PART A: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale
With the trend of globalization and integration, cross-border contacts appear more and more
frequent. However, differences among cultures are one of the biggest barriers for successful
cross-cultural communication.
It is widely accepted that English has been an international language in the world. In
Vietnam, for the past few decades, we have witnessed a dramatic change in English teaching
and learning. Communicative approach plays a key role in that big change. That is to say,
language in use is paid more attention and becomes a core in language teaching and learning
for learners’ benefit. Language is part of a culture and also its reflection. Therefore, teaching
a language means teaching its culture. It is obvious that learners cannot master a language
without grasping its culture.
In England, when greeting someone, people tend to use two questions: health questions
(How are you? How are you doing?) and work questions (How are things?) as greeting
routines while the Vietnamese ask food questions (what do you have today?), display
questions (Are you reading books?) besides health and work questions. Or at the first
meeting, the Vietnamese often ask about others’ age, marital status or income which can be
seen as DON’Ts to Western people. If it is not observed with the understanding of
Vietnamese culture – a positive politeness oriented culture, it is easily misinterpreted as
curious and nosy behavior, thus threatening others’ faces.
According to Lado (1957), to be successful in another language learning and to communicate
effectively, linguistics knowledge is not enough. Besides that, interacting skills and cultural
knowledge are required. As a result, to raise learners’ awareness of cross-cultural differences
is essential to avoid culture shock or communication breakdown. As Brembeck rightly puts
it, “To know another’s language and not his culture is a very good way to make a fluent fool
of one’s self”.
1
2. Aims of the study
The aims of study are:
- To find out safe and unsafe topics for the first encounter in Vietnamese and
Anglophone cultures.

I.1. Culture and communication
I.1.1. What Culture?
Up to now, there have been many definitions of “culture”. It can be defined as “what makes
you a stranger when you are away from home. It includes all those 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, 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” (Bock,
1970:1).
According to Claire Kramsch, “culture can be defined as membership in a discourse
community that shares a common social space and history, and common imaginings. Even
when they have left that community, its members may retain, wherever they are, a common
system of standards for perceiving, believing, evaluating and acting.” (1998: 10).
Actually, people in one community acquire common ways of viewing the world, common
attitudes, beliefs and values… through their interactions. They “share the same background
(for example, national, ethnic, religious) resulting from a common language and
communication style, customs, beliefs, attitudes and values” (Quang, N, 1998: 3). However,
we can hardly see the influence of culture on each individual as “it refers to the informal and
often hidden patterns of human interactions, expressions, and viewpoints that people in one
culture share” (Quang, N, 1998: 3)
Adapted from Levine 1987:42)
3
I.1.2. What Communication?
Communication is “the process of sharing meaning through verbal and nonverbal
behavior” (Quang, N, 1998: 3).
Communication is also defined as “any process in which people share information, ideas,
and feeling. That process involves not only the spoken and written word, but also the body
language, personal mannerism and style, the surroundings – anything that adds meanings to
a message” (Hybels and Weaver, 1992: 5).
In a communication, meaning can be shared directly to hit the issues or indirectly to avoid

in the discussion. He later explains to the American, “a conversation isn’t fun unless it
becomes heated” (cited in Quang, N, 1998: 40)
With this example, it is obvious that communication is much influenced by cultures. Before
we arrive in a new land, we can think much about the new things which will happen
differently there. However, no matter how much we are prepared for the new culture, we
find it hard to understand and accept the unfamiliar behaviors and sometimes hard to
overcome the new situations. The result is we still feel shocked.
“Culture shock is neither good nor bad, necessary nor unnecessary. It is a reality
that many people face when in strange and unexpected situations” (Harris and Moran, 1998:
226). Culture shock is related to the feelings in the hearers (Hs) or speakers (Ss) of
“estrangement, anger, hostility indecision, frustration, unhappiness, sadness, loneliness,
homesickness and even physical illness” (Valdes, 1995: 35).
I.1.4. Communicative Competence (C.C)
CC is understood as the knowledge that interlocutors need in communication. It is not only
the grammatical forms but also the knowledge which is the ability for both Ss and Hs to use
in the appropriate way in any contexts. It is a whole of knowledge and many other elements
concerned in communication in general and in the intercultural communication in particular.
Saville – Troike (1985: 215) assumes:
Communicative competence extends to both knowledge and expectation of who may
or may not speak in certain settings, when to speak and when to remain silent, whom one
may speak to, how one may talk to persons of different statuses and roles, what appropriate
nonverbal behaviors are in various contexts, what the routines for turn – taking are in the
conversation, how to ask for and give information, how to give commands, how to enforce
5
discipline, and the like – in short, everything involving the use of language and the other
communicative dimensions in particular social settings.
Along the line, Richards et al. (1992: 65) gives out his definition of CC which consists of:
a, knowledge of the grammar and vocabulary of the language.
b, knowledge of rules of speaking (e.g. knowledge how to begin and end a conversation,
knowing what topics may be talked about in different types of speech events, knowing which

The nature of politeness has been debating for a very long time by the linguists and still not
agreed on exactly what it is. Face is the central notion discussed in the area of politeness.
Language users are social beings whose various social beliefs, motives and goals are brought
into their verbal interaction. The nature of their conversation is affected by these variables;
over time they play a role in development of language. It is certain that social motives and
goals impact the use of language. When we are in a particular contact, especially at the first
encounter where we do not know much or even anything about the others, we need to make
our partners see our pleasure to communicate to them. Here face - a social psychological
concept and face-work entailed are needed to maintain the communication. According to
Goffman (1967), face, or one’s public identity, is a “scared thing”; so people are strongly
motivated to protect and manage their face. Face is something which is not located in our of
our body but “rather something that is diffusely located in the flow of events in the
encounter” (Goffman, 1967: 7)
According to Brown and Levinson (1987, 61), face can be defined as “the public self-image
that every member wants to claim for himself”. It is the emotional and social sense of self
that everybody has and expects others to recognize. Face consists of two related aspects:
negative and positive face.
Negative face is the basic claim to territories personal preserves, right to non-
distraction, i.e.: to freedom of action and freedom from imposition.
And positive face is the positive consistent self-image or “personality” (crucially
including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by
interactants.

In other words, negative face is a person’s want to be unimpeded by others and the
desire to be free to act as s/he chooses and not be imposed on: a desire for autonomy and
positive face represents a desire for approval, a person’s want to be highly appreciated and
approved by selected others in terms of personality, desires, behavior, values and so on.
7
Yule (1996: 60) supports the idea that face is “the public self – image of a person”. The
emotional and social sense exists in ourselves and also is something which is expected to be

relationships.
(b) How face-work, that is, the attempt to establish, maintain and save face during
conversation, is carried out in a speech community. Languages differ in how they
express politeness.
According to Yule (1997: 60), Politeness is viewed as “the idea of “polite social behavior”,
or etiquette within a culture”. In other words, politeness is “a number of different general
principles for being polite in social interaction within a particular culture”.
I.2.3. Politeness Strategies
Politeness up to now has been addressed in different ways by linguists, e.g., Blum-Kulka et
al (1985), Blum-Kulka (1987,1990), Janney and Arndt (1992), Mao (1994), Kasper (1990),
Fraser (1990), Lakoff (1990), Leech (1983), Brown and Levinson (1987)… However, some
general principles are agreed for politeness in the human socio-communicative verbal
interaction. They are Politeness Rules by Lakoff (1990), Politeness Strategies by Brown and
Levinson (1987) and Politeness Principles – Maxims by Leech (1983). Of all, Brown and
Levinson’s theory is the most outstanding and most quoted.
In the Politeness theory by Brown and Levinson (1987), politeness is considered as a
complex system for softening face-threatening acts. The concept of face is a fundamental
construct in this theory. More importantly, it can be seen as a meditating variable, a construct
which is used to meditate between language use and a host of social psychological variables.
As a result, five strategies of politeness so as to minimize the loss of face are set up by
Brown and Levinson (figure No 1). In social communication, the choice of strategy which is
made depends on the interlocutors’ background, education, culture etc. According to Brown
and Levinson (1987), negative politeness seems to be more polite. Hence, it is put at a higher
degree of politeness than positive one. However, this appears controversial cross-culturally.
In the Western cultures, negative politeness is preferable in communication for its
conventionalization but it seems opposite to the Asian cultures, particularly to the
Vietnamese one. Positive politeness tends to be their preferred choice for saving face for
9
narrowing the gap among the interactants as well as making their relationship closer in the
talk. Although Brown and Levinson’s chart is highly appreciated, Quang, N. (1998) offers

Eg: A: I am learning French now for my further study.
B: French! Great.
A: Anh chuẩn bị chuyển công ty rồi. Anh sẽ chuyển về làm ở ngân hàng
Vietcombank.
B: Ngân hàng Vietcombank hả? Xin chúc mừng anh.
• Strategy 6: Avoid disagreement
Eg. She is beautiful, however, a bit small.
Tôi hiểu những khó khăn mà anh gặp phải, nhưng mỗi cơ quan đều có một nguyên
tắc riêng.
• Strategy 7. Presuppose/raise/assert common ground
12
Eg. Oh, dear, I have lost something, have we, Vuong?
Chị biết đấy, chồng em chịu khó lắm nhưng bận nên cũng không giúp em được gì.
• Strategy 8. Joke
Eg. Is it ok if I tackle this good apple?
Chị đâu dám cưa sừng làm nghé hả em?
• Strategy 9. Assert or presuppose S’s knowledge of and concern for H’s wants
Eg. I know that roses are your favorite in your party but there are nothing left in the
market, hence lilies are instead today.
Theo như tôi được biết, anh đã xoay xở công việc trên Hà Nội một mình mà vẫn
thành công.
• Strategy 10. Offer promise
Eg. I will give you one hand for your birthday next week.
Lúc nào rảnh anh sang thăm nhà em nhé?
• Strategy 11. Be optimistic
Eg. Maybe, I have to go now.
Cậu khéo tay hay làm thì làm món sa lát Nga cho mình nhé.
• Strategy 12. Include both S and H in the activity.
Eg. Let’s go out for dinner now.
Ta nghỉ ăn trưa đã.

Eg. Could you jump over that five-foot fence?
Có lẽ anh mua giùm cho chiếc điện thoại đó nhé.
• Strategy 4. Minimize the imposition
Eg. I just want to borrow you a little pen.
Con chỉ nếm một chút thôi ạ.
• Strategy 5. Give deference
Eg. Ass. Prof Nguyen, I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Dạ, kính thưa cụ, cụ có thể thưởng thức trà được chưa ạ?
• Strategy 6. Apologize
Eg. I am so sorry to trouble you.
Xin lỗi, chị có thể chỉ cho tôi đường đến hồ Hoàn Kiếm được không ạ?
• Strategy 7. Impersonalize S and H
Eg. Open the door!
Tôi đề nghị ngày mai chúng ta đi làm đúng giờ nhé.
• Strategy 8. State the FTA as a general rule
Eg. Passengers will please refrain from flushing toilets on the train.
14
Ta không nên bàn chuyện làm ăn ở chốn đông người.
• Strategy 9. Nominalize
Eg. I am pleased to be able to inform you that you have passed the exam.
Ngày càng nhiều công ty nước ngoài vào Việt Nam đầu tư cho ngành viễn thông.
• Strategy 10. Go on record as incurring a debt, or as not indebting H
Eg. I could easily do it for you any time.
Bác làm ơn làm phúc giúp cháu nốt lần này nhé.
• Strategy 11. Avoid asking personal questions.
Eg. The weather today is so hot, isn’t it?
Giao thông Hà Nội gần đây tệ hại quá.
An empirical study of keeping face at the first encounter in English and Vietnamese within
the boundary of safe and unsafe topics and small-talk starters in the light of politeness theory
is to be conducted.

following reasons: Firstly, this method can control the internal context variables such as
social distance and power which, according to Brown and Levinson (1987), strongly affect
the linguistic forms in interaction, and also the external context variables such as age,
occupation, sex….Second, DCT works as an effective tool of collecting a big amount of data
quickly and easily. These seem to be suitable for the author’s study with time constraint.
II.2.2. Data collection instrument
16
Two questionnaires are designed for the aim of data collection. The first one is a multiple-
choice questionnaire (MCQ) which is plotted separately for the author’s aim to get results to
design the DCT, also the other part of the survey questionnaire. The MCQ consists of 20
suggested topics. The informants are asked to put a tick (v) in the place where they think it is
advisable to mention the topics at the first meeting so as to be safe. There are five different
degrees: highly advisable, advisable, all right, unadvisable and strongly unadvisable.
Because there are two groups of informants: NESs and NVSs, hence, the survey
questionnaire is designed into two versions. The English version is for the English
informants. And the Vietnamese one is for Vietnamese informants. The topics with the high
rates of “highly advisable”, “advisable” and “all right” for both English and Vietnamese are
work, studying, weather, sports, family, music, place of birth and place of residence.
Nevertheless, due to limited time, three topics of work, family and sports are selected to
design the DCT. A sample item of MCQ and DTC is given below:
I. Do you think it is advisable to mention the following topics at the first meeting
so as to be safe?
Please tick (v) in one of the following columns:
Column 1 means: highly advisable (HAD)
Column 2 means: advisable (AD)
17
Column 3 means: all right (AR)
Column 4 means: unadvisable (UAD)
Column 5 means: strongly unadvisable (SUAD)
Ord Topics 1 2 3 4 5

……………………………………………………………………………………
III. When you first meet your new neighbor in the street, how would you talk to
him/her about your and/or his/her family? (He/She is your gender and your power-
equal)
18
a. He/She is 10 years older than you:
……………………………………………………………………………………
b. He/she is at your age
……………………………………………………………………………………
c. He/She is 10 years younger than you:
……………………………………………………………………………………
IV: When you first meet your new friend at a party, how would you talk to him/her
about sports? (He/She is your age and your power-equal)
a. That person is male
……………………………………………………………………………………
b. That person is female
……………………………………………………………………………………
The instructions in both MCQ and DCT are clearly provided so that the informants can
easily understand and give their best answers. The author hopes that the tokens collected
from the survey questionnaire are authentic, natural, typical and reliable for consideration
and evaluation. However, as limitations of the study, some aspects are not covered:
- Paralinguistic factors: pitch, intensity, rate, other vocal qualities, etc.
- Non-verbal factors: facial expressions, gestures, eye contact, etc.
- Setting of communication: place, distance, lighting system, heat, etc.
- Mood factors: happy, unhappy, bore, excited, etc.

II.3. Subjects of the study:
The survey is conducted with two groups: one is NSEs and the other is NSVs. The
Vietnamese informants are working in Hanoi, Vietnam, and the English informants who
work for British Council, Language Link, Hilton Hotel or come to Vietnam as tourists.

20
Collected data from question number 1 are used as the linguistic input. 20 topics are
mentioned in this part. Fifty Vietnamese and fifty English are requested to tick (v) in one of
five columns for each topic they think advisable or unadvisable at the first meeting. The aim
of this part is to focus on whether they think they should mention the suggested topics or not
for a smooth - flowing conversation.
III.1.1.1 English findings
Column 1 means: highly advisable (HAD)
Column 2 means: advisable (AD)
Column 3 means: all right (AR)
Column 4 means: unadvisable (UAD)
Column 5 means: strongly unadvisable (SUAD)
Ord Topics 1 2 3 4 5
1 Age 9% 78% 13%
2 Politics 85% 15%
3 Weight 89% 11%
4 Salary 94% 6%
5 Work 93% 7%
6 Weather 96% 4%
7 Material life 8% 92%
21
8 Religion 88% 12%
9 Sex life 100%
10 News 73% 27%
11 Studying 91% 9%
12 Music 10% 88% 2%
13 Health 90% 6% 4%
14 Pets 87% 13%
15 Family 92% 8%
16 The cost of particular items 90% 10%

10 News 60% 40%
11 Studying 27% 68% 5%
12 Music 20% 75% 5%
13 Health 30% 70%
14 Pets 16% 84%
15 Family 80% 20%
16 The cost of
particular items
19% 81%
17 Other people’s
affairs
11% 7% 82%
18 Sports 80% 20%
19 Marital status 32% 60% 8%
20 Place of current
residence
27% 70% 3%
Table 2: Percentages of suggested topics in the first encounter of Vietnamese informants
It can be seen from the table that, in the first meeting, NSVs tend to talk about topics such as
age (72% AD), work (75% AR), weather (60% AR), news (60% AD), studying (68% AR),
music (75% AD), health (70% AR), pets (84% AR), family (80% AD), cost of particular
items (81% AR), sports (80% AD), marital status (60% AR), place of current residence (70%
AR). However, some topics are avoided such as politics (84% UAD), weight (65% UAD),
salary (70% UAD), material life (90% UAD), religion (80% UAD), sex life (100% SUAD)
and other people’s affairs (82% SUAD) for their sensitiveness to the first meeting.
III.1.2 Cross-cultural similarities and differences
From the results shown in table 1 and 2, it is observed that some of these twenty suggested
topics are preferred in the first meeting by NSVs while avoided by NSEs. Those are age,
marital status, the cost of particular items. It might be the case that the Vietnamese regard
such private and personal topics as good opportunities for them to show their concern,

1 Salary 94% 70%
2 Material life 92% 90%
3 Politics 85% 84%
4 Sex life 100% 100%
5 Religion 88% 80%
6 Other people’s affairs 94% 82%
Table 4: Percentages of topics both English and Vietnamese informants do not like to mention in small talks
in the first encounter.
The table does not show much difference in the percentage of avoided topics. It is obvious
that “Sex life” topic is the most sensitive one and both NSEs and NSVs do not talk about it,
accounting for 100% “SUAD” for both. Then comes the topics of Material life (92% “UAD”
for NSEs and 90% “UAD” for NSVs), Politics (85% “UAD” for NSEs and 84% “UAD” for
24
NSVs), followed by Religion, Other people’s affairs and the biggest difference is Salary
which accounts for 94% (UAD) for NSEs and 70% (UAD) for NSVs.
To summarize, at the first encounter, the topics which are considered safe for both the
English and Vietnamese informants are Weather, News, Music, Work, Pets, Studying, Sports,
Family, Health and Place of residence. The topics regarded as unsafe are Salary, Material
life, Politics, Sex life, Religion and Other people’s affairs.
III.2. Politeness Strategies used at the first encounter.
In this part, the results of the investigation of Politeness Strategy (PS) are presented. NSEs
and NSVs’ use of Positive Politeness Strategies (PPSs), Negative Politeness Strategies
(NPSs), Mixed Positive Politeness Strategies (MPPSs), Mixed Negative Politeness Strategies
(MNPSs) and Mixed Positive - Negative Politeness Strategies (MPNPSs) through three
situations is reported.
In this study, both English informants and Vietnamese informants are asked to talk or ask
their business partner in the office about informants’/his/her work, their new neighbor about
informants’/his/her family in the street, someone whom the participants have just made
acquaintance with about sports in a party. The speech act of asking or talking like this
conveys Politeness. Hence, to study the ways they use, the research author uses the Theory