MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNVERSITY

LƯU THỊ THÚY HẰNG

A STUDY ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF VERBAL
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH
CONVERSATIONS WITH REFERENCE TO THE
VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS
(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ NHỮNG CÁC LOẠI LỜI ĐÁP
KHÁC NHAU CHO CÂU HỎI ĐÀM THOẠI TIẾNG
ANH TRONG SỰ LIÊN HỆ TƯƠNG ĐƯƠNG VỚI
TIẾNG VIỆT )
M.A. THESIS
Field: English Language
Code: 60220201

Hanoi, 2015


MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING
HANOI OPEN UNVERSITY

LƯU THỊ THÚY HẰNG

A STUDY ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF VERBAL
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH
CONVERSATIONS WITH REFERENCE TO
THE VIETNAMESE EQUIVALENTS
(NGHIÊN CỨU VỀ NHỮNG CÁC LOẠI LỜI ĐÁP KHÁC
NHAU CHO CÂU HỎI ĐÀM THOẠI TIẾNG ANH TRONG SỰ



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to
my professor, Dr. Vo Dai Quang . From the point of a teacher, an advisor
and a mentor, you introduced and inspired me to do this research. My
professional development has been growing increasingly with your
precious guidance and continuous motivation.
My special thanks go to all my lectures in Post-graduate
Department of Ha Noi Open University for their precious assistance,
knowledge and enthusiasm.
I own my parents for their constant source of love, support and
encouragement. I am immensely grateful to them for standing behind me
whenever I needed them especially in times of difficulties.
I would also want to extend a special shout-out to all the research
participants. Without your valuable opinions and ideas on the
questionnaire, the project would not have been accomplished.
Finally, my special thanks go to all my dear friends for their
understanding and assistance during the process of preparing this
research. I count each of you as my special blessings.
While I am greatly indebted to all of these people for their tireless
help to my completion of this thesis, I myself remain responsible for any
inadequacies that are found in this work.
Luu Thi Thuy Hang

ii


ABSTRACT
Communication is the essential need of human. It has incessantly

Q: Question
A: Answer
E: English
V: Vietnamese
DCT: Discourse Completion Test
NSE: Native Speaker English
NSV: Native Speaker Vietnamese
2. Lists of tables
Table 1: Correlation of content and format in adjacency pair ................................11
Table 2: Forms of indirect responses to questions .................................................22

iv


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificate oforiginality…………………………………………...............

i

Acknowledgement………………………………………………...……....

ii

Abstract……………………………………………………………………

iii

List of tables and abbreviations ..................................................................

iv


CHAPTER 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Review the previous study ..................................................................

5

2.1.1.Review of previous studies overseas…………………………..........

5

2.1.2.Review of previous studies in Vietnam..............................................

5

2.2 Review the theoretical background .....................................................

7

2.2.1 Conversational theory ..................................................................…

7

2.2.1.1.Conversation.....................………………………………………...

7

2.2.1.2 .Conversation structure....................................................................

8


27

3.1.2. Research setting.................................................................................

27

3.2. Research methods.................................................................................

28

3.2.1.Data collection ...................................................................................

28

3.2.2.Data analysis.......................................................................................

30

3.3.Summary................................................................................................

30

CHAPTER 4 : FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1.The different types of verbal responses to questions in English
conversation............................................................................................

31

4.1.1. Direct responses.................................................................................



54

5.2 Concluding remarks. .......................................................................…

55

5.3 Limitation of the research ...................................................................

56

5.4 Suggestions for further studies ............................................................

56

REFERENCES..........................................................................................

58

vi


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1.RATIONALE
Nearly all people throughout the world use English as the main
medium of communication in every aspect of life. English is not only the
language used in English speaking countries but also an international
language. The necessity of knowing and using this communication medium
has been increasing due to the development of globalization.

and Vietnamese. The study will also try to present difficulties as well as
some practical recommendations for the process of teaching and learning
English.
1.2.AIMS OF THE STUDY
The study aims at pointing out the different types of responses to
questions in English and Vietnamese conversations, thus suggesting some
implications for teaching them to the Vietnamese learners of English as
foreign language.
1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
To achieve the above mentioned aims, the following objectives are
put forward:
- Finding out the different types of verbal responses to questions in
English conversation.
- Describing the similarities and differences of verbal responses to
questions in English conversation and the Vietnamese ones.

2


- Suggesting some possible implications for learning and teaching the
different types of verbal responses to questions in English conversation.
1.4.SCOPE OF THE STUDY
In this paper, the similarities and differences of verbal responses to
questions in English conversation and the Vietnamese ones will be
discussed under five types, which are:
a, Direct responses
b, Indirect responses
c, Incomprehension responses
d, Disbelief responses
e, Compliment responses

English and Vietnamese convesation and some possible implications for
teaching the different types of verbal responses to questions in English
conversation.
Chapter 5 summarizes the major findings of the study, point out the
limitations of the study and suggests areas for further research.

4


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1.Review the previous study
2.1.1.Review of previous studies overseas
It is not correct that a behavioral approach requires any series of responses
to be explained by a chaining hypothesis. The explanation may consist of an
appeal to the size of unit to be considered, or to a series of outside stimuli
which are correlated with the series of responses, or to the temporal gradient
between succesive responses and the reinforcement in fixed interval
behaviour ( Dews, 1962). There are no doubt other such explanations for the
emission of a series of responses which are perfectly acceptable to
behaviour theory, and some of these may well eventually have to be
invoked. In any case, behavior theory does not rest upon the validity of the
chaining hypothesis. Nevertheless, we have evidence in this book for
viability of the chaining hypothesis to explain the emission of certain kinds
of verbal behavior under particular conditions. It is the kind of research
which will reveal the extent to which different theories are indeed necessary
to explain the emission of a series of verbal responses.
2.1.2. Review of previous studies in Vietnam
A number of studies have been carried out so far on different types of
verbal responses to questions in English conversations with reference to

directness includes a study on some cross-cultural differences in refusing a
request in English and Vietnamese (Phan, 2001).She found that both
Angolophone and Vietnamese informants tended to use more direct refusals
than directs ones. Moreover, both Anglophone and Vietnamese always
exceeded the urbanies in the degree of indirectness. Informants who did not
know any foreign language are less direct and more indirect than those with
knowledge of some foreign languages. There are some differences between
6


Anglophone and Vietnamese when refusing. Comparing the degree of
directness and indirectness of refusals extended by two groups of
informants, all the Anglophone informants were more direct than
Vietnamese ones.
In general, as all the other speech acts, refusal occurs in all languages.
However, people coming from different cultures speaking different
language refuse in different ways. Among all the studies on refusals, in
terms of language examined, English have been by far the most commonly
investigated languages of comparison for studies on native and non-native
refusals, followed by Japanese as a first or second language. Other
languages such as Chinese, Spanish, Mexican, German are also examined.
Vietnamese studies on speech acts of refusal are still limited. Moreover,
compared among studies of Vietnam speech acts by far, refusals of requests
or apologies received more attention than refusals of invitations. Until now,
there have been some works studying refusals. Nguyen Phuong Chi studied
some ways of refusals: nonverbal like shaking head, brushing something
aside, having a dirty look… and verbal. Pham Thi Van Quyen studied the
refusals of requesting in Vietnamese in comparison with English basing on
some available situations. Nguyen Thi Hai studied the refusals in
conversations with such speech acts as “requesting”, “asking, “begging”,

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
8


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.
2.2.1.3.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

in such a way they form a pair type. They call them an adjacency pair. The
adjacency pair always consists of a first part and a second part. The
utterance of a first part immediately creates an expectation of the utterance
of a second part of the same pair. There is a class of first pair parts which
include Questions, Greetings, Offers, Requests, etc. For some first pair
parts, the second pair part is reciprocal (Greeting – Greeting); for some there
is only one appropriate second (Question – Answer), for some more than
one (Complaint – Apology/Justification). For examples: (2)
First past

Second Part

A: Hello

B: Hi

A: What time is it?

B: About eighty-thirty

A: Morning, Bob! Late again!

B: I’m ever sorry. I promise it won’t
happen again.

10


In a second part pair, there is often a choice of two likely responses.
A request is most likely to be followed by either an acceptance of refusal.


Unexpected answer or nonanswer

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>:

11


<3>

Agent: Do you want the early flight?

(=Q1)

Client: What time does it arrive?

In this conversation, there is pair which consists of making an
assessment disagreement with an insertion sequence of question answer pair
which seems to function as a condition on the disagreement being provided.
Discourse analysis
Coulthard (1985) proposed a descriptive framework for analyzing
conversation. They discovered a typical classroom exchange that is made up
of three moves: an initiating move, a responding move, a follow-up move,
as the following example:

12


<5>

T: What does the next one mean?
You don’t often see that one round

Initiating move

here, Miri.

Responding move

P: Danger falling rocks

Follow-up move

T: Danger, falling rock
However, Sinclair and Coulthard (1985) also pointed out that when a
move consists of more than one act, then one of the acts is the main act

illustration of how the system works in conversation form (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
Passer-by

Can you tell me where New Street station is?
(a) It’s just round the corner
(b) Do you know where the shopping centre is?
(c) Sorry, I’m a stranger here.

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).
2.2.1.4. Conversational principle
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”.
14



principle. Speakers and hearers are guided by considerations of quantity,
quantity relation, manner and the process of implicature which allow them
to figure out relationships between the said and the unsaid. According to
Thomas (1998) a speaker can say one thing and manage to mean something
else or something more by exploiting the fact that he may be presumed to be
cooperative, in particular, to be speaking truthfully, informatively,
relevantly, and otherwise, appropriately. The listener relies on this
presumption to make a contextually driven inference from what the speaker
says to what the speaker means. In other words, the hearer has to work out
from what is said by appealing to the rules governing successful
conversational interaction. Sometimes the speaker’s reply is untrue and
uncooperative but in fact this is the sort of sarcastic reply we encounter
everyday and have no problem at all in interpreting. How do we interpret it?
There are two ways of inferring the meaning by the speaker: Observation to
maxims and Non-observation to maxims
Observation to maxims: observing maxims of Quantity, Quality,
Relation and Manner
Non-observation to maxims: flouting maxims of Quantity, Quality,
Relation and Manner
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

16