:
• Representatives (Assertives): commit the speaker to something being the case
such as assertions, reports, conclusions, descriptions, etc…
<8> I assert that Nicole’s a mole.
• Directives: the speaker gets the hearer to do something. This class includes order,
request, challenge, invite, etc
<9> I beg you to convey the respectful compliments of myself and Mrs. Veal.
• Commisieves: commit the speaker himself to some future action such as promise,
refusal, threat, swear, etc
<10>They are not rented less gloomy, I promise you.
• Expressives: express feelings and attitudes about a state of affairs such as
apology, compliment, thanks, etc…
<11> I thank you for paying me the money.
11
• Declaratives: change the world via utterance. This includes many of those which
Austin first considered as performatives
<12> I now pronounce you husband and wife.
2.2. Felicity conditions
Felicity conditions are conditions to count an act as having the illocutionary act of one
sort or another. Austin (1962) distinguishes between three main categories on the
conventional procedure and its effect with the appropriate speaker and circumstance, the
completion and correctness of the procedure performance and the speaker’s desires in giving
directives. Accordingly, in Austin’s view, performatives can be assessed as felicity
conditions are met.
Searle (1976) proposes the taxonomy of four kinds of conditions. For a speech act to be
successful (effective, acceptable) it must meet certain criteria (known as felicity conditions):
- Preparatory conditions: The right person and the right situation
- Sincerity condition: You should mean what you say

to Yule (1996), indirect speech acts are generally associated with greater politeness in
English than direct speech acts. Hence, interlocutors should note that in order to be effective
in communication, they have to look at a bigger picture than just a single utterance
performing a single speech act.
3. Literature Review of Questions and Responses
Quirk, R & Greenbeam, S (1987) propose that there are three major classes of
questions according to the answer they expect. They are: Yes-No question, Tag-question,
Question Words. Besides these, Lyons (1977) characterizes question as utterance with
particular illocutionary force. The difference between a question and a statement is that the
former contains a feature of doubt; the speaker should not know the answer to his questions.
Robert, D & Collins, C (1984) see questions as requests and directives. They suggest
that the logic form of questions should be “I request that you tell me”, instead of “I ask you”.
Butt (2000) considers questions as a kind of directives on the grounds that a directive is an
instruction to perform something and questions are instructions to make verbal perform. For
example “Tell me the time.” is a directive to make a verbal performance.
However, Tsui (1994) and Lyons (1977) assert that questions are not kind of request.
They also support some examples to illustrate, such as “No” in response to Yes-No
questions:
<16> A: Is the door open?
B: No ← answer to the question whereas “No” to
<17> A: Open the door, please?
B: No ← refusal to do what is requested (66: 80)
13
In the M.A thesis of linguistic: Comparison of structures of Vietnamese and English
Questions, Tran Chi Mai (2000) propose two main kinds of Vietnamese questions. They are
alternative questions and non-alternative questions according to the purposes in the relation
of responses. According to Hoang Trong Phien (1980), questions are classified into sub-types
basing on the features of questions and responses. He asserts that the speaker mainly makes
questions because of unobvious things. This also decides the responses.
Non-alternative questions

(g) Why do you ask?
(h) What did you say?
(i) What do you mean? (66: 160)
Utterance like those in (a) and (b) respond to the question and are considered to be
“answer”, whereas utterances like those in (c) to (i) respond to the verb of questioning itself
and are considered to be “replies”. Lakoff (1973) sees them as all appropriate responses,
although some of them do not satisfy the speaker. It is clear that every question is followed
by a set of responses, but the responses are not the answers to the question. For example:
<23> A: Where’s Peter’s office?
B: (a) I don t know.’
(b) I can t tell you.’
(c) That s none of your business.’
(d) It s on the second floor.’
(e) It s over there.’ (37: 60)
Supporting Tsui’s ideas, Dik also illustrates the example above <25>. He sees that all
utterances (a) to (e) are responses, but the utterances (d) and (e) are answers.
In the book “An Introduction to Discourse Analysis”, Coulthard (1985) proposes
every time a speaker asks a question, there is a set of underlying assumptions, all of which
must be true if he is to receive the answer he seeks. However, some of assumptions
sometimes may not hold while the responses may consist of a challenge or a denial to the
assumption. Coulthard gives his examination about questions and responses in the novel
“Othello”, and sees that there are eight assumptions of questioning and the eight
corresponding challenges and denials to the assumptions that: addressee is listening,
addressee hears the question, speaker questions at an appropriate time, addressee understands
the question, addressee accepts speaker and empowered to ask the question, addressee thinks
the speaker does not know the answer, address is willing to answer, addressee knows the
answer. In Vietnamese, Le Anh Xuan (2000) studies positive and negative responding acts in
form of questions. His studies are on the different types of indirect responses to seeking
information questions. These indirect responses can be in form of a statement, a question, an
15

Sinclair and Coulthard (1985) introduce the term “elicitation” to describe utterances
in the classroom, which elicit verbal responses. “An elicitation is an act the function of which
is to request a linguistic response- linguistic, although the response may be a non-verbal
surrogate such as a nod or raised hand”. Tsui (1994) characterizes questions as
16
“elicitations” to avoid the confusion ambiguity with requests or directives. Tsui (1994) also
gives six subclasses of elicitation: Initiating → Elicitations→ information/ confirmation/
agreement/ commitment/ repetition/ clarification.
In characterizing responding acts, Tsui (1994) asserts that not any move following an
initiating move is a responding move. An initiation can be followed by a move, which is
totally unrelated. The question is how do we decide whether a related move is a responding
move? Let’s consider the examples below:
<1> A: What’s the time?
B: (a) Eleven
(b) Time for coffee
(c) I haven t got a watch, sorry’
(d) How hold I know
(e) Ask Jack
(f) You know bloody well what time it is
(g) Why do you ask?
(h) What did you say?
(i) What do you mean? (66: 80)
<2> A: Where’s Peter’s office?
B: (a) I don t know.’
(b) I can t tell you.’
(c) That s none of your business.’
(d) It s on the second floor.’
(e) It s over there’ . (37: 60)
We can see that B’s utterances are all related to A’s initiating move. However, all
these utterances are responding moves? To know the answer of the question, we should

We have mentioned the literature review of questions and responses in English and
Vietnamese. In the study, we try to bring the light of different responses in different contexts
in English and Vietnamese. In this chapter, we provide theoretical background, that is the
criteria for classification of responses to questions in English and Vietnamese, that is really
practical for making an in-depth study in the next chapters.
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
This chapter is to illustrate the methodology of the study and the sections which
follow, include:
- Research questions
- Data collection instruments
- Selection of subjects
- Data collection procedures
18
- Data analysis
1. Research Questions
1. What are the various types of verbal responses to questions in English and
Vietnamese conversations?
2. What are the differences and similarities in the choice of response patterns to
questions between native speakers of English and Vietnamese?
2. Data collection Instruments
As stated in the previous sections, our purpose is to examine the types of verbal
responses to questions in English and Vietnamese, how Vietnamese speakers differ from
English native speakers in their choice of response types to questions.
In this study, data collection instruments will include two main questionnaires. First,
The Discourse Completion Task (DCT) was designed to elicit some types of question
responses from the set of English Native Speakers in English. Second, the Vietnamese
translated version of the DCT questionnaire was used to collect some types of question
responses from the set of Vietnamese Speakers in Vietnamese.
• Some issues in choosing methods to collect data
In an attempt to answer these questions, a Discourse Completion Task (DCT) was

consideration.” However, a major difficulty in using a DCT for research of this kind is that
the researcher designing the questionnaire and the subjects providing responses to the
situations may perceive the social factors of the context differently. Moreover, a difficulty
when using a written task for collection of spoken language is that some certain kinds of
information such as, non-verbal features of oral –interaction cannot be recorded.
In brief, every method has its advantages and disadvantages. In this study, in order to
collect sufficient data within the time and resource constrain available, and as discussed in
the previous sections, our purpose is to understand some types of verbal responses to
questions in English and Vietnamese conversations, not non-verbal responses, we will use
DCT to collect data.
• The content of the questionnaire
The situations in the questionnaire were designed to reflect real life situations.
Additional information about the subjects’ personal backgrounds was obtained by a section
at the front page of each questionnaire. The questionnaires are in English and in Vietnamese.
The English Native Speakers were asked to answer the questions in English and the
Vietnamese Speakers were asked to answer the questions in Vietnamese. The questionnaire
was intended to elicit response forms from subjects. It consists of eight situations.
To obtain the data for the study, observation was employed in order to bolster the
results from the questionnaire, as well as to clarify and test the validity of the obtained
information. Observation was paid on some types of English and Vietnamese question
20