Friday, March 29, 2019

Differences Between The Vietnamese And Americans Cultural Studies Essay

Differences Between The Vietnamese And Americans heathen Studies EssayLiterature reviewDefinitionsConcept of display caseThere argon many definitions of expect. But in worldwide, face is an image of self show in terms of approved social attributes. Goffman conceptualizes face as the prescribed social value a person effectively claims for himself or herself by the line separates assume he or she has taken during a concomitant contact. He withal (1955) also argues that face can be lost, relieve and/ or given. He (1967) further suggests two foci of face self-face ( wholenesss own face) and other-face (others face). adept(a) non only defends self-face but also protects other-face during interactions (as cited in cross-cultural and social shortens, Stella Ting- Toomey, p.49, 1994)According to George Yule in pragmatics (1996), there be two types of face ostracize face a person get together in communication needs to be independent and has freedom of action. He or she doe s non deprivation to be imposed on by others. (George (1996), p.61)Positive face a person joining in communication needs to be received even liked by others. He or she wants to be handle as a member of the same group, and to know that his or her wants are shared by others (George (1996), p.62)Other termsCross-cultural communication civilization is communication and communication is culture (H totally, 1959).Cross-cultural communication is communication (verbal and nonverbal) between people from various cultures cultural values, belief, attitudes, etc has an impact on communication (as cited in cross-cultural communication, Ho Thi My Hau, 2001). And we can realize cross-cultural communication on people through their reactions and responses to each other.Face-savingAs James R. Silkena (2009) say that Face-saving may be defined as the act of preserving ones prestige or outward dignity (p.154)Face-saving is one of the slipway to affect adroitness when people joining in conver sation. As George Yule (1996) stated that given the possibility that some action might be interpreted as a threat to others face, the speaker can say something to lessen the practicable threat. This is a face-saving act (p.61)PolitenessPoliteness is an act of consciousness of other peoples face. Brown and Levinson is two major representatives on adroitness and when we rebuke intimately them we no doubt talk about their homunculuss polishedness that is thinked as the greatest impact on language research in general and on intercultural communication in particular.And according to Brown and Levinson, two master(prenominal) sides of politeness include positive politeness and negative politeness.Positive politenessPeople joining communication want to be praised and respected.Exa. How about lending me some money?Hey, Bucky, Id appraise it if youd let me borrow you money.This mixture of politeness is seen in every life and the speakers want the others to be glad and glad. That can lead to be easy for every issue for some(prenominal) speakers and listeners.Negative politenessIn contrast to positive politeness, people joining communication want to be independent and not to be treated.ExCould you lend me your money?Im sorry to bother you but can I ask you for your money?Face saving act is more unremarkably performed via a negative politeness (George, p.64).In conclusion, in Brown and Levinsons model the complement hope and self-control are the most fundamental force play of politeness.Face-saving function as politenessSocio-norm viewFace-saving has functions as politeness. People in communication consider preserving face-saving as one of politenesss issues. Face-saving is concerned all over the world. And it is a universal one however, the characteristic of face-saving is so different through the world.And that is reason why it is concerned as socio-norm view in our society. Preserving face-saving for ourselves and others plays an alpha theatrical role in preserving social relations among people. As a result, people annul losing face while communicating with others.Face-saving function as politenessSelf-face mortal engaging in communication tries to save his/ her face in front of the others. In this regard, the speakers appreciate their independence or individualism. And preserving their face in front of other people is the most distinguished thing. As a result, they try to avoid being caused to lose face by themselves among people.Other-facePerson engaging in communication tries to save the other face in front of the others. Partner avoids lose the politeness and tries to follow the conversational principles.In communication, other-face may be the most concerned one than self-face. This is one of the important issues in preserving politeness.In brief, as in a study of Baxter (1984), the Japanese often concerns much more on self-face than others. In contrast, the American people seem to concern much more on other-face than self- face.There were also differences in the situations individuals thought maintaining self-face was important. Japanese wanted to preserve self-face inprivate, informal, and intimate situations. brotherhood Americans, in contrast, wanted to maintain self-face in public, formal, and nonintimate settings (The contend of facework cross and interpersonal issues, Stella Ting Toomy, p.55-56)Socio-cultural impacts on face-savingThe positive social value a person effectively claims for himself or herself (Goffman, 1995, p.213)The concept of face-saving through is different from cultures worldwide. In such a culture with strong face-saving viewpoint, all business concern could end up if one side or another is leaded to lose face. In this culture, face-saving plays a more important role than business issues. On the other hand, in such a culture with weak face-saving viewpoint, all business could continue if one side or another is leaded to lose face. In this culture, business issues play mor e important than face-saving.In Hos view, face is never a purely individual thing. It does not string sense to speak of the face of an individual as something lodged within his (her) person it is meaningful only when his (her) face is considered in relation to that of others in the social network (p. 882) (as cited in The challenge of facework cross-cultural and interpersonal issues, Stella Ting Toomy, p. 51)To Vietnam, although C.kerbrat orecchioni did not arrange Vietnam as in negative politeness society, we can realize it in some Vietnamese family line verses and proverbs like Ta v ta tm ao taD trong d c ao nh vn hn Tru ta n c ng taTuy rng c ct nhng l c thmThe view of face-saving is always associated with face-losing in Vietnamese viewpoint that is performed inTt danh hn l lnh o Ngi ta hu t hu sinh,Sng lo xng phn, thc danh ting thmem chung i nh x ngiChng ku, cng m mt hi ly danhIn addition, vietnamese folk verses and proverbs also reflect the reverse side of face-saving likeTt p ph ra, xu xa y likhi lnh khng gp, khi rch gp lm ngi quenVietnamese often consider face-saving to be a survival issue of each and vice versa losing face is considered to be more serious than death. And Vietnamese absolutely avoid being lost face or they make all ways to avoid losing other-face that is performed as followedHoa thm ai n b riNgi khn ai n nng li vi aiLi ni chng mt tin muaLa li m ni cho va lng nhauThua tri mt vn khng bng thua bn mt lyAs well as the Vietnamese in particular and in Asiatic culture in general, the American also have their face-saving. They also do not want to lose face in front of other people. American people appreciate the individualism and they often do not concern on the others thought. Saying no in front of the others is not considered to be rude that is a necessary demand to avoid misapprehension tomorrow. A typical example is that in Asian finance crisis in 1997, many Japanese managers suicide because they think their action is one of the ways to protect their human dignity. But to the American, at the same circumstance, they are not to do like that. As a result, they want to make the others bestride then.ConclusionThrough the study, we can realize that American communications in face-saving often appreciate each persons individualism and they seem not to focus on collectivist face-saving. Vietnamese, on the other hand, often appreciate collectivist face-saving than self-face saving. That does not mean I indicate which is better, I want to say in general one issue. That is also grant to the two cultural communications American and Vietnam.If we can understand clear this face-saving in communication that can help us cave in to having proper communication style and avoid regrettable mistakes and conflicts in a cross-cultural communication.In this study, I give you the comparison between the two cultures Vietnamese and American that is not to judge which culture is more polite in face-saving while communication. That is th e reason why we could not consider this culture to be higher than another one.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.