Disagreeing in english and vietnamese: a pragmatics and conversation analysis perspective - pdf 14

Download miễn phí Luận văn Disagreeing in english and vietnamese: a pragmatics and conversation analysis perspective



TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I
ABSTRACT III
TABLE OF CONTENTS V
LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS X
ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS XIII
INTRODUCTION 1
1. RATIONALE 1
1.1. NECESSITY OF THE STUDY 1
1.1.1. Problem statement 1
1.1.2. Society, culture and language 2
1.2. MERITS OF THE STUDY 3
1.2.1. Academic merits 3
1.2.2. Practical merits 4
2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 4
3. RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY 6
3.1. RESEARCH QUESTION 6
3.2. GROUNDS FOR RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 6
3.2. RESEARCH HYPOTHESES 6
4. SCOPE OF THE STUDY 7
5. METHODOLOGY 9
5.1. METHODS 9
5.2. PRAGMATICS AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS 10
5.2.1. Choice of conversation analysis 10
5.2.2. Combination of pragmatics and conversation analysis 10
5.2.3. Combination of pragmatics and CA in other studies 11
6. CREATIVITY 12
6.1. SYNTHETIC APPROACH – PRAGMATICS AND CONVERSATION ANALYSIS 12
6.2. DATA FROM QUESTIONNAIRES AND NATURALLY OCCURRING CONVERSATION 12
6.3. SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES IN DISAGREEING 12
7. ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY 13
CHAPTER ONE 14
DISAGREEING – A COMMUNICATIVE ILLOCUTIONARY AND SOCIAL ACT 14
1.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES 14
1.1.1. Speech Act Theory 14
1.1.1.1. Speech acts and speech events 14
1.1.1.2. Three-dimension speech acts 15
1.1.1.3. Classification of speech acts 16
1.1.1.4. Disagreeing – a communicative illocutionary act 18
1.1.2. Conversation Analysis 20
1.1.2.1. Historical background 20
1.1.2.2. Co-text and context 22
1.1.2.3. Turn – turn taking and adjacency pairs 24
1.1.2.4. Disagreeing – a social act 27
1.1.3. Summary 29
1.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY 29
1.2.1. Aims and methodology 29
1.2.1.1. Aims 29
1.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents 30
1.2.2. Assessment of socio-cultural parameters by respondents 37
1.2.2.1. Data results 37
1.2.2.2. Comments 43
1.2.3. Assessment of situations by respondents 44
1.2.3.1. Data results 44
1.2.3.2. Comments 48
1.2.4. Summary 50
1.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS 51
CHAPTER TWO 52
POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING 52
2.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES 52
2.1.1. Notion of Politeness 53
2.1.2. Volitional Approach 55
2.1.2.1. Grice’s principle 55
2.1.2.2. Lakoff’s rules and Leech’s maxims 56
2.1.2.3. Brown & Levinson’s model 58
2.1.3. Normative Approach 60
2.1.3.1. Chinese research 60
2.1.3.2. Japanese research 62
2.1.3.3. Other non-Anglophone research 63
2.1.4. Normative-Volitional Approach 64
2.1.4.1. Literature by Vietnamese researchers 64
2.1.4.2. Literature by other researchers 68
2.1.5 Summary 69
2.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY 70
2.2.1. Aims and Methodology 70
2.2.1.1. Aims 70
2.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents 70
2.2.2. Politeness Level Rated by Respondents 71
2.2.2.1. Data results 71
2.2.2.2. Comments 80
2.2.3. Summary 81
2.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS 81
CHAPTER THREE 83
STRATEGIES OF POLITENESS IN DISAGREEING 83
3.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES 83
3.1.1. Brown & Levinson’s Model of Strategies 83
3.1.2. Manipulation of Strategies 84
3.1.2.1. Bald-on-record strategies 84
3.1.2.2. On-record strategies 86
3.1.2.3. Off-record strategies 89
3.1.2.4. No FTA 94
3.1.3. Indirectness in Disagreeing 95
3.1.3.1. Notion of indirectness 95
3.1.3.2. Factors governing indirectness 97
3.1.3.3. Indirectness and politeness 98
3.1.4. Summary 102
3.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY 103
3.2.1. Aims and Methodology 103
3.2.1.1. Aims 103
3.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents 103
3.2.2. Choice of Strategies by Respondents 104
3.2.2.1. Data results 104
3.2.2.2. Comments 115
3.2.3. Summary 115
3.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS 116
CHAPTER FOUR 118
STRATEGIES CONCERNING PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION 118
4.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES 118
4.1.1. Preferred Second Turns 118
4.1.1.1. Markedness 118
4.1.1.2. Structural organization 119
4.1.1.3. Dispreferred second turns in disagreeing 121
4.1.2. Preferred Sequences 125
4.1.2.1. Repair apparatus 125
4.1.2.2. Repair apparatus in disagreeing 130
4.1.3. Summary 133
4.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY 134
4.2.1. Aims and Methodology 134
4.2.1.1. Aims 134
4.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents 134
4.2.2. Strategies for Disagreements as Dispreferred Seconds 137
4.2.2.1. English corpus 137
4.2.2.2. Vietnamese corpus 141
4.2.2.3. Comments 148
4.2.3. Strategies for Disagreements as Preferred Seconds 149
4.2.3.1. English corpus 149
4.2.3.2. Vietnamese corpus 151
4.2.3.3. Comments 157
4.2.4. Summary 157
4.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS 158
CHAPTER FIVE 160
STRATEGIES FOR CONSTRAINT SYSTEMS AND NEGOTIATION OF DISAGREEMENTS 160
5.1. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES 160
5.1.1. Constraint Systems 160
5.1.2. Negotiation of Disagreements 161
5.1.2.1. Insertion sequences 162
5.1.2.2. Summons-answer sequences 162
5.1.2.3. Pre-sequences 163
5.1.2.4. Sequences in disagreeing 166
5.1.3. Some Frequently Used Devices in Disagreements 168
5.1.3.1. Intensifiers 168
5.1.3.2. Person referring terms 170
5.1.4. Summary 174
5.2. EMPIRICAL STUDY 175
5.2.1. Aims and Methodology 175
5.2.1.1. Aims 175
5.2.1.2. Data collection methods and respondents 175
5.2.2. Strategies for Constraint Systems 176
5.2.2.1. English corpus 176
5.2.2.2. Vietnamese corpus 178
5.2.3. Strategies for Negotiation of Disagreements 181
5.2.3.1. English corpus 181
5.2.3.2. Vietnamese corpus 184
5.2.4. Summary 190
5.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS 192
CONCLUSION 193
1. MAJOR FINDINGS 193
1.1. POLITENESS STRATEGIES IN DISAGREEING 193
1.2. NORMATIVE-VOLITIONAL POLITENESS AND INDIRECTNESS 194
1.3. STRATEGIES CONCERNING PREFERENCE ORGANIZATION 195
1.4. STRATEGIES FOR NEGOTIATION OF DISAGREEMENTS AND CONSTRAINT SYSTEMS 196
2. IMPLICATIONS 197
2.1. EFL & VFL IMPLICATIONS 197
2.2. PRAGMATICS AND CA PERSPECTIVE IN SPEECH ACT STUDY 198
3. SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 200
APPENDIXES I
APPENDIX 1 I
TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS I
APPENDIX 2 III
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES III
BIBLIOGRAPHY XIII
ENGLISH XIII
VIETNAMESE XXVIII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to many people without whose Giúp the present thesis could not have been completed. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hoang Van Van and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Phan Van Que for their invaluable guidance, insightful comments and endless support.
I wish to express my deep indebtedness to Prof. Dr. Luong Van Hy, the chair of the Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Canada for his brilliant scholarship, demanding teaching and supervision. His unending Giúp greatly encouraged me before and during my one-year study at this university. I am most grateful to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sidnell, who worked at UCLA for some time with Schegloff, one of the founders of conversation analysis, for his productive course of conversation analysis, his kindness and generosity in providing naturally occurring data and responding literature.
I am deeply thankful to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Quang for his invaluable suggestions, and helpful advice. I have greatly benefited from his scholarship, encouragement and generosity. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyen Hoa for his discerning comments, knowledgeable suggestions and kind-heartedness. My sincere thanks go to all my teachers at CFL – VNU for their profound knowledge and outstanding teaching during my long study at the Department of Graduate Studies (DGS) from 1998 to 2005.
My special thanks are due to Ms Sandra Harrison, the country director of ELI Vietnam for her kind support and valuable correction of all this work in manuscript. But for her, I would not have had any access to ELI teachers working in Vietnam.
My thanks are also extended to all my informants in Hanoi and North America, my friends and students, my colleagues at Hanoi-Amsterdam High school, the school principal Mr. Do Lenh Dien, and all the people who have assisted my research work, especially Dr. Ngo Huu Hoang and the DGS staff. To Assoc. Prof. Dr. Le Hung Tien, the chair of the DGS, I extend my enormous gratitude for his scholarship and sincerity.
I sincerely thank Dr. Vu Thi Thanh Huong at the Institute of Linguistics for her efficient assistance, intellectual support and continual encouragement.
I especially express my heartfelt gratitude to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tran Huu Manh, who supervised my MA thesis, which is considered the very first step to the present Ph.D. dissertation, for his distinctive guidance, constant encouragement and benevolence.
Finally, I owe the completion of this dissertation to my parents and my siblings, my husband and my two children, who have always given me their love, understanding and encouragement throughout my study.
To all mentioned, and to many more, my heart extends the warmest thanks.

ABSTRACT

This thesis takes as its main objective the description of the native perception and realization of the speech act of disagreeing in English and Vietnamese within the theoretical frameworks of pragmatics and conversation analysis and the Giúp of SPSS, phiên bản 11.5, a software program for social sciences. It aims at yielding insights into such issues as politeness, its notions and relations with indirectness, strategies and linguistic devices used to express disagreement tokens in the English and Vietnamese languages and cultures. Linguistic politeness is carefully examined in its unity of discernment and volition on the basis of the data obtained from elicited written questionnaires, folk expressions, interviews and naturally occurring interactions. The meticulous and miraculous methods offered by conversation analysis are of great Giúp in describing and exploring the structural organization of disagreement responses in preferred and dispreferred format, the relationships between disagreements and the constraint systems, and negotiation of disagreements by native speakers.
The findings exhibit that the differences in choosing politeness strategies to perform disagreements by speakers of English in North America and speakers of Vietnamese in Hanoi result from the differences in their assessment of socio-cultural parameters and social situations. Although indirectness might be used in some contexts as a means to express politeness, there is no absolute correlation between politeness and indirectness in the two languages and cultures under investigation. Despite the English general preference for direct strategies and the Vietnamese tendency to indirect strategies, the former may be indirect in some contexts and the latter are prone to be direct or even very direct from time to time. Consequently, the study of politeness should be conducted in close relation to the study of the speakers’ wider socio-cultural milieus with systems of local norms, beliefs and values. In proffering disagreements to the prior evaluations or ideas, native speakers not only deploy individually volitional strategies but also observe socially determined norms of behavior, especially in the choice of formulaic expressions, speech levels, address terms, deference markers etc. Therefore, the deployment of the normative-volitional approach to politeness study is appropriate and reasonable.
Conversation analysis sheds light on disagreements as dispreferred seconds to first assessments and opinions, and as preferred seconds to self-deprecations. English and Vietnamese speakers adopt the same strategies in regards to preference organization, compliment responses and negotiation of disagreements. On the whole, disagreements are inclined to be hedged or delayed by a variety of softeners and/or other devices. However, they tend to be overtly stated in responses to self-denigrations. It is of interest to explore the conflicting effects caused by the correlation between preference organization and self-compliment avoidance in responses to compliments. The English informants show a trend towards compliment acceptance and appreciation, while the Vietnamese prefer to refuse and negate prior complimentary tokens in spite of their similar strategies in adopting mid-positions. The accounts for this phenomenon can be found in the Vietnamese community-based solidarity and the Anglophone individualistic satisfaction. Conversation analytic tools Giúp highlight the use of address terms (in Vietnamese), intensifiers (in English and Vietnamese) and other supportive means. By and large, the combined pragmatics and conversation analysis perspective is strongly recommended to speech act study as this integration maximizes the strengths and minimizes the weaknesses of each approach.



EK59mIJ9pStujG1
Ai cần download tài liệu gì mà không tìm thấy ở đây, thì đăng yêu cầu down tại đây nhé:
Nhận download tài liệu miễn phí
Music ♫

Copyright: Tài liệu đại học © DMCA.com Protection Status