Part 1: introduction rationale
CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
tải về 446.91 Kb.
|
- Điều hướng trang này:
- 3.1. 2. Comments on the informants
- Table 1: Distribution on informants’ status parameters
- 3.2. FINGDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 3.2.1. Needs of hedging before giving bad news
- Table 2: The main purposes of using hedges to inform bad news
- 3.2.2. Giving bad news in Vietnamese and English 3.2.2.1. Vietnamese findings and discussions
- 3.2.2.2. English findings and discussions
- 3.2.2.3. Cross-cultural similarities and differences
- 3.2.3. Hedging before giving bad news in Vietnamese 3.2.3.1. In terms of communicating partners’ parameters Best friend
- Colleague (same age, same sex)
CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 3.1. GENERAL VIEW 3.1. 1. Comments on the survey questionnaires The questionnaires used for this study are designed in Vietnamese and English with the same contents for Vietnamese and English native speakers respectively, aiming to collect authentic and reliable data. The questionnaire is comprised of two sections. To begin with, part 1 requests the respondents to fill in his/ her nationality, age, gender, marital status, living area (residence), occupation, and acquisition of language(s) other than his/her mother tongue. All of the obtained information about the respondent serves as a useful source for comments and later analyses. Apart from the MPQ questions to find out the functions of hedges in our social life in general and in giving bad news in particular, the other MPQ ones are based on Likert’s scale ranging from 1 to 5, i.e. from high advisability to strong inadvisability of giving bad news. There are four groups of situations under investigation. They are family life, social life, academic life, and business life. The situations are:
In this part, the informants were asked to put a tick in the column which they thought would appreciate to give bad news in a given situation. The initial purpose of the situations designed is to find out cross-cultural differences and to rate the assessment of possible choices by both Vietnamese and English native speakers in their real exchange, and hence to reach an initial understanding of the informants’ behavior, beliefs and norms when they encounter those situations. For the DCT questions, four situations from the MPQ section are chosen and modified with the hope of obtaining “really-be” utterances. The informants are requested to verbally give bad news to the following people:
3.1. 2. Comments on the informants Firstly, the questionnaire aims at finding out the informants’
All of the informants are Vietnamese and English native speakers. English speaking informants, who were asked to answer the questions, are from English-speaking countries such as the UK, the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. However, due to the author’s relationship, informants from Britain and the USA are more readily available. Table 1: Distribution on informants’ status parameters
3.2. FINGDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 3.2.1. Needs of hedging before giving bad news The aim of exposing some informative sentences containing some hedges is to find out the purposes of using hedges before giving bad news in everyday conversations.
Please tick (ν) where appropriate. More than one answer is possible. The italic phrases above are used in order to:
Table 2: The main purposes of using hedges to inform bad news
The table suggests that the reasons why VNSs and ENSs use hedges to inform bad news do not show many differences. 60% of ENSs confirmed that they used hedges to lessen the degree of directness whenever they wanted to inform bad news. Whereas, 48% VNSs agreed with the choice to lessen the degree of directness. Besides the purpose of lessening the degree of directness, hedges used to make the bad news less unpleasant and shocking to the hearer is chosen by 90% of VNSs and 80% of ENSs in addition to lessen the degree of directness. It is evident that they approve of the idea: hedging to make the bad news less unpleasant and shocking to the hearer because hedges have given the speakers a hand to let the other person know he/ she feels bad about it and hedging also makes the speaker more comfortable as the bearer of bad news. However, there is rather little difference in the aim: to make the statement more polite with the percentage 20% of VNSs and 10% of ENSs. In general, both VNSs and ENSs hedge not to make the statement more polite but to make the bad news less unpleasant and shocking to the hearer as well as to lessen the degree of directness in such fully emotional circumstances in order that they really long to show their truly feeling in minimizing the FTA. 3.2.2. Giving bad news in Vietnamese and English 3.2.2.1. Vietnamese findings and discussions 
In situation 1 (“S/he does not love him/ her any more”), it is noted that data filled in column 1: highly advisable occupies the most with 60%. Then the percentage decreases dramatically into 25% with the choice advisable and 15% for yes/ no. In contrast, no one chose column 4 and 5. This leads to an initial conclusion that in Vietnam it is almost highly advisable to give the information “S/he does not love him/ her any more” to the hearer. Compared to what has been seen in situation 1, the rate of situation 2 “her/ his partner has another man/ woman” is rather different. “Yes/ No” (87%) proves to outweigh much those of other columns. Only 2% approves of “highly advisable”, 8% for “advisable”, and 3% of Vietnamese informants states that it is inadvisable to give the news “her/ his partner has another man/ woman”. Similarly, in situation 3 “her/ his marriage is going to break up”, most of the informants (90%) indicate that it is maybe yes or maybe no to inform the hearer that news. To inform that her/ his marriage is going to break up is certainly so sensitive that the speaker feels vague to speak out. Therefore, only 5% of informants asked are sure that it is highly advisable or advisable to inform the news, and 5% claims it is inadvisable or strongly inadvisable to give that news.
As can be seen in situation 4 “her/ his relative just had a terrible accident”, it is highly advisable (66%) as well as advisable (22%) to give the news to the hearer. Perhaps, this is plainly an important news that hearer should be informed immediately so only 4% of informants selects “inadvisable”. The data in situation 5 “S/he is suffering from fatal disease” expresses that it is unreasonable to inform the news since it is probably supposed not to be dealt with by the hearer but by a professor. In terms of the situation “the cost for the treatment is high”; it is probably said yes or no before deciding to inform the news. However, Vietnamese informants seem to feel like advisable to give that bad news because of the comparison between 32% of advisable and 20% of inadvisable. In brief, the informers always truly want to comfort the hearers’ curiosity of the cost for the treatment.
As observed in the field of study including three situations: situation 7, 8, and 9, there are some differences in the percentage. The rate of situation 7 tends to say that it is inadvisable (50% stands for yes/ no and 27% of inadvisable) to inform s/he failed the exam whereas those collected from situation 8 and 9 has given a clear evident that the speaker had better give the news: the book s/he needs cannot be found anywhere and her/ his assignment gets bad mark.
Among 12 situations on study, the number of informants choosing strongly advisable in situation 12 demonstrated 25% is the highest. It can be proved evidently that it is absolutely inadvisable to give the news s/he is forced to resign. Nonetheless, the collector has enough data to be sure that it is necessary to inform the news s/he is sacked and his/ her plan to improve the work is canceled when the rate in situation 10 or 11 has revealed everything: it is 42% advisable and 34% yes/ no along with 38% highly advisable and advisable and 39% yes/ no. The reason for the differences in informants’ choice is guessed to be based on the sensitiveness of the news. To summarize, it can be seen that the frequency of YES/ NO in Vietnamese findings is rather high, which comes to a conclusion that this may affect the hedging strategies in the given situations. 3.2.2.2. English findings and discussions 
As can be shown in the chart of English findings, there are absolutely differences in the English informants’ choice to deliver such bad news in the given situations from Vietnamese findings. In terms of situation 1 “S/he does not love him/ her any more”, 76% of the informants confirm it is inadvisable, even strongly inadvisable to inform the news. Then 24% chooses yes/ no and no one really wants to give the news above. As for the rest situations in the field of home affair, it is not a good idea to speak out the news: her/ his woman has another man/ woman and her/ his marriage is going to break up because in situation 2, 68% say that they should not intervene with other private life in compared with only 32% advisable. Equivalently, the data in situation 3 refers to a conclusion that almost people realize it is inadvisable, even strongly inadvisable to inform her/ his marriage is going to break up that is too personal. However, situation 4 has shown a contrast idea, 98% of informants interviewed certainly deliver to the hearer the news his/ her relatives just had a terrible accident. This decision does come from the seriousness and urgency of the news. Continually, ENSs approve of giving bad news in situation 8 “The book s/he needs cannot be found anywhere with 68%, especially in situation 11 “her/his plan to improve the work is canceled” and situation 12 “S/he is forced to resign”, 100% agree with advisable. Regarding situation 5 “S/he is suffering from fatal disease”, situation 6 “The cost for her/ his treatment is high”, situation 7 “S/he failed the exam”, and situation 10 “S/he is sacked”, the percentage of people ticking the column “inadvisable” and “strongly inadvisable” is so much high with 73%, 82% and goes to the peak 100%. When being asked the reasons for their selection, most of English informants said that they should not be the person to deliver such bad news, but doctor should in situation 5 and 6, teacher should in situation 7 and boss had better in situation 10 as well. 3.2.2.3. Cross-cultural similarities and differences The MPQ data analysis shows not only the similarities but also the differences between the Vietnamese and English cultures in giving such bad news in given situations. The similarities help us more confident and the differences make us aware of potential culture shocks, thus avoid face threats in not only intracultural but also cross-cultural communication. At first glance, both the Vietnamese and English informants are dominantly in favor of delivering the bad news in situation 4 “Her/ his relative just had a terrible accident” and situation 8 “The book s/he needs cannot be found anywhere”. According to ENSs as well as VNSs informants’ idea, the two situations above are less personal along with sensitive so they are least affecting the face threats. Moreover, all people answering the questions requested, regardless of different countries and different cultures indicate their high vagueness and mitigation in the act of giving the news: “Her/ his assignment gets bad mark”. 80% of ENSs chooses the column yes/no in the findings while the equivalent percentage 40% chosen by VNSs is considerably high if compared with other rates of other columns. It is believed that the high frequency of Yes/ No results in an initial summary that this may affect hedging strategies in situation 9. Nevertheless, Vietnamese and English people asked are not of the same mind about what not to give bad news; hence the findings analyzed have revealed the contradictory trends. Most of the situations given in the survey questionnaire such as three situations belonging to home affair, situation 5 and 6 of social life, and situation 7, 10 as well are fundamentally considered to be too personal or vulnerable by ENSs so it is said not to be advisable to give the news in the above listed situations. Meanwhile, VNSs tend to show their high agreement in the act of bearing bad news in the same above situations. The opposite percentage between ENSs and VNSs is a mirror reflecting the different culture and mind about giving such bad news which helps communicators avoid culture shock and communication breakdown. The difference here also has a great effect on the use of hedging strategies by ENSs and VNSs proved in the later part. Another difference is the high rate of yes/ no choice from VNSs in all the situations which also bears an idea that VNSs feel more reluctant and unsure to give the bad news than ENSs. 3.2.3. Hedging before giving bad news in Vietnamese 3.2.3.1. In terms of communicating partners’ parameters Best friend 
It is clearly seen from the chart in giving bad news to their “close friend”, Vietnamese informants spend their first priority on strategy 5 “offering/ suggesting options” to support their best friends by proposing an option which he thinks could be possible for the hearer to take. Other strategies such as strategy 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 are divided relative equally with 18%, 6%, 21%, or 12%. Also, it is worth saying from the chart that no one decides to use strategy 2 “self-abasing/ self-blaming” as well as strategy 10 “keeping silent”. The reason for their no choice may result from the relationship between the bearer and the hearer which is so close that they cannot keep silent or give some formal sayings. About 6% of VNSs, however, do not use any hedging strategies before delivering bad news; instead, they inform directly that bad news. For example: “Mày thi trượt rồi đấy”; “Mày không đỗ đâu, thiếu nửa điểm rồi”. According to the author’s collected statistics, Vietnamese informants usually hedge as follows:
Sometimes, they hedge according to strategy 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
“Này, mày bị sa thải rồi đấy, tao lấy làm tiếc”
Accordingly, VNSs suggest that offering H another option be the best. The one you dislike 
When addressing their communicating partner as “a person you dislike”, the Vietnamese informants use strategies 1 (3%), 2 (9%), 3 (3%), 4 (6%), 5 (6%), 7 (3%), 8 (21%), and 10 (30%).
And do not utilize strategies 6, and 9. Especially, the number of people do not use any hedging strategies is the most prominent (66%) in giving bad news in such the given situations; instead they inform the news directly. Apparently, the distance between the pair of communicating partners is too large for them to be friendly to each other, even in bad situations. Therefore, keeping silent or saying directly is the most favorite.
Colleague (same age, same sex) 
As for colleague with same age and same sex, strategy 5 accounts for 27% and then come strategy 1, 8, and no hedging (18%). The lowest rank is strategy 3 (3%) and 10 (6%). Obviously, the most frequent sayings of hedging strategy 5 appear as follows:
Besides, there are some other hedging strategies
Furthermore, a surprise coming to the author in the collection is the combination between two strategies used by the deliverers when giving bad news. For instance:
Last but not least, Vietnamese informants also use “exclamation words” in bearing bad news to H as: “thôi chết rồi, tội nghiệp cho mày…” Каталог: jspui -> bitstream -> 123456789 -> 1841 123456789 -> Vò Quúnh Thu Cao häc K18 123456789 -> Khoa Báo chí Đhkhxh&NV 123456789 -> Acknowledgements 123456789 -> Danh mục chữ viết tắT 123456789 -> Chương TỔng quan vật liệu mao quản trung bình (mqtb) trật tự 1 Giới thiệu chung 123456789 -> Khoa hóa họC (141 142 báo cáo) tải về 446.91 Kb. Chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||