Differences Between The Vietnamese And Americans Cultural Studies Essay

Differences Between The Vietnamese And Americans Cultural Studies EssayLiterature reviewDefinitionsConcept of searchThere are many definitions of face. But in general, face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes. Goffman modelualizes face as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself or herself by the line others assume he or she has taken during a particular cont process. He also (1955) also argues that face can be lost, conserved and/ or precondition. He (1967) further suggests two foci of face self-face (ones own face) and other-face (others face). One not only defends self-face but also protects other-face during inter action mechanisms (as cited in cross-cultural and social issues, Stella Ting- Toomey, p.49, 1994)According to George Yule in pragmatics (1996), there are two types of faceNegative face a person fall in in communication needs to be independent and has freedom of action. He or she does not compliments to b e imposed on by others. (George (1996), p.61)Positive face a person joining in communication needs to be accepted even liked by others. He or she asks to be treated as a appendage of the same group, and to know that his or her trusts are shared by others (George (1996), p.62)Other termscross-cultural communicationCulture is communication and communication is culture (Hall, 1959).Cross-cultural communication is communication (verbal and nonverbal) between slew from different 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) stated that Face-saving may be defined as the act of preserving ones prestige or outward dignity (p.154)Face-saving is one of the ways to preserve politeness when people joining in conversation. As George Yule (1996) state d that given the possibility that some action might be interpreted as a threat to anothers face, the speaker can say something to lessen the possible threat. This is a face saving act (p.61)PolitenessPoliteness is an act of awareness of other peoples face. Brown and Levinson is two major representatives on politeness and when we talk about them we no doubt talk about their models politeness that is con steadred as the greatest impact on language research in general and on intercultural communication in particular.And according to Brown and Levinson, two main 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 value it if youd let me borrow you money.This kind of politeness is seen in every life and the speakers want the others to be pleased and glad. That can lead to be easy for every issue for both 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 commonly performed via a negative politeness (George, p.64).In conclusion, in Brown and Levinsons model the accompaniment hope and self-control are the most fundamental force 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 stock sectored 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 terra firma why it is concerned as socio-norm view in our society. Preserving face-saving for ourselves and others plays an important role in preserving social relations among people. As a result, people avoid losing face while comm unicating with others.Face-saving function as politenessSelf-facePerson engaging in communication tries to save his/ her face in front of the others. In this regard, the speakers appreciate their independence or psycheism. And preserving their face in front of other people is the most important 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 moderateing self-face was impor tant. Japanese wanted to preserve self-face inprivate, informal, and intimate situations. North Americans, in contrast, wanted to maintain self-face in public, formal, and nonintimate settings (The challenge of facework cross and social 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 much(prenominal) a culture with strong face-saving viewpoint, all business 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 more important than face-saving.In Hos view, face is never a purely individual thing. It does not subscribe sens e 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 folk 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 i ssue 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 Asian 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 indispensable demand to avoid misunderstanding 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 r esult, they want to make the others progress 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 appropriate to the two cultural communications American and Vietnam.If we can understand clearly this face-saving in communication that can help us contribute 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 the reason why we could not consider this culture to be higher than another one.