Nghiên cứu về giao tiếp liên văn hóa: Việc đáp lại lời than phiền giữa người Việt Nam và người Anh

the researcher has a desire to broaden 
the pair of complaint – denial or complaint – apology 
to a larger scale in this study. Not only denial and 
apology can sustain the conversation which begins 
with a complaint, the responses to one complaint, 
we do not just deny or apologize, we can employ 
and combine more than one specific act such as 
explaining, promising or threatening to show our 
attitudes, feelings or reaction to the complainers. 
Someone complains when he/she is displeased, 
disappointed or may be depressed. Therefore, using 
74 KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰSố 09 - 9/2017
v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI
appropriate speech acts to please the complainers is 
very essential.
3. THE STUDY
3.1. Research questions
The study aims to answer the following questions:
1) What are strategies that Vietnamese people 
mostly use to respond to complaints?
2) What are strategies that British people mostly 
use to respond to complaints?
3) What are the similarities and differences 
between Vietnamese and British people’s strategies 
when responding to complaints?
4) What are suggestions for Vietnamese and 
British communicators in responding to complaints in 
order to avoid misunderstandings?
3.2. Research design
Throughout the process of data analysis and 
finding discussion, all selected participants were 
mentioned neither in real names or pseudonyms. 
The population of the research was the British and 
Vietnamese. The first group consisted of 30 British 
people aging from 21 to 42. They are currently living 
and working in Britain. The second group – 30 
Vietnamese whose ages fluctuated from 20 to 43 are 
presently living in Vietnam. Participants of the two 
groups are doing different kinds of work. By choosing 
participants of different careers, ages and are living in 
their motherland, the researcher has a desire to collect 
the most valid and reliable data for investigation. 30 
native people for each country are not a very large 
number but those people are of various backgrounds, 
they can provide a generalization of their culture.
The study was conducted by carefully collecting 
materials from various reference sources to have 
full-blown information of using complaint response 
strategies. Furthermore, the Discourse Completion 
Test (DCT) was used to collect the data in the study 
with the aim of investigating the complaint response 
strategies mostly used by the Vietnamese and British 
authentically and reliably. In addition, such methods 
as descriptive, analytic, comparative and contrastive 
were also utilized to describe and analyze, to compare 
and contrast the data base in order to bring out 
similarities and differences in strategies to respond to 
complaints of Vietnamese and British people. 
DCT is defined as any pragmatic measure that 
obliges examinees to read a written situation description 
and then write what they would say next in the situation. 
For instance, a DCT which consists of different 
situations is followed by an open-ended response 
“You say ” (Blum-Kulka, 1982). According to Tran 
(2008), this term is developed by Blum-Kulka (1982) 
and used by such researchers as Olshtain and Cohen 
in their study of apologies in Hebrew and English.
DCT was chosen as the data collection method 
in this study, as it proved to bring some outstanding 
advantages over other methods such as ethnographic, 
role-play. First of all, the DCT enables the researchers 
to elicit data from the large sample of subjects easily, 
using the same situations where contextual variables 
are controlled. Second, it is an effective means of 
creating an initial classification of semantic formulas 
and strategies that will occur in natural speech (Cohen, 
1996, p. 25). 
The three social variables claimed by Brown 
and Levinson (1978, 1987) – the relative power (P), 
the social distance (D) and the absolute ranking of 
imposition (R) have a systematic effect on the choice 
of an appropriate polite expression in performing a 
FTA (FTAs – acts which threaten the face wants of 
the speaker, the hearer, or both of them) (Brown & 
Levinson,1987) in a given context. As a result, a 
questionnaire of 6 real-life situations was designed to 
elicit responses to complaints. 
Situation 1: You receive a complaint about 
your messy room or desk. How would you verbally 
respond to the complaint if the complainer is one of 
the followings?
75KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰSố 09 - 9/2017
NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v
Situation 2: You receive a complaint because 
you make noise (loud music, loud talking) which 
annoys the people around. How would you verbally 
respond to the complaint if the complainer is one of 
the followings?
Situation 3: You are going out of the room but 
accidentally bumped into someone on the door step 
and receive a complaint from them. How would you 
verbally respond to the complaint if the complainer is 
one of the followings?
Situation 4: You receive a complaint because 
you are too late in a luxurious party. How would you 
verbally respond to the complaint if the complainer is 
one of the followings?
Situation 5: You receive a complaint because you 
break down a cup of tea. How would you verbally 
respond to the complaint if the complainer is one of 
the followings?
Situation 6: You receive a complaint because 
you see his/her diary by accident. How would you 
verbally respond to the complaint if the complainer is 
one of the followings?
The different communicating partners in each 
situation are:
Your parent – The hearer has greater power then the 
speaker, and they are familiar with each other (P+; D-)
Your friend – The speaker and the hearer are equal 
in power; they are familiar with each other (P=; D-)
Your younger sister/younger brother – The hearer 
has lower power than the speaker, they are familiar 
with each other (P-; D-)
Your boss – The hearer has greater power than the 
speaker, and they are unfamiliar with each other (P+; D+)
Your colleague – The speaker and the hearer are equal 
in power; they are unfamiliar with each other (P=; D+)
Your subordinate – The hearer has lower power than 
speaker; they are unfamiliar with each other (P-; D-) 
3.3. Procedures of data collection
 The data collection procedure consists of three 
main steps, each of which is taken according to a 
designed timeline. The three steps are listed as follows.
Step 1: Preparing. In this step, the researcher 
prepared and designed the DCT questionnaire by 
referring to the colleague’s consultancy and other 
research related to the same issue.
Step 2: Piloting. The researcher provided with all 
information related to study for participants before 
administering questionnaire. After that, it was greatly 
important to select the appropriate sample because 
it played a decisive role in the result of the data 
collection procedure. Participants were convinced 
that the data would be treated confidentially before 
given clear instructions to complete the questionnaire
Step 3: Administering. The questionnaire was 
delivered via gmail or via social network to British 
respondents because of time and distance. The 
researcher’s cousin and his family are currently living 
in the UK and he helped the researcher deliver the 
questionnaire to his British friends at school, and 
to his neighborhood. Face to face questionnaire 
administration method was employed for Vietnamese 
participants who are the researcher’s friends, 
colleague in many fields. It took 5 days to administer 
the questionnaire. In total, 60 copies of questionnaire 
were given out.
3.4. Data analysis
The entire collected data from the questionnaire 
was analyzed in using qualitative and quantitative 
methods. Descriptive statistics was employed. The 
data obtained from the questionnaire was calculated 
and transferred into numerical form and after that 
presented in tables and graphs. 
4. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Findings from data collected
The results from the questionnaire and interview 
76 KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰSố 09 - 9/2017
v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI
has presented preferred strategies of British and 
Vietnamese people in responding to complaints 
such as Apologizing, Explaining, Promising, Asking 
for help, Accepting, Rejecting, Complaining back, 
Threatening back and other combination strategies. 
Meanwhile, some examples were given to illustrate 
for each strategy and to compare between two 
examined groups.
Moreover, the researcher analyzed favored 
strategies in responding to complaints by two 
perspectives thoughtfully. The overall trend of British 
and Vietnamese respondents was shown through the 
data of chart 1. Among thirteen strategies, Rejecting 
is the most favored strategy for British participants 
with 21%, while for Vietnamese participants the most 
favored one is Apologizing and Showing concern 
which accounts for 17.22%
In contrast, Vietnamese participants rarely use 
Rejecting (2.98%) which is a FTA or Apologizing 
(3.01%) which is too short and brief, in their opinion. In 
terms of British participants, Explaining and Showing 
concern is used least among thirteen strategies with 
only 2.34%. It is interesting to note that none of British 
participants uses strategy 4 – Asking for help while 
Vietnamese participants used this strategy frequently 
with 11.53%. Surprisingly, British participants seem 
to be more open to Threatening back strategy as it 
account for 8.43%; meanwhile, the same strategy 
is not used at all among Vietnamese participants. In 
addition, Vietnamese participants have a general trend 
of combining strategies more than British participants. 
From this table, all five strategy combinations are 
favored by Vietnamese participants with much higher 
percentage (8.52% to 16.77% compared to 5% to 
2.34% to 5%). When being interviewed, Vietnamese 
participants explain that the longer and more detailed 
the utterances are the more sincere and repentant the 
complainers think about them.
Strategies
1. Apologizing
2. Explaining
3. Promising
4. Asking for help
5. Accepting
6. Rejecting
7. Complaining back
8. Threatening back
9. Apologizing and Showing concern
10. Explaining and Showing concern
11. Apologizing and Explaining
12. Apologizing and Promising
13. Explaining and Promising
77KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰSố 09 - 9/2017
NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI v
The findings from the DCT questionnaires reveal that the following strategies are used by British and/or 
Vietnamese respondents.
Strategy 1: APOLOGIZING: The British speaker uses expressions such as “sorry”, “excuse”, “forgive”, or 
interjections such as “oh”, “oops” to apologize for their wrong – doings. Among data collected, here come some 
typical examples from the participants’ responses.
Table 1: Examples of Apologizing strategy
British responses Vietnamese responses
- Sorry.
- I’m sorry.
- Xin lỗi bạn nhé.
- Chị xin lỗi.
- Xin lỗi sếp.
Strategy 2: EXPLAINING: Explaining is the act of describing the situation which caused the Speaker to 
misbehave. By doing so, the Speaker intends to win sympathy from the Hearer. For instance:
Table 2: Examples of Explaining strategy
British responses Vietnamese responses
- Music makes work faster.
- I’m sorting my stuff.
- Ở bừa bộn thế tao mới chơi được với mày.
- Chị vẫn chưa xem được gì mà.
- Dạo này em lười quá sếp ạ.
Strategy 3: PROMISING: Searle (1969) defines the act of promising as an act that puts the Speaker under 
obligation. Using Promising strategy when responding to complaints contemporarily eases the Hearer’s tension 
or anger. Here are some typical examples collected from participants’ responses.
Table 3: Examples of Promising strategy
British responses Vietnamese responses
- OK, I’ll turn it down.
- I guess I could turn it down a little bit.
- I’ll sort it out later.
- Con sẽ dọn dẹp và thu xếp lại ngay.
- Tớ tắt bây giờ.
- Con sẽ dọn gọn gàng trong vòng 5 phút thôi mẹ ạ, ^^
Strategy 4: ASKING FOR HELP: This is a surprising response collected from respondents’ answers because 
the participant eases complainers’ anger or displeasure by asking for a favor from the complainer. Therefore, the 
complainer might feel he/she is important to the Speaker since the Speaker seeks for their help. The following 
are some examples:
Table 4: Examples of Asking for help strategy
British responses Vietnamese responses
None
- Anh bận lắm, em rảnh dọn giùm anh.
- Hehe, giúp anh một tay nhé.
- Mày hộ tao cái.
Strategy 5: ACCEPTING: By using an expression of acceptance, the Speaker shows that he/she is aware of 
his/her behaviors and acknowledges or agrees with the complaints. Some typical examples are:
78 KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰSố 09 - 9/2017
v NGHIÊN CỨU - TRAO ĐỔI
Table 5: Examples of Accepting strategy
British responses Vietnamese responses
- OK.
- I see.
- OK. I see.
- Con hiểu rồi.
- Cám ơn bạn đã nhắc.
Strategy 6: REJECTING: On the contrary to accepting, some respondents choose Rejecting as their responding 
strategy. When using this strategy, the Speaker does do a FTA towards the Hearer by ignoring, turning the 
complaints down or telling that the Hearer is wrong. Here are some typical examples of Rejecting strategy:
Table 6: Examples of Rejecting strategy
British responses Vietnamese responses
- Are you my mother or something? 
- Go away.
- Shut up and get out.
- It’s none of business
- Kệ tao.
- Có thế thôi mà mày cũng phải làm toáng lên.
- Im, cái đứa này chả biết cảm thụ âm nhạc là thế 
nào cả.
Strategy 7: COMPLAINING BACK: This is also a FTA and the Speaker chooses this strategy to save his/her 
face, nevertheless, by doing so, he/she threatens the Hearer’s face. For example:
Table 7: Examples of Complaining back strategy
British responses Vietnamese responses
- Your table is a mess rather than mine.
- Don’t be a nuisance.
- I’m sure your bedroom in way worse.
- Too bad, you don’t seem to mind. when it‘s 
you playing loud music, eh?
- Có sao đâu mà mày phiềnthế.
- Cái gì?? Thế này mà bừa bộn á?
- Đi đứng thế à? ^^
- Lần sau cẩn thận chứ.
Strategy 8: THREATENING BACK: The name of this strategy has described its characteristics. It is also a 
Face Threatening Act. Using this strategy, the Speaker shows his/her displeasure towards the Hearer in a higher 
level than Complaining back or Rejecting. By doing so, the Speaker directly threatens the Hearer’s face. The 
following examples will clarify this strategy:
Table 8: Examples of Threatening back strategy
British responses Vietnamese responses
- Fired!
- Do you want to keep your job?
- Go playing or I’II kick your ass.
None
It is interesting to note that showing concern strategy is not used alone, but it is used together with other 
strategies. These are the most commonly used combinations as follows.