Các quy tắc lịch sự, kính trọng của người Việt và người Úc - Nguyễn Thanh Tùng

Tạp chí KHOA HỌC ĐHSP TP HCM Số 25 năm 2011<br /> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> VIETNAMESE AND AUSTRALIAN RULES<br /> OF POLITENESS AND RESPECT<br /> NGUYEN THANH TUNG*<br /> <br /> ABSTRACT<br /> This research paper argues that in interpersonal communication interlocutors’<br /> behaviours are governed by their systems of beliefs and values. Thus it examines the<br /> systems of beliefs, values, and behaviours of the Vietnamese and of Australian peoples. The<br /> two different systems of beliefs of the Vietnamese (Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism)<br /> and the Australians (Judeo-Christianity) lead to two distinctive systems of values of<br /> ±equality, ±independence, ±privacy, and ±assertiveness. In their turn, these values govern<br /> opposite behaviours in cross-cultural communication, which may cause communication<br /> breakdown. Therefore, cultural awareness and sensitivity should be a basis for overcoming<br /> communication problems likely to face people from countries with contrastive cultural<br /> patterns.<br /> TÓM TẮT<br /> Các quy tắc lịch sự và kính trọng của người Việt và người Úc<br /> Bài nghiên cứu này lập luận rằng trong giao tiếp liên nhân hệ đức tin và giá trị chi<br /> phối hành vi những người tham gia đối thoại. Vì vậy, bài viết tìm hiểu hệ đức tin, giá trị,<br /> và hành vi của người Việt và người Úc. Hai hệ đức tin khác nhau của người Việt (Phật,<br /> Nho và Lão) và người Úc (Do Thái – Cơ Đốc) dẫn đến hai hệ giá trị khác nhau là ±bình<br /> đẳng, ±độc lập, ±riêng tư, và ±quyết đoán. Đến lượt mình, những giá trị này chi phối hành<br /> vi đối lập nhau trong giao tiếp xuyên văn hóa. Điều này có thể dẫn đến thất bại trong giao<br /> tiếp. Vì vậy, những người đến từ các quốc gia có các mô hình văn hóa đối lập nhau nên lấy<br /> nhận thức và sự nhạy cảm về văn hóa làm cơ sở để vượt qua những vấn đề gặp phải trong<br /> giao tiếp.<br /> <br /> 1. Introduction into Australian English, although<br /> Interpersonal communication is full Vietnamese learners of English may be<br /> of potential ambiguity, which sometimes able to speak English fluently and<br /> leads to misunderstanding and tension. In correctly at a morpho-syntactic level.<br /> a cross-cultural communication context, 2. Examples of cross-cultural<br /> the problems multiply. This is because of misunderstanding<br /> different interactional rules despite good Literature on Vietnamese and<br /> intention on both sides. These rules might Australian or British or American cross-<br /> be carried over from one language into cultural communication in Vietnam and<br /> another, and in this study from Vietnamese the world records many examples of<br /> misunderstanding of this sort. Three<br /> examples, one taken in Vietnam and the<br /> *<br /> PhD, HCMC University of Education other two in Australia, suffice to illustrate<br /> <br /> 56<br /> Tạp chí KHOA HỌC ĐHSP TP HCM Nguyen Thanh Tung<br /> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> the ambiguity due to different and “thank you”, that the Vietnamese<br /> interactional rules of politeness and was rude.<br /> respect. He therefore raised his voice<br /> Western visitors in Vietnam are slightly and spoke in a little more<br /> very surprised because Vietnamese abruptly. The Vietnamese, observing this,<br /> people usually ask them questions, which concluded that, as he himself had<br /> they consider personal and private. They behaved perfectly normally, the reason<br /> ask: Why do Vietnamese people often for this very obvious display of anger<br /> ask personal questions, such as questions must be racism. He therefore used body<br /> about age and family? language to convey his contempt for the<br /> Similarly, questions about shopkeeper… and so on. In the end, the<br /> digestion, destination and purpose are majority of shopkeepers were convinced<br /> considered private by Australians, but are that Vietnamese were arrogant and<br /> usually asked by Vietnamese people in impolite, while the majority of<br /> Australia: “Have you eaten?”, “Where Vietnamese were equally convinced that<br /> are you going?”, “Why?” [Bradley & the shopkeepers were arrogant, impolite<br /> Bradley, 1984, as cited in 4, p. 84]. and racist to boost.” [1, pp. 2-3]<br /> The last example is about a Unlike the first two examples,<br /> Vietnamese immigrant in New South which are related to matters regarded as<br /> Wales, Australia. When the first “personal” and “private” in the ears of<br /> Vietnamese people started to migrate to the Australians, the last one is about<br /> Australia in 1987, “many of them settled requests in Vietnamese and Australian<br /> in Cabramatta, a south-western suburb of English. The Vietnamese customer tries<br /> Sydney. At that time, the majority of the to be polite and turns out to be rude.<br /> shops in Cabramatta were operated by Strange! “Why can’t I ask an Australian<br /> Australians or by migrants who had lived questions about his/her age, marital<br /> in Australia for a considerable period and status, relative salary, and the like?” We,<br /> who had to a great extent acculturated, at Vietnamese people, usually do so in<br /> least in regard to behaviour accepted in Vietnamese. What is wrong with them?<br /> service encounters in shops. When a How can I request someone to do<br /> Vietnamese went into a shop, he would something for me in Australian English?<br /> ask for what he wanted: “Give me a 3. Research question<br /> packet of cigarettes”, “I want a kilo of Because, after Grossman [1995, as<br /> pork”. In Vietnamese, the direct cited in 10, p. 325], communication is<br /> translation of their words was totally rule-governed, these and similar<br /> appropriate. However, the Australians questions, in essence, can be subsumed<br /> shopkeeper concluded from the lack of under only one umbrella question: “What<br /> softeners (“Could I have …”, “Have you are the rules of politeness and respect in<br /> got …”), and from the lack of “please”<br /> <br /> <br /> 57<br /> Tạp chí KHOA HỌC ĐHSP TP HCM Số 25 năm 2011<br /> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> interpersonal communication in Vietnam ideology of a culture. Therefore, to find<br /> and Australia?” out what constitutes a behaviour<br /> To answer to this question, an considered polite and respectful in a<br /> examination of the two systems of beliefs culture, the starting point should be from<br /> and values of the two countries is its system of beliefs.<br /> necessary because we behave according The three main religions in<br /> to what we believe. Or to put it another Vietnam are Buddhism, Confucianism,<br /> way, the rules (behaviours) offered in and Taoism. There are some other<br /> each culture reflect the values of that religions, of course. Nevertheless, their<br /> culture, and in their turn, values are a influence on the Vietnamese life is not so<br /> mirror of the system of beliefs in each great as these three. In regard to the<br /> culture impact of Christianity, Tran [11, p. 557]<br /> 4. Beliefs, values, and behaviours should be given credit for his argument:<br /> 4.1. Beliefs “After four centuries of missionary<br /> From the above assumption that work, up to now Christianity has had a<br /> communication in general and rules of firm position in Vietnam with more than<br /> politeness and respect in particular are 5 million Catholic believers and nearly<br /> influenced by the philosophical1 half a million Protestant believers …<br /> foundations and value systems of the However, … compared to the influence<br /> society in which they are found, this of Buddhism in Vietnam, the figure of<br /> paper argues that there are remarkable more than 5 million is not great.”<br /> differences in the rules of politeness and This is because Christianity was<br /> respect due to different ideologies of the introduced into Vietnam much later in the<br /> two countries, which causes a lot of sixteenth century by Catholic<br /> difficulties for a Vietnamese and an missionaries from France, Spain, and<br /> Australian in a cross-cultural Portugal<br /> communication context. When people Many aspects of Vietnamese value<br /> communicate between cultures, where system rest on the three religions of<br /> communicative rules as well as the Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism.<br /> substance of experience differ, the Therefore, it is now necessary to go into<br /> problems multiply. It is true that the more the details of how these religions shape<br /> people differ the harder it is for them to the Vietnamese ideology with a view to<br /> understand each other. In other words, identify what constitutes polite and<br /> clear cross-cultural differences can and respectful behaviours of Vietnamese<br /> do produce conflicts or inhibit people later. First, from Mahayana<br /> communication. Buddhism comes an acceptance of silent<br /> As explained, communicative rules suffering as an inevitable part of life;<br /> of politeness and respect are governed by through extinction of desire and self-<br /> the value system, which reflects the core negation comes an eventual end to<br /> <br /> <br /> 58<br /> Tạp chí KHOA HỌC ĐHSP TP HCM Nguyen Thanh Tung<br /> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> suffering. Thus, a “non-assertive” much concern with present-day ethics<br /> tradition is found, requiring “politeness, and moral behaviour, including<br /> humility, modesty” as some basic virtues. behaviour affecting personal<br /> Second, in Taoism is to be found a spirit communication.”<br /> of harmony that requires a preference for Broadly speaking, Western culture<br /> a quiet, “non-assertive”, non-dynamic seems to be largely influenced by the<br /> pursuit of balance, that can be interpreted Judeo-Christian traditions. In Orton’s [7,<br /> by outsiders as compliance, passivity, pp. 2-3] article, the story of Adam and<br /> and servility [see 4, p. 90]. Eve in the Garden of Eden and Jesus<br /> And last but not least, the emphasis Christ of the Judeo-Christianity suffices<br /> is put on the importance of recognising to highlight a “substantial piece of core<br /> rank (age and relationship) within the ideology”. Of absolute importance is the<br /> family and within the society in notion incorporated here of the “human<br /> Confucianism. Similarly, according to being as individual”, processor of an<br /> Hodge [4, p. 90], from Confucianism individual will. Similarly, Christianity<br /> comes a “respect for age and an brings the notions of equality of all men<br /> obedience to authority”. Similarly, in the eyes of God. In other words, in the<br /> Vietnam exhibits the strong emphasis on West the individual “stands alone before<br /> social relationships and devotion to the his creator” [12, p. 21].<br /> hierarchical family relations that are the 4.2. Values<br /> essence of Confucian doctrines. Of four In comparing and contrasting<br /> points identified by Hofstede [as cited in cultures, the following classification of 5<br /> 12, p. 21], the two points below also value orientations is normally cited: man-<br /> convey what other researchers find out: nature orientation, human-nature<br /> a. The stability of society is based on orientation, time orientation, activity<br /> unequal relations between people. orientation, and relational (or human<br /> b. The family is the prototype of all relations) orientation. Based on these five<br /> social organisations. (emphases added) orientations, Vietnamese philosophy can<br /> The system of beliefs in Australia be summarised as follows: Vietnamese<br /> can be traced back to Judeo-Christian traditionally believe that human nature is<br /> heritage. For instance, Irwin [5, p. 49] basically good but corruptible; that<br /> writes: human should strive for harmony with<br /> “Australia, on the basis of its nature; they live oriented to the past, not<br /> history over the past 200 years, is the future; they are traditionally attached<br /> considered a Christian country … it is to one place, the ancestor’s land; they<br /> clear that Christianity, as important from value the process of being and becoming,<br /> the UK and Europe, has been a major mutual dependence and linearity (or<br /> influence in Australia’s short history collectivity).<br /> since European settlement; it has shaped<br /> <br /> <br /> 59<br /> Tạp chí KHOA HỌC ĐHSP TP HCM Số 25 năm 2011<br /> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Based on what researchers write and respectful or not. In Australia, Judeo-<br /> about Western orientations in general and Christianity conditions that the following<br /> American orientations in particular, I values are significant in interpersonal<br /> believe that Australian philosophy should communication: (1) equality, (2)<br /> be as follows: independence, (3) privacy, and (4)<br /> Australian generally believe that assertiveness.<br /> human nature is evil but perfectible; that In regard to politeness and respect,<br /> humans should have mastery over nature; it should be noted that in Vietnamese<br /> they live oriented to future time; they are society the emphasis is more on respect.<br /> accustomed to movement, migration and Respect is the corner stone of<br /> mobility; they value accomplishment, interpersonal relationship, whether in the<br /> individuality and self-reliance. family or in social circles, whether on the<br /> Of the five value orientations, in employment scene or between friends<br /> intercultural studies of the rules of and lovers [4, p. 85]. Therefore,<br /> politeness and respect in the two cultures, Vietnamese culture places more emphasis<br /> Vietnam and Australia, the last one, on “negative face”, or “deference<br /> human relations, is of crucial importance. politeness” [9, p. 38], four values of<br /> What are the relationships between two which are inequality, dependence, non-<br /> interlocutors in an interaction in privacy, and non assertiveness as<br /> Vietnam? And in Australia? Do presented in the previous paragraph. In<br /> participants take equal or unequal roles? contrast, in Australia people put more<br /> If unequal, what factors should be taken emphasis on friendliness in interpersonal<br /> into consideration and why? If equal, communication. Therefore, Australian<br /> why?, etc. A look at the two value culture puts more emphasis on “positive<br /> systems of the Vietnamese and face”, or “solidarity politeness” [9, p. 38],<br /> Australian cultures in regard to human four values of which are equality,<br /> relations can shed light on these independence, privacy and assertiveness<br /> enquiries. in interpersonal communication.<br /> In Vietnam, some of the main First, inequality; the Confucian<br /> teachings of the three main religions of tradition teaches that “the stability of<br /> Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, society is based on unequal relations<br /> which are very important to identify rules between people” [12, p. 21]. In Vietnam<br /> of politeness and respect in interpersonal the family is the most important unit of<br /> communication, are (1) inequality, (2) society. Family honour is of paramount<br /> dependence, (3) non-privacy, and (4) concern. A by-product is that adults are<br /> non-assertiveness. These concepts always to be respected by children and<br /> constitute the key values which help youth and this intensifies with the age of<br /> define whether a behaviour in the adult. Vietnam treats age as an<br /> interpersonal communication is polite honour and worthy of respect [1; 6, p. 3).<br /> <br /> <br /> 60<br /> Tạp chí KHOA HỌC ĐHSP TP HCM Nguyen Thanh Tung<br /> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Inequality begins in the family, and then In Australia, there is independence<br /> is extended into the society: “The family in interpersonal relations. According to<br /> is the prototype of all social Price [8], Australians tend to place a lot<br /> organisations” [12, p. 21]. Therefore, in of importance on showing initiative, self-<br /> addition to age, respect is also given to expression, personal choice, and personal<br /> education and position of the speaker in responsibility. After Orton [7, p. 3] the<br /> society or person of higher status. individual in the Australian society is of<br /> In Australia, there is equality in free will, able to choose good or bad, and<br /> social relationships. By stressing the hence responsible for his/her own<br /> importance of the individual’s actions: “You are to blame”, “Take<br /> responsibilities to God, Western religion responsibility for what you are doing”.<br /> has downplayed the role of society or Third, non-privacy; the Vietnamese<br /> social relationships: equality of all men in do not value privacy much. Cultures do<br /> the eyes of God. According to Price [8], not necessarily choose the same topic to<br /> Australians typically prefer to be treated talk about, and all cultures have some<br /> as equals. Roles tend to be negotiated, topics they would rather avoid. For the<br /> not fixed by age and status. Australians Vietnamese people such topics as<br /> downplay differences in status. They treat financial details or relative salaries, one<br /> most people with friendliness and another’s children, one another’s marital<br /> informality. They resent differences in status, age (which has already been<br /> status and people who draw attention to discussed in the concept of inequality),<br /> them. Age is of no significance in intimate relationships, personal<br /> interpersonal relationships. characteristics, digestion, destination,<br /> Second, dependence; in a society, reason, and the like are not considered to<br /> where relations between people are be impolite and disrespectful. Triandis<br /> unequal, one dependently relies upon the [12, p. 159] assumes that “such<br /> support, help, and opinions of others. In ‘intrusive’ questions are the means<br /> interpersonal relationships, Vietnamese through which social behaviour is<br /> people tend to be more interested in lubricated in collectivist cultures”.<br /> obtaining direction and feedback from Clearly, their purpose is to reinforce<br /> others. They show little initiative or human relationships as the basis of<br /> independence and rarely make decisions society.<br /> without others’ approval (based on 10, p. Australians value privacy very<br /> 353). “Others” here should be understood much. The above topics are not accepted<br /> as people of older age, higher status, and in an interpersonal communication.<br /> higher education. Again, this concept is a Australians tend to view intimate<br /> consequence of the first concept of relationships, personal characteristics and<br /> inequality – to show politeness and money matters as private. They may be<br /> respect. offended by comments about issues they<br /> <br /> <br /> 61<br /> Tạp chí KHOA HỌC ĐHSP TP HCM Số 25 năm 2011<br /> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> consider private [8]. Also, their digestion, interpersonal relationships. Some<br /> destination, and reason are none of markers that go with Vietnamese<br /> others’ business. deference politeness are age, education,<br /> Fourth, non-assertiveness; both and status of the speaker in society under<br /> Buddhism and Taoism encourage a non- the influence of the three religions of<br /> assertive attitude toward life. Therefore, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism.<br /> in Vietnam it is considered impolite and Central to the four values of equality,<br /> disrespectful to be assertive to someone independence, privacy, and assertiveness<br /> older or of higher status or to disagree is friendliness in interpersonal<br /> openly with them. These kinds of values relationships under the influence of the<br /> need to be taken into consideration when Judeo-Christian heritage, which<br /> interacting with Vietnamese speakers of highlights the equality of all men before<br /> English [6, p. 3]. Similarly, Hodge [4, p. God.<br /> 85] puts it that “in a society that is 4.3. Behaviours<br /> premised on the pursuit of harmony and Governed by these two different<br /> the avoidance of conflict in human systems of beliefs and values, it is<br /> relations, it may be disrespectful to be expected to find fundamental and<br /> assertive toward older people, or people contrastive differences that exist between<br /> of higher status”. the Vietnamese and the Australian<br /> In Australia, an assertive attitude is cultures in what is regarded as “polite<br /> encouraged in interpersonal and respectful” behaviour. In fact, a<br /> communication. This is rooted in the behaviour which is considered polite and<br /> emphasis of Judeo-Christianity on the respectful by a Vietnamese may turn out<br /> equality of all men before God. Respect to be rude in the eyes and ears of an<br /> is of no significance. Age and status are Australian, and vice versa a behaviour<br /> not appreciated. People involved in an which is thought of as appropriate by an<br /> interpersonal communication context are Australian may be interpreted as strange<br /> treated as equals. Therefore, Australians and impolite by a Vietnamese. Therefore,<br /> typically value people expressing their in a cross-cultural communication<br /> opinions and being assertive in context between a Vietnamese and an<br /> conversations [8]. Australian, “isomorphic attributions”<br /> It is obvious from the presentation should be the goal to be achieved, as<br /> of the four key values above that central Scollon and Scollon [9, p. 35] comment<br /> to the four concepts of inequality, that:<br /> dependence, non-privacy, and non- “We speak to be understood. We<br /> assertiveness is respect, which is a corner make significant assumptions about what<br /> stone of interpersonal relationship in the kind of a person the other person is and<br /> Vietnamese society. Respect appears what kind of a person he or she would<br /> almost everywhere, and conditions like us to think of him or her as being.<br /> <br /> <br /> 62<br /> Tạp chí KHOA HỌC ĐHSP TP HCM Nguyen Thanh Tung<br /> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> And what kind of person we intend them family is evident in the transposition into<br /> to think of us as”. social usage of a language originally<br /> This part of the paper will help intended for domestic life. Vietnamese<br /> Vietnamese learners of English to people use more than a score of kinship<br /> achieve this cultural awareness and terms as personal pronouns. The choice<br /> sensitivity. Behaviours, which are of the appropriate word depend on the<br /> considered polite and respectful in each relative age, social status, gender, degree<br /> culture, will be examined in terms of the of acquaintance, respect, and affection<br /> four key values of inequality / equality, between speakers and hearers who are<br /> dependence / independence, non- not related to each other by blood.<br /> privacy/privacy, and non-assertiveness / c. Titles should be used for older<br /> assertiveness, as discussed in the second people to show respect for their age and<br /> part. position in society. The formal titles, for<br /> First of all, inequality; because of example Miss/Ms or Mr or teacher given<br /> the value that respect is given to age, to someone is a sign of respect given to<br /> education, and position or higher status, them by the Vietnamese people. A person<br /> the following behaviours (or rules) are to address another without title can<br /> expected from a Vietnamese person to indicate to the Vietnamese a lack of<br /> show his/her politeness and respect when respect for the person’s age and position<br /> addressing someone in an interaction: in society [6].<br /> a. First names are not used. Family d. In Vietnamese, special respect is<br /> relationships are more important; conveyed by using function-words or<br /> therefore, surname (or family name) is honorifics for respect when addressing<br /> stated first in Vietnamese. The order is persons such as parents, old people,<br /> surname, middle name, and given name. teachers, monks, and priests, and<br /> People rarely address each other by their superiors. The verbal response begins<br /> names. Instead, they employ a series of with a function-word such as “da”,<br /> kinship terms or professional titles. These “thua”, “da thua”, “kinh thua”, or modal<br /> terms and titles always go before the particles “a”, “da”, “vang” [13, p. 85].<br /> given names, never the family names [6]. e. “Other ways of showing politeness<br /> It is unusual to call someone in a meeting and respect are through adding extra<br /> by their first name on its own in Vietnam words making enquiries, apologies and<br /> [2, p. 2]. requests, especially to older people” [6,<br /> b. Kinship terms are used as address p. 3]. The words are, for example, “xin<br /> forms. This is because the basic loi” (excuse), “lam on” (do favour) [13,<br /> principles underlying family relationships pp. 83-84].<br /> are extended to the relationships between f. The speaker usually attempts to<br /> members of wider social groups. The elevate the status of the other, while<br /> concept of society as an extension of the reducing his or her own status (Lebra, as<br /> <br /> <br /> 63<br /> Tạp chí KHOA HỌC ĐHSP TP HCM Số 25 năm 2011<br /> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> cited in 3, p. 53; 11, pp. 314-315; 13, p. own right may sound friendly in western<br /> 85). Examples of choosing terms of culture. In addition, in the Australian<br /> lower status to designate oneself and English only one word is used to refer to<br /> terms of higher status to designate the the self. Similarly, one word is used to<br /> other party are: em-anh/chi (younger refer to the single listener. Therefore, the<br /> sister/brother-elder sister/ brother), chau- structure of Australians’ local social<br /> chu/co/bac (niece/ nephew-uncle/aunt), relationships, and indeed the structure of<br /> chau-ong/ba (grandson/ granddaughter- the English language create problems of<br /> grandpa/grandma), etc. [13, p. 85]. appropriate politeness and respect for<br /> Therefore, there is no equivalent in Vietnamese people, whose first language<br /> Vietnamese for the English “I”. Different contains pronouns, kinship terms,<br /> words are used (see above) to refer to the function-words or honorifics, extra<br /> self. Similarly, “you” changes wording, words, and titles that indicate levels of<br /> depending on the social context [12, p. respect, familiarity and coldness [4, p.<br /> 69]. Or in other words, there are different 85].<br /> words for “you” depending upon the In an interaction, the English<br /> level of politeness and upon the speakers may feel uncomfortable with the<br /> relationship. The forms of address in formal address given to them by the<br /> Vietnamese can also take the forms of the Vietnamese. It can often be<br /> personal pronouns. There are 22 misunderstood as a mechanism for<br /> pronouns in Vietnamese and there are distancing oneself from the listener or a<br /> seven in English. show of disrespect [6]. Failure to use the<br /> In Australia, status differences tend accepted and appropriate forms of<br /> to be deemphasised and the notion of greetings are a constant source of minor<br /> equality for all members of society is irritation; many Vietnamese people find<br /> often manifested in communication on a the local use of first names in formal<br /> first-name basis (Grossman, 1995, as settings quite disconcerting, and try to<br /> cited in 10, p. 352), or as Irwin [5, p. 41] conform to their own cultural models by<br /> argues that Australia, a low-context responding to first name use with added<br /> culture, is more informal, allowing more honorifics (titles): “Mr Tony”, “Madame<br /> equality in interaction by placing less Alison”, “Mr Doctor John”, and so on [4,<br /> emphasis on hierarchy. Therefore, in p. 84].<br /> Australian society, no offence is taken Second, dependence; if Vietnamese<br /> when we ask someone their name, that is, society values relations in which people<br /> unless we have been introduced are unequal and one depends on another<br /> previously and know that we should for support, help, and opinions, then<br /> remember their name [4, p. 84]. behaviours in interpersonal<br /> According to Duong [2], calling someone communication which support these<br /> in a meeting by their first name on its values should be accepted as polite and<br /> <br /> <br /> 64<br /> Tạp chí KHOA HỌC ĐHSP TP HCM Nguyen Thanh Tung<br /> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> respectful are as follows: People, younger p. 84), “How much money do you make<br /> in age or lower in status, are encouraged per month?” 12, p. 5].<br /> not to show initiative, self-expression, These questions are usually raised<br /> and personal choice, especially before to an Australian by a Vietnamese in a<br /> older people, people of higher education, cross-cultural communication context<br /> and people of higher status. One makes because, as explained in the previous<br /> decisions only after consulting people. paragraph, collectivists want to show<br /> One does not make one’s own decisions. concern for each other’s personal matters<br /> Therefore, one does not take in a mono-cultural interaction or they<br /> responsibility for them. However, “cognitively convert situations into<br /> collective support makes decisions less collectivist settings” in a cross-cultural<br /> risky. interaction, as Triandis [12, p. 5)<br /> In Australia, there is independence comments:<br /> in interpersonal relations. Therefore, “People who have been raised in<br /> those behaviours that are associated with collectivist cultures tend to ‘cognitively<br /> these values are regarded as polite and convert’ situations into collectivist<br /> respectful in interpersonal settings … the trend in collectivist<br /> communication. An individual is cultures is to perceive closeness between<br /> expected to express his/her opinion. One members of the group. Thus, for instance,<br /> addresses the issue directly. This is a way after meeting with a stranger, and after<br /> to show one’s initiative. One makes one’s establishing what might become an<br /> own decisions and choices and takes ingroup relationship, the collectivist may<br /> responsibility for them [8, p. 7]. ask, “How much money do you make per<br /> Third, non-privacy; collectivists month?”<br /> hold that one’s business is also the In Australia, almost everything that<br /> business of the group – friends should be is associated with an individual is valued.<br /> concerned with each other’s personal Privacy is considered to be of importance<br /> matters [12, p. 76]. Therefore, in Vietnam in interpersonal relationships. “Personal”<br /> it is not impolite to disrespectful to ask means “private”. Therefore, the questions<br /> personal questions about age, relative about independent self should be<br /> salary, marital status, children, digestion, avoided. If they are asked by a recent<br /> destination2, reason, and the like, such as acquaintance, they are regarded as<br /> “How old are you?”, “How much do you “intrusive” [12, p. 159]. Intrusive means<br /> earn?”, “Why are you not married?”, impolite and disrespectful in the ears of<br /> “How unfortunate that you have no Australians. That is the reason why<br /> children” [4, p. 104], “Have you eaten?”, Australians find it unacceptable in<br /> “Where are you going?”, “Why?” an Australian conversation between<br /> [Bradley & Bradley, 1984, as cited in 4, recent acquaintances to use such early<br /> conversational gambits as “How much do<br /> <br /> <br /> 65<br /> Tạp chí KHOA HỌC ĐHSP TP HCM Số 25 năm 2011<br /> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> you earn?”, “Are you married?”, “How Fourth, non-assertiveness; those<br /> old are you?”, and the like. According to behaviours thought of as a lack of<br /> Hodge [4, p. 84], Australians may find assertiveness are in fact associated with<br /> rather impertinent some conversational respect in Vietnamese culture. A Lack of<br /> questions like “Why don’t you have any assertiveness is a mechanism in which<br /> children?”, or react badly to some of young Vietnamese people demonstrate<br /> these questions (“Have you eaten?”, politeness and respect to older people [6].<br /> “Where are you going?”, “Why?”), Younger people should not question or<br /> thinking that their digestion, destination, argue with older people or people of<br /> and purpose are none of the other higher education or status. A lack of<br /> person’s business. assertiveness in interpersonal<br /> Besides personal questions, modes communication can also be expressed<br /> of requesting should also be taken into non-verbally, although the kinesics of<br /> account in regard to privacy, because the Vietnamese has not been studied in<br /> use of politeness markers (for example, depth: Bodily postures taught in the<br /> please) and modes of indirectness traditional society still subsist: one bows<br /> (“Would you …?”, “Could you …?”, one’s head when saying greetings to a<br /> “Could I …?”, instead of an imperative superior and avoiding eye contact;<br /> construction) becomes a necessity if we children are taught to refrain from<br /> think that such differences can result in making hand gestures or even raising<br /> communicative breakdown, as well as their voices; and a lack of eye contact in<br /> give rise to mistrust and prejudice among Vietnam may signify respect.<br /> groups. It is true that for the Vietnamese Australians, who tend to minimise<br /> society imperative constructions status differences and formality, prefer<br /> constitute appropriate requesting forms in interpersonal communication styles that<br /> considerably more contexts than in the are much more forthright and assertive<br /> Australian English society. [5, p. 40]. Similarly, Price [8, p. 10]<br /> Australians may easily get offended writes that Australians typically value<br /> and annoyed by the degree of people expressing their opinions and<br /> “impoliteness” and “authoritarianism” in being assertive in conversations.<br /> a request with imperative as illustrated in Assertiveness can also be expressed non-<br /> the story about a Vietnamese customer at verbally: eye contact is needed.<br /> the beginning of this paper. For the Australians may distrust people who do<br /> English (and Australians also) imperative not “look them in the eyes” when talking.<br /> is considered as imposition and They may consider too little eye contact<br /> consequently as intrusion to the hearer’s as a sign of inattention or lack of interest.<br /> privacy, something which is usually 5. Conclusion<br /> avoided. In a cross-cultural communication<br /> context between a Vietnamese and an<br /> <br /> <br /> 66<br /> Tạp chí KHOA HỌC ĐHSP TP HCM Nguyen Thanh Tung<br /> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Australian, misunderstanding in influenced by the two systems of beliefs<br /> behaviours in terms of politeness and in Vietnam and Australia. Influenced by<br /> respect are very likely to occur, which the main religions of Buddhism,<br /> can lead to communication breakdown. Confucianism and Taoism, interpersonal<br /> One behaviour, which is considered communication in Vietnam attaches<br /> polite and respectful in one culture, may much importance to maintain social<br /> turn out to be impolite and disrespectful relationships (or collectivism). Affected<br /> in the other in terms of the four key by Judeo-Christianity, Australian<br /> concepts: inequality versus equality, focuses more on individualism in<br /> dependence versus independence, non- interpersonal communication.<br /> privacy versus privacy, and non- The implications of this research<br /> assertiveness versus assertiveness. paper for Vietnamese and Australian<br /> This is because interpersonal cross-cultural communication is obvious,<br /> communication in Vietnam is much and it is equally obvious that cultural<br /> based on the concept of respect, while awareness and sensitivity will be a sound<br /> more emphasis is put on the concept of basis for overcoming communication<br /> solidarity in Australian. The origin of problems likely to face people from<br /> these differences lies in the two different countries with contrastive cultural<br /> systems of values, which are in turn patterns.<br /> <br /> REFERENCES<br /> 1. Brick, J., & Louie, G. (1984), Language and culture: Vietnam. Sydney: A.M.E.S.<br /> 2. Duong, T. N. (1999, October 13-15), Forms of address in formal meetings in<br /> educational development projects in Vietnam. Proceedings of the Fourth<br /> International Conference on Language and Development. Available:<br /> http://www.languages.ait.ac.th/hanoi_proceedings/dtnu.htm<br /> 3. Gudykunst, W. B. & Mody, G. (Eds). (2002), Handbook of international and<br /> intercultural communication (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.<br /> 4. Hodge. A. (1987), Communicating across cultures: An ABC of cultural awareness.<br /> Janus Resources.<br /> 5. Irwin, H. (1996), Communicating with Asia: Understanding people and customs. St.<br /> Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.<br /> 6. Nguyen, M. (2002), Aspects of Vietnamese culture and language: Implications for<br /> the speech pathologists in Australia. Available: http://casino.cchs.usyd.<br /> edu.au/csd//mig_site/1999_vol15_1/aspects_of_vietnamese_culture.htm<br /> 7. Orton, J. (2000, November 26-27), Culture in school language learning. National<br /> LOTE Conference 2000. Melbourne.<br /> 8. Price, F. (2001), Life in Australia: An international perspective. The University of<br /> Melbourne.<br /> (Continued page 87)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 67<br /> Tạp chí KHOA HỌC ĐHSP TP HCM Số 25 năm 2011<br /> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 9. Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1995), Intercultural Communication: A Discourse<br /> Approach. Cambridge: Blackwell.<br /> 10. Stefani, L. A. (1997), The influence of culture on classroom communication. In L. A.<br /> Samovar & R. E. Porter, Intercultural communication: A reader. Belmont:<br /> Wadsworth Publishing Company.<br /> 11. Tran. N. T. (1997), Tim ve ban sac van hoa Viet Nam – Discovering the identity of<br /> Vietnamese culture. Ho Chi Minh City Publishing House.<br /> 12. Triandis, H. C. (1995), Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.<br /> 13. Vu T. T. H. (1997), Politeness in modern Vietnamese: A sociolinguistic study of a<br /> Hanoi speech community, Unpublished PhD Thesis. UMI.<br /> <br /> <br /> 1<br /> In this research paper, the three terms “philosophy” (or “religion-philosophy”), “belief”, and “ideology” (or<br /> “core ideology”) are used interchangeably.<br /> 2<br /> Actually, Vietnamese people regard questions about digestion and destination as a form of greeting, no<br /> more or less, which is similar to “Hi”, or “Hello”, or “Good morning/afternoon/ evening”, or “How are you?”<br /> in the Australian English culture.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 68<br />