Conversational openings and closings in office settings - A study based on American and Vietnamese movies.pdf

Conversational openings and closings in office settings - A study based on American and Vietnamese movies.pdf

1. VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
*****



HOANG TRA MY



CONVERSATIONAL OPENING S AND CLOSINGS
IN OFFICE SETTINGS: A STUDY BASED ON AMERICAN AND
VIETNAMESE MOVIES
(Mở thoại và kết thoại trong bối cảnh văn phòng: Nghiên cứu trên cứ liệu
phim Mỹ và phim Việt)




A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics






HANOI – 2019

2. VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
*****




HOANG TRA MY


CONVERSATIONAL OPENING S AND CLOSINGS IN OFFICE
SETTINGS: A STUDY BASED ON AMERICAN AND
VIETNAMESE MOVIES

(Mở thoại và kết thoại trong bối cảnh văn phòng: Nghiên cứu trên
cứ liệu phim Mỹ và phim Việt)



MAJOR: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
CODE: 9220201.01


A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics


Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Hoang Van Van



HANOI – 2019

3. i

STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP



I certify my authority of the dissertation submitted entitled

CONVERSATIONAL OPENING S AND CLOSINGS IN OFFICE SETTINGS:
A STUDY BASED ON AMERICAN AND VIETNAMESE MOVIES

In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
Linguistics at Vietnam National University, Hanoi

Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used
without due acknowledgement in the text of the dissertation.

Hoang Tra My











HANOI, 2019

4. ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express my deep gratefulness and my sincere gratitude to many
people without whose help the present dissertation could not have been completed.
First and foremost, I am greatly indebted to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Hoang
Van Van, for his invaluable guidance, insightful comments, endless support and
conscientious supervision. Throughout the course of this work, I wish to express my
deep indebtedness to him for his kindness of giving me useful feedback and advice
regarding the dissertation as well as his constant encouragement to help me to
overcome obstacles in accomplishing my dissertation.
I am also extremely thankful to Dr. Huynh Anh Tuan, the Dean of Faculty of
Postgraduate Studies for his knowledgeable suggestions, support, understanding and
kindness. My gratitude also goes to all the lecturers and examiners for their value
support and scholar knowledge that I benefited from their teachings and lectures at
all levels of the research project. I particularly extend my warm thanks to Prof. Dr.
Nguyen Hoa, Prof. Dr. Nguyen Quang, and Assoc. Prof. Dr. Le Hung Tien for their
insightful comments and suggestions to my dissertation.
My sincere gratitude also goes to the personnel departments, administrators and
language and informatics center of Mien Trung University of Civil Engineering for
their generosity of creating all favourable conditions including time, financial
supports, and permission for me to conduct the research. Also, I am indebted to my
friends and colleagues who have encouraged me to finish this study.
Lastly, I wish to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to my parents,
my husband and my son for their support to help me overcome the obstacles and
challenges during the process of accomplishing this study. Also, I would like to
extend my sincerest thanks to my husband for his tolerance, endurance, patience, and
supports for me as well as his devoted care for our little son when I am busy with this
dissertation. Without his immense help, love, encouragement and sacrifice, this work
could not have been completed.

5. iii

ABSTRACT
Under the cross-cultural pragmatic perspective, this study aims at yielding
insights into the way Americans and Vietnamese open and close a conversation in
office settings. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to identify opening and
closing structures formed with sequences as well as verbal strategies employed in
each sequence. In addition, the justification and interpretation of conversational
opening and closing processes are primarily grounded on the cultural background of
the two languages.
Methodologically, the data are staff-manager conversations occurring in office
settings and gathered in American and Vietnamese movies. Qualitative and
quantitative methods are applied in the present study. The data are coded
qualitatively and manually based on the concept-driven categories and data-driven
categories. Then, the recurrent patterns of conversational opening and closing
sequences and strategies are quantified to assist the process of comparison and
contrast between the two languages.
The dissertation discloses meaningful and practical findings. Regarding the
structures, conversational opening and closing sections in both languages are
complete discourse structures. Sequentially, opening sections are constructed with
four sequences including summons-answer, greeting, phatic communion and topic
initiation whilst closing sections are formed with three sequences namely topic
termination, pre-closing and terminal exchange. In terms of strategies, opening and
closing strategies are analyzed in each sequence. Totally, there are 26 opening
strategies including three summons-answer strategies, four greeting strategies, 15
phatic communion strategies and four topic initiation strategies whilst there are 22
closing strategies including four topic termination strategies, 15 pre-closing
strategies and three terminal exchange strategies. These findings indicate that the
main part of English and Vietnamese opening and closing sections is phatic talk,
functioning to assist the transition to and from a conversation smoothly and politely.
In summary, from the findings of the study, significant applications and
suggestions are given. The close-knit relationship between language and culture as
well as between language and power proved in the study suggests that language users
need to acquire both linguistic and pragmatic input to master a target language. The
findings of the study are beneficial to Vietnamese learners and users of English,
learners of Vietnamese as a foreign language and teachers because they serve as
guidance for teaching and learning English as a foreign language in Vietnam.

6. iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Statement of authorship ......................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. ii
Abstract ................................................................................................................... iii
Table of contents ..................................................................................................... iv
List of figures .......................................................................................................... ix
List of tables ............................................................................................................ ix

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale ........................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Aims and research questions of the study ..................................................... 3
1.3. Scope of the study ............................................................................................ 3
1.4. Significance of the study ................................................................................. 4
1.5. Research methodology .................................................................................... 5
1.6. Organization of the study ............................................................................... 6

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 8
2.1. Theoretical concepts ........................................................................................ 8
2.1.1. Conversation ............................................................................................. 8
2.1.1.1. The concept of conversation............................................................. 8
2.1.1.2. Mundane and institutional conversations ......................................... 9
2.1.1.3. Conversations in office settings ....................................................... 10
2.1.2. Conversational opening and closing .......................................................... 11
2.1.2.1. The concept of conversational opening ............................................ 11
2.1.2.2. The concept of conversational closing ............................................. 12
2.1.2.3. Opening and closing sequences ........................................................ 13
2.1.3. Phatic communion ...................................................................................... 15
2.1.3.1. The concept of phatic communion ................................................... 15
2.1.3.2. Phatic communion in office settings ................................................ 16
2.1.3.3. Phatic communion in conversational opening and closing .............. 17
2.2. Cross-cultural pragmatics .............................................................................. 18
2.2.1. Pragmatics and politeness theory ............................................................... 18
2.2.1.1. Pragmatics ........................................................................................ 18
2.2.1.2. The concepts of face and politeness ................................................. 18
2.2.1.3. Politeness theory in conversational opening and closing ................. 20

7. v

2.2.2. Workplace cultures ..................................................................................... 21
2.2.2.1. High vs. low context cultures ........................................................... 21
2.2.2.2. Power distance .................................................................................. 22
2.2.2.3. Individualism-collectivism ............................................................... 23
2.3. Review of related studies ................................................................................. 24
2.3.1. Previous studies on conversational opening .............................................. 24
2.3.1.1. Telephone conversational opening ................................................... 24
2.3.1.2. Greetings........................................................................................... 25
2.3.1.3. Opening of different types of conversations .................................... 29
2.3.2. Previous studies on conversational closing ................................................ 32
2.3.2.1. Conversational closing ..................................................................... 32
2.3.2.2. Closing of different types of conversation ....................................... 34
2.3.2.3. Face-to-face conversational closing ................................................. 38
2.3.3. Previous studies on conversational opening and closing ........................... 40
2.3.3.1. Openings and closings of different types of conversation ............... 40
2.3.3.2. Openings and closings of face-to-face conversations ...................... 43
2.4. Theoretical framework: concept-driven categories ..................................... 45
2.4.1. Conversational opening sequences and strategies ..................................... 45
2.4.2. Conversational closing sequences and strategies ....................................... 47
2.5. Summary .......................................................................................................... 51

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 53
3.1. Research questions .......................................................................................... 53
3.2. Research methods ............................................................................................ 54
3.3. Data collection .................................................................................................. 55
3.3.1. Review of data collection methods ............................................................ 55
3.3.2. Justification for collection of scripted conversations ................................. 57
3.3.3. Justification for collection of data in office settings .................................. 58
3.3.4. Data selection criteria ................................................................................. 59
3.3.5. Data collection procedures ......................................................................... 61
3.3.6. Data description ......................................................................................... 61
3.4. Data analysis .................................................................................................... 63
3.4.1. Phases of content analysis .......................................................................... 63
3.4.2. Pre-coding .................................................................................................. 64

8. vi

3.4.3. Coding ........................................................................................................ 65
3.4.3.1. Qualitative content analysis.............................................................. 65
3.4.3.2. Coding with concept-driven categories ............................................ 66
3.4.3.3. Coding with data-driven categories .................................................. 68
3.4.4. Analytical procedures................................................................................. 69
3.5. Summary ......................................................................................................... 70

CHAPTER IV: ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE CONVERSATIONAL
OPENINGS IN OFFICE SETTINGS
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 71
4.1. English and Vietnamese opening structures in office settings .................... 71
4.1.1. English and Vietnamese opening sequences in office settings .................. 71
4.1.2. English and Vietnamese opening structures formed with sequences ........ 75
4.1.2.1. English and Vietnamese one-sequence opening structure ............... 76
4.1.2.2. English and Vietnamese two-sequence opening structure ............... 79
4.1.2.3. English and Vietnamese three-sequence opening structure ............. 84
4.1.2.4. English and Vietnamese four-sequence opening structure .............. 87
4.1.2.5. The disorder of English and Vietnamese opening sequences .......... 89
4.1.2.6. Concluding remarks ......................................................................... 90
4.2. English and Vietnamese opening strategies in office settings ..................... 91
4.2.1. English and Vietnamese summons-answer strategies ................................ 93
4.2.1.1. Knocking on the door ....................................................................... 94
4.2.1.2. Calling the other‟s address term ....................................................... 97
4.2.1.3. Using attention-getting tokens.......................................................... 100
4.2.1.4. Concluding remarks ......................................................................... 100
4.2.2. English and Vietnamese greeting strategies ............................................... 101
4.2.2.1. Using greeting verb .......................................................................... 103
4.2.2.2. Calling the other‟s address term ....................................................... 108
4.2.2.3. Using time-bound greeting ............................................................... 111
4.2.2.4. Using greeting proper ....................................................................... 112
4.2.2.5. Concluding remarks ......................................................................... 112
4.2.3. English and Vietnamese phatic communion strategies .............................. 113
4.2.3.1. Referring to the other's state ............................................................. 116
4.2.3.2. Referring to the current situation/ work ........................................... 117
4.2.3.3. Referring to previous task/ action .................................................... 117

9. vii

4.2.3.4. Asking confirmation question .......................................................... 118
4.2.3.5. Inviting the other to sit down ........................................................... 119
4.2.3.6. Referring to oneself‟s state ............................................................... 120
4.2.3.7. Referring to personal life at home .................................................... 121
4.2.3.8. Inviting the other to come in ............................................................ 122
4.2.3.9. Offering a drink ................................................................................ 122
4.2.3.10. Expressing surprise ......................................................................... 124
4.2.3.11. Referring to external circumstances/ objects ................................. 124
4.2.3.12. Expressing pleasure, expressing apology and expressing thanks .. 125
4.2.3.13. Asking/ checking for the other‟s availability for talking ............... 126
4.2.3.14. Concluding remarks ....................................................................... 126
4.2.4. English and Vietnamese topic initiation strategies .................................... 127
4.2.4.1. Asking for the reason of the talk ...................................................... 128
4.2.4.2. Telling the reason of the talk ............................................................ 129
4.2.4.3. Using disjunct markers ..................................................................... 130
4.2.4.4. Using topic initiation devices ........................................................... 131
4.2.4.5. Concluding remarks ......................................................................... 132
4.3. Summary .......................................................................................................... 133

CHAPTER V: ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE CONVERSATIONAL
CLOSING IN OFFICE SETTINGS
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 135
5.1. English and Vietnamese closing structures in office settings ...................... 135
5.1.1. English and Vietnamese closing sequences in office settings ................... 135
5.1.2. English and Vietnamese closing structures formed with sequences .......... 138
5.1.2.1. English and Vietnamese one-sequence closing structure ................. 138
5.1.2.2. English and Vietnamese two-sequence closing structure ................ 141
5.1.2.3. English and Vietnamese three-sequence closing structure .............. 144
5.1.2.4. Concluding remarks ......................................................................... 145
5.2. English and Vietnamese closing strategies in office settings ....................... 145
5.2.1. English and Vietnamese topic termination strategies ................................ 147
5.2.1.1. Using agreement tokens ................................................................... 147
5.2.1.2. Using disjunct markers ..................................................................... 149
5.2.1.3. Asking for any further topic ............................................................. 150
5.2.1.4. Informing the ending of the conversation ........................................ 150

10. viii

5.2.1.5. Concluding remarks ......................................................................... 151
5.2.2. English and Vietnamese pre-closing strategies .......................................... 151
5.2.2.1. Giving summaries/ results of the contact ......................................... 153
5.2.2.2. Referring to future contact/ actions .................................................. 154
5.2.2.3. Expressing gratitude/ thanks/ acknowledgement ............................. 155
5.2.2.4. Informing the other of the need to leave (reasons/ excuses) ............ 156
5.2.2.5. Referring to external circumstances/ objects ................................... 157
5.2.2.6. Giving wish expressions ................................................................... 158
5.2.2.7. Expressing apology .......................................................................... 159
5.2.2.8. Referring to the other‟s state ............................................................ 160
5.2.2.9. Referring to oneself‟s state ............................................................... 161
5.2.2.10. Assigning the other tasks/ actions .................................................. 162
5.2.2.11. Allowing/ asking the other to leave ................................................ 163
5.2.2.12. Paying the other a compliment ....................................................... 164
5.2.2.13. Undertaking a task .......................................................................... 165
5.2.2.14. Reassuring the other ....................................................................... 166
5.2.2.15. Encouraging the other .................................................................... 167
5.2.2.16. Concluding remarks ....................................................................... 168
5.2.3. English and Vietnamese terminal exchange strategies .............................. 169
5.2.3.1. Saying goodbye ................................................................................ 170
5.2.3.2. Asking the other‟s permission for leaving ....................................... 171
5.2.3.3. Informing the other of the leaving .................................................... 171
5.2.3.4. Concluding remarks ......................................................................... 172
5.3. Summary .......................................................................................................... 172

CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSIONS
6.1. Recapitulation .................................................................................................. 174
6.2. Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 176
6.3. Implications ...................................................................................................... 179
6.4. Limitations and suggestions for further research ........................................ 181

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 183

APPENDIX.............................................................................................................. 201

11. ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Locating small talk on the continuum .................................................... 16
Figure 2.1: Preparation, organization and resulting phases in the content analysis
process ...................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 3.1: English and Vietnamese conversational opening sequences ................. 74
Figure 3.2: English and Vietnamese conversational opening structures .................. 76
Figure 3.3: English and Vietnamese one-sequence opening structure ..................... 77
Figure 3.4: English and Vietnamese two-sequence opening structure ..................... 79
Figure 3.5: English and Vietnamese three-sequence opening structure ................... 84
Figure 3.6: English and Vietnamese summons-answer strategies ........................... 94
Figure 3.7: English and Vietnamese greeting strategies ........................................ 102
Figure 3.8: English and Vietnamese phatic strategies ............................................ 115
Figure 3.9: English and Vietnamese topic initiation strategies .............................. 128
Figure 4.1: English and Vietnamese conversational closing sequences ................ 136
Figure 4.2: English and Vietnamese conversational closing structures ................. 138
Figure 4.3: English and Vietnamese one-sequence closing structure .................... 139
Figure 4.4: English and Vietnamese two-sequence closing structure .................... 141
Figure 4.5: English and Vietnamese topic termination strategies .......................... 147
Figure 4.6: English and Vietnamese pre-closing strategies ................................... 152
Figure 4.7: English and Vietnamese terminal exchange strategies ........................ 169

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.1: Conversational opening sequences ......................................................... 45
Table 1.2: Conversational closing sequences ........................................................... 47
Table 1.3: Verbal pre-closing strategies ................................................................... 50
Table 2.1: Number of selected extracts in the American movies ............................. 61
Table 2.2: Number of selected extracts in the Vietnamese movies.......................... 62
Table 2.3: Coding category of conversational opening structure ............................. 66
Table 2.4: Coding category of conversational closing structure .............................. 67
Table 2.5: Coding category of conversational closing strategies ............................. 67
Table 3.1: English and Vietnamese opening strategies ............................................ 92
Table 4.1: English and Vietnamese closing strategies .......................................... 146

12. 1

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Rationale
In the process of teaching English for learners of different abilities, I have
realized that the ways English and Vietnamese speakers communicate are different,
especially the processes of opening and closing a conversation. This stimulates my
curiosity to know more about the ways English and Vietnamese speakers initiate and
terminate a conversation. Specifically, I am attracted by this area for four reasons.
The first reason inspiring me to carry out this research is due to the
importance of verbal communicative competence in interaction but the discrepancy
of the Vietnamese education system. Conversation has an exceedingly important
role in society because it fosters communication process, then the development of
human beings. For a long time, people have employed face-to-face interaction to
create, re-create and maintain social relationship (Goffman, 1963; Kendon, 1977;
Maynard & Zimmerman, 1984; Schegloff, 1986). Thanks to the awareness of the
prominent role of verbal communicative competence, the Vietnamese education
system has applied communicative approach in language teaching for several
decades. Despite the application of communicative approach in language teaching
process, the real focus of our education system is still on language forms. In most
high schools and universities in Vietnam, students are taught grammatical, lexical
and phonological components of the target language (Chu Thị Thanh Tâm, 1995).
This leads to the fact that Vietnamese learners can acquire lots of knowledge on
language rules but are incapable of communicating in the target languages.
The second reason stimulating me to do the research is the importance of
communication in workplace settings. People spend a good deal of their lives at
work, and the workplace is obviously a site for exploring social communication
(Holmes & Stubbe, 2015, p. 18). Interaction in office contexts is not only to
exchange information but to build rapport as well. Good communication,
accordingly, is regarded as one of the primary principles for building good working
relationships, which help enhance the work effectiveness. Specifically, the process
of communicating with foreigners in office settings becomes much more demanding
due to the cultural diversity. Researchers have proved that speakers from different
backgrounds often face difficulties with social interaction in a new culture, and
particularly in a new workplace (Holmes, 2005, p. 346). The breakdown in
communication in office settings necessarily creates bad influence on the social
relationships as well as the work. However, despite the extreme significance of

13. 2

communication in workplace settings, sociolinguists and linguists have paid
relatively little attention to this social context partly because of the complexity of the
workplace as a social setting (Holmes & Stubbe, 2015, p. 18).
The third reason inducing me to conduct the present research is the
importance but challenges of the processes of conversational opening and closing. In
social interaction, conversational opening and closing are essential processes
because they are “maintenance rituals” serving to “support social relationships”
(Goffman, 1971, pp. 67-76). The processes of conversational opening and closing
are beyond the process of communication; it is a process of creating, maintaining
and fostering social relationships between or among interactants. However, opening
and closing a conversation are difficult tasks in the mother tongue but much more
challenging in a foreign language because they are culture-specific (Firth, 1972).
People of different cultures have different ways of initiating and terminating a
conversation. In some cultures, it is acceptable for interactants to produce a very
short or even no opening or closing. Inversely, it is essential for interactants to
perform an elaborate and lengthy opening or closing in other cultures (Firth, 1972).
Cultural diversity leads to the fact that an opening or a closing can be perceived
positively in one culture but negatively in others. Consequently, it becomes
extremely hard for foreigners, even advanced speakers, to communicate effectively
and politely in a target language, especially the processes of conversational opening
and closing.
The final reason prompting me to conduct the research is due to the limited
number of studies on this topic in Vietnam. Because of the importance but
challenges of the conversational opening and closing processes, the topic has been
investigated widely and thoroughly in various languages worldwide. However, in
Vietnam, this topic remains almost untouched with an exception of the dissertation
by Nguyễn Quỳnh Giao (2017). Although there exist several Master theses on the
area of conversational opening in Vietnamese, they are on telephone conversations
rather than face-to-face interaction (e.g. Bui, 2005; Nguyen, 2012; Tran, 2009).
Actually, in examining verbal interaction, Vietnamese researchers and scholars pay
much attention to different aspects of conversation such as topics, ways, strategies,
characteristics and manners instead of its opening and closing. The lack of studies in
this field leads to the fact that Vietnamese learners of English are limited to
approaching resources to help improve their communicative competence.

14. 3

In short, in spite of its importance, this topic is not adequately investigated in
Vietnam. This study, as a result, is designed to fill the literature gap and to help
promote communicative competence of both Vietnamese learners of English and
learners of Vietnamese as a foreign language. Specifically, the study is designed to
equip them with sufficient knowledge and skills to help them initiate and terminate a
conversation effectively and politely.
1.2. Aims and research questions of the study
The units of investigation of the present study are conversational openings
and closings. The overarching aim of the study is to reveal the similarities and
differences in conversational openings and closings between American and
Vietnamese parties. In other words, the study is designed to answer the following
overarching question:
 What are the similarities and differences in the structures and strategies of
conversational openings and closings between English staff-manager
conversations and Vietnamese staff-manager conversations in office settings?
In details, conversational openings and closings are examined as regards
structures formed with sequences as well as strategies used in each opening and
closing sequence. This overarching research question is broken into four sub-
questions as below:
1. How are opening sections of English and Vietnamese staff-manager
conversations structured in office settings?
2. What strategies are employed in opening sections of English and
Vietnamese staff-manager conversations in office settings?
3. How are closing sections of English and Vietnamese staff-manager
conversations structured in office settings?
4. What strategies are employed in closing sections of English and
Vietnamese staff-manager conversations in office settings?
1.3. Scope of the study
The present study is conducted to examine the processes of conversational
opening and closing in office settings. The scope of the study is identified as regards
the units of investigation, the settings, the participants and the source of data.
Firstly, although a conversation can be opened and closed verbally and
nonverbally, only verbal aspects of conversational opening and closing processes are
the units of investigation of the present study. However, in certain cases where the
problems under discussion need to be highlighted, such features of non-verbal and

15. 4

paralinguistic aspects as eye contact, door-knocking, posture, orientation, proximity,
movement, speed, tone of voice, and loudness may be employed.
Secondly, conversations can occur everywhere and in each setting, they have
different features and functions. However, the present study is limited to examining
conversations in office settings. Office settings are chosen as the context to collect
conversations because the study is conducted with the aim to help parties to
communicate properly and politely in their workplaces. When parties can initiate
and terminate a conversation appropriately in office settings or in their workplaces,
they not only improve their communication skills, but also better their relationship
with colleagues and enhance the work efficiency.
Thirdly, in office settings, conversations can occur between or among
different participants. In this study, only two-party conversations are chosen for
analysis. According to Goffman (1966, p. 100), when there are persons present who
are not participants in the engagement or bystanders, it is inevitable that how the
encounter is conducted as a whole is affected. Sharing the same point of view, Pham
(2014, p. 31) supposed that it is essential to take the presence of the third party into
consideration as it may have an impact on the concerns for politeness behaviors.
Due to the influence of the presence of the third person on a conversation, two-party
conversations with the presence of the third person or many-party conversations will
be excluded in the present study. Moreover, in office settings, conversations may
occur between various participants such as between colleagues, between a staff and
a customer, between customers, between a staff and a stranger, between managers,
and so on. The present study exclusively examines staff-manager conversations
occurring in offices.
Finally, the present study chooses movies as the source of data. Staff-
manager conversations occurring in offices are selected in American and
Vietnamese movies. The use of scripted dialogues for analysis is due to the
resemblance between scripted language and natural language. Especially, the
exploitation of scripted language has brought a number of advantages over other
sources of data such as the availability of movies in various forms, the provision of
verbal language and the accessibility of subtitles of the chosen movies in the
Internet.
1.4. Significance of the study
The present study is to examine the ways American and the Vietnamese staff
and managers open and close a conversation in office settings. Specifically, it

16. 5

reveals sequences American and the Vietnamese staff and managers follow to open
and close a conversation and strategies they employ to accomplish each sequence.
The study, accordingly, has both theoretical and practical significance.
Theoretically, the study contributes to the background of the area of
conversational openings and closings in office settings. The literature review on this
area is well-established but investigation of these two processes in office settings is
limited worldwide and absent in the Vietnamese literature. The study, consequently,
helps rebuild and elaborate on the framework for conversational openings and
closings in a particular setting - offices. In details, the frameworks of opening
structure, opening strategies, closing structure and closing strategies of
conversations in offices are performed and developed. Thanks to this, its findings
would serve implications for research of sociolinguistics, cross-cultural
communication, cross-cultural pragmatics, conversational openings, conversational
closings, and movie discourse.
Practically, the study contributes to improving communicative competence of
Vietnamese learners and users of English as well as learners of Vietnamese as a
foreign language. It enhances learners‟ language capacity including understanding
about the pragmatic and cultural features of English and Vietnamese conversational
openings and closings. Then, it raises people‟s awareness on cultural understanding
and helps them to become more confident in communicating with foreigners. In
particular, the study provides both Vietnamese learners of English and learners of
Vietnamese as a foreign language with sufficient pragmatic and cultural knowledge
to help them to initiate and terminate a conversation effectively and politely.
1.5. Research methodology
Quantitative and qualitative methods were both used in this research with
priorities given to the qualitative. On the one hand, qualitative approach entails the
use of content analysis, which involves manual coding process and interpretation
process. In this phase, the recurrent patterns are identified. Specifically, the
description and analysis of recurrent patterns of sequences and strategies of
conversational openings and closings were conducted. The frequency of occurrence
of these patterns is inclined to be different in the two languages and these
quantitative differences are supposed to generate qualitative evaluations. On the
other hand, quantitative method was used to evaluate the frequency of occurrence of
these patterns, which assist the process of comparison and contrast of conversational
openings and closings in the two languages. Based on the results gained from the

17. 6

combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses, the study depicted a clearer
picture of the English and Vietnamese conversational openings and closings.
1.6. Organization of the study
The study consists of six chapters as follows:
Chapter I (Introduction) introduces the study including the rationale, aims and
research questions, scope, significance, methodology and organization of the study.
Chapter II (Literature review) consists of four main parts: the theoretical
concepts, cross-cultural pragmatic perspective, the review of related studies and the
theoretical framework with concept-driven categories of conversational opening and
closing sequences and strategies. The theoretical concepts part begins with
definitions and discussions of related terms such as conversation, conversational
opening, conversational closing and ends with the discussions on phatic communion.
The cross-cultural pragmatics is the approach of the study, discussing the theories on
which the study is based including pragmatics, politeness theories and workplace
cultural dimensions. The review part includes the review of the previous studies on
conversational opening, those on conversational closing and those on both. At the
end of this chapter, the theoretical framework with concept-driven analytical
categories generated from the findings of the previous investigations and theories is
deliberated.
Chapter III (Methodology) identifies the research methodology of the study.
The chapter starts with the research questions and proceeds with the research
methods. Then, it depicts the data collection with the justification of the choice of
the data, data selection criteria, data collection procedures and data description. The
chapter ends with the detailed discussion on the process of data analysis. Data
analysis is accomplished through such phases as pre-coding, coding and analytical
procedures.
Chapter IV analyzes conversational opening process in English and
Vietnamese regarding its formulaic structure and strategies. From the data, English
and Vietnamese opening structures are constructed. Additionally, opening strategies
are revealed and analyzed in terms of sequences. The similarities and differences
between English and Vietnamese opening structures and strategies are drawn out in
each part of analysis with the illustration of examples.
Chapter V evaluates conversational closing process in English and
Vietnamese as regards its formulaic structure and strategies. Firstly, closing
structures are generated, compared and contrasted between the two languages. In

18. 7

addition, closing strategies are identified and analyzed in each sequence. Based on
the frequency of occurrence, English and Vietnamese closing sequences and
strategies are compared and contrasted. Especially, explanation for the similarities
and differences in conversational closing between the two languages is elaborated
with specific examples.
Chapter VI (Conclusions) summarizes the significant findings and
conclusions as well as proposes implications of the study. In addition, limitations of
the study as well as suggestions for further research are put forward afterwards.

19. 8

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The aims of the literature review chapter are to define key concepts, describe
relevant theories, review previous related studies, and generate frameworks for
analysis. Accordingly, this chapter is divided into four main parts. Part 1 -
Theoretical concepts re-examines the key concepts underlying the study of
conversational openings and closings such as conversation, conversational openings
and closings and phatic communion. Part 2 - Cross-cultural pragmatics describes
relevant theories on which the study is based including pragmatics, politeness
theories and cultural dimensions. Part 3 - Review of related studies provides an
overview of previous research related to this study. The studies on this area are
divided into three groups: studies on conversational opening, studies on
conversational closing and studies on conversational openings and closings. Part 4
- Theoretical framework generates concept-driven analytical categories to assist
coding process of opening structure, closing structure, opening strategies and closing
strategies.
2.1. Theoretical concepts
2.1.1. Conversation
2.1.1.1. The concept of conversation
Conversation is regarded as one of the most popular and effective forms of
communication. The concept of conversation has been approached and discussed
broadly as well as understood variedly by numerous linguists. The variety in the
ways of defining conversation is because it is approached from different
perspectives with different purposes. For example, Hornby et al. (1988) defined
conversation broadly as the exchange of language through language or Bublitz
(1988, p. 151) regarded conversations as entities which exist, develop and proceed in
time and constantly grow and change. More particularly, Collins (2002) claimed that
conversation is a friendly and natural talk in which participants exchange
information, ideas, and emotion to one another. Regarding conversation as a form of
“sociability”, Have (1999, pp. 3-4) regarded conversation as any activity of
interactive talk, regardless of its purpose or just for talking. This definition implies
that any forms of interaction occurring when people talk with each other can be a
conversation. Conversation, in this definition, can be performed via telephone,
online chats, and so on.

20. 9

As can be seen, conversation has been defined and understood variously by
different scholars due to the variety of research approaches. However, in this study,
conversation is understood following Goffman‟s (1966) definition. According to
Goffman, a conversation is a kind of interaction occurring only when participants
get close together and directly cooperate to sustain a single focus of attention with
the exclusion of non-present parties and inclusion of co-present parties (p. 24). It can
be inferred from this definition that only direct interaction is regarded as
conversation and telephone talks, online chats or email exchanges are not classified
as a form of conversation. The choice of Goffman‟s (1966) definition on
conversation is because the present study focuses on face-to-face or direct
interaction rather than other channels of communication.
2.1.1.2. Mundane and institutional conversations
In examining conversations, researchers have distinguished mundane or
ordinary conversations from institutional ones. According to Arminen (2005, p. 43),
ordinary and institutional conversations are distinguished based on constitutive and
regulative meanings. In terms of constitutive meaning, ordinary conversation is a
speech exchange system in which turn size, order and content are not predetermined
(Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974) while institutional conversations are formally
institutional speech events such as interviews, chaired meetings, and ceremonies. In
terms of regulative meaning, ordinary conversations are referred to as “trivial”,
“commonplace”, “normal”, “casual”, and “ordinary” (Drew & Heritage, 1992, p. 19;
Heritage, 1989, p. 34) whilst institutional conversations are distinguished as regards
its observable contrast to “prototypical forms of everyday talk” (Arminen, 2005, p.
43). Furthermore, according to Hakulinen (2009, p. 59), institutional interaction has
typically a goal or purpose, which is not necessarily a constitutive element of
mundane conversations.
Actually, it is extremely hard to make a clear cut between ordinary and
institutional conversations. Drew and Heritage (1992, p. 21) and Hakulinen (2009, p.
55) even asserted that it is impossible to make “a hard and fast distinction” between
them. It is easy to distinguish informal everyday conversations with constructed
ones based on their “formality”. Nevertheless, there also exist institutional or formal
conversations in which small talks or chats may occur. In these situations, it is
difficult to conclude whether they are ordinary or institutional conversations.
Institutional conversations, in the scope of the present study, are understood
as formal interaction mentioning or discussing work-related issues between two

21. 10

parties. As a matter of fact, in these work-exchanging conversations, there may exist
small talk or phatic communion. The phatic communion is not the focus of the
institutional conversations. Instead, they tend to occur in the opening and closing
sections of a formal conversation to function as a device to help the conversation to
be initiated and terminated smoothly and, accordingly, increase the effectiveness of
the interaction.
2.1.1.3. Conversations in office settings
The data of the present study are conversations occurring in office settings.
Conversations in office settings are featured in terms of participants, goals and
channels of communication. In terms of participants, a conversation may take place
between two or among several individuals as well as groups, for example, political
parties. Normally, it is essential to have at least two participants: a speaker and a
hearer. The role of the speaker and the hearer constantly exchanges. The current
speaker takes a role in controlling the conversation and the hearer adopts a more
passive but still important role – listening. In office settings, conversations may
happen between or among any people including staff, managers, colleagues,
customers and even strangers. Naturally, conversations performed by different
parties tend to have different characteristics. Hence, it is essential to regard
relationship of parties in analyzing their conversations.
In relation to conversational goals, as a social activity, conversation has two
goals: transactional and interactional (Brown & Yule, 1983). Conversations
produced for transactional goals are to exchange information or accomplish certain
tasks. They have at least one topic and no limitation for the maximum. These topics
are content or tasks to be accomplished in conversations. In contrast, conversations
with interactional goal are to create and maintain social relations. These
conversations often convey no specific topics. Participants mainly spend time
talking about unprepared topics or chatting about current problems occurring around
them with the purpose of making social relationships better.
Concerning channels of communication, in modern life, more and more
communication has been done electronically. The speed and volume of
communication increase with emails, voicemails, instant messages, Internet chats,
and so on, which leads to the less popularity of face-to-face interaction at
workplaces. However, this tends to bring more disadvantages than advantages
because it makes people, especially the young, highly depend on mediated
communication and be afraid of meeting and talking to others in person. Face-to-

22. 11

face communication is indispensable and irreplaceable in human life. Thanks to
face-to-face conversations, participants can respond and get responses immediately
with more opportunity for adjustment and less opportunity for misunderstanding.
Furthermore, participants can express their feelings and ideas much better thanks to
the employment of direct communication.
2.1.2. Conversational opening and closing
2.1.2.1. The concept of conversational opening
The term “opening” tends to be used interchangeably with the term
“greeting” (Duranti, 1992; Firth, 1972; Kendon & Ferber, 1973; Omar, 1989;
Youssouf, Grimshaw, & Bird, 1976). In fact, “greetings are naturally the opening
stage of encounters” (Saberi, 2012) or the broadest sense of the term “greeting” is
similar to the term “conversational opening” (Pillet-Shore, 2012, p. 375).
Nonetheless, in some cases, these two concepts are understood differently. Greeting
can be an initial part of a conversation or just a ritual exchange or a passing-by
greeting while conversational opening is always the first part of a conversation.
Conversational openings are critical to social relationships and a vital aspect
of communicative competence of every mature member of a speech community
(Duranti, 1997, p. 63) because it helps to establish, maintain and enhance
interpersonal relationships (Li, 2010, p. 56). Through the process of opening a
conversation, participants construct and reconstruct their social relationships.
Normally, conversational opening tends to occur when speakers want to raise a topic
for discussion. In other words, conversational opening is a process of initiating a
topic, so it cannot occur without certain topics of concern. A conversation is often
initiated with an opening move, typically by means of a special expression of the
eyes but sometimes by a statement or a special tone of voice at the beginning of a
statement (Goffman, 1966, p. 91). In addition, conversational opening process
follows several sequences including summons-answer, identification-recognition,
greeting and how-are-you (Schegloff, 1968). It is notable that in this sense, greeting
is a part of conversational opening.
As regards conversational opening process, it is necessary to address “topic
initial elicitor” which is a unique feature to help distinguish opening and greeting.
According to Liddicoat (2007, p. 271), “topic initial elicitors explicitly provide a
space for launching any mentionables which have not yet been included in the
conversation”. More simply, Button and Casey (1984) defined topic initial elicitors
as something which leads to a new topic. In different languages, participants employ

23. 12

different topic initial elicitors, among them, the use of “routines” which refers to
formulaic and ritualized speech is rather popular. Routines, in the view of Coulmas
(1981), have an important role in conversation because they support the orderliness
and secure the smooth flow in a conversation. More importantly, routine patterns are
often restored to establish and define the transaction of interaction and to express
social relationships and they tend to function as the openers of conversations
(Loveday, 1983). Since routines are used as conversational opening rituals, the
wrong use of routines may lead to bad opening. Accordingly, the rest of exchange is
badly affected and the communication may be broken (Loveday, 1983).
Consequently, the occurrence of topic initial elicitors informs that the conversation
will be going on as a new topic is introduced whilst their absence informs that the
conversation will not be started or is leading to the end because no new topic is
raised.
In the scope of the present study, conversational opening is the initial part of
a conversation. It begins from the first moments of participants‟ gathering to the
initiation of the first topic of concern. The end of a conversational opening section is
marked by topic initial elicitors which indicate that a topic is going to be raised. The
opening section really ends when the first topic is raised. Normally, participants
follow several sequences to open a conversation and employ certain strategies in
each sequence. These sequences and strategies are supposed to help participants
initiate a conversation appropriately and politely.
2.1.2.2. The concept of conversational closing
As normal, a social encounter or a conversation has an opening, a body and a
closing. Openings and closings are known as access rituals, while opening signals
the beginning of a conversation, closing signals its closure. Like openings, closings
are devices to establish, maintain and enhance relationships among co-participants
(Firth, 1972, p. 1). If a participant departs from a conversation without saying
“goodbye” to his interlocutor, it can be implied that he does not want to continue
this social relationship (p. 16). Conversational openings and closings are culture-
specific or different from culture to culture (p. 29). In some cultures, conversational
openings and closings may be short while in others, they may be elaborate. However
short or elaborate a closing might be, it is highly conventionalized. Conversational
closing follows certain “patterned routines” or there is orderliness in the components
of this last stage of a conversation (Kinnison, 2000, p. 27). For example, in Hungary,

24. 13

it is regarded as polite to make an elaborate closing, whilst in others like in Thai or
in Nepali, it is unnecessary to do so (Hartford & Bardovi-Harlig, 1992; Omar, 1989).
Conversational closing section is the final part of a conversation and it is
done collaboratively by both or all participants (Liddicoat, 2007). A conversation is
closed by the cooperation of parties by first preparing “a closing implicative
environment, then the pre-closings such as “Okay” and “Alright”, and then the
terminal component” (Khadem & Rasekh, 2012, p. 151). When coming to the end,
participants often go through several phases and sub-phases and depending on
particular contexts, quick mini-topics might take place to avoid the silence (Saberi,
2012, p. 109). According to Liddicoat (2007), a closing often follows two stages: a
confirmation that all concerned points have been mentioned and an agreement to end
a conversation. Participants bring a conversation to an end with the application of a
variety of conventional rules, for example, a series of “goodbyes” or similar tokens
called “terminal components” (p. 255). In phases of closing, participants have
opportunity to express happiness for having been in contact, to reinforce their
relationships, and to signal the wish for future contacts (Knapp, Hart, Friedrich, &
Shulman, 1973, p. 185).
The term “conversational closing” employed in the present study refers to the
stage in which participants perform final behaviors to negotiate the termination.
Normally, in a conversation, participants convey at least one topic and may extend
to several ones. The closing section starts from the termination of the final topic to
the real departure of participants. Participants cannot end a conversation abruptly
just by departing. Instead, they tend to negotiate a conversational closing through
several phases or sequences.
2.1.2.3. Opening and closing sequences
Any social interactions that we perform occur sequentially, that means one
follows another (Stivers, 2013, p. 191). Sequences are a typical feature of any
conversations or other forms of verbal interactions. In interactions, utterances are
organized in sequences and are produced and understood according to the sequential
context they appear in. Schegloff (2007, p. 2) made a distinction between two terms
“sequential organization” and “sequence organization”. According to him,
“sequential organization” is the more general term referring to any kind of
organization which concerns the relative positioning of utterances or actions.
“Sequence organization” which is another type of sequential organization is defined

25. 14

as the organization of courses of action or the sequences of actions or “moves”.
These actions are constructed in coherent, orderly and meaningful successions.
The term “sequences” means sequences of “actions” or “moves” which
construct a unit of meaning in interaction. Through the sequence organization,
parties of a conversation can make their utterances comprehensible and interpret the
utterances of others (Seedhouse, 2004, p. 21). Regarding the structure, Schegloff
(2007, p. 9) supposed that a basic unit of sequence construction is the adjacency
pair. Adjacency pairs are kinds of paired structured utterances of which one pair
demands the occurrence of the other, for example, question-answer, greetings-
response, offer-acceptance, and so on. (Agyekum, 2008, p. 512). Adjacency pairs
often consist of two related utterances created by different speakers. After a speaker
produces the first pair part of an adjacency pair, the second pair part is expectable
(Schegloff, 1968, p. 1083). Although adjacency pair organization provides a
resource for the construction of sequences of various sizes, an adjacency pair, in its
minimal two-turn form, can itself constitute the whole of a sequence (Schegloff,
2007, p. 22). In other words, a sequence can be constructed with one or several
adjacency pairs.
In the scope of the present study, the term “sequence” is defined following
the definition by Hastrdlová (2009, p. 14) as a self-contained discourse unit with a
coherent internal structure formed with a series of speech acts and each act in a
sequence may be functionally dependent or conditionally relevant upon the act that
precedes it. Similarly, opening sequences are sequences that serve to open sections
of topical talk while closing sequences are sequences that serve to close sections of
topical talk.
Normally, in a sequence, speakers may produce an act or several acts. These
acts may be topically related to each other or not. In the scope of the present study,
these acts are treated as strategies. Opening strategies are acts created to accomplish
opening sequences and closing strategies are acts produced to produce closing
sequences. To open or close a conversation, participants often follow certain
sequences or orderly utterances and to produce these sequences, participants need to
perform acts or strategies. Below is an example of conversational opening sequences
and strategies.

26. 15

Conversation:
((ring))
1. R: Hello,
Summons-answer sequence
2. C: Hello Ida?
3. R: Yeah
Identification-recognition sequence
4. C: Hi,=This is Carla
5. R: Hi Carla
Greeting sequence
6. C: How are you
7. R: Okay:.
8. C: Good.=
9. R: =How about you
10. C: Fine.
How-are-you sequence
11. C: Don wants to know. . . First topic
(Source: Schegloff, 1986, p. 115)
In this conversation, Schegloff (1986) described a typical opening section of
a telephone call with four sequences: summons-answer, identification-recognition,
greeting and how-are-you. As illustrated, in opening section, each sequence is
constructed with one strategy. For example, to produce the greeting sequence,
participants use the greeting proper “hi”. However, compared with opening sections
of telephone conversations, those of face-to-face conversation seem to be more
varied. They may be brief with one sequence or lenthy with several sequences and
each sequence may be formed with several strategies.
2.1.3. Phatic communion
2.1.3.1. The concept of phatic communion
The term “phatic communion” is initially used by Malinowski (1923) as “a
type of speech in which ties of union are created by a mere exchange of words” (p.
315) with its function in mere sociabilities. In Malinowski‟s delimitation, phatic
communion can be interpreted as a form of “small talk” which is dislocated from
practical action or a form of action serving to establish and maintain social bonds
between or among interactants. In fact, in his 1999‟s work, Malinowski regarded
phatic communion as a form of “small talk” and “social talk” (p. 297). Small talk
can be depicted negatively with such names as “gossip”, “chit-chat” and “time-out
talk” (Coupland, 2003) or positively with other names including “phatic
communion”, “social talk”, “polite conversation” (Furukawa, 2013). It can be
implied that in its positive meaning, small talk is phatic communion.
Precisely, the concept of small talk or phatic communion is clearly depicted
in the notion by Holmes (2000). According to her, small talk is defined as “non-
work-related talk” which can be understood as “social talk” as contrasted to
“business talk” or “work-related talk” (Furukawa, 2013, p. i). However, it is also

27. 16

essential to further identify that the distinction between business talk and small talk
is not rigid. Holmes introduced a continuum from business talk to small talk with
four main themes: core business talk, work-related talk, social talk and phatic
communion (p. 38). Small talk, illustrated by Holmes (2000, p. 38), refers to
informal talk, shifting from social talk to phatic communion with social purposes
rather than practical ones. The continuum can be illustrated in Figure 1.1 below:

(Source: Holmes, 2000, p. 38)
Figure 1.1: Locating small talk on the continuum
It can be seen from Holmes‟ continuum that formal and informal talk may
occur in a conversation. A formal conversation in institutional settings may begin
with small talk which can be phatic communion or social talk. In this situation, small
talk is not regarded as an independent conversation but a part of a formal
conversation. The present study aims to examine opening and closing sections of
formal or institutional conversations and Holmes‟ continuum shows that in these two
sections, small talk or phatic communion may occur to help conversations appear
more polite.
2.1.3.2. Phatic communion in office settings
In office settings, phatic communion plays an essential role as a polite way of
connecting people despite its unimportant content (Furukawa, 2013, p. 3). It is often
regarded as a politeness strategy concerning positive face needs of both speakers and
listeners (Laver, 1981). In “doing friendship” and “building the bonds” with co-
workers, regarding the face needs of the other party is a vital element (Holmes &
Stubbe, 2003, p. 97). Often occurring at the start and at the end of the day, phatic
communion functions as a means to connect coworkers together (Holmes & Stubbe,
2003). Furthermore, it also functions as a kind of “time-filler” in conversation. It
concerns the participants‟ face needs by filling the “dead” time between work
activities to avoid silence which can be a face-threatening act due to creating
embarrassment (Schneider, 1988).
Regarded as one of the typical features of institutional conversation in office
settings, phatic communion helps build solidarity and rapport and also maintain
good relationships between or among coworkers, so enhances strong working

28. 17

relations (Holmes, 2000; Pullin, 2010). Similarly, Tsang (2008) supposed that the
major function of small talk is “doing collegiality” as it focuses on solidarity and
team relationships (p. 71). It can be concluded that small talk has an oiling function
to oil the social wheels (Holmes, 2000, p. 57), which leads to effective working
relationship and creates a pleasant working atmosphere (Holmes & Stubbe, 2003).
Specifically, in office settings, phatic communion is an effective way for the
subordinates to interact with their superiors when facing challenging situations like
requesting for some days off, disagreeing, or informing unfinished tasks as it
protects the participants‟ faces by creating positive impressions on their boss
(Koester, 2006). Similarly, superiors are inclined to initiate small talk and also
willing to engage in small talk initiated by others (Holmes & Stubbe, 2003).
Superiors may use small talk to develop good social relationships between
themselves and their subordinates. In office settings, small talk can be used to reduce
social distance between superiors and their subordinates.
2.1.3.3. Phatic communion in conversational opening and closing
According to Holmes (2000), small talk typically occurs at the boundaries of
interaction, as well as at the boundaries of the working day and opening and closing
phases are the manifestation of small talk (p. 43). Small talk or phatic talk has an
extreme influence on sequential organization of opening and closing phases of
interactions. As mentioned, the underlying goals of phatic talk are to establish and
achieve transition. As ritual activities, in opening phase, phatic communion breaks
the ice between interactants, establishes a “working consensus” and serves to assist
the transition to work talk while in closing phase it helps move a conversation to an
end in a positive atmosphere. In this phase, it functions as a positive politeness
strategy to help participants mitigate possible sense of rejection and consolidate a
relationship (Laver, 1981). In more details, Holmes and Stubbe (2015) claimed that
small talk in the workplace functions like knitting. At the beginning of an
interaction, it connects from interpersonal or social talk to work or task-oriented
talk. At the end, small talk helps close an interaction positively by referring to
personal component of the relationship (p. 106).
The role of small talk in office settings is illustrated evidently in Tsang‟s
(2008) paper. In his paper, he proved that small talk is a good management strategy
for superiors because it can help superiors to achieve their relational goals.
Consequently, it helps increase the profit for the company. In more details, the
critical role of phatic communion in conversational opening is especially illustrated

29. 18

in Coupland, Coupland and Robinson‟s (1992) paper on “how-are-you” sequence. In
this paper, the researchers proved that phatic communion has an excessive influence
on conversational opening process.
2.2. Cross-cultural Pragmatics
2.2.1. Pragmatics and politeness theory
2.2.1.1. Pragmatics
Pragmatics is a branch of linguistics which analyzes language in use or the
relation between utterances and particular context in which they occur (Levinson,
1983, p. 9). Various definitions on pragmatics have been offered by a great number
of scholars. According to Mey (2001), “pragmatics studies the use of language in
human communication as determined by the conditions of society” (p. 6). Similarly,
Yule (1996) called pragmatics “the study of contextual meaning communicated by a
speaker or a writer, and interpreted by a listener or a reader” (p. 3). In this point of
view, pragmatics involves the interpretation of what people mean in the particular
context and how the context influences what is said. Sharing the same point of view,
Leech (1983) defined pragmatics as the study of how utterances have meanings in
situations. From these definitions, it can be said that pragmatics is the study of
meaning conveyed in utterances produced in particular contexts. Consequently, in
pragmatic perspective, language is only fully understood when it is used in particular
situations or contexts. For this reason, in studying a language, one cannot ignore the
situation in which utterances are produced.
2.2.1.2. The concepts of face and politeness
On the one hand, “face” can be defined as “the positive social value a person
effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a
particular contact” (Goffman, 1967, p. 6). In this point of view, “face” can be
understood as the conceptualization of one through the constructs of others in social
interaction. Similarly, Watts (2003, p. 125) delineated face as “a socially attributed
aspect of self that is temporarily on loan for the duration of the interaction in
accordance with the line or lines that the individual has adopted.” Face is not the
personal construction of self but the interpretation from the others‟ behaviors. In
interaction, if the other establishes a face that is better than one expected, he may
“feel good”; otherwise, in case his expectations are not fulfilled, he may “feel bad”
or “feel hurt” (Goffman, p. 6). In a more explicit way, Brown and Levinson (1987)
regarded “face” as the public self-image that every person wants to claim for
themselves. Face cannot be claimed for oneself but must be maintained through the

30. 19

action of others and in interaction, people tend to co-operate to present and preserve
one another‟s public image.
Brown and Levinson‟s (1978, 1987) concept of face consists of two specific
desires or face-wants: negative and positive face. Negative face is the desire of not
being imposed by others or the want to have the freedom of action unhindered by
others. In other words, negative face refers to personal freedom and independence,
as well as to freedom from imposition. In contrast, positive face is the desire to be
accepted, appreciated, respected and approved by the others. Although participants
hope both their positive and negative faces to be kept and maintained in interaction,
it is unavoidable that in some cases their faces can be lost or threatened. To save
face, participants need to perform face-work. Face-work refers to “the actions taken
by a person to make whatever he is doing consistent with face” (Goffman, 1967, p.
12). Goffman elaborated that face-work are actions that can be conscious or
unconscious and often become habitual and standardized. Especially, face-saving
practices are culturally dependent. That means, in each culture, participants have
different strategies to save and maintain face (p. 13).
Another essential concept is face-threatening acts. If a party produces some
kinds of behavior which present a threat to the self-image of the other party, it is
described as a face-threatening act. Face-threatening acts may address positive
and/or negative face needs of both speakers and/or hearers. Acts such as advice,
warning, offers, orders may threaten a hearer‟s negative face because they prevent
the hearer from freedom of action whilst acts like criticism, insults, boasting and so
forth may threat a hearer‟s positive face because they reveal that the hearer is not
accepted or approved (Brown & Levinson, 1987, p. 67). Face-threatening acts may
lead to face loss. Losing face is “a loss of the internal emotional support that is
protecting oneself in a social situation” (Goffman, 1967, p. 9). Losing face creates
bad feelings, so participants often try to save face in interaction. However, one‟s
face is only maintained with the help of the other interlocutors. Interlocutors are
inclined to follow social protocols or face-saving strategies to manipulate or avoid
face-threatening acts in an attempt to maintain and save faces of both parties.
On the other hand, in society, individuals are engaged in a number of
cooperative activities. Hence, it is inevitable for them to be involved in everyday
social interactions. To behave politely in interaction, participants need to acquire
rules of etiquette and courtesy or rules of politeness. Politeness can be understood as
good manners of participants and the act of “taking account of the feelings of

31. 20

others” (Holmes, 2008, p. 281) and thanks to politeness, participants can enhance
the harmony and solidarity in their relationship. Politeness can be expressed through
linguistic and non-linguistic devices. For example, a request becomes more polite
with the application of politeness markers like “please” or “thank you” or a bow is
regarded as a polite act because it makes the other party feel being respected.
As a linguistic phenomenon, politeness has attracted considerable attention
from linguists, sociologists, and language philosophers in the last two decades. The
field of politeness has been approached in different perspectives. However, an
agreed notion on “politeness” has not been reached. “Politeness” can be understood
as rational, goal-oriented behavior (Haverkate, 1988), “politic behavior” (Watts,
1992, p. 50), or appropriate behavior (Meier, 1995). Politeness has also been
discussed regarding politeness typologies (Kasper, 1990), perspectives on politeness
(Fraser, 1990) or as a “theory” (Coupland et al., 1988).
Among approaches of politeness, the view of face-saving proposed by Brown
and Levinson (1978, 1987) is one of the most influential theories with the concept of
“face” as the central. As mentioned above, there are two types of face wants:
negative face and positive face (Brown & Levinson, 1987). During social
interactions, it is essential to preserve the two faces of interlocutors by doing face-
saving acts. Naturally, face can be lost, maintained or enhanced in interaction.
Hence, any acts which may create any threats to face need softening and controlling.
Brown and Levinson (1987) proposed face-threatening acts to the speaker, to the
hearer, or to both. Acts threatening to the hearer's positive and negative face can be
illustrated such as ordering, advising, threatening, warning, complaining, criticizing,
disagreeing, and so on. In addition, acts threatening to the speaker's positive and
negative face can be apologizing, accepting compliments, accepting an offer,
accepting thanks, promising unwillingly and the like. In interaction, participants are
advised to avoid these face-threatening acts to reduce the face loss resulted from the
interaction or make use of strategies to minimize the face loss.
2.2.1.3. Politeness theory in conversational opening and closing
The present study addresses the theories of “face” and “politeness” because
the processes of conversational opening and closing are regarded as face threats. In
other words, the conversational opening and closing processes can threaten the
other‟s face. Regarding conversational opening, when initiating a conversation,
speakers may interfere with the others‟ privacy and freedom, so threat their negative
face. To save face, parties tend to employ politeness strategies in the process of

32. 21

conversational opening. They are inclined to use ritual phrases like “how are you?”,
“nice to meet you” and so on to show the concerns to the others and interest in the
conversation. Particularly, speakers may engage in small talks on “safe topics”
which help establish relationship as well as function as mutual base for interaction.
In connection with conversational closing, terminating a conversation may
threaten the interlocutors‟ faces. The act of conversational closing may be
interpreted that the speakers do not wish to continue the conversation, which can
imply that the conversation is boring or annoying (Coppock, 2005). For this reason,
closing a conversation may constitute a risk to one‟s positive face and a threat to the
relationship between interlocutors. Additionally, closing a conversation can
constitute an imposition by preventing the partner from continuing a conversation,
thus threaten their negative face. However, if the other participant does not want to
continue the conversation, closing it can create negative politeness because it does
not make an imposition on him/ her (Coppock, 2005). Consequently, because
conversational closing process involves inherent face threats, speakers usually make
use of politeness strategies to save faces (Cameron, 2001).
2.2.2. Workplace cultures
2.2.2.1. High vs. low context cultures
In the field of cultural communication in professional and workplace settings,
Hall (1976), Hofstede (2001) and Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov (2010) are among
the most widely cited researchers. These researchers have focused on intercultural
communication between or among different nationalities and developed taxonomies
that enable researchers to compare and contrast cultural values among various
nations on various dimensions (Warren, 2012, pp. 481-482).
According to Hall (1976), cultures are categorized into high context versus
low context. Low context cultures typically value individualism while high context
cultures appreciate collectivism and group harmony. In communication, members in
high and low context cultures have different ways of expression. Due to the
closeness of human relationships, well-structured social hierarchy and strong
behavioral norms of high context culture, communication is expressed implicitly.
Accordingly, listeners are expected to understand embedded messages which are
unsaid basing on their background knowledge (Hall, 1976, p. 91). Communication
style in high context culture is depicted as indirectness, ambiguity, harmony,
reservedness, and understatedment (Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988). On the
contrary, in a low context culture, meanings are expressed explicitly through

33. 22

language or most information is expected to be transmitted verbally (Hall, 1976).
Communication style is described as directness, preciseness and openness
(Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey, 1988).
From the typical features of high context and low context cultures,
Vietnamese culture is supposed to be high context whilst American culture is
regarded as low context (Hall, 1976). Regarding communication style, Americans
are expected to prefer direct and explicit information exchange. In contrast,
Vietnamese are inclined to restore indirect communication. In Vietnamese culture,
indirectness is even supposed to indicate respect for another person‟s perceptivity
and intelligence (Chambers, 1997, p. 173; Usunier, 1996, p. 369). However, cultures
cannot be categorized exclusively as low context or high context but some cultures
tend to be at the higher end while others are at the lower end of the continuum or
low and high context communication exist in every culture but one tends to
predominate (Hall, 1976).
In office settings, due to the differences in communication styles of high and
low context cultures, communication between English and Vietnamese native
speakers may lead to conflicts or misunderstandings. According to Kohl (2007, p.
3), as contrasted to Vietnamese “slow-cook” business culture with much preference
on socializing, American business culture is “fast-food” where time is money, and
meetings are for getting down to business. Especially, in interaction with parties of
lower social status, parties of higher social status need employ appropriate
communication strategies. For instance, direct approach of Western employers might
give Vietnamese employees the impression that the Western employers find them
obtuse (Kohl, 2007, p. 4). To make Vietnamese employees talk openly and voice
their opinions to the superiors, Western employers should play the role of both a
quietly powerful but considerate manager (Kohl, 2007, p. 99). Likewise,
communication strategies used by Vietnamese employees while interacting with
their Western managers may appear inappropriate or roundabout.
2.2.2.2. Power distance
Because the study focuses on conversations between staff and their managers
who are unequal in power relation, the cultural dimension of “power distance” is
considered in analyzing the data and justifying the findings. Power distance can be
defined as “the extent to which the less powerful members of institutions and
organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed
unequally” (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 61). In other words, power distance refers to the

34. 23

ways people perceive power differences or the acceptable degree of hierarchical
power inequality existing between the authority and the subordinate (Chao, Cheung,
& Wu, 2011).
To illustrate the perception of power differences of each country, Hofstede
(2001) created the Power Distance Index for 56 countries and regions. According to
him, compared with the average score, the United Stated has a fairly low score with
40. It can be inferred that in American culture, hierarchy is not highly appreciated
and staff and managers are regarded as equal with different tasks and positions. On
the contrary, Vietnam has a high score on power distance with 70 (Hofstede et al.,
2010). The high score on power distance proves that Vietnamese people accept a
hierarchical order or they accept that inequality is a social phenomenon.
Remarkably, based on the general cultural features of large and small power
distance societies, communication styles between subordinates and superiors in the
workplace can be depicted and differentiated. According to Hofstede et al. (2010), in
large power distance societies like Vietnam, superiors and subordinates consider
each other as existentially unequal and the hierarchical system is based on this
existential inequality. As a result, power is centralized in a few hands and
subordinates expect to be told what to do (p. 73). In addition, the perfect manager is
a benevolent autocrat or “good father” and especially, superior-subordinate
relationships appear emotional but formal (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994; Hofstede et
al., 2010 p. 76). It is also supposed that in these cultures, managers normally
generate strong dominance over their subordinates and govern all the actions and
decisions in their offices. Subordinates, on the other hand, have a preference to
behave submissively towards their superiors and they are even afraid or at least
unwilling to disagree with their superiors (Bochner & Hesketh, 1994, p. 236).
Inversely, in small power distance societies like America, subordinates and
superiors are considered to be existentially equal and the hierarchical system is just
an inequality of roles, established for convenience. In these cultures, subordinates
may accept that superiors are the ones who give a final decision but they expect to
be consulted before a decision is made (Hofstede et al., 2010 p. 74). Furthermore,
subordinate-superior relations are pragmatic or work-based and the ideal boss is a
resourceful democrat (Hofstede et al., 2010 p. 76).
2.2.2.3. Individualism-collectivism
Vietnamese are supposed to belong to a collectivist society whilst Americans
are regarded as a part of an individualist society (Guirdham, 2005). To depict and

35. 24

deliberate communication styles in these two countries, it is essential to discuss the
attributes of the cultures of individualist and collectivist societies. On the one hand,
individualism refers to loose relationship between individuals. Members in these
societies are inclined to be independent and enjoy much freedom of actions without
little burden on others‟ affairs. However, members in collectivist societies are
inclined to live and behave loyally to their strong, cohesive ingroups (Hofstede,
2001, p. 51).
According to Hofstede et al. (2010), individualist and collectivist cultures
have a big effect on the behaviors and communication styles between subordinates
and superiors in office settings. They claimed that in collectivist societies, the
relationship between employers and employees is regarded as a moral aspect with
mutual obligations of protection in exchange for loyalty (2010, p. 113). Notably, in
interaction, employers and employees not only exchange work-related information
but also establish a relationship of trust, maintain harmony and avoid direct
confrontations (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 123). On the contrary, Hofstede et al. (2010)
proved that in individualist societies, the relationship between employers and
employees is just a business transaction or work-orientated relationship. Employee‟s
poor performance or a better pay offer from another employer can be legitimate and
socially accepted reasons for terminating a work relationship (p. 120). It can be
concluded that in collectivist societies, the personal relationship predominates over
the task and should be established first whereas in the individualist societies, the task
is supposed to prevail over any personal relationships (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 123).
2.3. Review of related studies
2.3.1. Previous studies on conversational opening
2.3.1.1. Telephone conversational opening
Related to the field of conversational opening, a great number of studies have
been carried out in different perspectives such as sociolinguistics, pragmatics, and
conversation analysis. In this area, telephone beginnings were explored foremost in
the late 1960s by Schegloff‟s (1967, 1968) studies via the method of recording. Now
it has been a rather well-established area of investigation thanks to the works of a
great number of researchers. Following Schegloff, many other researchers have
moved to examine opening of other forms of mediated communication such as
instant messages (Nardi, Whittaker, & Bradner, 2000; Zhang, 2014), webchat
conversations (Negretti, 1999), chatroom talk (Neuage, 2004), and science blogs
(Masters, 2013).

36. 25

Since the establishment of conversational opening on telephone in the late
1960s by Schegloff, a large number of researchers have advanced the study of
telephone conversations. Telephone conversational opening can be examined
through one language such as English (Nguyen, T.T., 2010; Schegloff, 1967, 1968,
1972, 1979, 1986), Dutch (Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1991), Irish (Dabaghi & Khadem,
2012), Taiwanese (Hopper & Chen, 1996), Indonesian (Soloty, 2001) and Swedish
(Lindström, 1994), two languages like English vs. French (Godard, 1977), Finnish
vs. English (Halmari, 1993), English vs. Greek (Sifianou, 1989), German vs. Greek
(Pavlidou, 1994), English vs. Vietnamese (Bui, T.T.H., 2005; Nguyen, T.N., 2012;
Tran, T.T.H., 2009) or several languages (Pallotti & Varcasia, 2008). Besides the
language, telephone conversational opening has also been investigated in terms of
ordinary talks and institutional talks (Whalen & Zimmerman, 1987; Zimmerman,
1992), genders (Dabaghi & Khadem, 2012) and relationship of participants (Hopper
& Chen, 1996; Hopper & Drund, 1992; Le, T.Q., 2010).
The literature reveals that a great number of researchers have made use of
opening sequences depicted by Schegloff (1968, 1972, 1979) as a template to
investigate conversational opening process in other languages (Hopper & Chen,
1996; Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1991; Lindström, 1994; Pavlidou, 1994). In their studies,
different aspects of conversational opening on telephone are examined such as its
organization (Godard, 1977), linguistic options (Sifianou, 1989), identification
(Houtkoop-Steenstra, 1991), responses (Lindström, 1994), first topic (Pavlidou,
1994), cultural variations (Schegloff, 1986), strategies (Bui, T.T.H., 2005),
reservation (Nguyen, T.T., 2010) and syntactic and pragmatics features (Nguyen,
T.N., 2012; Tran, T.T.H., 2009). While most of researchers confirm Schegloff‟s
canonical opening, Hopper, Doany, Johnson and Drund (1990) rejected it in a study
of telephone openings between strangers and intimates. They concluded that
Schegloff‟s (1968) four canonical sequences were inapplicable to these
conversations and the data in their study indicated that no openings were structured
with all four components proposed by Schegloff (p. 384).
2.3.1.2. Greetings
Concerning conversational opening, it is vital to address the speech act of
greeting. The concept of greeting can be understood as “passing greeting” and
“conversational opening” (Rash, 2004, p. 51). Greeting, in the first meaning, is
normally performed when people pass each other on the street. With this meaning,
greeting is just a politeness ritual created to establish and maintain social

37. 26

relationship. Greeting, in the second meaning, is similar to conversational opening,
which is the first part of a conversation. Whether understood in either ways, the
speech act of greeting has certain relation with conversational opening process and
has been paid rather much scholarly attention worldwide.
On the one hand, passing greeting has been examined regarding its
classifications worldwide and its pragmatic uses in Vietnamese. In reviewing
theories related to the speech act of greeting, Jibreen (2010) defined and classified
greetings into time-free greetings and time-bound greetings (pp. 6-7). Likewise,
investigating greetings in Kazakh and English with the combination of multiple
sources of data, Meiirbekov, Elikbayev, Meirbekov and Temirbaev (2015) analyzed
greetings in terms of time-free greetings and time-bound greetings. Noticeably, the
findings reveal that while age and gender have equal influence on greetings in both
languages, social status has more effect on Kazakh greetings than on English ones.
Also focusing on the classifications of greetings, Akindele (2007), examining
Sesotho Greetings from a socio-pragmatic perspective, classified greetings into
different types such as greetings regarding the time of the day, casual greetings,
opening greetings, closing greetings, greetings for older persons and greetings for
younger persons. Similarly, studying patterns of greeting in Etulo with the method
of recording, Mmadike and Okoye (2015) introduced several types of greetings like
time of day greeting, status greeting, commendation greeting, commiseration
greeting, festive greetings, welcome greetings and miscellany greetings.
In Vietnamese, with the employment of a survey questionnaire, Srichampa
(2004) compared greetings in the Vietnamese dialects of Hanoi and those of Ho Chi
Minh City. The researcher asked the participants to write down the ways they
greeted the senior, equal and junior people and identified 16 polite greeting patterns
used by the Vietnamese. Via these greeting patterns, each dialect shows its own
identity for expressing politeness. Additionally, investigating greetings, Phạm Văn
Tình (2000) considered greeting utterances as a valuable hint for opening a
conversation. He also pointed out that it is customary for Vietnamese to greet others
with a question and this question can be used as a cue for a further talk and
discussion. Sharing the same point of view, Vũ Minh Huyền (2009) explored ways
of greeting in English and Vietnamese. Especially, she reused the English data of
American‟s ways of greeting from Eienstein‟s (1996) research and she restored the
same methods of observations, recordings, interviews and role-play to collect the
Vietnamese data.

38. 27

On the other hand, greeting, as the first part of a conversation, has been
investigated similarly to conversational opening by a number of researchers
worldwide. Below are significant works in various languages depicted in a
chronological order. To begin with, Youssouf et al. (1976), with the data collected in
the desert, described greetings among Tuareg between non-familiars in terms of its
form, function, conditions for and constraints on.
Instead of collecting data in the desert, Omar (1991) deployed multiple
sources of data to investigate the ways American learners of different levels
performed the speech act of greeting in Kiswahili. The analysis of the data from
role-plays and survey questionnaire indicated that the American learners of
Kiswahili acquire semantic formulas of different forms of greetings. However, in
performing Kiswahili greetings, American learners seem to lack pragmatic
competence, be reluctant to initiate greetings and respond to greetings without
elaborating them.
Also employing multiple sources of data, Agyekum (2008) collected greeting
extracts from literature books, observation, interviews, recordings, and in a radio
program. From the frameworks of ethnography of communication, politeness and
speech act theory within anthropological linguistics, Agyekum (2008) examined
greetings as one of the most frequent linguistic interactional routines among Akan of
Ghana. Particularly, the study investigated the fuctions, situations and the major
forms of Akan greetings. The researcher classified Akan greetings into simple or
complex greetings, informal and formal greetings. In addition, Akan greetings were
also analyzed according to situations including period of the day and activity
greetings and as quasi greetings such as bathing, greetings at the shrine, greetings to
the seller, greetings to blacksmith, greetings to the Asafo group and an assembly or
greetings in modern Akan society.
More practically, Duranti (1992) videotaped and filmed samples of greetings
in political and ceremonial contexts to study Samoan ceremonial greetings with the
special concentration on the sequential organization and the role of kinesics of the
exchange. He claimed that in greetings, verbal content changes from one language to
another and from one situation to another within the same language, which creates
numerous obstacles for partners in interaction. He also concluded that a conversation
can be opened with the concerns on the physical or spiritual well-being of the
interactants such as “how are you?” or “may peace/ God/ health be with you” (p.
663). Typically, he proved that English conversational opening tends to be time-

39. 28

oriented via such expressions as “good morning”, “good afternoon” and “see you
later” as well as space-oriented with some kinds of questions and statements about
space.
With the continuation of the study in 1992, Duranti (1997) videotaped
samples of greetings occurring inside the house to examine Samoan Ceremonial
greetings. Regarding its formulaic structures, Duranti classified Samoan Ceremonial
greetings into four types. The Talofa greeting can be used in closed areas when
participants are visibly and acoustically accessible to each other and often
accompanied by handshaking (p. 73). The Malo greeting is used when one party
arrives at a site where the other party is already there (p. 74). The Ceremonial
greeting is typically exchanged when a high status person makes an official visit or
arrives at a public event (p. 77). The “where are you going?” greeting is normally
employed when two parties cross each other with the enough close distance for their
voices to be heard (p. 83).
Notably, regarding greetings as culture-bound expressions, Alharbi and Al-
Ajmi (2008) examined Persian-Gulf-Arabic greetings. The study provides a rather
detailed picture of greeting rituals with five strategies including (1) initiation of
social encounter, (2) concern about well-being, health and state of affairs of others,
(3) temporal greetings expressed with time words, (4) polite requests and thanking,
and (5) closings and farewells (p. 133). In another way, dealing with greetings as
openings of face-to-face interactions, Pillet-Shore (2012) studied English greeting
with the data of 337 opening sections recorded in private residences and workplaces.
With the combination of conversation analysis and prosodic analysis methods,
Pillet-Shore concluded that participants reveal different stances toward recipients
through the level of prosody. “Large” greetings express an approval while “small”
greetings show a neutral stance.
Significantly, with the employment of Discourse Completion Test, Shleykina
(2016) provided an exceedingly comprehensive picture on the speech act of
greeting. From pragmatic perspective, Shleykina‟s (2016) doctoral thesis compares
and contrasts the speech act of greeting performed by Russian learners and that by
English native speakers. On the one hand, the semantic formulas of the speech act of
greeting are built. Semantic formulas of greetings are analyzed as regards greeting
proper, greeting phatic questions, phatic phrases, terms of address and situational
greetings. Greeting proper consists such typical words as “Hi”, “Hello”, “Hey” and
time-bound greetings. The results indicate that compared with the native speakers,

40. 29

the Russian learners tend to use “Hello” and time-bound greeting more but “Hey”
less (Shleykina, 2016, p. 152). Some common phatic questions are presented such as
“How are you?” “How do you do?” and informal phatic questions. The function of
these phatic questions is not to require an elaborate and honest answer but just to
perform a social task – acknowledging the interlocutors and expressing the
politeness (p. 153). Terms of address are mentioned in terms of personal names,
social titles, professional titles, and colloquial addresses. The findings show that the
non-native speakers produce more social titles but fewer professional titles than the
native speakers. Particularly, while the native speakers use personal names to
address university instructors rather frequently, this use is regarded as impolite for
the non-native speakers (p. 156). The phatic greeting phrases are employed more
often by the non-native speakers than the native speakers (p. 157). In situational
greetings, the native speakers produce more elements of small talk such as phatic
questions, complimenting, or neutral statements than the non-native speakers (p.
159). On the other hand, the pragmatic appropriateness of non-native speakers‟
greetings is evaluated by native speakers. The findings show that the speech act of
greeting performed by the non-native speakers is rather inappropriate with regard to
the number, the frequency, and the content of their greeting strategies. This
inappropriateness is accounted for by the lack of pragmatic competence and the
social-cultural differences in the two languages. From the improper performance of
greetings, pedagogical implications are suggested with the hope to improve and
enhance the Russian learners‟ pragmatic competence in communication.
2.3.1.3. Opening of different types of conversations
Compared with the field of telephone conversational opening, the area of
conversational opening of different types has received much less attention from
scholars and researchers worldwide as well as in Vietnam. The over-exploitation of
telephone conversations instead of other types of conversations is because talks on
telephone offer a methodologically convenient way of examining direct interactions
of humans (Schegloff, 1986, p. 112). Methodologically, it is less challenging to
collect telephone conversations than other types of conversations, especially
naturally occurring ones, thanks to modern equipment on telephones. Furthermore,
“the use of telephone calls as data was designed to eliminate the complexities of
non-vocal behaviors from the analysis of interaction, while preserving a naturalistic
environment of talk” (Heritage, 1984, p. 240). Thanks to this, in the process of

41. 30

analyzing talks, lots of additional tasks relating to non-vocal behaviors can be
reasonably avoided to put a full emphasis on the details of speech.
In the first place, general conversations occurring naturally have been
investigated by a number of researchers in different languages. Naturally occurring
conversations are heavily regulated by cultural norms and often influenced by
factors like geography, familiarity, and specific situations (Krivonos & Knapp,
1975, p. 115), it becomes essential to show what and how participants should talk
and perform to initiate a conversation. This area has been approached in different
perspectives and aspects by a number of researchers all over the world. Among
them, Krivonos and Knapp (1975) are supposed to have a noteworthy contribution.
From the discussion experiments recorded, Krivonos and Knapp (1975) investigated
greetings with regard to the degree of acquaintance between two communicators and
they built up a category of verbal behaviors that parties normally use to open a
conversation. They suggested 11 verbal strategies to open a conversation including
verbal salute, reference to other, personal inquiry, maintenance, compliments,
external reference, reference to self, accentuators, apologizers, witticisms and topic
initiation (p. 121). These strategies are ranked and analyzed in terms of the
frequency of occurrence and then the effects of acquaintanceship on greetings are
drawn out and assessed.
From pragmatic perspective, Omar (1992) investigated conversational
opening in Kiswahili with the comparison of the native and non-native speakers.
Methodologically, Omar collected native data from naturally tape-recorded
conversations in different settings but non-native data from role-plays, naturally
recorded office conversations and recorded telephone conversations. The findings of
the study reveal that native speakers have lengthier openings including several
phatic inquiries and phatic responses while non-native speakers produce greetings
with a slow pace and non-overlapping. Additionally, he also concluded that the
Kiswahili highly consider the factor of age in greeting (p. 18).
From conversation analysis perspective, Pillet-Shore (2008), in her doctoral
thesis, focused on the process of creating and maintaining social relationships
through the opening of face-to-face interactions. The study is conducted to
investigate how acquainted and unacquainted parties open their face-to-face
interactions. With the employment of video- and audio-recording of naturally
occurring encounters, the study analyzes both verbal and body-behavioral aspects of
opening sections performed by acquainted and non-acquainted parties. The findings

42. 31

show that conversational opening is a stage of awareness and attentiveness of both
arrivers and pre-present parties and the physical co-presence of the two parties
without greeting tends to create face-threats to both parties. Furthermore, through
“greeting overlap”, parties mutually express their respect towards their interlocutors
by saving their positive face wants, affirming the solidarity of their relationship and
showing their happiness of seeing each other (p. 486).
Besides opening of general conversations, opening of particular types of
conversations has also been studied such as opening of clinical consultations
(Chester, Robinson, & Roberts, 2014; Gafaranga & Britten, 2005). Chester et al.
(2014) examined openings of encounters in an adult musculoskeletal setting with the
application of mixed methods of data collection. They applied qualitative method to
analyze audio-recorded encounters between qualified physiotherapists and patients.
From the findings of this phase, they developed a questionnaire to determine
clinicians‟ preferences for opening encounters. Then, the quantitative method with
the application of the QuestionMark Perception software is used to deal with data
collected from the survey questionnaire. Similarly, from conversation analysis
perspective, Gafaranga and Britten (2005) studied the opening sequences in general
practice consultations with the data collected from recording and interviews. The
study points out that the opening of practice consultations is an orderly activity and
is organized in sequences.
Apart from researchers who conduct complete works on this area, there also
exist other researchers examining conversational opening as a small part in their
complete projects. Conversational opening is looked into from a variety of
viewpoints concerning their projects. To name some linguists and their works,
Edmonson and House (1981) were interested in common characteristics of the
opening talks through simplistic structures of exchanging and they particularly
concentrated on the types of situations and social distances of participants. Solomon
(1997) emphasized the importance of the opening phrases. He claimed that
conversational opening process usually has three kinds of impact namely
interpersonal to be expressive for communicating attitudes or feelings, textual to
establish a channel of communication and ideational to transmit a question or a
request for information. Wardhaugh (1986) deliberated strategies and factors to
consider in performing a good conversational opening. He especially focused on
relationship among parties by dividing conversations into two types: one is among
intimates and the other among strangers. Of these two types of conversations, he

43. 32

claimed that conversations conducted by strangers are much more challenging and
riskier.
Whilst the field of conversational opening has been investigated relatively
satisfactorily around the world, it has been examined restrictedly in Vietnam with
only a Master thesis by Nguyen (2002). She laid foundation for this area by
comparing English and Vietnamese conversational openings in the light of
pragmatics. The study starts with examining strategies used to open a conversation
and then it draws out similar and different pragmatic aspects of conversational
opening in English and Vietnamese based on the analysis of data collected from
various sources like textbooks, listening tapes and movies. Thanks to a variety of
sources of data, a large number of samples can be gathered as data for analysis.
2.3.2. Previous studies on conversational closing
2.3.2.1. Conversational closing
Necessarily, all conversations have to end due to the non-existence of
forever-social encounters. Individuals need to end encounters and begin others
constantly. Socially, this process happens continuously and routinely and it plays a
significant role in maintaining human relations (Albert & Kessler, 1978, p. 541).
Actually, a conversation “does not simply end, but is brought to a close” (Schegloff
& Sacks, 1973, p. 289). It can be inferred that a conversation may close at a time but
begin at other times, it does not end forever. Supporting this point of view, Hargie,
Saunders and Dickson (1994) concluded that the ways parties take a leave from
another person will determine their motivation for meeting that person again (p.
161). Similarly, Laver (1975, p. 233) claimed that the main function of the closing
phase is to announce a continuing contact for following interactions. Naturally, the
act of leaving without taking a leave or saying “good-bye” is unusual and may
destroy the relationships of parties (Saberi, 2012, p. 108). Additionally, an
inappropriate leave-taking may also make parties feel unhappy with the current
relationships and further interactions are undesirable. For this reason, with the
purpose to keep connection for further communication and maintain their social
relationships, it becomes vital for parties to develop a proper and polite leave-taking.
While a person may carefully plan the best way to greet another person,
she/he will hardly think about a proper way to say goodbye to that same person
(Hargie et al., 1994, p. 161). Conversational closing has been seen as an unplanned
ritual rather than a planned action. Despite being a conventional and ritual activity,
conversational closing is not an easy task. Closing a conversation suddenly may

44. 33

make the current speaker appear impolite or rule whilst interrupting and walking
away in the midst of a conversation may be considered ill-mannered (David, Hei, &
DeAlwis, 2012). Closings which are overly brief or overly extended may make the
speaker become bad-mannered by seeming either abrupt or hard to “get rid of”. In
other words, either overly hasty or overly slow terminations may lead to undesirable
inferences (Sun, 2005, p. 111). Supporting this point of view, Saberi (2012) claimed
that except for emergencies, it takes time to perform the ritual of leave-taking. A
leave-taking may vary from a few seconds to a few minutes depending on such
factors as context, type of occasion, and relationship between interlocutors (p. 109).
Furthermore, closing a conversation is a difficult task in the mother tongue
and much more challenging in a foreign language because “knowing how to close or
say goodbye in one native language does not ensure success in another language”
(Bardovi-Harlig, Hartford, Mahan-Taylor, Morgan, & Reynolds, 1991, p. 6).
Consequently, learners of English, even advanced ones, have difficulties in closing a
conversation appropriately in the target language (Hartford & Bardovi-Harlig,
1989). The challenges are created since conversational closing is culture-specific. As
a matter of fact, in some cultures, people require a very short or even no closing for
a conversation while in others, people have a fairly elaborate one. For example, in
Nepali, it is appropriate to restore a minimal closing or in Thai, a conversation may
be simply closed with “Goodbye, I‟m leaving now”. In contrast, conversational
closing in some other languages like English, Kiswahili and Hungarian is more
elaborate, exhibiting a minimum of three turns (Hartford & Bardovi-Harlig, 1992;
Omar, 1989). Likewise, Clark and French (1981) also concluded that the ways
people break contact with each other tend to vary from culture to culture and they
further explain that in small knit communities where continuing relations among
members are “taken for granted”, people may take a short leave-taking instead of an
intricate one (p. 4). In fact, closing a conversation is not difficult but it is challenging
to save faces of other interlocutors in this process (Brown & Levinson, 1987).
Consequently, in closing a conversation, interlocutors have a tendency of
maintaining the others‟ faces by choosing appropriate closing strategies because if
they threaten the others‟ faces, they will threaten their relationship (Pojanapunya &
Jaroenkitboworn, 2011, p. 3593).
According to Albert and Kessler (1976), the area of conversational closings
has possibly been retarded (p. 148). Nevertheless, the quite rich literature on this
area proves the contradiction. The literature shows that the area of conversational

45. 34

closing has been developed quite rapidly from different perspectives by a number of
linguists. Among them, Goffman (1952, 1955, 1971, 1974) is regarded as a pioneer.
Being the first researcher to touch on this area and examining it several times,
Goffman has studied conversational closing unsystematically and inconsistently. He
has conceptualized the problem of ending encounters from various points of view in
his different works. In his 1952 paper, ending is defined as a “loss” suffered by a
person to which he must adapt and for which he requires defense, strategies, and
consolations. Endings and farewells are related to the concept of face in his 1955
paper, they function as “assess rituals” in his 1971 paper or “temporary brackets”
related to his called frame analysis in his 1974 book (Albert & Kessler, 1976, p.
149). Besides Goffman, Schegloff and Sacks (1973) may also be considered other
groundbreakers in this field. In an extension of their earlier work on conversational
openings with the data collected from telephone conversations, Schegloff and Sacks
explored conversational closing of telephone rather than of natural occurring talks.
From a collection of 500 telephone conversations, they investigated conversational
opening and then reused the data for analyzing conversational closing. From these
data, they built up a structure for conversational closing. After Goffman (1952,
1955, 1971, 1974) and Schegloff and Sacks (1973), scholars and researchers have
looked into this area with different aspects and from various perspectives as below.
2.3.2.2. Closing of different types of conversation
One of the most challenging and riskiest problems in exploring
conversational closing is the process of collecting data. While it is ideal to gather
naturally occurring conversations, it is extremely demanding. This obstacle has
made researchers delve in this field variously in terms of data collection methods
and data sources. Thanks to modern technologies that help conversations to be
recorded easily, a number of researchers take advantages of telephone conversations
as the main data for analysis (Albert & Kessler, 1978; Khadem & Rasekh, 2012;
Pavlidou, 1997; Sun, 2005; Takami, 2002; Clark & French, 1981). Basing on the
groundbreaking studies of Goffman (1952, 1955, 1971, 1974) and Schegloff and
Sacks (1973), the following researchers have examined telephone conversational
closings with different aspects and approaches.
Examining telephone conversational closing, Albert and Kessler (1978)
suggested classes of verbal behaviors constituting a closing section namely summary
statements, continuity statements, statements of justification, well-wishing
statements and positive statements. The summary statements are selective statements

46. 35

of all or parts of a social encounter creating a concise historical record of an
encounter. Continuity statements expressed in phrases like “see you later” affirm
that the relationship between two parties survives despite the ending of the
conversation (p. 542). Statements of justification can be divided into internal
justification with the elements within the encounter and external justification with
the elements outside the encounter. Well-wishing statements are closely concerned
with the future well-being of the other interlocutors. The positive statements are to
create good impression on the other interlocutors at the end of the encounter (p.
543). The researchers also argued that the occurrence of statements in the five
classes described above may be predictable or parties are inclined to follow certain
sequences or organization of phases to terminate an encounter.
Also investigating telephone conversational closing, Sun (2005) compared
the leave-takings between Chinese and English telephone conversations with the
focus on the organization or sequences and suggested closing phases like closing
down the previous topics, initiating the closing, the pre-closing and the leave-taking.
Likewise, Khadem and Rasekh (2012) suggested that both Persian and English
speakers follow a set of conventional rules in closing a conversation namely
announcing closure, arrangements, formulating summaries, appreciations,
sequence-closing sequences and back references. Instead of the organization or
sequences, Pavlidou (1997), in the continuation of earlier work on telephone
openings in 1994, concentrated on the turn-taking structure, terminal exchanges, and
content of the last five turns of telephone conversations between Greek and German.
The findings indicated that in both cultures, the terminal exchange is performed with
equivalents of goodbye exchanges and between the pre-closing and the terminal
exchange, participants often employ various strategies, for example, referring to
future contact, expressing wishes and mentioning the reason for breaking of contact.
Besides telephone conversations, to gather the data for analysis, a number of
researchers have relied on computer-mediated communication like instant message
(Raclaw, 2008), online chats (Pojanapunya & Jaroenkitboworn, 2011) or
interactions on television such as talk show interviews (Martinez, 2003) and a
television program (Degaf, 2016). Other researchers and scholars make use of
available sources of data like conversations in textbooks (Bardovi-Harlig et al.,
1991; Yuka, 2008) or design a survey questionnaire (Kellermann, Reynolds, &
Chen, 1991). In some cases, researchers try to collect the data as naturally as
possible by constructing role-plays (Saptiana, 2004) or interviews (Knapp et al.,

47. 36

1973). Especially, multi-sources of data have also been applied in analyzing
conversational closings (Collins, Markova, & Murphy, 1997; Eidizadeha,
Ghorbanchianb, & Eslamirasekhc, 2014; Omar, 1993).
Firstly, with the development of technology, computer-mediated interaction
has become a practical and convenient source of data. Thanks to the easy
accessibility of available talks, a number of researchers have employed this source
of data in their studies. With the use of conversations in an instant messenger
program in the Internet, Raclaw (2008) studied conversational closings in instant
message discourse. From the data of 58 conversations from 17 undergraduates, the
study reveals that the closing of an instant message in the Internet is similar to the
archetype closing of a face-to-face conversation described by Button (1987). The
closing of an instant message often includes two sequences, that is, pre-closing pair
and terminal exchange pair. These two sequences are generally expanded with such
features as accounts, arrangements, prefaces, hedges, or palliatives.
Likewise, Pojanapunya and Jaroenkitboworn (2011) analyzed closings of
conversations collected from a virtual world - Second Life, the most interactive
computer-based communication form. The findings show that the structure of the
conversational closing comprises four components: pre-closing, insertion, terminal
closing and after-close, in which the component of terminal closing is obligatory
while three of them are optional. In addition, in interaction in this virtual world,
participants tend to avoid face-threats by using an elaborate closing rather than an
abrupt one. Such commonly employed closing strategies suggested in the study are
informing the other interlocutors of the need to leave, mentioning a future
relationship and saying goodbye (p. 3591).
Secondly, programs on television are also another useful and convenient
source of data. Dialogues or conversations in programs or movies on television are
valuable thanks to their easy accessibility and their nearly resemblance to naturally
occurring interactions. With detailed examination of 18 televised talk show
interviews from BBC and ITV, Martinez (2003) investigated closings in talk show
interviews in comparison with Clayman‟s (1991) characterization of news interview
closings. Closings of talk show interviews indicate such typical features as the
initiation by the interviewer due to the pre-establishment, the preceding of the pre-
closing over the terminal exchange, the great influence of the audience on the
structural organization of the closing and the more expanded closings compared with
closings of news interviews. In the same way, Degaf (2016) examined the closing

48. 37

strategies of conversations with the data collected from an Indonesian Television
program. The researcher introduced three types of strategies: positive comment
strategy referring to the enjoyment of the conversation, excuse strategy providing
explanations for leaving, and imperative to end strategy using imperative words or
sentences (p. 26).
Thirdly, without the application of technology, researchers tend to take
advantage of current conversations in textbooks or design a survey questionnaire. As
regards textbooks, this source of data was utilized by Bardovi-Harlig et al. (1991)
and Yuka (2008). Bardovi-Harlig et al. (1991) collected the conversations from 20
current ESL textbooks while Yuka (2008) gathered conversations in “Oral
Communication I” Textbooks. These researchers chose textbooks with the aim to
raise learners‟ pragmatic awareness into the classroom. Especially, Kellermann et al.
(1991) made use of a survey questionnaire to gather the data for analysis. From the
conversational closing content written down by students based on their memories,
the researchers claim that closing strategies include verbal bids such as hints
(summaries, pre-closings, future continuations, and positive statements), projections,
excuses, and departure announcements.
Fourthly, some researchers have constructed role-plays as a data collection
method to gather data for analysis. For example, Saptiana (2004) analyzed
conversational closing strategies used by Petra Christian University students with
the construction of role-plays. The findings showed that in closing a conversation,
Petra Christian University students utilize three strategies and each strategy consists
of different closing functions. Unlike Saptiana (2004), Knapp et al. (1973)
constructed interviews participated by parties of the same and different social status
in investigating conversational closings. With the use of video recording, the
researchers suggested a category of verbal behaviors related to the termination of
exchanges including 14 strategies: professional inquiry, personal inquiry, internal
legitimizing, external legitimizing, appreciation, welfare concern, continuance,
filling, reference to other tentativeness, reinforcement, buffing, terminating and
superlatives (p. 13).
Lastly, a number of researchers have made use of multi-sources of data for
gathering data for analysis. With the combination of interviews and an open-ended
Discourse Completion Test, Eidizadeha et al. (2014) compared and contrasted topic
termination in English and Persian. The study concludes that compared with English
native speakers, native Persians use more pre-closing and closing devices. This is

49. 38

accounted for by the directness and individualism of the English compared with the
collectivism of the Persian. Similarly, Collins et al. (1997) collected the data from
video-recordings, interviews and field-notes to investigate conversational closings
between AAC users and “natural” speakers. Especially, Omar (1993) employed a
number of sources of data in examining the process of closing Kiswahili
conversations with the comparison of performance of native and non-native
speakers. Exactly, the data of the native speakers were collected in five different
sources: observations and field notes, face-to-face interactions, telephone
conversations, dialogues from personal experience and conversations in video plays
from Zanzibar Television while the data of the non-native speakers were gathered in
three sources: role-play situations, office conversations and telephone conversations.
They concluded that Kiswahili closings of native speakers are elaborate and could
extend to over five turns while the closings of non-native speakers are minimal.
2.3.2.3. Face-to-face conversational closing
Through several decades, naturally occurring conversations have been used
as the data for analyzing conversational closing. In examining closings of naturally
occurring conversations, while most of the researchers draw interest on general or
daily conversations (Albert & Kessler, 1976; Coppock, 2005; LeBaron & Stanley,
2002; O‟Leary & Gallois, 1985; Sambo, 2005), others concentrate on closings of
specific types of conversations (Aston, 1995; Hartford & Bardovi‐Harlig, 1992;
Robinson, 2001).
On the one hand, being the first researchers concentrating on routine
everyday events or daily conversations, Albert and Kessler (1976) examined the
process of ending social encounters with the method of observation. They
introduced three processes or strategies constructing the ending of social encounters
including internal, external and continuity. For more details, they clarified
participants‟ behaviors or activities occurring in each strategy. Internal process,
related to the encounter and its parties, is presented through verbal behaviors like a
summary of elements from the history of social encounter (p. 156). The summary of
the conversation sums up main or important points of the conversation whilst the
resource exhaustion displays the tiredness or fatigue of parties. External process, on
the other hand, is concerned with things outside the encounter and its parties. This
strategy is related to physical environment, social environment and temporal
environment. Continuity process, especially, affirms a non-ending in closing an

50. 39

encounter through promise of continuity, expression of good wishes, denial of
termination, display of social influence, and so on. (pp. 161-164).
Exploring participants‟ verbal behaviors with the concentration on “face”,
Coppock (2005) divided verbal closing strategies into three groups, namely, positive
face-saving strategies including positive comments or the excuse, combined positive
and negative politeness strategies utilizing “blame” as a form of excuse, goal of the
conversation, summary or thanks for the conversation, and solidarity strategies with
plan or general wish.
Also restoring daily conversations as the data for analysis, O‟Leary and
Gallois (1985) analyzed both verbal and nonverbal behaviors in the last ten turns of
two-party conversations regarding to their relationships. From the analysis of
conversations between friends and between strangers, the researchers suggested
closing strategies like summary statement, justification statement, positive
statements, continuity statements, and well-wishing statements. Their findings also
show a big difference between friends and strangers in the ways of conversational
closing. Unlike strangers, friends tend to employ more activities, behavior clusters
and specific appointments with continuity statements (p. 8).
From discourse analysis perspective, Sambo (2005) examined closing
utterances of informal conversations conducted by young people in Rantepao, Tana
Toraja. The study was conducted on the basis of Button‟s (1987) theory and other
relevant theories of Knapp et al. (1973), Albert and Kessler (1978) and Stenstrom
(1994). The findings indicate that speakers use all six sequence types of closing
utterances suggested by Button including, arrangements, back-references, topic
initial elicitors, “in conversation” objects, solicitudes, and appreciations. However,
Button‟s (1987) classification is not sufficient for young people in Rantepao.
Besides these six sequences, speakers also utilize additional sequences suggested by
Knapp et al., Albert and Kessler, and Stenstrom like summary, reinforcement,
justification, reason, and winding up talk.
Remarkably, from conversation analysis perspective, LeBaron and Stanley
(2002) analyzed the closing of a single encounter between two clients recorded in a
beauty salon with the focus on influence of the relevance of social and material
surround on the completion of the interaction. Interestingly, only from a single
conversation, researchers can reach conclusions which share many similar features
with earlier investigators, especially Albert and Kessler (1976). The researchers
suggested significant conclusions, that is, encounter may be vocally or visibly

51. 40

influenced by others present in surroundings; social or material surrounding
resources may be restored to end an interaction; the beginning of an encounter may
influence its closing; the ending of an encounter is concerned with its whole content
and especially its beginning (p. 560).
On the other hand, besides general or daily interactions, closings of specific
types of conversations can also be investigated, for example, bookshop encounters
(Aston, 1995), medical encounters (Robinson, 2001) and advising sessions (Hartford
& Bardovi‐Harlig, 1992). In analyzing closings of English and Italian service
encounters, Aston (1995) especially stressed the speech act of “thank you” occurring
in the closing sections of conversations in bookshops. From pragmatic perspective,
the study suggests that the use of thanks in closing section reflects conversational
management of participants and closing sections have sequential organization rather
than consist of isolated speech acts. Also keen on service encounters, Robinson
(2001) investigated closing sections of medical encounters with the employment of
48 audio-videotaped and concluded that closing section of a medical encounter
consists of two sequences: arrangement and final-concern. Instead of service
encounters, Hartford and Bardovi‐Harlig (1992) analyzed academic advising
session interviews with the comparison and contrast between native speakers and
highly proficient nonnative speakers. The study unveils that closings of institutional
conversations differ from those of natural ones and they can be elaborated and
unelaborated (p. 100).
Overall, despite an adequate background on conversational closing in general,
closing of naturally occurring conversations, in particular, has been investigated
limitedly worldwide and absent in Vietnam. Although it is undeniable that naturally
occurring conversations show the most realistic and practical implications among all
channels of communication, it is exceedingly challenging to gather data.
Consequently, for convenience and easier accessibility, numerous former
investigators are inclined to seek alternative data sources such as emails, instant
messages, phone calls, and so on to approach this area.
2.3.3. Previous studies on conversational opening and closing
2.3.3.1. Openings and closings of different types of conversation
As mentioned in the previous parts, the fields of conversational openings and
closings are examined in separation. However, there exist a great number of
researchers investigating conversational openings and closings in combination. The
area of openings and closings tends to be examined as regards different data sources

52. 41

or different types of conversations. The literature unveils three typical data sources
normally used in examining conversational openings and closings, that is,
conversations in written sources, online interactions and scripted conversations.
Firstly, among written sources of data, emails appear to be a practical and
useful source of data for analyzing openings and closings. An email is regarded as a
conversation. Hence, the first and final parts of an email are regarded as greeting or
opening and closing parts. Examining New Zealand workplace emails, Waldvogel
(2007) concluded that greetings and closings are employed differently in terms of
status, social distance, gender and workplace culture. Similarly, examining opening
and closing sections in Spanish emails, Bou-Franch (2011) stressed that opening and
closing practice varies due to the institutional power relationship between email
users. Alternatively, Taponen (2014) compared and contrasted openings and
closings of emails in English and Swedish. The study suggests that the young
learners seem to lack pragmatic and sociolinguistic competences in initiating and
closing emails and more teaching on email greeting and closing is needed. Instead of
emails, Gillani (2014) utilized letters as the data for analysis. With the employment
of 1000 Pakistani business and English letters from Government and semi-
Government institutes, Gillani studied opening and closing strategies under Brown
and Levinson‟s (1987) politeness model. The study shows that compared with
Americans, Pakistani writers tend to be more polite with the utilization of distinctive
strategies not included in Brown and Levinson‟s (1987) model.
Another written data source employed to analyze conversational openings
and closings is stories. Jucker (2011) made use of conversations in Chaucer‟s
Canterbury Tales to investigate greeting and farewell. The findings remark that
participants may utilize a range of elements to initiate and terminate a conversation
but none of which seem to be obligatory. The most common greeting strategies are
well-wishes for the addressee’s health, identifications of the addressee through an
address term and blessings. Notably, to close a conversation, the acts of asking for
permission to take the leave or dismissing the addressee are performed depending on
situation and social status of participants.
Significantly, also employing written sources of data, Nguyễn Quỳnh Giao
(2017) conducted a study on this area in Vietnamese background. Based on the data
collected from literary works, novels and movie scripts, Nguyễn Quỳnh Giao, in her
dissertation, analyzed, compared and contrasted English and Vietnamese
conversational openings and closings. The study points out a number of significant

53. 42

findings. On the one hand, opening and closing sections in English and Vietnamese
are formulaic and orderly structured with certain sequences. Five opening sequences
including summons-answer, identification-recognition, greeting, personal inquiries
and raising a topic directly and four closing sequences namely pre-closing,
introducing a new topic, summarizing the topic and final closing are revealed in the
study. Despite the occurrence of these sequences in both languages, their
combination and order in an opening and a closing section are different in the two
languages. The combination of the sequences personal inquiries and raising a topic
directly occurs most frequently in the English data whilst the combination of
sequences greeting and personal inquiries appears the most repeatedly in the
Vietnamese data. On the other hand, English and Vietnamese parties are inclined to
form opening and closing sections with turns of speaking constructed with one or
two sentences rather than several sentences. Additionally, in these sentences, the use
of imperative mood is much more common in Vietnamese than in English. Finally,
compared with English opening and closing sections, Vietnamese ones are lengthier
and more indirect, which is expressed in more number of turns used in an opening
and a closing section.
Secondly, thanks to the technology development, the Internet has become one
of the most efficient and valuable sources for gathering data. Employing online
interactions, Zhang (2014) conducted a study on openings and closings of the online
chats in Mandarin Chinese. His study showed that participants often follow certain
formula to open and close a conversation and participants have a preference to
combine two or several opening or closing strategies. He suggested such opening
strategies that question and response to question, greeting, apology, compliment,
appreciation and self-introduction (p. 537) and such closing strategies that informing
of leave, giving reasons to leave, expressions of thanks, expressing wishes, showing
appreciation, saying goodbye and saying nothing (p. 539). In the same way,
Hastrdlová (2009), in his doctoral thesis, examined politeness in the language of
Internet relay chat with the focus on address forms, opening strategies, closing
strategies and turn-allocation strategies. Participants can open an online chat with
such strategies as summons-answer, pre-conversational opening or greeting and
opening question (p. 169) or close it with other strategies including leaving without
any closing sentence, leaving with a pre-closing sentence and leaving with a closing
sentence (p. 172).

54. 43

Lastly, with the utilization of scripted dialogues in movies and dialogues in
role-plays, Saberi (2012), in her doctoral thesis, studied politeness in Persian with
the analysis of greetings, leave-taking, apologizing, thanking and requesting. In
connection with greetings, Saberi claimed that greetings play an exceedingly
essential role in establishing, maintaining and enhancing interpersonal relationships
(p. 106). Greeting rituals in the Persian speaking community often consists of three
phases: the exchange of salutations, the second person information elicitations and
the third person information elicitations. Information elicitations may be concerned
with either personal issues like enquiries about health, well-being and happiness or
social issues like enquiries on news, state of affairs and whereabouts. Additionally,
the use of terms of address in greetings can create different levels of politeness.
Regarding leave-taking, like greetings, leave-taking helps to maintain and enhance
social relationship between or among participants and it also comprises three
phrases: ending of the interaction nonverbally, verbal closure markers and
preparation for safe departure. Markedly, leave-taking is closely related to cultural
norms such as religious symbols, values and events (p. 140).
2.3.3.2. Openings and closings of face-to-face conversations
Natural interactions are the most effective and meaningful source of data
because of their naturalness and practicality. However, due to the challenges in
recording these conversations, this source cannot be easily obtained compared with
others. Literature shows that research on naturally occurring conversations may be
on daily conversations (Srichampa, 2008), formal meetings (Ayodele, 2012; Nielsen,
2013), and service encounters (David et al., 2012; Hei, David, & Kia, 2013; Hei,
David, Kia, & Soo, 2011).
With the focus on the daily conversations, Srichampa (2008) conducted a
study on patterns of polite expressions with the concentration of the speech acts of
greeting and leave-taking in Vietnamese. The researcher especially compared and
contrasted politeness expressions performed by Vietnamese participants of three
primary regions and the biggest province of Vietnamese in Thailand. The methods
of questionnaires, observations, participation and interviews were combined to
gather the data. The findings indicate that kinship terms are used frequently in
greeting and leave-taking sequences as a way to express politeness and these two
sequences are greatly influenced by participants‟ social status, age, gender and
regions.

55. 44

With the utilization of formal reunion, Ayodele (2012) analyzed opening and
closing sequences of legislative interactional discourse and concluded that sequences
in legislative discourse follow a structural format. An opening section is often
performed with the combination of call, pray and welcome acts while a closing
section is normally constructed with pre-closing and closing acts. Similarly, from
conversation analysis perspective, Nielsen (2013) investigated openings and closings
of department meetings with 17 meetings audio- and video- recorded. The findings
showed five techniques used in opening and six techniques used in closing. These
techniques are classified into those taken by the chairman and those by participants.
Service encounters have drawn attention from groups of Malaysian
researchers. They have conducted a series of studies on politeness and openings and
closings of service encounters from pragmatic perspective. With observation and
manual recording of conversations occurring between front counter staff and clients
in six Malaysian public hospitals, Hei et al. (2011) studied conversational openings
and closings with reference to both verbal and non-verbal aspects. The findings
revealed that the staff of Malaysian public hospitals are inclined to be described as
unacceptable or impolite because of the less frequency use of openings and closings
in conversations with patients or clients.
Instead of public hospitals, Hei et al. (2013) in continuation with their earlier
work studied the politeness in conversational openings and closings of service
encounters in nine private hospitals. With the application of Brown and Levinson‟s
(1987) politeness framework, Hei et al. (2013) concluded that the front counter staff
in Malaysian private hospitals behave more politely in closing than in opening
sections. Especially, in opening sections, many face-threatening acts emerge because
they seem not to greet patients or clients. The absence of polite greetings,
appropriate address forms and mannerly nonverbal gestures proves the
unprofessionalism of the front counter staff in Malaysian private hospitals. These
staff‟s opening can be described as “bald on record” or “directly” which can threaten
clients‟ “face”.
Also focusing on politeness in service encounters, David et al. (2012)
examined openings and closings of service encounters in two Malaysian
Government Agencies. Basing a corpus of 228 naturally occurring conversations
among seven staff and customers manually recorded, they analyzed their verbal and
nonverbal behaviors in opening and closing sections under Brown and Levinson‟s
(1987) framework and revealed astonishing findings. Normally, it is supposed to be

56. 45

rude or impolite if parties communicate without the use of politeness markers.
However, in Malaysian service encounters, the lack of phatic talk seems not to be
important. In fact, in Malaysian service encounters, both staff and the public seldom
perform opening and closing. If the use of greeting and address forms is one way of
showing politeness, service encounters between servants and the Malaysian public
cannot be regarded as polite. However, in service encounters, all focus is on the task
instead of rapport construction. Furthermore, Malaysia is a society with a high
tolerance for the unknown and “high-ambiguity-tolerant culture members are
comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, they minimize the importance of rules
governing communication and relationships” (Devito, 2016, p. 61). As a result, the
lack of the opening and closing sections is acceptable and it can be inferred that
these encounters appear normal and natural rather than rude or impolite.
2.4. Theoretical framework: concept-driven categories
2.4.1. Conversational opening sequences and strategies
Schegloff (1967, 1968, 1979, 1986) is regarded as a pioneer and
groundbreaker in the field of conversational opening. He built a “canonical opening”
or a “canonical format” which consists of four core opening sequences namely
summons-answer, identification-recognition, greetings and how-are-you. Schegloff
and other researchers proved that this framework can be applicable to naturally
occurring conversations (1968, p. 1080). However, when applied in face-to-face
conversations, this framework reveals limitations and inappropriateness.
Consequently, a number of researchers adapted and adjusted Schegloff‟s framework
to make it suitable to other channels of communication as illustrated in Table 1.1
below.
Table 1.1: Conversational opening sequences
Schegloff (1968,
1986)
Sidnell (2010) Hopper (1989) Schiffrin (1977)
Summons-answer Summons-answer Summons-Answer Cognitive
recognition
Identification-
recognition
Identification-
recognition
Identification-
Recognition
Cognitive
recognition display
Greetings Greetings Access displays
How-are-you How-are-you
Inquiries
Initial Inquiries and
Responses

(Source: Hopper, 1989; Schegloff, 1968, 1986; Schiffrin, 1977; Sidnell, 2010)

57. 46

The first sequence in initiating a conversation is summons-answer. The
summons-answer sequence is a two-part sequence: a summons and an answer.
Schegloff firstly used the terms “summons” to refer a phone ring in a telephone call.
The summons-answer sequence is to establish a framework of participation, that is,
by answering, the answerer shows his readiness to hear whatever is said while by
producing the summons, the summoner obligates himself to talk (Sidnell, 2010, p.
202). Schegloff (1968) supplemented by stating that a summons-answer sequence
provides a summons with evidence of the availability or unavailability of a hearer
(p. 1093). He also suggested some other classes of summons which may occur in
naturally occurring interactions including, terms of address (e.g., “John”, “waiter”),
courtesy phrases (e.g., “Pardon me”), attention-getting tokens (e.g., “Hey”) or the
act of touching the intended recipient (p. 1080). Schegloff and Sacks (1973) and
Nofsinger (1975) shared the same point of view when depicting a summons in a
face-to-face interaction as the acts of knocking on the door, calling out someone‟s
name or a child‟s asking, “You know what?” (as cited in Hopper, 1989, p. 180).
Similarly, Omar (1992), in his study on conversational opening in Kiswahili,
supposed verbal recognition like calling out somebody's name as the first sequence
in an opening section.
The second sequence parties follow to initiate a conversation is identification-
recognition. This sequence is similar to “cognitive recognition displays” in
Schiffrin‟s (1977, p. 680) classification. This is a stage when the parties get mutual
identification and recognition of each other (Sidnell, 2010, p. 203) and “the first
ritually-required display in opening encounters” (Goffman, 1963, p. 113) because a
conversation cannot happen when participants do not recognize each other. In a
telephone conversation, this sequence is identified through turns of speaking after
summons-answer (Schegloff, 1979, p. 71). However, in naturally occurring
conversations, participants mainly accomplish cognitive recognition visually by
“linking the sight of him with a framework of information concerning him”
(Goffman, p. 112). Cognitive recognition display can be identified verbally by
calling someone’s name or non-verbal by smiling and walking toward the other
(Schiffrin, p. 680).
The third sequence parties follow in the process of conversational opening is
greeting. Greeting can also be considered as “verbal salute” in Krivonos and
Knapp‟s (1975) definition and “access displays” in Schiffrin‟s (1977) classification.
Social recognition displays occur via greeting to show that further access is ritually

58. 47

and socially permissible (Schiffrin, p. 681). Greetings signify social recognition
instead of cognitive recognition and thanks to greetings, participants convey “a
social identity and membership in a relationship”, that means, they make participants
present at a particular social context (Firth, 1972).
According to Schegloff (1968), the last sequence in a telephone opening
section is “How-are-you” because in this stage, the question of “How are you?” is
often conducted by both parties. However, in examining different types of
conversations, other researchers have realized that in this sequence, different
enquiries and responses are produced rather than just the question of “how are
you?”. According to Taleghani-Nikazm (2002), this sequence may be lengthy in
some languages but rather short in others. For example, while it is fairly elaborate
and detailed in Italian conversations with several turns of inquiries, not only about
each other‟s well-being but also about their respective family‟s, it is rather short in
German and American conversations. In case participants create several turns of
phatic inquiries and phatic responses, they actually produce small talk or phatic
communion on unrelated topics.
2.4.2. Conversational closing sequences and strategies
For several decades, the area of conversational closing has been examined by
a great number of researchers. The researchers have suggested closing sequences
and strategies used in each sequence. However, each researcher tends to propose
different closing sequences and strategies. Below are different closing sequences
introduced by a number of researchers:
Table 1.2: Conversational closing sequences
Pavlidou
(1997)
Sidnell
(2010)
Clark &
French
(1981)
Takami
(2002)
Schegloff &
Sacks (1973)
Okamoto
(1990)
Last topic Shutting
down the
topic
Topic
termination
Leave-
taking


Pre-closing
utterances
Acceptance
Pre-closing Pre-closing Pre-closing
sequences
Pre-closing
Leave-
taking
Closing
sequences
Leave-
taking
Terminal
exchange
Terminal
exchange
Contact
termination
Terminal
exchange
The terminal
sequences

(Source: Clark & French, 1981; Okamoto, 1990; Pavlidou, 1997; Schegloff &
Sacks, 1973; Sidnell, 2010, Takami, 2002)

59. 48

It can be seen from Table 1.2 that although closing sequences are named
differently, the researchers suppose that to close a conversation, participants often
follow two or three sequences. Markedly, categories of sequences introduced by
those researchers share more similarities than differences.
Firstly, the initiation of a closing is marked by the ending of the last topic of a
conversation. This sequence is named “last topic” (Pavlidou, 1997), “shutting down
the topic” (Sidnell, 2010) or “topic termination” (Clark & French, 1981). The
closing of the final topic can be a cue or a signal for the interlocutors to realize an
up-coming conversational closing (Clark & French, 1981; Pavlidou, 1997; Sidnell,
2010). Topic termination plays an exceedingly vital role in conversational closing
because it functions as a bridge connecting the body of a conversation and its ending
and as a noticeably indicative signal of a closing section. When the last topic of a
conversation is closed, it can be inferred that the conversation is going to end and
parties tend to be ready for responses to mutually close a conversation.
Secondly, after the last topic is terminated, both parties are alert of the ending
of the conversation. Therefore, it is likely that the pre-closing sequence occurs
(Okamoto, 1990; Pavlidou, 1997; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973; Sidnell, 2010; Takami,
2002). It is essential for the current speaker to avoid initiating conversational closing
until both of them have nothing left to say because any topic has a number of
potential “mentionables” associated with it and each speaker is responsible for
giving the other conversational space to mention “unmentioned mentionables”
(Schegloff & Sacks, 1973, p. 245). Thanks to the pre-closing sequence, the current
speaker can give a signal of having nothing more to say and provides space for the
other to add something more. If the other fills the second pair part with another pre-
closing, then pre-closing can be understood as “accepted” (Frank, 1982, pp. 358-
359). Sharing the same point of view with Frank (1982), Hartford and Bardovi-
Harlig (1992) stated that in pre-closing sequence, participants have a chance to do
one of two things: to close or to continue. If the offering of a pre-closing is accepted
by the other participants, then the conversation moves into the closing section in
which a terminal exchange will occur or arrangements are made to end the
conversation. In case other participants have any more things to say, they will re-
initiate another topic rather than move to the end of the conversation. Compared
with other parts, the pre-closing part is rather vague. Hence, it is vital for parties to
realize cues signaling the pre-closing sequence and the level of mutual agreement
(Albert & Kessler, 1976, p. 150).

60. 49

Thirdly, a number of investigators consider leave-taking as a sequence after
pre-closing (Clark & French, 1981; Okamoto, 1990). However, the examination of
activities and behaviors performed in this sequence reveals that this sequence shares
many similarities with the pre-closing sequence. Leave-taking is generally described
as “a set of regularly occurring behaviors that provide a normative, mutually agreed-
upon process for terminating interaction” (Knapp et al., 1973; O'Leary & Gallois,
1985). The literature review has shown that activities made in the leave-taking
sequence suggested by Clark and French (1981), Takami (2002) and Yuka (2008)
are nearly similar to activities in the pre-closing sequence listed by Okamoto (1990),
Martinez (2003) and Pojanapunya and Jaroenkitboworn (2011). Especially, on
introducing these twelve strategies for closing sequences, Okamoto (1990) herself
could not make a clear distinction between activities employed in the pre-closing
sequence and ones employed in the leave-taking sequence. In the same way, Takami
(2002) put the act of talking about future contact in both pre-closing and leave-
taking sequences. It can be concluded that parties perform some activities before the
terminal exchange. While some investigators put these activities into the pre-closing
sequence, others categorize them into the leave-taking sequence. As a result, their
classifications overlap and even conflict to others‟. To exclude these complexities or
to make it consistent, in the scope of this study, pre-closing sequence and leave-
taking sequence are treated as one sequence with the name “pre-closing”. In other
words, all activities occurring after topic termination sequence, negotiating for the
close are categorized in pre-closing sequence in the present study.
In terms of pre-closing strategies, it is crucial to show that pre-closing
sequence may be lengthy with several turns of phatic inquiries and phatic responses.
In this sequence, small talk or phatic communion on unrelated topics may be
performed as a politeness strategy because it provides relaxation, helps consolidate
participants‟ relationships as well as softens the sudden partings (Holmes & Stubbe,
2003). In this sequence, to negotiate a smooth and polite closing, participants may
make use of certain strategies. The literature review has indicated that in examining
the area of conversational closing, a number of researchers propose different pre-
closing strategies based on various types of conversations. In the present study, pre-
closing strategies suggested by Clark and French (1981), Okamoto (1990) and
Pojanapunya and Jaroenkitboworn (2011) are used to code the English and
Vietnamese data. Pre-closing strategies suggested by these researchers are illustrated
in Table 1.3 below:

61. 50

Table 1.3: Verbal pre-closing strategies
Verbal strategies Clark & French
(1981)
Pojanapunya &
Jaroenkitboworn
(2011)
Okamoto (1990)
(1) Giving
summary/ results of
the contact
- Summarizing
the content of the
contact
- Summarizing the
content of the
conversation
- Expressing result of
the conversation
(2) Informing the
other of the need to
leave (reasons/
excuses)
- Justifying
ending the contact
- Informing the
others of the need
to leave
- Giving reasons

(3) Giving wish
expressions
- Wishing each
other well
- Wishing
expressions
- Wishing health and
good luck
(4) Referring to
future contact/
actions
- Indicating
continuity
relationship with
future contact
- Mentioning a
future relationship
- Promising future
contacts
- Confirming the
actions brought about
from the conversation
(5) Expressing
gratitude/ thanks/
acknowledgement
- Expressing
pleasure about
each other
- Expressions of
thanks
- Showing
acknowledgement
- Expressing gratitude
(6) Expressing
apology
- Expressions of
apology
- Expressing apology
(7) Referring to
external
circumstances/
objects
- Talking about the
external circumstances
(Source: Clark & French, 1981; Okamoto, 1990; Pojanapunya &
Jaroenkitboworn, 2011)
Lastly, the last sequence parties perform before separating each other is
terminal exchange (Pavlidou, 1997; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973; Sidnell, 2010;
Takami, 2002). This sequence can also be called with other names like contact
termination (Clark & French, 1981), goodbye (Kellermann & Park, 2001), terminal
closing or terminal sequence (Pojanapunya & Jaroenkitboworn, 2011; Schegloff &
Sacks, 1973). Despite its various names, this sequence functions as the final
activities and behaviors that parties perform before really departing each other.
Participants‟ final activities and behaviors are often different ways of saying
goodbye.

62. 51

2.5. Summary
This chapter has presented theoretical concepts functioning as the base for the
present study and reviewed relevant studies. In terms of theoretical concepts, the
chapter has presented the basic concepts related to the topic of conversational
opening and closing and cross-cultural pragmatic perspective with theories of
pragmatics, politeness and cultural dimensions. In connection with the review of
related studies, previous research on conversational openings and closings is
grouped into three categories: studies on conversational openings, studies on
conversational closings and studies on both conversational openings and closings.
From the results of previous works, the concept-driven analytical categories are
constructed to help code opening and closing sequences and strategies.
After the related studies on the topic of conversational openings and closings
have been reviewed, the following conclusions and comments have been made.
Historically, the field of conversational opening and closing was pioneered by
Schegloff (1968) and Schegloff and Sacks (1973) from the data of telephone
conversations and with primary concentration on the structures. However, the later
researchers have approached this field differently from various types of
conversations and aspects.
Methodologically, the previous researchers have made use of a large number
of sources to gather the data for analysis. Researchers may use two-party
conversations, group discussions or even monologues to examine the area of
opening and closing. Data come from various sources such as conversations in
written sources, computer-mediated interaction, interviews, role-plays, television
programs, and survey questionnaire. Despite the meaningfulness and practicality of
naturally occurring conversations, the number of researchers employing this source
of data is rather limited in comparison with others. This phenomenon may be
accounted for by the inaccessibility and challenges in the process of recording
natural talks. In addition, researchers, in this area, have a preference to compare
conversational openings and closings in two languages. Thanks to this process,
similarities and differences in the ways of opening and closing a conversation can be
revealed and language learners can make use of these findings to communicate and
behave more appropriately and politely in the target languages.
Significantly, the researchers also indicate that conversational openings and
closings have close relation with politeness. Through the processes of conversational
opening and closing, parties express certain level of politeness towards their

63. 52

interlocutors. The level of politeness expressed in these two phases has considerable
influence on the successfulness of conversations and the solidarity and harmony of
the participants‟ relationship.
Considerably, it can be seen from the literature review of previous studies in
this field that while daily interaction and other types of conversations have been
gathered as the primary data for analysis, institutional conversations in office
settings have been paid much less attention by researchers and linguists worldwide.
Compared with daily interaction, institutional interaction is much more practical and
meaningful because it is to both enhance participants‟ social relationship and
increase the effectiveness of the work. In workplace interaction, participants need to
be equipped with sufficient linguistic knowledge to communicate efficiently and
politely with their interlocutors, especially the processes of conversational opening
and closing.
Finally, as regards the popularity of the field proved by a great number of
studies in various languages worldwide, it has been studied limitedly in the
Vietnamese background. Vietnamese learners and users of English need to enhance
their pragmatic competence to be confident in interacting with English native
speakers or English users. Similarly, learners of Vietnamese as a foreign language
also need to enrich the linguistic, pragmatic and cultural knowledge to communicate
with Vietnamese in the target language. For this reason, this current study was
conducted with the hope to fill the gap and improve pragmatic and cultural
competence of Vietnamese speakers of English as well as learners of Vietnamese as
a foreign language.

64. 53

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter describes the methodology of the study. It begins with the
statement of the research questions and proceeds with the research methods. The
study is designed primarily qualitative with the support of quantitative method.
Qualitative method is to reveal and describe the recurrent patterns of conversational
opening sequences and strategies while the quantitative method is to quantify these
patterns to assist the process of comparison and contrast. The chapter continues with
the detailed discussion on the data collection with the review of data collection
methods, the justification for the data source, the data selection criteria, the data
collection procedures and the data description. The chapter ends with the thorough
description of the data analysis. In this section, the phases of data analysis are
depicted carefully, including the preparation phase with the theories of content
analysis and pre-coding, the coding phase with the method of coding, coding with
concept-driven categories and coding with data-driven categories and the final phase
with the analytical procedures.
3.1. Research questions
The present study largely follows a qualitative approach, which is
complemented by quantitative description. The qualitative analysis allows a deep
understanding of recurrent patterns: (i) opening structure, (ii) closing structure, (iii)
opening strategies, and (iv) closing strategies. The quantitative description is to
quantify and compare these recurrent patterns between English and Vietnamese
conversations. Principally, the study is designed to answer the overarching research
question below:
 What are the similarities and differences in the structures and strategies of
conversational openings and closings between English staff-manager
conversations and Vietnamese staff-manager conversations in office settings?
To obtain this overarching aim, the study answers four following research
questions:
1. How are opening sections of English and Vietnamese staff-manager
conversations structured in office settings?
2. What strategies are employed in opening sections of English and
Vietnamese staff-manager conversations in office settings?
3. How are closing sections of English and Vietnamese staff-manager
conversations structured in office settings?

65. 54

4. What strategies are employed in closing sections of English and
Vietnamese staff-manager conversations in office settings?
3.2. Research methods
This study was conducted with the application of qualitative approach in
combination with quantitative one. Qualitative analysis is the primary method while
quantitative analysis is the supporting method. The combination of qualitative and
quantitative contributes to a better understanding of various phenomena under
investigation and has been proved to be efficient in dealing with linguistic
phenomena (Litosseliti, 2010, p. 33). Qualitative method is defined as the opposite
of quantitative method where measurement is not employed or as a research strategy
which emphasizes words (Bryman, 2012, pp. 35-36). This method is particularly
valuable in providing in-depth and rich data (Litosseliti, p. 33). In contrast,
quantitative method includes quantification in the collection and analysis of data
(Bryman, 2012, p. 715). This method analyzes data numerically and targets at
classifying features, counting them and presenting them statistically. With statistical
analysis, the result of quantitative research is a collection of numbers. In this
method, description is often used as a tool to organize data into patterns that emerge
during analysis process and statistical results are often presented with the help of
visual aids such as graphs and charts. Consequently, quantitative research is
appropriate to generalize research findings (Litosseliti, p. 33).
As regards qualitative approach, the qualitative content analysis method is
used to achieve a thorough understanding of in-depth analysis of English and
Vietnamese conversational openings and closings via the process of coding,
describing and interpreting the recurrent patterns. The study applies this method
because it can deal with the purposes and requirements of the present study. The
present study is to identify categories of opening sequences, closing sequences,
opening strategies and closing strategies emerging directly from the English and
Vietnamese data. To achieve these aims, the method of thematic coding, which
means classifying raw data into suitable categories (Elo & Kyngas, 2008; Hsieh &
Shannon, 2005) to explore underlined meanings in messages or to point out topics
and themes emerging from the data, serves as a good choice. Content analysis is
called the method of “thematic coding” (Boyatzis, 1998) because it is concerned
with the systematic description of data through coding (Schreier, 2014, p. 173).
In the coding process, with the method of qualitative content analysis, the
data are coded inductively with concept-driven categories or data-driven categories.

66. 55

Thanks to the qualitative content analysis method, the study allows themes or
patterns to emerge from the data and builds up the categories created by the
American and Vietnamese parties. In the interpretation process, this method creates
the description of the themes or illustrates the meanings of a phenomenon.
Particularly, it helps justify and account for the similarities and differences in the
structures and strategies of conversational openings and closings employed by the
American and Vietnamese parties.
On the other hand, the method of quantitative is utilized to depict the
frequency of occurrence of opening and closing sequences and strategies. The
coding process demonstrates recurrent patterns of opening and closing sequences
and strategies used by the American and Vietnamese parties. However, it does not
indicate which sequences and strategies are used more often and which are less. For
this reason, the method of quantitative is employed. Thanks to the statistical
analysis, the process of comparison and contrast between English and Vietnamese
conversational openings and closings can be discussed in-depth.
3.3. Data collection
3.3.1. Review of data collection methods
In recent decades, the studies of conversations in general and conversational
openings and closings in particular have been examined with the employment of
different data sources including textbooks, emails, stories, questionnaires, discourse
completion tests, telephone calls, television programs, movies, online chats, instant
messages, interviews, role-plays and natural conversations. The background of the
study of conversations has revealed that each source of data has its own advantages
and limitations. In the following sections, the advantages and limitations of chief
methods of data collection will be discussed.
Despite making use of different methods of data collection, most of the
researchers in anthropology and sociolinguistics have come to the agreement that
natural speech data in every day interactions are extremely practical and meaningful.
Naturally occurring interaction can bring in tremendous contributions and
applications to linguistic literature. However, it is not always the best source of data
in any circumstances. According to Cohen (1996), natural data also have a number
of drawbacks, for example, the challenges in the process of data collection, the lack
of data for specific speech acts, the difficulties in controlling the variables such as
power, status, gender and age, the time-consuming process of data collection and
analysis and the challenges in using recording equipment (pp. 391-392).

67. 56

Additionally, the validity of the natural data is a problem because participants tend
to behave and talk differently and unnaturally when they know they are recorded.
Because of the problems involved in the process of collection of naturally
occurring data, a great number of researchers have approached alternative sources of
data. Since the emergence of the Internet and other technologies, computer-mediated
interaction appears a rich and convenient source of data thanks to its easy
accessibility and popularity. The advent of computers has paved the way for the
collection of a huge amount of authentic written and spoken language (Saberi, 2012,
p. 45). From online interaction like online chats and instant messages, many
linguistic features can be dealt with comprehensively.
Besides computer-mediated data, elicited speech data have also become a
valuable source of data. Non-natural data can be gathered from a number of sources.
Firstly, written sources like emails, stories, textbooks are rather popular. These data
sources are infinitely easy to collect and do not require time-consuming
transcription. Secondly, the discourse completion test is also used as a useful tool to
gather data for analyzing conversations. In discourse completion tests, participants
are asked to fill in a response that they think is appropriate for designed situations.
Despite its advantages, this method may not reflect a true representation of what the
speaker would actually say in real situations and it provides written rather than
spoken responses. Thirdly, role-plays are supposed to provide spoken data that
approach real-life performance (Tran, 2006, p. 3). In addition, with role-plays, the
researchers can control the kinds of situations they want to study. Therefore, larger
amounts of specific data can be collected (Aijmer, 1996, p. 4). However, role-plays
seem to unrealistic to participants because they are aware of imaginary contexts in
which they enact their roles (Golato, 2003, p. 93), which leads to unnatural
behaviors. Furthermore, the process of transcribing role-play data is excessively
time-consuming.
It can be concluded that there are weaknesses associated with every data
collection method, even the collection of authentic or natural data (Rose, 2001, p.
319). In other words, there are no ideal methods of data collection for every study. It
is impossible to conclude that one source of data is better than any others. Instead,
researchers tend to choose the most appropriate methods of data collection for
specific purposes. In the present study, the scripted dialogues are utilized as the
primary data source. The justification for the utilization of scripted dialogues in the
present study is discussed in the following part.

68. 57

3.3.2. Justification for collection of scripted conversations
In examining conversational openings and closings, naturally occurring
interaction plays an exceedingly valuable role in depicting a detailed picture of the
area. However, the process of recording these conversations is infeasible. Besides
the disadvantages aforementioned by Cohen (1996), the collection of natural data in
office settings reveals further challenges such as gaining access to potential research
sites, recruiting participants and dealing with confidentiality issues (Schnurr, 2009,
p. 14). In offices, business information must be kept confidential so any attempts to
secure consent are likely to be rejected (Koester, 2017, p. 630). Additionally, putting
recorders in offices without permission is regarded as illegal unless this bugging is
allowed by the court or police or the like for criminal or similar investigations.
Accordingly, all these obstacles have made the process of recording natural
conversations in English and Vietnamese for the present study impossible.
Among alternative sources of data, the literature has shown that scripted
language or television dialogues may be a valuable and practical source in analyzing
spoken discourse. Television dialogues have been deployed as data, either when
naturally occurring data has not been accessible, or when the television dialogues
coincidently suit their line of argument (Bubel, 2008, p. 55). In the present study,
due to the inaccessibility of natural data, scripted conversations are employed as data
for analysis. It is undeniable that scripted conversations are manipulated and
therefore artificial. Actually, these conversations are written by scriptwriters and
performed by actors or actresses. Hence, different writing styles of scriptwriters and
dissimilar abilities of actors/ actresses may affect the validility and reliability of the
data. To increase the validility and reliability of the data, the selection of movies
must be done carefully. However, even with the best movies, it has to be accepted
that scripted data cannot provide as practical and meaningful findings as naturally
occurring data.
As a valuable alternative source of data, scripted conversations are used in the
present study based on the ground that interaction in movies closely resembles
natural interaction and it can uncover significant linguistic features. The similarity
between scripted dialogues and naturally occurring ones has been confirmed by a
number of researchers. For example, in comparing television dialogues and natural
conversations, Quaglio (2008, 2009) claimed that television dialogues tend to
capture and reproduce the linguistic characteristics of authentic face-to-face
conversations. He also inserted that although the scripted language is not exactly the

69. 58

same as natural interaction, most of the linguistic features of naturally occurring
conversations can be found in television dialogues. This makes scripted language
become a valuable substitute for naturally occurring interaction (Quaglio, 2009, pp.
148-149). Sharing the same point of view, Sharp (2012) regarded television
language as a realistic imitation of spontaneous speech and the similarity of scripted
language and natural interaction is expressed via the acceptance of audience (p. 15).
Practically, the language of television can be regarded as a reflection of real
conversations. This can be shown in the way viewers accept movies. Every day,
people around the world watch movies and their emotions are similar to the actors or
actresses. They may smile, cry, be angry or be happy with them while watching
movies. From all these arguments, it can be concluded that although conversations
in movies are constructed, they are lifelike, in some cases, they are even “more real
than reality” (Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967, p. 150).
Methodologically, the use of conversation in movies has brought a number of
advantages over other sources of data in examining linguistic phenomena. On the
one hand, movies are available in various sources and accessible. Researchers can
obtain the data without getting permission from anyone. All they have to do is just to
search the Internet and download the movies they need. On the other hand, the
subtitles of the chosen movies can be easily obtained from the Internet. Researchers
do not need to listen and type every word of collected conversations. They can easily
download the subtitles from such websites as http://subscene.com or
http://www.5sub.com.
3.3.3. Justification for collection of data in office settings
In recent decades, as a result of globalization, a great number of foreign
subsidiaries and joint-ventures from various countries are coming to Vietnam.
Normally, in these foreign companies, Westerners are employers and Vietnamese
are employees and English is used as the main language of communication. There
may emerge conflicts and misunderstandings between Western employers and
Vietnamese employees, especially the process of interaction because of the
differences in culture and language. The ability of mastering English partly
contributes to the success of an interaction because in business, English has been
used as a commercial language to help companies connect together.
Besides English, culture is another factor leading to the success or failure of
an interaction. There exist many cultural diversities between Westerners and
Easterners in general and between Americans and Vietnamese in particular. As

70. 59

aforementioned, the power distance in Vietnamese culture is perceived differently
from that in Western culture. Accordingly, staff-manager conversations performed
by Americans are inclined to be different from those performed by Vietnamese. In
Vietnamese culture, managers often have strong dominance over their staff and
govern all the actions and decisions in their offices. A great distance in the
relationship between superiors and subordinates is frequently acknowledged.
Accordingly, communication between employers and employees is formal (Kohl,
2007, p. 93). Americans or Western members, on the other hand, appreciate
individuality and creativeness. Particularly, in the workplace contexts, managers
facilitate employees‟ advancement, idea generation, creativity and innovativeness
rather govern them thoroughly and employees have more chances to take their own
actions (Kohl, 2007, p. 93). The differences in the organizational culture make the
process of communicating between Vietnamese and Western parties much more
challenging. In conclusion, due to the appearance of foreign subsidiaries in Vietnam,
the cultural diversities and the differences in the organizational cultures, the
communication between or among foreigners in office settings becomes essential
but challenging.
The aforementioned challenges may create breakdowns in communication
between parties and, therefore, decrease the work efficiency. The present study, as a
result, chooses office settings as contexts to collect data with the purpose to help
participants to improve their communicative abilities in office settings; accordingly,
enhance their work effectiveness. More specifically, the findings of the present study
are expected to help Vietnamese users of English as well as learners of Vietnamese
as a foreign language to communicate properly and politely in their workplaces,
therefore, improve their work efficiency.
3.3.4. Data selection criteria
The data collection process in this study strictly followed requirements on the
selection of movies, the selection of participants and choice of conversations.
Firstly, the selection of movies followed certain requirements. Vietnamese movies
were aired in the golden hours on Vietnam Television (VTV) – the national
broadcaster of Vietnam while American movies were selected from Vietnam Cable
Television (VTVCab) channels such as HBO, Star movie, Star world. The movies
which have permission to be aired on these channels have to go through a strict
standardized review process in terms of content and presentation. Furthermore, these
movies had to be produced from 2000 up to date, be on modern context and discuss

71. 60

current issues. Accordingly, science fiction movies, horror movies or musical
movies were excluded in this study. These features ensured that the selected movies
reflect modern real life. Consequently, they could provide valuable sources of data
for analysis.
Secondly, the selection of participants in each conversation followed specific
criteria. The study only gathered conversations between two parties without the
presence of the third person because the appearance of the third person might have
positive or negative effect on the processes of conversational opening and closing.
Furthermore, in interaction, the relationship between interactants is of great
importance. Parties have a preference to utilize different strategies when interacting
with different partners. Accordingly, the present study only concentrates on
conversations between a staff and a manager. Staff-manager conversations are
chosen to explore the impact of power on interaction. It was expected that the parties
of lower social status - the staff would have different ways to open and close a
conversation in comparison with the parties of higher social status - the managers.
Beside the role of participants, the level of familiarity between them also plays an
important role in what they say. For this reason, only conversations between staff
and managers of medium or low level of familiarity are collected and analyzed in
the present study. Conversations between staff and managers of close relationships,
for example, relatives or lovers, are excluded in the present study. More importantly,
English conversations were between two English native speakers and Vietnamese
conversations were between two Vietnamese native speakers because only through
conversations between native speakers, linguistic features in one culture can be
revealed. The choice of native speakers was decided based on the movie contexts.
The present study only selected conversations in movie series, so the background of
the scriptwriters, the actors or the actresses could be clarified.
Lastly, the choice of conversations had to meet the following requirements.
Since this study is restricted in examining conversational openings and closings,
only conversations with opening and/ or closing sections were gathered and
exchanges without opening and closing sections were ignored. Moreover, although
the study did not examine the central part of a conversation, it still played an
essential role in data selection criteria. The present study exclusively examined
conversations with transactional goals. As mentioned in the literature review
chapter, conversations with transactional goals are ones with pre-prepared
“purposes” and “content”. In more details, the selected conversations are exchanges

72. 61

of information concerning work or they are work-based conversations. In this sense,
conversations created just to build rapport or maintain social relationships such as
pass-by conversations, gossips or chats are out of the scope of this study. It is also
vital to note that regarding the content, conversations with high level of potential
face-threatening acts are inclined to be opened and closed differently from ones with
low level of potential face-threatening acts. For this reason, the conversations with
high level of potential face-threatening acts were not selected as the data for analysis
in the present study. To sum up, to reveal deep insights on conversational openings
and closings, only work-related staff-manager conversations with opening and/or
closing sections occurring in office settings were investigated in this study.
3.3.5. Data collection procedures
The researcher followed these procedures in the process of data collection:
- Finding out lists of Vietnamese movies that are aired on Vietnamese golden
hours and American movies that are aired on Vietnam Cable Television
(VTVCab) channels
- Reading the content of these movies inserted in the Internet to discover the
movies which meet the criteria of movie selection
- Watching the gathered movies to collect conversations which meet the
criteria of conversation selection
- Classifying these conversations into two categories: conversations with
opening sections and conversations with closing sections
- Transcribing the opening and closing sections separately with the help of
their subtitles.
3.3.6. Data description
The investigation was based on the analysis of 214 English and 197
Vietnamese opening extracts and 232 English and 186 Vietnamese closing extracts.
The description of the data sets is presented in Table 2.1 below.
Table 2.1: Number of selected extracts in the American movies
Movies Year of
release
Episodes Opening
extracts
Closing
extracts
1. Designated survivor - season 1 2016 21 40 39
2. Designated survivor - season 2 2017 22 16 12
3. Madam Secretary - season 1 2014 22 23 21
4. Suits - season 1 2011 12 23 28
5. Suits - season 2 2012 16 45 52

73. 62

6. Suits - season 3 2013 16 43 30
7. House of cards - season 1 2013 13 10 20
8. House of cards - season 2 2013 13 8 23
9. Scandal - season 1 2012 7 6 7
Total 142 214 232

Table 2.2: Number of selected extracts in the Vietnamese movies
Movies Year of
release
Episodes Opening
extracts
Closing
extracts
1. Mưa bóng mây 2014 37 6 8
2. Lập trình cho trái tim 2009 40 9 5
3. Vợ của chồng tôi 2016 60 10 0
4. Đối thủ kỳ phùng 2015 40 25 31
5. Câu hỏi số 5 2015 31 7 3
6. Cảnh sát hình sự - Chạy án - season 1 2006 22 11 9
7. Cảnh sát hình sự - Chạy án - season 2 2008 27 9 15
8. Ván bài tình yêu 2013 34 29 26
9. Zippo, Mù tạt và Em 2016 36 14 24
10. Sóng gió hôn nhân 2014 30 5 8
11. Ngày mai ánh sáng 2016 46 23 22
12. Nguyệt thực 2016 47 49 29
13. Hôn nhân trong ngõ hẹp 2015 30 0 4
14. Những đứa con biệt động Sài Gòn 2011 40 0 2
Total 520 197 186
In the process of collecting opening and closing extracts, the researcher tried
to gather equivalent numbers of English and Vietnamese extracts to assist the
process of comparison and contrast. However, while watching movies, the
researcher realized that compared with Vietnamese movies, American movies are a
much richer source of data. After watching nine American movies with 142
episodes, the researcher collected 214 opening extracts and 232 closing extracts. On
the contrary, the researcher had to watch 14 Vietnamese movies with 520 episodes
to collect 197 opening extracts and 186 closing extracts. There exist a number of
reasons for these differences. However, as observed, the biggest reason for this
difference is due to the context of these movies. It appears that these American
movies chiefly focus on office settings or most of the activities and interaction in
these movies occur in office settings. In contrast, these Vietnamese movies are

74. 63

inclined to concentrate on diverse contexts such as office settings, family settings or
public settings. This leads to the limited numbers of staff-manager conversations
occurring in office settings. The abundance of English data but limitation of
Vietnamese data justifies for the discrepancy of opening and closing extracts
between the two languages.
3.4. Data analysis
3.4.1. Phases of content analysis
The present study was carried out with the application of content analysis
method. In this section, the key phases of content analysis are depicted, functioning
as a guide for the present study to follow.
The content analysis method can be approached inductively or deductively, it
follows three main phases: preparation, organizing and reporting (Elo & Kyngas,
2008, p. 109). Although other researchers may subdivide these three phrases into
many smaller steps, most of them agree that the data analyzing process in content
analysis method follows the three phases suggested by Elo and Kyngas (2008) as
illustrated in Figure 2.1 below.

(Source: Elo & Kyngas, 2008, p. 109)
Figure 2.1: Preparation, organization and resulting phases in the content
analysis process

75. 64

Firstly, the preparation phase can be regarded as the pre-coding step in which
the unit of analysis is chosen (Cavanagh, 1997; Guthrie, Petty, Yongvanich, &
Ricceri, 2004; McCain, 1988). A unit of analysis can be a letter, word, sentence,
portion of pages or words, the number of participants or the time used for discussion
(Robson, 1993). Furthermore, it is also essential for researchers to decide on what to
analyze: only verbal or both verbal and nonverbal behaviors of participants such as
silence, sighs, laughter, posture, and son on. (Robson, 1993).
Secondly, in the organizing phase, the process of data coding is carried out.
The data can be coded in either inductive or deductive approach (Kyngas &
Vanhanen, 1999). The inductive content analysis is employed when there are no
existing theories. Therefore, researchers have to build data-driven categories with
open coding, creating categories and abstraction. The deductive approach is based
on concept-driven categories constructed from earlier theories or models. In the
process of coding, the researchers may apply an unconstrained matrix to allow new
themes or patterns emerging from the data to be added into new categories or a
structured matrix to permit only aspects fitting the categorization (Elo & Kyngas,
2008, p. 112).
Finally, in the resulting phase, the findings are discussed. The conclusions are
made from the findings on the coded data. From the themes or categories identified,
researchers make inferences and meanings emerging from the data. In this step, the
relationships between the categories are identified, patterns are uncovered and
categories are tested (Bradley, 1993). Especially, findings can also be presented in
quantitative style with the involvement of reporting “coding frequencies,
percentages or inferential statistics such as chi-square analysis (Schreier, 2014, p.
180).
3.4.2. Pre-coding
Before the coding process, the units of analysis were identified and the
transcription was accomplished. Regarding the units of analysis, the present study
focuses on opening and closing sections of English and Vietnamese conversations in
general and on their sequences and strategies, in particular. Opening and closing
sequences and strategies reside in utterances, constructing a unit of meaning in
interaction. Normally, a strategy may be expressed in one or several utterances and a
sequence may be formed with one or several strategies. Furthermore, the study
chiefly examines verbal aspects of interaction with essential reference to nonverbal
aspects, functioning as the assistance of the verbal analysis process.

76. 65

In identifying the units of analysis, it is essential to mark the boundaries of
openings and closings. A conversation can be opened with or without an opening
section. An opening is the first part of a conversation, raised before the main topic of
a conversation. An opening section is marked from the first moment of participants‟
gathering to the initiation of the first topic of concern. The ending of an opening
section is identified by the initiation of the first topic of a conversation or the
purpose of the conversation. Likewise, a closing is the final part of a conversation,
starting from the termination of the final topic to the real departure of participants.
The beginning of a closing section is identified by the closure of the final topic of a
conversation, expressed with cues or devices.
As regards transcription, due to the exclusion of prosodic characteristics of
interaction, the verbal interaction was transcribed with normal transcription instead
of prosodic or narrow transcription. While watching the movies, the researcher
marked the time at which the conversations with opening and/ or closing sections
occurred in the movies. Based on these notes, the process of transcription was done
more quickly and easily. The English scripted conversations were transcribed with
the help of the subtitles downloaded from the Internet while the Vietnamese scripted
conversations were typed. The English and Vietnamese transcripts were marked in
each movie with their necessary information including time, episode and season.
3.4.3. Coding
3.4.3.1. Qualitative content analysis
Based on the transcripts of English and Vietnamese opening and closing
extracts, the process of data coding was done. In the present study, the method of
qualitative content analysis was utilized to code the data. Qualitative content
analysis can be subdivided into three approaches namely conventional, directed and
summative (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Conventional qualitative content analysis is to
describe a phenomenon. This approach is recommended when existing theory or
research literature on a phenomenon is limited or existing categories are insufficient.
In this approach, coding categories are derived directly and inductively from the raw
data, so it is appropriate for grounded theory (Kondracki & Wellman, 2002). It is
advantageous because it gains information directly from the data without depending
on existing categories (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Directed qualitative content
analysis is employed when existing theory or prior research on the phenomenon is
incomplete or needs further description. In this approach, the researchers allow new
themes or categories emerging from the data. Therefore, it is suitable for validating

77. 66

or extending a conceptual framework. Summative qualitative content analysis begins
with counting of words or relevant content in text. If the analysis stops at identifying
the frequency of specific words or content, it would be quantitative (Kondracki &
Wellman, 2002). However, this analysis may go beyond by focusing on latent
content analysis referring to the process of interpretation of content (Holsti, 1969).
The present study aims at finding out (1) opening structures, (2) closing
structures, (3) closing strategies, and (4) opening strategies. Based on the availability
of the literature on these aspects, the method of conventional or directed content
analysis was applied in the coding process. As seen in the literature review part, the
literature on (1) opening structures, (2) closing structures and (3) closing strategies is
rather sufficient. Therefore, the approach of directed qualitative content analysis was
applied. In other words, they were coded with concept-driven categories generated
from the findings and results of previous studies or theories. In contrast, the
literature on (4) opening strategies is quite limited. Hence, the approach of
conventional qualitative content analysis was used or they were coded with data-
driven categories. The coding process will be presented in detail with concept-driven
and data-driven categories as well as examples in the following parts.
3.4.3.2. Coding with concept-driven categories
From the findings of the previous research and theories, the frameworks of
(1) opening structures, (2) closing structures and (3) closing strategies were
generated. It is essential to note that opening and closing structures are constituted
with sequences. Therefore, the frameworks of opening and closing sequences are
used. Because of being generated from previous investigations and theories, the
categories of opening sequences, closing sequences, and closing strategies are
regarded as concept-driven categories. Firstly, to code English and Vietnamese
opening structures, the present study employed the categories of opening sequences
suggested by Hopper (1989), Schegloff (1968, 1986), Schiffrin (1977) and Sidnell
(2010), illustrated in Table 2.3 below.
Table 2.3: Coding category of conversational opening structure
Opening sequences
1 Summons-answer
2 Identification-recognition
3 Greeting
4 How-are-you inquiries
(Source: Hopper, 1989; Schegloff, 1968, 1986; Schiffrin, 1977; Sidnell, 2010)

78. 67

Secondly, to code English and Vietnamese closing structures, the present
study utilized the category of closing sequences generated from the works of such
researchers as Clark and French (1981), Schegloff and Sacks (1973) and Sidnell
(2010). The combined framework of closing sequences is portrayed below:
Table 2.4: Coding category of conversational closing structure
Closing sequences
1 Topic termination
2 Pre-closing
3 Terminal exchange
(Source: Clark & French, 1981; Schegloff & Sacks, 1973; Sidnell, 2010)
Finally, to code English and Vietnamese closing strategies, the present study
deployed combined strategies proposed by Clark and French (1981), Okamoto
(1990), and Pojanapunya and Jaroenkitboworn (2011). The category of closing
strategies is characterized in Table 2.5 below.
Table 2.5: Coding category of conversational closing strategies
Conversational closing strategies
1 Giving summary/ results of the contact
2 Informing the other of the need to leave (reasons/ excuses)
3 Giving wish expressions
4 Referring to future contact/ actions
5 Expressing gratitude/ thanks/ acknowledgement
6 Expressing apology
7 Referring to external circumstances/ objects
(Source: Clark & French, 1981; Okamoto, 1990; Pojanapunya & Jaroenkitboworn,
2011)
These categories were built from the combination of the findings of various
studies on different channels of communication, accordingly, they need adjusting
when applied in face-to-face English and Vietnamese conversations. In the coding
process, when any new sequences or strategies emerged from the data, they were
added. Inversely, sequences or strategies that did not occur in the real data were
removed from the initial categories. In other words, through coding process, the
researcher adapted or expanded the guiding categories to make them fit with the real
data (Zimmer, 2006). After the coding process, the opening structure, closing
structure and verbal closing strategies performed by the American and Vietnamese
parties were built.
The process coding with concept-driven categories can be illustrated in the
two following examples. In the first example, the coding of the closing structure is
presented and in the second example, the coding of the closing strategies is shown.

79. 68

Example 1: the coding of the closing structure
Closing extract Closing structure
Manager:


Staff:
Manager:
Staff:
Manager:
Ừ. Về công việc thì cô sẽ giao cho con và Minh
Ánh hai mảng riêng biệt, không phải chịu sự
quản lý của Minh Ánh nữa.
Dạ, con cảm ơn cô!
Ừ!
1
Thôi,
2
con về phòng làm việc đi.
3
Dạ, con xin phép!
Ừ!

1
Topic termination
2
Pre-closing
3
Terminal exchange
(Ván bài tình yêu, episode 18 – 1:30)


Example 2: the coding of the closing strategies
Closing extract Closing strategies
Manager:
Staff:
Manager:
Staff:
Manager:
Staff:
Tốt lắm, cảm ơn em!
Vâng ạ,
1
anh còn cần gì nữa không ạ?
Không,
2
cảm ơn em,
3
có gì anh sẽ gọi sau.
Vâng ạ!
Ừ!
4
Em chào anh ạ!

1
Asking for any further topic
2
Expressing gratitude/ thanks/
acknowledgement
3
Referring to future contact/ actions
4
Saying “goodbye”
(Đối thủ kỳ phùng, episode 26 – 10:15)
3.4.3.3. Coding with data-driven categories
On the other hand, the method of conventional content analysis was applied
to code opening strategies. Although the field of conversational opening has been
delved into rather comprehensively, linguists tend to investigate opening sequences
rather than strategies. The literature reveals that the studies discussing verbal
opening strategies are not sufficient to build concept-driven categories. For this
reason, the researcher generated data-driven categories of opening strategies
inductively from the English and Vietnamese data without relying on existing
literature with the method of open coding. With open coding method, any strategies
occurring in the data were noted down and then these strategies were grouped into
appropriate categories regarding similar characteristics. All content said in English
and Vietnamese opening sections was jotted down and put into categories with
similar features. These categories can, then, be classed into larger categories when
they shared similarities. At the end of this process, the categories of verbal opening
strategies performed by the American and Vietnamese parties were produced. The
process coding with data-driven categories can be illustrated in the following
example:

80. 69

Opening extracts Opening strategies
Staff:
Manager:
1
(Knocking on the door)
2
Come in.

1
Knocking on the door
2
Inviting the other to come in
Staff:
Manager:
3
Am I interrupting?
4
No, no, please.

3
Checking for the other‟s availability for talking
4
Inviting the other to come in
Staff:
Manager:
Tom.
5
I need to tell you
something.

6
What is it?

5
Telling the reason of the talk
6
Asking for the reason of the talk
Staff:
Manager:
Staff:
I can't be your ninth judge.
Okay, why not?
The fact is I have early
onset dementia.

(Designated survivor, season 1, episode
17 – 28:27)

3.4.4. Analytical procedures
After the coding, the categories of English and Vietnamese opening
sequences, closing sequences, opening strategies and closing strategies were built.
Based on the recurrent patterns identified from the real data, the process of reporting
or interpreting the findings was carried out. To depict an in-depth picture of the
phenomena of conversational opening and closing in office settings, the process of
comparison and contrast was done. To assist this process, the statistical analysis of
the data was applied or the data were presented quantitatively (Weber, 1990). With
the statistical analysis of the data, the frequency of occurrence of each opening and
closing sequence and strategy was characterized, making the process of comparison
feasible and achievable.
In each language, opening and closing sequences and strategies deployed by
staff were compared with those taken by managers. It is expected that parties of
different power levels use different structures and strategies to initiate and terminate
a conversation. Between the two languages, the opening and closing structures and
strategies performed by the American parties were compared with those produced by
Vietnamese parties. The similarities and differences in conversational opening and
closing processes between the parties in the two languages were justified based on
the cultural diversity or cultural dimensions.
In summary, the present study is qualitative to quantitative orientation. The
method of qualitative content analysis was employed to code the data manually then
the method of quantitative analysis was utilized to depict the frequency of
occurrence of each opening and closing sequence and strategy. This combination

81. 70

can take advantage of the strengths and reduce the limitations of each method,
enabling to create a comprehensive panorama of English and Vietnamese openings
and closings.
3.5. Summary
This chapter has presented the methodology employed in the present study. It
has described research questions, research methods, data collection and data
analysis. Firstly, the research questions have been stated to function as a guide of the
whole study. Then, the research methods have been presented with the remarks on
qualitative and quantitative methods. In addition, data collection has been described
with the main focus on the review of data collection methods, the justification for
the choice of the data source, the data selection criteria, the data collection
procedures and the data description. Finally, the phases of data analysis have been
illustrated with the concentration on the coding process.

82. 71

CHAPTER IV: ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE CONVERSATIONAL
OPENINGS IN OFFICE SETTINGS
Introduction
This chapter presents the results of our analysis of English and Vietnamese
conversational openings. On the one hand, the structures of conversational opening
sections formed by the American and Vietnamese parties are described and
analyzed. On the other hand, opening strategies employed by the American and
Vietnamese parties are deliberated as regards sequences. Opening strategies
employed in summons-answer sequence, greeting sequence, phatic communion
sequence and topic initiation sequence are described, discussed and compared
between English and Vietnamese. Based on these findings, discussions and
justifications for the similarities and differences between the two languages are
given.
4.1. English and Vietnamese opening structures in office settings
4.1.1. English and Vietnamese opening sequences in office settings
According to Corder (1973, p. 36), there exist conventional rules and
stereotyped patterns of behaviors that interactants employ unconsciously in
interaction. The processes of opening, maintaining and closing a conversation follow
certain orders or sequences. In this part, the discourse structures of conversational
opening in English and Vietnamese will be deliberated.
The examination of conversational opening was conducted based on 214
English and 197 Vietnamese opening sections with the application of the concept-
driven category constructed by Schegloff (1968, 1986), Schiffrin (1977), Hopper
(1989), and Sidnell (2010). According to them, an opening section follows such
sequences as summons-answer, identification-recognition, greeting and how-are-you
inquiries. Unlike the concept-driven category, the findings indicate that the English
and Vietnamese opening sections of face-to-face conversations follow four
sequences: summons-answer, greeting, phatic communion and topic initiation. To
compare, the concept-driven category and the real category of English and
Vietnamese opening sequences have more differences than similarities.
As to similarities, the sequences of summons-answer and greeting occur in
both categories. A summons-answer sequence is designed to gain the other‟s
attention, functioning as signal availability for further talk (Goodwin, 1981;
Schegloff, 1968, 2002). The act of getting the other‟s attention is exceedingly
essential in interaction because without the attention of both interactants, a

83. 72

conversation is unachievable. Although occurring in both categories, the summons-
answer sequence in face-to-face interaction is performed quite differently compared
with one in telephone conversation. According to Schegloff (1968), in a telephone
conversation, “a summons” is the ringing of the phone, and “an answer” is the
utterance “hello”. Typically, a summons is always responded verbally with an
answer, without a response, the conversation is inaccessible. However, in face-to-
face interaction, it is unnecessary for a summons to be responded verbally with an
answer thanks to visual channels. As observed from the English and Vietnamese
data, a summons is often replied nonverbally with the act of redirecting the eye gaze
to the summoner and other non-verbal manifestations of attention, such as changing
body position to orient to the summoner (Goodwin, 1981). It can be concluded that
the manifestation of the summons-answer sequence in face-to-face and in telephone
conversations is different due to more channels of communication provided by face-
to-face conversations compared with telephone ones.
While a summons-answer sequence functions as physical behaviors to get the
recipient‟s attention, a greeting sequence is regarded as rituals to help parties to
express politeness in interaction. As a ritual exchange, the act of greeting can occur
in any channels of interaction. This justifies for the occurrence of greeting sequence
in various kinds of interation proved in previous studies and in face-to-face English
and Vietnamese conversations shown in the present study. Despite its popular
occurrence, this sequence is expressed differently in different channels of
interaction. The features of the English and Vietnamese greeting sequence are
characterized thoroughly in the following parts.
In terms of the differences, there exist such differences in the two categories
as the absence of the identification-recognition sequence, the substitution of the
phatic communion sequence for the how-are-you inquiries sequence and the
emergence of the topic initiation sequence. Firstly, the sequence of identification-
recognition does not occur in the real English and Vietnamese data. According to
Schegloff (1979), a summons-answer sequence is followed by an identification-
recognition sequence. In telephone conversations, receivers cannot know whom they
are talking to. As a result, it is essential for callers to identify themselves until the
receivers recognize them. In other words, a conversation is often performed only
when two parties recognize each other. In telephone conversations, due to the
inaccessibility of other channels, the sequence of identification-recognition has to be
performed verbally. In contrast, in face-to-face conversations, this sequence is

84. 73

accomplished at pre-speech moments mainly visually instead of verbally (Hopper,
1989, p. 181). In fact, verbal behaviors are deployed only when nonverbal behaviors
are unachievable due to visual obstacles. The absence of identification-recognition
sequence in the examined conversations in both languages is accounted for by the
accessibility of visual channels.
Secondly, after greeting sequence, parties are inclined to produce phatic talk
to move the conversation to the main topic smoothly and politely. According to
Schegloff (1968), this sequence is named “how-are-you?” or “how-are-you
inquiries”. However, in the present study, this sequence is named phatic
communion. This sequence is named “how-are-you?” by Schegloff (1968) because
in telephone conversations the question of “how are you?” or the like is normally
raised in this phase. However, according to Saadah (2009, p. 173), many studies
prove that this sequence is an example of phatic communion. In fact, in face-to-face
conversations, participants employ various inquiries and responses after the greeting
sequence, not just the question of “how are you?”. The name “how-are-you” cannot
cover alll the meaning of verbal activities performed in this sequence, accordingly,
in the present study, this sequence is named “phatic communion” as in Malinowski‟s
(1923, p. 313) definition which shares the same features with the sequence of
“phatic inquiries and phatic responses” of Omar‟s (1992) classification.
Phatic communion is defined by Malinowski as “a type of speech in which
ties of union are created by a mere exchange of words” (1923, p. 315). Different
from factual functions like informing, exchanging or expressing, in phatic
communion, language is used in “free, aimless, social intercourse” (Malinowski,
1923, p. 313). Exchanges of initial inquiries and responses do not carry much literal
content (Hopper, 1989). Consequently, phatic utterances are not primarily to
communicate ideas but oriented to the interactional, relational aspect of
communication (Malinowski, 1923, p. 316). In more details, Kasper (1989) defines
phatic inquires as ritualized inquiries about the interlocutor's well-being, realized by
a routine formula (as cited in Omar, 1992, p. 21).
Finally, the concept-driven category of opening sequences suggested by the
previous researchers does not identify topic initiation sequence. However, in
examining English and Vietnamese data, the researcher realized that interactants
have a preference to use topic initiation sequence to function as a device to connect
the opening section and the body of a conversation. Topic initiation can be regarded
as a bridge to link the ritual exchanges in the opening section to the main topic of a

85. 74

conversation. Thanks to the topic initiation sequence, parties are aware of the ending
of the opening section and the raising of the topic of concern.
The frequency of occurrence of the opening sequences: summons-answer,
greeting, phatic communion and topic initiation is illustrated in Table 3.1 below.

Figure 3.1: English and Vietnamese conversational opening sequences
As seen in Figure 3.1, the distribution of the four opening sequences in
English and Vietnamese is rather comparable. All these four sequences account for
fairy high percentages in the two languages. Precisely, the sequences of summons-
answer, greeting, phatic communion and topic initiation make up 47%, 37%, 57%
and 36% in English and 58%, 47%, 45% and 42% in Vietnamese respectively. It can
be inferred from these percentages that all these four sequences are optional in both
languages. In other words, to construct an opening section, the American and
Vietnamese parties can use one or combine several sequences. The detailed analysis
of each sequence is evaluated as follows.
Firstly, summons-answer sequence appears in 47% English and 58%
Vietnamese conversations. It can be seen that this sequence is optional in opening a
conversation. In telephone conversations, due to the inaccessibility of two
interactants, a summons-answer sequence is compulsory, serving as a signal of
connection. However, in face-to-face conversations, thanks to visual channels, this
sequence is optional. As usual, in a face-to-face conversation, an interactant may get
the other‟s interaction verbally or nonverbally, for example, via eye contact, waves
of hands, touching on the shoulders, tap on the back and so on.
Secondly, after summons-answer sequence, American and Vietnamese parties
are inclined to move to greeting sequence. The findings show that the Vietnamese
participants utilize greeting sequence slightly more frequently than the American
ones with 47% and 37% respectively. In face-to-face conversations, greeting

86. 75

sequence may follow summons-answer sequence or be the first sequence in an
interaction (Sacks, 1970). The frequency of occurrence of greeting sequence in the
Vietnamese conversations can be attributed to the culture of greeting. According to
Phạm Văn Tình (2000, p. 225), Vietnamese people highly appreciate “greeting”
because it has a big role in initiating a conversation and it influences the rest of the
conversation. The importance of greeting in the process of conversational opening
accounts for the rather frequent occurrence of this sequence in Vietnamese.
Thirdly, the phatic communion with small talk is to help conversations to be
carried out smoothly and participants to keep and maintain their social relationships.
Westerners are regarded as straightforward speakers (Lewis, 2005, p. 70), so it can
be inferred that the American parties have a tendency to open a conversation
directly. On the contrary, Vietnamese people are supposed to be roundabout
speakers (Lewis, 2005, p. 71). As a result, it can be deduced that the Vietnamese
parties are inclined to produce much phatic communion before initiating the main
points. Astonishingly, the findings prove the contradiction with the more frequency
of occurrence of this sequence in the English conversations with 57% compared
with the Vietnamese ones with 45%. These percentages indicate that contrary to our
expectation, the American parties produce more phatic talk in the initial phase of a
conversation than the Vietnamese ones.
Finally, the findings of the present study unveil that the final opening
sequence of English and Vietnamese conversations is “topic initiation”. Among the
four opening sequences, this sequence occurs least frequently in both English and
Vietnamese with 36% and 42% respectively. Thanks to this sequence, functioning as
a bridge to connect opening section and the main topic of a conversation,
participants can be alert to the upcoming topic. Notably, dissimilar to the three
previous sequences, which are normally constructed with two turns of speaking, this
sequence is usually constructed briefly with one turn of speaking.
4.1.2. English and Vietnamese opening structures formed with sequences
Despite the rather even occurrence of these four opening sequences in the two
languages, English and Vietnamese opening structures are somewhat different due to
their various combination. Opening sections in both languages can be formed with
one sequence, two sequences, three sequences or four sequences. The distribution of
one-sequence, two-sequence, three-sequence and four-sequence opening structures
is described in Table 3.2 below.

87. 76


Figure 3.2: English and Vietnamese conversational opening structures
It is demonstrated in Figure 3.2 that the structures of English and Vietnamese
opening sections share more similarities than differences. Generally, opening
structures formed with one sequence and two sequences appear by far more
frequently than those formed with three sequences and four sequences. The two
former structures make up 83% in English and 78% in Vietnamese whereas the two
latters account for only 17% in English and 22% in Vietnamese. Unexpectedly, the
data highlighted that the utilization of all four sequences in an opening section is
applied in a small number of Vietnamese conversations with only 6%, and especially
absent in the English conversations. This unveils that this combination seems to be
improper and lengthy in English whereas it is acceptable although not preferable in
Vietnamese. The extreme high occurrence of one- and two- sequence opening
structures compared with three- and four- ones can be justified by the nature of
institutional interaction. As mentioned, the study concentrates on transactional or
work-related interaction instead of relational interaction. Unlike relational
interaction with the primary aim to build and maintain rapport, the aim of the
transactional interaction is to exchange information or get things done.
Consequently, too lenthy opening sections with three or four sequences seem to be
inappropriate and ineffective. The distribution of each English and Vietnamese
conversational opening structure is depicted in the following parts.
4.1.2.1. English and Vietnamese one-sequence opening structure
One-sequence opening structure appears to be the most preferable in both the
English and Vietnamese data with 42% and 39% respectively. These numbers
indicate that approximately a half of the English and Vietnamese conversations
investigated are opened briefly with only one sequence. The popularity of one-

88. 77

sequence opening structure is explained by the attributes of transactional interaction
in institutional setting.
Although all four opening sequences can be used to initiate a conversation
independently, the rate of deployment of each sequence is different in each language
and between the two languages. The distribution of the four sequences in this
structure is depicted in Figure 3.3 below.

Figure 3.3: English and Vietnamese one-sequence opening structure
Firstly, among the four sequences, summons-answer sequence is the most
frequently employed by both the American and Vietnamese parties with 21% and
17% respectively. With this sequence, interactants get the other‟s attention, and then
initiate a topic of concern instantly. The purpose of the opening is just to get the
other‟s attention rather than maintain or enhance social relationships between
parties. Consider an English example below (see the Appendix for the full opening
and closing extracts in English and Vietnamese data).
(1) Manager: Donna, call the court! We need priority status on the docket.
Staff: Yeah, I already tried. You drew Judge Palermo. You know what you
have to do, don't you?
(Suits, season 1, episode 5– 13:59)
This conversation is between an older male manager and a younger female
staff. It can be observed that this opening section built only with summons-answer
sequence appears brief and hasty. More significantly, this summons-answer
sequence is only performed with one turn of speaking instead of two. The
“summons” is produced by the manager verbally with the act of calling the staff‟s
name but the “answer” is produced by the staff visually instead of verbally. When
the manager calls “Donna”, the staff redirects her eye contact towards her manager
as a way to respond to his summons. Right after getting the staff‟s attention through
the eye contact, the manager raises the main topic of concern instantly.

89. 78

Secondly, one-sequence opening structure constituted with greeting exists
equally in the English and Vietnamese data with 10% and 11% respectively. In the
Vietnamese data, greeting sequence is often expressed in two turns of speaking. In
other words, when a greeting act is raised, it is common for the other interlocutor to
respond it with another greeting as in example (2) below.
(2) Staff: Dạ, em chào anh!
Hello, brother!
Manager: Chào em, từ khi xảy ra chuyện đến giờ anh chỉ mong có ngày này, anh
có thể tuyên bố em hoàn toàn vô tội.
Hello sister, since that time, I just hope this day, I can declare you
completely innocent.
(Lập trình cho trái tim, episode 18 - 9:14)
However, a close investigation on the English data highlights that the
American parties do not have a habit of responding a greeting act with another one
as in the following example.
(3) Staff: Morning. Thought I'd get in early and destroy Allison Holt.
Manager: How's that going?
(Suits, season 2, episode 12 – 33:20)
As illustrated in (2), the Vietnamese staff produces a greeting act, and then
she waits for a response. The manager responds to the staff‟s greeting with another
greeting before raising the main topic of concern. In this conversation, greeting
sequence is constructed with two turns of speaking and functions as a ritual
exchange to not only get the other‟s attention but also express politeness and respect
towards the other. However, in (3) the staff greets the manager and initiates the topic
of concern instantly. The sudden mentioning of the topic in this case makes the
greeting sequence serve as a getting attention device rather than a ritual exchange.
Thirdly, opening structure formed with phatic communion sequence occurs
limitedly in both languages with 10% in English and 4% in Vietnamese. The limited
occurrence of this structure is opposed to the repeated appearance of phatic sequence
in general. This difference indicates that parties in both languages are inclined to
avoid initiating a conversation with a mere phatic communion sequence. Instead,
they tend to combine this sequence with others to generate an opening. For example,
in (4), the American staff opens his conversation with a phatic communion sequence
by commenting on his manager‟s presence.
(4) Staff: You got here just in time. I'm getting us access.
Manager: Hanley Folsom?
Staff: Bingo
(Suits, season 2, episode 15 - 28:07)

90. 79

Lastly, like the opening structure with phatic communion sequence, that
constructed with topic initiation sequence rarely occur in the English and
Vietnamese data with 1% and 7% respectively. It can be inferred from these
percentages that the American and Vietnamese parties are reluctant to produce an
opening section only with a topic initiation sequence. Topic initiation sequence
functions as a bridge to connect the opening and the body of a conversation.
Consequently, it is habitual for it to be combined with other sequences instead of
being employed separately. This structure is presented in example (5) below. In this
conversation, the Vietnamese staff opens his conversation suddenly with the use of
the polite vocative particles or polite particles “thưa” and “dạ”.
(5) Staff: Dạ thưa chú, việc chuyển công tác của Nghĩa có liên quan gì tới việc
xin nghỉ của Hoàng không chú?
Dear sir, is Nghia‟s job transfer related to Hoang‟s resignation?
Manager: Nghĩa có ý định chuyển công tác lâu rồi nhưng mà Ban biên tập vẫn
đánh giá cao năng lực của cậu ấy.
Nghia has intended to transfer his work for a long time but the editorial
board still appreciates his ability.
(Nguyệt thực, episode 39 - 39:27)
4.1.2.2. English and Vietnamese two-sequence opening structure
Like opening structures formed with only one sequence, two-sequence
opening structures are frequently deployed in both the English and Vietnamese data,
with 41% and 39% respectively. In transactional conversations between staff and
managers in office settings, two-sequence opening sections are supposed to be ideal
because they are not too lengthy to become gossips or too brief to create sudden or
abrupt openings. Two-sequence opening structure consists of six substructures as
depicted below:





Figure 3.4: English and Vietnamese two-sequence opening structure
As illustrated in Figure 3.4, the distribution of the six two-sequence opening
structures is clearly distinguishable in the English data but is quite equivalent in the

91. 80

Vietnamese data. It appears that the American parties prefer certain structures to
others while the Vietnamese parties employ these structures rather equally. Firstly,
among six two-sequence opening structures, the combination of summons-answer
and phatic communion sequences accounts for a rather high percentage in the
Vietnamese data with 7% and the highest percentage in English with 13%. With this
combination, interactants get the other‟s attention and then produce small talk before
raising the main topic of a conversation as depicted in example (6) below.
(6) Manager: (Knocking on the door). Bothering you?
Staff: No. No, not at all.
Manager: I heard about your proposal to buy Durham Foods out of bankruptcy.
Impressive.
(Suits, season 2, episode 4 - 37:04)
In example (6), the summons-answer sequence is produced by the manager
with the act of knocking on the door. After producing this sequence, the manager
continues performing phatic communion sequence with the question “bothering
you?”. This question is classified as a phatic communion sequence because it serves
to “establish and consolidate the interpersonal relationship between the two
participants” (Pavlidou, 2008, p. 132). Instead of leading in the main topic right
away, the manager asks the staff “bothering you?” as a way to check for the
convenience for talking. This question serves as a negative politeness strategy
because it helps the manager express the concern towards the staff as well as lessen
the imposition on him. In this case, if the staff answers that he is busy and the
conversation bothers him, the conversation may be ended at this point and the topic
will not be raised. However, with the response “No. No, not at all” of the staff, the
manager starts raising the topic of the conversation.
Secondly, the combination of summons-answer and greeting sequence is
utilized limitedly by both parties with 6% of the Vietnamese data but only 2% of the
English data. In this structure, interactants get the other‟s attention and produce
greeting utterances before initiating a topic of concern. Example (7) below illustrates
this combination in a Vietnamese opening section.
(7) Staff: (Knocking on the door)
Manager: Vào đi!
Come in!
Staff: Chào anh ạ! Giám đốc muốn mời anh ăn tối bàn công việc cho dự án
mới luôn ạ!
Hello, brother! The director would like to invite you to dinner to discuss
the new project!
(Mưa bóng mây, episode, 23– 16:17)

92. 81

In this conversation, the opening section is constructed with summons-answer
and greeting sequences. The summons-answer is produced with the act of knocking
on the door and the act of invitation of coming in. The greeting is performed with
the greeting verb “chào” combined with the kinship term “anh” and the polite
particle “ạ”. Right after the greeting act, the topic of the conversation is mentioned.
Thirdly, the combination of summons-answer and topic initiation sequences
is the most common in the Vietnamese data with 9% and less frequently in the
English data with 4%. With this combination, interactants get the other‟s attention
then use supporting devices to raise the topic of concern. In fact, opening sections
with the combination of these two sequences are brief. However, compared with
opening sections with summons-answer sequence only, this combination makes
conversations less abrupt thanks to the topic initiation sequence, functioning as a
bridge to connect the opening section and the body of a conversation. Example (8)
below describes this structure:
(8) Manager: (Knocking on the door)
Staff: What is it, Louis?
Manager: Got a hard truth to tell you!
Staff: I'm not going to Harvard.
Manager: No, I‟m not.
(Suits, season 2, episode 15 – 40:31)
In (8) the summons-answer is produced with the act of knocking on the door
and the topic initiation is formed with a question. With the question “What is it,
Louis?”, the staff puts an end to the opening section and urges the manager to raise
the main topic. Thanks to the question, the manager initiates the topic instantly.
It can be seen that in the three previous structures, summons-answer sequence
is combined with greeting, phatic communion or topic initiation sequences. Because
summons-answer is always the first act of any interactions, the order of these
structures is fixed. In other words, it is impossible for greeting, phatic communion or
topic initiation sequences to be performed before the summons-answer sequence.
Fourthly, it is remarkable that the combination of greeting and phatic
communion is utilized equally by the American and Vietnamese parties with 8%.
With this combination, interactants greet each other and then exchange some small
talk before raising a main topic of a conversation. Greeting sequence is relatively
formulaic with one or two turns of speaking while phatic communion sequence is
diversified. The findings unveil that phatic communion sequence can be expressed
via one turn of speaking or extended up to several turns of speaking. For example, in

93. 82

(9), the Vietnamese manager produces a phatic communion sequence briefly with
only one turn of speaking.
(9) Staff: Bác!
Aunt!
Manager: Ừ, con ngồi đi. Con đã bàn giao xong chưa?
Yes, sit down, please. Have you finished handing over?
Staff: Dạ, con đã bàn giao xong hết rồi bác.
(Polite particle), Yes, I have.
(Ván bài tình yêu, episode 26 - 39:54)
In (9), greeting sequence is expressed by the staff via the act of calling the
other‟s address term and acknowledged by the manager. The phatic communion
sequence is expressed via the act of inviting the other interlocutor to sit down. It can
be observed that phatic talk in this situation is not small talk but serves as a ritual
exchange to make parties more polite and respectful while interacting with others.
Unlike example (9), the opening structure formed with greeting and phatic
communion in the English conversation below is lengthy with several strategies.
(10) Staff: Mr. President, you're here late.
Manager: Well, technically, I live here, so... it appears you're the one who's
here late. Please, sit.
Staff: Thank you, sir.
Manager: Aaron told me that you turned down the job of press secretary.
Staff: I did, sir.
(Designated survivor, season 1, episode 4 - 37:17)
This is a rather formal conversation between a staff and a manager occurring
in the staff‟s office. To open this conversation, the staff greets the manager by
calling his address term. After producing greeting sequence, the staff moves into
phatic sequence. In this phatic sequence, the staff and manager exchange a small talk
with the focus on comments on the current state of the two participants. The
comment “you’re here late” expressed with a bit surprise, functioning as a praise, is
a positive politeness strategy to help show the staff‟s regard towards his manager.
Appearing in the staff‟s office at mid-night, the manager‟s image appears to be a
hardworking and conscientious man. In turn, the manager performs another
comment. With the comment “Well, technically, I live here, so... it appears you're
the one who's here late”, the manager creates another positive politeness strategy to
compliment his staff for his responsibility and sedulity. Significantly, the close
observation of this situation reveals that the act of inviting the other of sitting down
is remarkable. The manager comes to the staff‟s office and the staff stands up to
greet him politely and respectfully. The manager, accordingly, responds to his staff‟s

94. 83

formal greeting with the act of inviting him to sit down. The opening section really
ends with the ritual exchange of “thank you” produced by the staff.
Fifthly, while the combination of greeting and phatic communion is
acceptable, the combination of greeting and topic initiation is extremely restricted in
both languages. This structure makes up only 3% of the English data and 4% of the
Vietnamese data. In this structure, interactants exchange greeting utterances then
employ supporting devices to raise a topic of a conversation instantly. Example (11)
below depicts this combination in English.
(11) Manager: Madam Speaker!
Staff: Mr. President!
Manager: Well, this afternoon took a turn, didn't it?
Staff: Yes, sir. Please!
(Designated survivor, season 1, episode 18 - 14:03)
As illustrated in (11), the staff and the manager exchange a greeting
sequence, then, the manager initiates the topic of the conversation with the help of
topic initiation sequence. He deploys disjunct marker “well” as a topic initiation
strategy, serving as a bridge to connect the opening and the body of this
conversation. Thanks to the disjunct marker “well”, the manager informs the staff of
the up-coming topic.
Finally, the combination of phatic communion and topic initiation accounts
for 11% of the English data and 5% of the Vietnamese data. In this structure,
interactants produce several phatic inquiries and phatic responses, then, they deploy
supporting devices to raise the main topic. This structure is illustrated in the example
below.
(12) Manager: I don't want to hear it. If it's bad news, I don't want to hear it.
Staff: You seem upset.
Manager: Of course I'm upset. I just found out that Louis and I share the same
dentist.
Staff: Have you spoken to Donna yet?
Manager: No, and I'm pissed about it. I need her to get me a new dentist.
Staff: Well, we have a problem, whether you want to hear it or not.
Manager: What?
Staff: Marco needs to be emancipated from his father.
(Suits, season 2, episode 5 – 22:19)
As observed, this conversation is lengthy with seven turns of speaking.
Although the staff and the manager in this example exchange up to seven turns of
speaking before the main topic is raised, they perform only two sequences, that is,
phatic communion and topic initiation. Conventionally, a topic initiation sequence is

95. 84

expressed in maximum of two turns of speaking while a phatic communion
sequence can extend up to several turns of speaking. In this example, the phatic
communion sequence includes five turns of speaking. When the staff appears, basing
on his understanding on the current situation, the manager thinks that the staff is
going to tell him bad news. Accordingly, he refuses to listen to the news. In turn, the
staff refers to the manager‟s state. In the third turn, the manager refers to the state of
himself as a way to respond to the staff‟s comment. He admits that he is upset and
he justifies for his state. In the fourth and fifth turns, the staff and manager continue
exchanging their small talk. Typically, the small talk mentioned in this example is
situational because it arises in the communication process instead of being prepared
before. To end the phatic communion exchanges, the staff utilizes the disjunct
marker “well” and the act of mentioning the reason of the talk as a topic initiation
sequence. With this sequence, the staff informs that the opening section is closed
and it is the time to raise the main topic of the conversation. The manager, in turn,
produces a question “what?” functioning as a topic initiation because this question
allows the staff to raise the main topic straight away.
4.1.2.3. English and Vietnamese three-sequence opening structure
The employment of three sequences in an opening section is quite limited in
both languages. These combinations are inclined to create lengthy opening sections.
The details of the ways of combination to construct three-sequence opening
structures are depicted in Table 3.5 below.

Figure 3.5: English and Vietnamese three-sequence opening structure
Among four three-sequence opening structures depicted in Figure 3.5, the
first one formed with greeting, phatic communion and topic initiation sequences is
the most frequently used by the American parties with 10% but much less frequently
deployed by Vietnamese parties with 4%. In this structure, interactants exchange
greeting utterances, perform phatic talk and then utilize supporting devices to raise a

96. 85

topic of a conversation. The illustration of the first three-sequence opening structure
is detailed in the example below.
(13) Staff: Em chào anh ạ!
Hello, brother!
Manager: Em ngồi đi. Đêm qua hai anh chị đi đâu, làm gì?
Take your seat. Last night, you went where and did what?
Staff: Ai cơ ạ?
Who?
Manager: Ừm. Em với thằng Lâm chứ còn ai nữa.
Uhm. You and Lam.
Staff: Em có đi đâu đâu, mấy hôm lo làm chẳng có đêm nào được ngủ ngon
cả. Tối hôm qua em ngủ như chết mà.
No. I was so busy at work; hence, did not have enough sleep. Last night,
I went to bed early.
Manager: Thôi vào chuyện nghiêm chỉnh nhá. Anh bắt buộc phải thông báo với
em một chuyện, hợp đồng thử việc của em đã chấm dứt.
All right. Now lead to the problem. I have to inform you that your
probationary contract ended.
(Lập trình cho trái tim, episode 3 – 18:00)
In this example, the opening section extends up to six turns of speaking. The
greeting sequence is only presented in one turn whereas the phatic communion
sequence is stated in five turns. The phatic communion sequence in this example
includes both ritual exchanges and small talk. The act of inviting the staff to sit
down of the manager is regarded as a ritual exchange to express politeness in
interaction. The small talk, in this conversation, is raised by the question “Đêm qua
hai anh chị đi đâu, làm gì?” (Last night, you went where and did what?). This
question is to obtain information related to the staff‟s personal life. According to
Nguyễn Quang (2003, p. 184), Vietnamese culture is positive politeness-oriented.
Accordingly, asking about others‟ personal matters is regarded as a politeness
strategy used to help speakers to show concern towards their interlocutors. In this
conversation, the manager‟s asking about the staff‟s personal life makes their
relationship become more intimate and closer. This amicable relationship, in turn,
assists the conversation to be carried out smoothly and efficiently. On the contrary,
American culture is negative politeness-oriented. Consequently, Americans are
inclined to avoid mentioning others‟ personal matters (Nguyễn Quang, 2003, p.
183). Consequently, if an American manager asks his staff this question in office
settings, he may be regarded as impolite because he is curious about other personal
life.
Opposed to the first three-sequence structure, the second one, which is
combined of summons-answer, greeting and phatic communion is much more

97. 86

frequently selected by Vietnamese parties (8%) than by the American parties (1%).
In this structure, interactants get the other‟s attention, exchange greeting utterances
and produce small talk before raising a topic. This combination can be highlighted in
the example below.
(14) Staff: (Knocking on the door)
Manager: Vào đi!
Come in!
Staff: Anh ạ!
Hello, brother!
Manager: Ừ! Em ngồi xuống đây. Anh muốn nghe về vụ PM.
Yes! Sit down. I want to know about PM.
(Zippo, Mù tạt và Em, episode 12 – 11:51)
Despite consisting of three sequences, the opening section in (14) does not
appear lengthy or extended. The summons-answer is stated in two turns of speaking:
a turn for a summons and the other for an answer. The greeting sequence is only
taken by the staff in one turn. In response to the staff‟s greeting, the manager
performs a phatic communion sequence with an invitation of the staff to sit down.
After all these exchange rituals, the manager raises the topic of the conversation.
The third three-sequence opening structure constructed with summons-
answer, phatic communion and topic initiation sequences accounts for 4% in both
languages while the last structure of this type formed with summons-answer,
greeting and topic initiation sequences makes up 2% in both languages. The
equivalent infrequency of occurrence of these two structures proves that both the
American and Vietnamese parties are reluctant to deploy these combinations to
initiate a conversation. The description of the third and the last three-sequence
structures is shown in examples (15) and (16) below.
(15) Staff: (Knocking on the door). I'm sorry to interrupt. Do you have a minute?
Manager: What can I do for you?
Staff: The timing on this is terrible, and I-I apologize for that.
(Suits, season 3, episode 14 – 13:58)
As illustrated, this opening section is extremely brief with only two turns of
speaking. In the first turn of speaking, the staff performs a summons-answer by
knocking on the door and two phatic communion acts, that is, expressing an apology
and asking for the manager‟s availability for talking. In the second turn, the manager
responds to the act of checking for the manager‟s availability for talking by the
question “What can I do for you?”. This question is a topic initiation sequence
because it brings a chance for the staff to raise the topic of the conversation
instantaneously.

98. 87

(16) Staff: (Knocking on the door)
Manager: Vào đi!
Come in!
Staff: Em chào anh ạ!
Hello, brother!
Staff: Có gì mới không?
What‟s new?
Manager: Dạ đây, chồng sắp cưới của nó đây anh ạ.
This is her fiancée (showing a photo)
(Cảnh sát hình sự - Chạy án, season 2, episode 3 – 31:47)
In this Vietnamese opening section, the summons-answer sequence is formed
with two first turns, the first turn is the act of knocking on the door and the second
turn is the act of inviting the other to come in. The greeting sequence is constructed
with greeting verb “chào” combined with a kinship term referring to the addressee
and polite particle “ạ”. Responding to this greeting act, the manager uses topic
initiation question “What’s new?”. This topic initiation question helps the staff feel
free to raise the topic of the conversation straight away.
4.1.2.4. English and Vietnamese four-sequence opening structure
Unexpectedly, the findings prove that the four-sequence opening structure is
utilized sporadically in the Vietnamese data with 6% whereas it is totally absent in
the English data. It can be implied that four-sequence opening structures are
acceptable in Vietnamese conversations but unusual in English conversations. The
absence of this structure indicates that an exceedingly extended opening section may
be regarded as strange and inappropriate in interactions of English native speakers.
Actually, Americans are inclined to engage in little ritual interaction and they are
generally impatient with long ritual exchanges, considering them a waste of time
(Althen, 1988, p. 24). Furthermore, this phenomenon can also be explainable via the
context of the examined conversations. The collected conversations are task-oriented
interactions in office settings rather than daily gossips or chats. Because Westerners
highly focus on efficiency (Kohl, 2007, p. 92), they tend to avoid too extended
opening sections. Nevertheless, in Vietnamese culture, this structure is still
acceptable because of their roundabout interaction style. According to Trần Ngọc
Thêm (2004, p. 282), Vietnamese people have a roundabout communication style
because of their delicacy in interaction. Naturally, the Vietnamese‟s roundabout
communication style may lead to the popularity of the four-sequence opening
structure. However, because of the task-oriented conversations, occurring in office
settings, too extended opening sections are not suggestible. In other words, the
focuses on not only the efficiency of the work but also the maintenance of the social

99. 88

relationship of interactants make the use of four-sequence opening sections
acceptable but unpopular in Vietnamese conversations. The four-sequence opening
structure can be illustrated in the following example.
(17) Staff: (Knocking on the door)
Manager: Mời vô!
Come in!
Staff: Dạ, em chào sếp!
Hello, boss!
Staff: Chào em!
Hello!
Manager: Sếp đang bị bệnh hả?
Are you tired?
Staff: À hơi nhức đầu. Tối qua anh có dự tiệc sinh nhật của một người bạn
có uống hơi nhiều.
Ah, I have a headache. Last night I drank a lot at my friend‟s birthday
party.
Manager: Dạ!
Yes!
Staff: Em ngồi đi!
Take your seat!
Manager: Dạ!
Yes!
Staff: Có gì không em?
What do you want?
Manager: Em có một số hồ sơ cần xin chữ kí của sếp.
I need your signature on some files.
(Sóng gió hôn nhân, episode 9 - 8:46)
Example (17) illustrates an exceedingly extended opening section with ten
turns of speaking. In this example, all four opening sequences are employed orderly.
Firstly, the summons-answer sequence is performed with two turns of speaking, one
is the act of knocking on the door and the other is the act of inviting the other to
come in. Secondly, the greeting sequence is expressed in two turns of speaking with
greeting utterances exchanged by the staff and the manager. Thirdly, the phatic
communion sequence is performed by the staff and manager with five turns of
speaking including the acts of asking about the other‟s current state, mentioning the
personal activities in the previous night and inviting the staff to sit down. Finally,
the manager closes the opening section by a topic initiation question “what do you
want?”. Thanks to this question, the staff states the reason of the talk
straightforward. Significantly, the main purpose of the staff in this situation is just to
get the manager‟s signature on some files, which is a normal task of a secretary. In
comparison with Vietnamese conversations in like situations, the American parties
are inclined to perform a brief opening section rather than an extended one.

100. 89

4.1.2.5. The disorder of English and Vietnamese opening sequences
Notably, more careful examination of the data highlights that the order of
sequences in opening sections is not fixed. In fact, most of the examined opening
sections are constructed sequentially with summons-answer, greeting, phatic
communion and topic initiation (with 97% in the English data and 96% in the
Vietnamese data). However, in peculiar situations, this order may be disarranged.
The disorder of opening sequences can be found in both languges with only 3% of
the English data and 4% of the Vietnamese data. Despite the disorder of these
sequences, the opening sections still appear natural. The example below shows the
disorder of the three-sequence opening structure in an English conversation.
(18) Staff: Jessica!
Manager: Donna, what can I do for you?
Staff: I was just walking by reception, and I thought you might like to know--
you know, because it's your firm and--
Manager: Donna, get to it.
Staff: Charles Van Dyke is in the lobby.
(Suits, season 3, episode 15 - 6:32)
This conversation is between a staff - a young woman and a manager - a
senior woman. The staff starts the conversation with a greeting utterance by calling
the manager‟s name. In turn, the manager responds to the staff‟s greeting by calling
her name. Right after that, the manager performs a topic initiation sequence with a
question “what can I do for you?”. As normal, the staff will raise the topic of the
conversation instantly. However, in this situation, the staff delays initiating the main
topic of the conversation. Instead, she produces a phatic communion sequence, in
which she refers to her previous actions as a way to lead to her topic. Nevertheless,
the manager interrupts her phatic communion sequence with another topic initiation
sequence. The manager asks her staff to raise the main topic immediately with the
order “Donna, get to it”. Because of the manager‟s order, the staff mentions the
topic or the purpose of the talk. Evidently, it can be illustrated in this example that
the manager is the leader or the controller of the talk. The staff intends to produce a
lengthy small talk by referring to her previous actions. Nevertheless, the manager
controls the conversation by interrupting the phatic communion and asking the staff
to start the topic immediately. According to Holmes and Stubbe (2015), small talk
functions as an expression of power relationships and through the management of
small talk, superiors express their organizational control (p. 107). In this
conversation, the manager uses and responds to the small talk produced by the staff
as a way for “showing power” in the workplace.

101. 90

Similarly, the disorder of sequences in the four-sequence opening structure is
illustrated in the following example. In this example, topic initiation sequence is
stated before the phatic communion sequence.
(19) Staff: Knocking on the door
Manager: Vào đi! À Châu hả?
Come in! Hello Chau!
Staff: Anh gọi em có việc gì vậy?
What did you call me for?
Em ngồi xuống đi, cái vụ Haxinba sao rồi?
Take your seat, how is Haxinba?
(Ngày mai ánh sáng, episode 35 - 25:56)
In example 19, after creating a summons-answer sequence, the manager
greets the staff with a question. Greeting questions can be regarded as a typical ritual
in Vietnamese culture because these questions, functioning as a greeting utterance,
do not need an answer. Instead of responding the manager‟s greeting with another
greeting act, the staff appears abrupt when raising the topic initiation with the
question “what did you call me for?”. Usually, the other interlocutor will raise the
topic of the conversation right after the topic initiation question. However, in this
case, the manager keeps on with the phatic communion sequence via the act of
inviting the staff to sit down. The main topic is only stated after the phatic
communion sequence.
From these examples, it can be implied that the disorder of sequences in an
opening section is acceptable. In other words, opening sequences are not necessarily
ordered sequentially. The changes of the order of opening sequences can be
understood and justified depending on the context of conversations. Nevertheless, it
has to be accepted that this phenomenon only exists in peculiar situations in both
languages. Naturally, English and Vietnamese opening sections are sequential or
follow certain orderly sequences.
4.1.2.6. Concluding remarks
In conclusion, English and Vietnamese opening sections can be constructed
with one sequence or several sequences. Generally, one-sequence and two-sequence
opening structures are by far more frequently deployed than three-sequence and
four-sequence opening structures. In particular, in each structure, the American and
Vietnamese parties have different ways of combining sequences to generate an
opening section and the use of these substructures in the two languages is also
different.

102. 91

Regarding one-sequence opening structure, the frequency of occurrence of
the summons-answer and greeting sequences proves that it is preferred for these two
sequences to be used independently. On the contrary, the infrequency of occurrence
of the phatic communion and topic initiation sequences implies that it is more
appropriate for them to be combined with other strategies than used in isolation.
Especially, the rare appearance of opening sections constructed with mere topic
initiation sequence in the English data indicates that opening a conversation just by
using this sequence is unusual and may be inappropriate in English conversations.
In terms of two-sequence opening structure, the American and Vietnamese
parties can utilize six ways of combination to open a conversation. The quite even
distribution of the six substructures in the Vietnamese data reveals that Vietnamese
parties are free to choose any ways of combination. Inversely, the uneven
distribution of the English data suggests the contradiction. They appear to prefer the
combination of phatic communion with the three other sequences yet are reluctant to
combine summons-answer and greeting sequences as well as greeting and topic
initiation sequence.
With regard to three-sequence opening structure, the American and
Vietnamese parties perform four ways of combination. Among these four
substructures, the American parties use the substructure formed with greeting, phatic
communion and topic initiation sequences most frequently while the Vietnamese
parties deploy the substructure formed with summons-answer, greeting and phatic
communion most repeatedly. The two other substructures are utilized equally
limitedly in both languages.
In connection with four-sequence opening structure, it is rather surprising that
it justifies for an exceedingly limited number of Vietnamese conversations but is
totally absent in the English data. This shows that this combination is not suggestible
in Vietnamese conversations but inappropriate in English conversations.
Furthermore, with the use of the four-sequence opening structure, it can be implied
that compared with English opening sections, Vietnamese ones are relatively
formulaic and extended.
4.2. English and Vietnamese opening strategies in office settings
The review of the previous research and theories shows that there exist no
studies examining conversational opening strategies systematically. Instead,
conversational opening strategies have just been mentioned unsystematically and
scatteredly in related works such as Krivonos and Knapp (1975), Zhang (2014) and

103. 92

Nguyễn Quỳnh Giao (2017). However, in the present study, with the method of open
coding or coding with data-driven categories, the researcher generated the real
categories of English and Vietnamese opening strategies. Totally, the American and
Vietnamese parties produce 26 strategies to open staff-manager conversations in
office settings as presented in Table 3.1 below.
Table 3.1: English and Vietnamese opening strategies
Opening strategies English Vietnamese
Occurr
-ence
Percen
-tage
Occurr
-ence
Percen
-tage
Summons-
answer
strategies
Knocking on the door 31 14% 69 35%
Calling the other‟s address term 59 28% 40 20%
Using attention-getting tokens 11 5% 7 4%
Responses to
SA strategies
Inviting the other to come in 4 2% 68 35%
Using verbal tokens 3 1% 13 7%
Greeting
strategies
Using greeting verb 0 0% 71 36%
Calling the other‟s address term 61 29% 44 22%
Using time-bound greeting 16 7% 0 0%
Using greeting proper 23 11% 0 0%
Phatic
communion
strategies
Referring to the other's state 39 18% 33 17%
Referring to the current situation/ work 26 12% 21 11%
Referring to previous task/ action 24 11% 11 6%
Asking confirmation question 20 9% 21 11%
Inviting the other to sit down 10 5% 41 21%
Referring to oneself‟s state 14 7% 10 5%
Referring to personal life at home 6 3% 9 5%
Inviting the other to come in 9 4% 9 5%
Offering a drink 2 1% 6 3%
Expressing surprise 3 1% 7 4%
Referring to external circumstances/
objects 11
5%
3
2%
Expressing pleasure 5 2% 0 0%
Expressing apology 6 3% 0 0%
Expressing thanks 6 3% 0 0%
Asking/ checking for the other‟s
availability for talking 17
8%
0
0%
Topic initiation
strategies
Asking for the reason of the talk 38 18% 30 15%
Telling the reason of the talk 28 13% 13 7%
Using disjunct markers 22 10% 0 0%
Using topic initiation devices 0 0% 52 27%
Total 494 578

104. 93

Different from the findings and results of the previous research, the English
and Vietnamese opening strategies, illustrated in Table 3.1, are analyzed in each
opening sequence. The findings show that the summons-answer sequence consists of
three strategies, greeting sequence four strategies, phatic communion sequence 15
strategies and topic initiation sequence four strategies. These numbers prove that
phatic communion sequence is exceptionally diverse with a great number of
strategies. Inversely, the other sequences are fairly formulaic with restricted
numbers of strategies and notably the distribution of these strategies in both
languages is extremely different.
Remarkedly, the examination of the English and Vietnamese opening
strategies with the reference to the opening strategies mentioned in the previous
studies reveals significances. Firstly, opening strategies have been analyzed
unsystematically and dispersely in previous studies. As depicted in the literature
review chapter, previous researchers are inclined to focus on opening sequences
rather than opening strategies. There are only several investigations mentioning the
area of opening strategies unsystematically.
With reference to the frequency of occurrence, the American parties produce
487 opening strategies to open 214 examined conversations while Vietnamese
parties create 497 opening strategies to open 197 examined conversations. On
average, the American parties need more than two sequences while the Vietnamese
parties need nearly three sequences to open a conversation. Compared with English
opening sections, the Vietnamese opening sections tend to be lengthier or compared
with the American parties, Vietnamese ones seem to perform a little more ritual
exchanges before raising the main topic of the conversation.
4.2.1. English and Vietnamese summons-answer strategies
The first sequence of opening section is summons-answer, which is to get the
other‟s attention. Essentially, the summons-answer sequence is only employed when
two parties do not have the recognition or sight of each other due to certain
obstacles. For example, one is in the room while the other is outside or one is
concentrating on working at the desk while the other is coming and so on. In these
situations, parties need to get the other‟s attention before starting the conversation.
A number of strategies are both categorized as summons-answer strategies
and greeting strategies depending on the conversational contexts. For example, when
two parties are unaware of each other, the act of calling the other‟s address term is
considered as a summons-answer sequence because its purpose is to get the other‟s

105. 94

attention. However, when two parties are aware of each other visually, this act is
regarded as a greeting sequence because its purpose is not to get the other‟s attention
but to express a ritual exchange. Thanks to the accessibility of audio-visual channels
of the data in movies, the summons-answer and greeting sequences can be
distinguished.
The summons-answer sequence is divided into two parts: the summons and
the answer. The summons is to get the other‟s attention and the answer is the
response to the summons. Usually, the summons is produced repeatedly until the
answer is received. In performing a summons, the American and Vietnamese parties
deploy three strategies including knocking on the door, calling the other’s address
term and using attention-getting tokens. These findings are in line with the findings
proposed by the previous researchers. As aforementioned in the literature review
chapter, the strategies of calling the other‟s address term and using attention-getting
tokens are suggested by Schegloff (1968, p. 1080) and Omar (1992) while the
strategy of knocking on the door is mentioned by Schegloff and Sacks (1973) and
Nofsinger (1975). The frequency of occurrence of these strategies can be shown in
Figure 3.6 below:

Figure 3.6: English and Vietnamese summons-answer strategies
As described in Figure 3.6, the use of summons-answer strategies is rather
equivalent in English and Vietnamese. Both parties are inclined to get one another‟s
attention by knocking on the door and calling the other‟s address term yet reluctant
to use attention-getting tokens. The details of the employment of these strategies are
deliberated in the following parts.
4.2.1.1. Knocking on the door
It is essential to justify that the act of “knocking on the door” is a nonverbal
behavior. Although this study aims at analyzing verbal language rather than

106. 95

nonverbal one, this act is still mentioned because it assists the process of verbal
interaction. In analyzing conversational openings, the researcher realized that verbal
language is only fully understood with the reference to this nonverbal act. Factually,
the act of knocking on the door plays an important role in social interaction. The
significant role of this act is proved when young children are taught to knock on the
door as they want to get others‟ attention instead of shouting through the walls or
tapping on the window (Goffman, 1966, p. 152). This act can be regarded as a
conversational opening signal or a key to help parties access an interaction.
The strategy of knocking on the door is employed most frequently by
Vietnamese parties with 35% but much less habitually by the American parties with
only 14%. The act of knocking on the door is often responded by the act of inviting
the other to come in. By inviting the other to come in, the interlocutors send out a
signal that they are aware of the presence of the others and ready to talk to them.
The Vietnamese parties create the strategy of knocking on the door in 69
conversations and the strategy of inviting the other to come in 68 conversations.
This proves that the acts of knocking on the door and invitation to come in construct
a conventional summons-answer sequence in Vietnamese. On the contrary, although
the strategy of knocking on the door occurs in 31 English conversations, the strategy
of inviting the other to come in only appears in four conversations. It can be inferred
that the American parties are inclined to knock on the door and open it without an
invitation of coming in from the other interlocutor.
The inequivalence of the occurrence between the summonses and the answers
produced is partly accounted for by the architectural features of American and
Vietnamese offices. Generally, staff and managers in both cultures work in separated
rooms. Consequently, when they want to talk with one another, they have to come to
the others‟ places. A careful observation of the collected data unveils that in
Vietnamese offices, rooms are often separated with walls and wooden doors, which
function as barriers between parties inside and ones outside. For this reason, when a
party knocks on the door, the other cannot recognize who he or she is. In this case,
the act of inviting the other to come in serves as a verbal channel for a party to
inform his awareness of the presence of the other. The recognition is only achieved
after the party comes into the room. In contrast, in American offices, rooms are often
separated by glass, so the sight of parties is accessible. When a party knocks on the
door, the other party can know who he or she is thanks to the accessibility of visual
channel. In these cases, the act of inviting the other to come in can be performed

107. 96

nonverbally via such behaviors as redirecting of the eye contact, head nodding,
waves of hand and the like. However, in some cases, when the rooms are separated
with wooden doors like Vietnamese architecture, the American parties tend to knock
on the door and open it without waiting for the invitation of coming in from the
other interlocutors.
In addition, the dissimilarity of the use of the strategy of knocking on the
door and the response of inviting the other to come in is partly explained by the pace
of interaction in the two cultures. According to Lewis (2005), Vietnamese are
reactive people who tend to focus on listening and avoid interruption and
confrontation while interacting with others. They are inclined to be slow in initiating
a conversation as well as responding to a speech to make sure that there are no
misunderstandings (p. 70-71). Inversely, Americans are linear-active people who are
inclined to be task-oriented and brief in interaction because of their purpose of
exchanging information instead of establishing relationship (p. 70). Consequently,
Americans‟ fast pace of interaction may lead to the absence of the response to the
act of knocking on the door while Vietnamese slow pace of interaction may require
full ritual behaviors. The difference between the American and Vietnamese parties
in the employment of the summons-answer strategy is illustrated in the following
examples.
(20) Staff: (Knocking on the door)
Manager: Mời vào!
Come in!
Staff: Dạ, chào tổng giám đốc ạ!
Hello, managing director!
Manager: Ừ, công việc thế nào rồi?
Yes. How is the work?
Staff: Dạ, báo cáo anh, tôi sang tòa án dân sự và viện kiểm soát thành phố
nhưng chưa gặp được người có trách nhiệm trả lời…..
Dear sir, I went to the civil court and the city procuracy but I have not
met the person who is responsible for the answer.
(Đối thủ kỳ phùng, episode 3 - 23:37)
(21) Staff: (Knocking on the door). You wanted to see me?
Manager: I did.
Staff: Well, if this is about Norma, truth be told, we can do a lot better.
Manager: This isn't about Norma.
(Suits, season 2, episode 8 - 12:52)
In example (20), the summons-answer sequence is performed by the
Vietnamese parties with two turns of speaking. The staff informs his coming by
knocking on the door and only enters the room after the manager‟s invitation to

108. 97

come in. Inversely, in example (21), the American staff knocks on the door and
opens it without responses from the manager.
4.2.1.2. Calling the other’s address term
The realization of address term, which is to define addressee, is an indication
of what kind of relationship of interactants. In other words, how you address a
person is considered important and shows the level of respect and friendship
between interactants (Ellis, 1996; Ventola, 1979). According to Ventola (1979), the
use of first names shows an intimate relationship, the use of last names and titles
indicates a more formal relationship and especially, the use of non-realization
address term like “Sir” or “Miss” demonstrates that the social distance between
interactants is at its maximum (p. 272). Sharing the same point of view, in
examining Vietnamese culture, Ellis (1996) proved the importance of the use of
address terms in Vietnamese culture by claiming that Vietnamese culture accords
people different status levels and how they are addressed reflects this (p. 140).
The strategy of calling the other‟s address term is employed the most
frequently by the American parties with 28% and quite habitually by the Vietnamese
parties with 20%. This strategy is mentioned as the act of calling out someone’s
name in the studies by Schegloff and Sacks (1973), Nofsinger (1975), and Omar
(1992). Nevertheless, the present study indicates that besides names, English and
Vietnamese parties have a preference to choose various other address terms to call
the other interlocutor. Accordingly, this strategy is named “calling the other‟s
address term”. The choice of address terms is excessively varied and diverse in
English and Vietnamese. On the one hand, English address terms can be
professional titles, social titles in honorific forms or personal names. Meticulous
examination of the English data shows that staff - the parties of less power tend to
utilize professional titles separately or in combination with social titles in honorific
forms to call their managers - the parties of more power. For example, in the
following example, to get the manager‟s attention, the American staff calls him with
the combination of an honorific form “Mr.” and a title “President”.
(22) Staff: Mr. President! Major flag for you, sir.
Manager: What is it?
Staff: Abe Leonard is running a story claiming that FBI Deputy Director Jason
Atwood was arrested in the Oval for the murder of Majid Nassar.
(Designated survivor, season 1, episode 21 – 10:17)

109. 98

The findings also indicate that instead of using professional titles combined
with social titles in honorific forms, most of the American managers get the staff‟s
attention by calling their personal names as in example (23).
(23) Manager: Nancy!
Staff: Yes, sir!
Manager: Is Doug back yet?
Staff: In his office. And, sir, birthday cards have started to arrive, a few
presents.
(House of cards, season 2, episode 1 – 12:49)
The findings of the present study are in line with previous results
(Abdelhaleem, 2004, p. 69). He claimed that terms of address are closely related to
the concept of politeness. The intimacy and closeness expressed via the employment
of personal names are opposed to the respect and honor expressed via the
deployment of professional titles combined with honorific forms (Abdelhaleem,
2004, p. 69). In the present study, the employment of address terms can unveil the
relationship between interlocutors. The American staff are inclined to call their
managers with titles in combination with honorific forms to show the respect and
politeness while the American managers tend to call their staff with personal names
to express the closeness.
On the other hand, unlike address term system in English, Vietnamese has an
exceedingly complicated address term system (Nguyễn Quang, 2002, p. 157). The
findings reveal that Vietnamese parties prefer using kinship terms to call the other
interlocutors. Vietnamese kinship system is regarded as one of the most fundamental
components of Vietnamese life (Ensor, 1982, p. 21). This importance is proved
when every form of address in Vietnamese is based on a family relationship (Ellis,
1996, p. 140). Sharing the same point of view, Tuc (2014) clarified by claiming that
Vietnamese kinship terms hold an important role in indicating the relationships of
participants, not only within a family context, but also beyond (p. 117). By
employing kinship terms, Vietnamese parties address one another outside the family
as family members as a way to express politeness because they regard their
interlocutors as in-groups (Le, 2013, p. 54; Tuc, 2014, p. 117).
According to Nguyễn Văn Khang (2014), kinship terms used in social
interaction are basically similar to those used in family. However, in family, kinship
terms are chiefly influenced by hierarchical relations while in society, they are much
more complicated and influenced by many other components (p. 43). In more
details, Nguyễn Quang (2002) claimed that in social interaction, the choice of
kinship terms, having the same function as neutral address terms “I” and “You” in

110. 99

English, is determined based on a number of components such as age, gender, social
power, kinship relationship, attitude, emotion and so on (p. 158).
In office settings, although the ideal addressing terms are social titles because
via the use of social titles, the social position of the addressee and the addresser can
be depicted, the use of kinship terms are one of the most common address terms
(Nguyễn Văn Khang, 2014, pp. 44-45). This can prove that the use of kinship terms
has become a typical phenomenon of Vietnamese. In social interaction in general,
and in interaction in office settings in particular, there are a number of Vietnamese
kinship terms applicable to address one another such as “chú” (uncle), “bác” (uncle/
aunt), “cô” (aunt), “dì” (aunt), “anh” (elder brother), “chị” (elder sister), “em”
(younger sister/ younger brother), “cháu” (niece/ nephew), “ông” (grandfather), and
“bà” (grandmother). For example, in (24), the manager, older than the staff, uses the
kinship term “em” (younger sister) to address her staff.
(24) Manager: Em!
Younger sister!
Staff: Dạ!
Yes!
Manager: Em đem cái này qua phòng kế toán giùm chị nhá.
Please, take this to the accounting department for me.
Staff: Dạ được rồi chị!
Yes, okay, sister!
(Ván bài tình yêu, episode 13 – 24:58)
Typically, Vietnamese parties may use kinship terms separately as in example
(24) or in combination with personal names and/ or interjections such as nè, ơi, này
(hey). For example, in (25), the manager combines kinship term “chị” (elder sister),
personal name and interjection “nè” (hey) to address her staff, older than her.
(25) Manager: Chị Ngọc nè!
Ngoc!
Staff: Ừ!
Yes!
Manager: Chị thấy vụ bên Tân Thành như thế nào rồi?
How do you think about Tan Thanh company‟s problem?
(Ván bài tình yêu, episode 20 – 23:40)
Besides kinship terms, like the American parties, the Vietnamese ones may
employ personal names to address the other interlocutors. Nevertheless, this use is
only deployed by managers - the parties of higher social status in addressing their
staff - the parties of lower social status. For example, in (26), the manager gets the
staff‟s attention just by calling her name.
(26) Manager: Mai! Chị Ngọc đi đâu rồi?
Mai! Where is Ngoc?

111. 100

Staff: Dạ, hình như hồi nãy anh Robert kêu chị Ngọc lên phòng có chuyện gì ý.
Robert has just called Ngoc to his room.
(Ván bài tình yêu, episode 16 - 18:05)
4.2.1.3. Using attention-getting tokens
Besides two strategies discussed above, the American and Vietnamese parties
may get the other‟s attention by using attention-getting tokens. Compared with the
two aforementioned strategies, this strategy occurs limitedly in both English and
Vietnamese with 5% and 4% respectively. The findings unearth that the Vietnamese
parties employ vocatives, serving as attention-getting tokens including “này”, “à”,
“nè”, “ủa”, “ờ” (Le, 2013, p. 166) whereas the American parties only deploy one
attention-getting token “hey”. These attention-getting tokens can be used separately
or in combination with address terms. For example, in the following conversation,
the American staff gets the manager‟s attention with the attention-getting token
“hey”.
(27) Staff: Hey! I need you to talk to Scott.
Manager: All right. But I'm a little troubled that my head communicator can't.
(Madam Secretary, season 1, episode 7 - 28:07)
Particularly, in response to the summonses produced by the acts of calling the
other‟s address term and using attention-getting tokens, the American and
Vietnamese parties may utilize verbal tokens “yes”, “yeah” or “what”.
Unexpectedly, this strategy accounts for only 1% in English and 7% in Vietnamese.
Its infrequent occurrence indicates that the two acts of summonses are typically
responded nonverbally rather than verbally. This can be explained based on the
context of the conversations. Careful examination of the English and Vietnamese
data unearths that the acts of calling the other‟s address term and using attention-
getting tokens are only conducted when two parties are in the range of approach and
there are no physical barriers between them. Typically, when a party gets the other‟s
attention by calling his address term or using attention-getting tokens, the other
interlocutor is inclined to answer nonverbally via such acts as turning back or
redirecting the eye contact towards the speaker rather than verbally.
4.2.1.4. Concluding remarks
In conclusion, to perform a summons-answer sequence, the American and
Vietnamese parties share both similarities and differences. Firstly, the strategy of
knocking on the door regarded as a physical behavior is performed similarly in both
languages. However, this act is responded differently by the American and
Vietnamese parties. In response, Vietnamese parties tend to invite the others to come
in whereas the American parties are inclined to enter the others‟ offices without an

112. 101

invitation. Secondly, the strategy of calling the other‟s address term is produced
differently in English and Vietnamese as regards the choice of address terms. The
American parties call the others‟ professional titles, social titles or personal names
whereas Vietnamese parties mainly call the others‟ kinship terms. Finally, verbal
tokens used to respond to the other‟s calling or the other‟s getting attention are
deployed limitedly in both languages. This is accounted for by the assistance of
nonverbal behaviors in face-to-face interaction.
4.2.2. English and Vietnamese greeting strategies
Summons-answer sequence is regarded as the first exchange of a telephone
conversation because of the inaccessibility of visual channels. However, in face-to-
face interaction, summons-answer sequence may be accomplished visually. In these
cases, greeting is appropriately dealt with as the first verbal exchange. Greeting is a
social interaction expressed when people come into one another‟s presence. Physical
presence itself does not secure social interaction, for example, when two parties run
into each other in the streets. However, if these two people running into each other
in the streets exchange greeting utterances, a social interaction may be accessible.
In total, there are four greeting strategies found in the English and
Vietnamese data including using greeting verb, calling the other’s address term,
using time-bound greeting and using greeting proper. Except for the strategy of
using greeting verb, the three other strategies have been mentioned in the previous
investigations (Alharbi & Al-Ajmi, 2008; Duranti, 1992; Jibreen, 2010; Meiirbekov,
Elikbayev, Meirbekov, & Temirbaev, 2015). Greeting by calling the other‟s address
term is proposed by Shleykina (2016, p. 156) with such terms of address as personal
names, social titles, professional titles, and colloquial addresses. Additionally, the
strategy of using time-bound greeting is a typical greeting in English and has been
mentioned with various names by different scholars such as, time-oriented greetings
by Duranti (1992), temporal greetings expressed with time words by Alharbi and Al-
Ajmi (2008), and time-bound greetings by Jibreen (2010, pp. 6-7). Finally, the
strategy of using greeting proper, including typical words like “Hi”, “Hello”, “Hey”
is also a significant greeting act in English as proved in Shleykina‟s (2016) doctoral
dissertation. Factually, greeting is a conventional ritual exchange. As a result, it is
unsurprising that this act has been examined thoroughly and greeting strategies have
been suggested. However, the application of these greeting strategies in English and
Vietnamese office settings reveals astonishing findings. The distribution of these
greeting strategies is depicted in Figure 3.7 below.

113. 102


Figure 3.7: English and Vietnamese greeting strategies
In terms of Vietnamese greeting strategies, as depicted in Figure 3.7,
Vietnamese parties only employ the two greeting strategies of “using greeting verb”
and “calling the other‟s address term”. Interestingly, the findings unveil that
Vietnamese greeting behaviors correlate satisfactorily well with conclusions of Firth
(1972) and Saberi (2012). Firth concluded that greeting behaviors are not
spontaneously emotional reaction to the people‟s coming together but they are
highly conventional and follow patterned routines (pp. 29-30). Sharing the same
point of view, Saberi (2012) claimed that a greeting act has a definite discourse
structure comprising certain constituents or phases which are sequential in nature (p.
73). Similarly, Vietnamese greeting behavior is highly conventional and constructed
with following components:
Formula
Polite particle
(Dạ)
Subject
(chủ thể)
Greeting verb
(chào)
object
(đối tượng
chào)
polite
particle
(ạ)
Examples
Dạ,
Dạ,
cháu
em
chào
chào
chú
anh
ạ
ạ
A Vietnamese greeting utterance is performed diversely by using one or
combining several parts or all parts above depending on the level of intimacy as well
as social status between interlocutors. Among these components, either the greeting
verb or the object has to be compulsory, other components are optional.
Accordingly, Vietnamese parties conduct two main greeting strategies, the one with
the greeting verb named “using greeting verb” and the one without the greeting verb
named “calling the other‟s address term”.
As regards greeting strategies in English, as described in Figure 3.7, the
American parties perform three greeting strategies including “calling the other‟s
address term”, “using time-bound greeting” and “using greeting proper”. Although it

114. 103

is customary for English native speakers to greet one another with time-bound words
or greeting propers, these two strategies appear limitedly in the data. Surprisingly,
the findings of the present study indicate that Americans tend to produce a greeting
utterance simply with the act of calling the other‟s address term. The detailed
analysis of each greeting strategy is demonstrated in the following parts.
4.2.2.1. Using greeting verb
In the strategy of using greeting verb, the greeting verb “chào” (greet) is
compulsory while all other components are optional. As seen in Figure 3.7, this
strategy is used by far the most frequently with the occurrence of 71 Vietnamese
conversations, representing for 36%. Its extremely high frequency of occurrence
implies that it becomes customary for Vietnamese parties to greet each other with
the greeting verb “chào” (greet).
Structurally, Vietnamese parties have two ways of combining these
components to construct a greeting utterance, that is, the greeting utterance with or
without the reference to the addressee. Accordingly, two forms of greeting are (1)
the subject (chủ thể) + greeting verb (chào) + the object (đối tượng chào) and (2)
greeting verb (chào) + the object (đối tượng chào). Compared with the first form of
greeting, the second one is regarded as less polite and more casual due to the
absence of the subjects. In Vietnamese culture, this phenomenon is called the ellipsis
of subjects. The ellipsis, in some cases, is regarded as a strategy of connecting
sentences and enhancing the effectiveness of the conversations. However, in
interaction, parties of younger age or parties of lower social status are supposed
impolite to produce utterances without subjects (Phạm Văn Tình, 2004). Sharing the
same point of view, Nguyễn Quang (2002) regarded this phenomenon as “address
form avoidance” and claimed that this way of addressing is improper to be used for
parties of older age or higher social status. This way of addressing is, to some extent,
acceptable for parties of equal or younger age and equal or less power (p. 188).
Consequently, the first form of greeting is only employed by the Vietnamese staff as
a way to express politeness and respect towards their managers whereas the second
form of greeting is inclined to be utilized by the Vietnamese managers more
frequently than staff thanks to their higher social status and power.
Additionally, in these two forms of greeting, the objects of the greeting
utterances may be addressed by either titles or kinship terms. Interestingly, based on
the way of addressing the objects, the power distance and the level of intimacy can
be considerably revealed. Addressing other interlocutors with their titles is only

115. 104

performed by Vietnamese staff. Typical titles commonly used in offices are “sếp”
(boss), “thủ trưởng” (boss), “giám đốc” (director), and “tổng giám đốc”
(general/managing director). The occurrence of these titles in the examined
conversations is due to the office settings and parties‟ relationships. The findings
reveal that social titles tend to be employed by Vietnamese staff - the parties of
lower positions as a way to express politeness and respect towards their managers -
the parties of higher positions. For example, in (28), a younger staff greets her older
manager with the use of the greeting verb (chào) combined with a social title
referring to him. Through the conversation, the power distance between two parties
can be distinguished.
(28) Staff: Dạ, em chào tổng giám đốc ạ!
Yes, younger brother greet managing director polite particle
Hello, managing director!
Manager: Ừ, thấy Vũ Gia đến đây chưa?
Yes, has Vu Gia arrived?
Manager: Ừ!
Yes!
(Sóng gió hôn nhân, episode 21 – 10:03)
In this conversation, instead of using the pair “tôi-chức danh” (I-title) as
normal, the staff employs the pair “cháu/em-chức danh” (niece/sister-title) in
interacting with her manager. According to Nguyễn Quang (2002), this way of
addressing can help the staff express the humility and intimacy but still maintain the
superiority of the manager (p. 170).
While the use of titles in addressing other interlocutors is only performed by
Vietnamese staff, the use of kinship terms in addressing other interlocutors can be
accomplished by both Vietnamese staff and managers. A close observation of the
data indicates that the use of kinship terms in greeting is by far more common than
the use of titles. It seems that it is habitual for Vietnamese parties to use kinship
terms in interaction. According to Chew (2011), addressing or referring via kinship
terms is one of the most important norms in Vietnamese politeness because of the
traditional importance of the patriarchal family model in Vietnamese society (p.
215). As normal, kinship terms are used between or among family members or
relatives. However, when these terms are used by staff and managers in offices, they
make the relation between interlocutors closer and consequently help conversations
to be more effective.
The choice of kinship terms to address the other interlocutors is a challenging
task. In interaction, choosing the right kinship term to address a hearer requires

116. 105

speakers‟ judgment and linguistic skills (Le, 2013, p. 81). Normally, depending on
the gender and the span of age between interlocutors, parties select appropriate
kinship terms. The procedures of selecting kinship terms to address a staff or a
manager in office settings are based on the rules of addressing members in a family
or relatives. However, in particular situations when there exists conflict, for
example, between age and social status, parties are inclined to make a compromise
to reach a proper way of addressing their interlocutors. Let‟s examine the following
example.
(29) Manager: (Knocking on the door)
Staff: Mời vào!
Come in!
Manager: Chào anh Tiến
Greet elder brother Tien
Hello, Mr. Tien!
Staff: Dạ vâng, chào anh! Mời anh ngồi.
Yes, greet elder brother.
Hello! Sit down, please!
Manager: Ờ. Không cần phải nước nôi gì đâu. Tôi sang bàn với anh Tiến một việc.
Ah, no need for tea. I come here to discuss with you this matter.
Staff: Xin lỗi anh có phải chuyện giám đốc ngân hàng Sao Biển đến xin rút đơn
kiện tập đoàn Bỉnh Sơn?
Do you want to talk about the act of withdrawing the lawsuit against Binh
Son corporation of the director of Sao Bien bank?
Manager: Chính xác, anh Tiến đã có thông tin à?
Exactly, you have information, do you?
(Đối thủ kỳ phùng, episode 25 – 0:20)
In this conversation, the manager and the staff are about the same age but
hold different positions in their company. Interestingly, both parties greet the other
with the kinship term “anh” which means “elder brother”. The manager greets the
staff with the use of greeting verb “chào” (greet) combined with the kinship term
“anh” (elder brother) and his personal name while the staff greets the manager with
the employment of the greeting verb “chào” (greet) combined with the kinship term
“anh” (elder brother). This can be explained by the Vietnamese addressing culture.
In Vietnamese culture, a party tends to use a modest address term to refer to himself/
herself but choose a respectful address term to refer to their interlocutor. In this
situation, despite having higher social position and more power, the manager still
addresses his staff with the kinship term “anh” (elder brother) as a way to show his
humility and respect towards his staff.

117. 106

More interestingly, Vietnamese people may address the other interlocutors on
their children‟s behalf, which is a typical phenomenon in the Vietnamese addressing
system. According to Nguyễn Quang (2002), this way of addressing is regarded as
exceptional and family-oriented to express speakers‟ familiarity and humility.
Nguyễn Quang (2002) added that initially, this way of addressing was only used
among family members, then it was gradually utilized among neighbors, and finally
among parties in social interactions (p. 175). In the collected data, this way of
addressing is also employed by the Vietnamese staff and managers in office settings.
Below is an example.
(30) Staff: (Knocking on the door)
Manager: Mời vào!
Come in!
Staff: Em chào anh!
Younger sister greet elder brother!
Hello, brother!
Manager: Ờ, chào cô!
Yes, greet younger sister!
Hello!
Staff: Ơ, mặt anh làm sao đấy ạ?
Oh, what‟s wrong with your face?
Manager: À hôm qua về quê uống với ông bác họ dăm chén quốc lủi, hơi chếnh
choáng, ơ thế nhưng mà không sao. Xây sát nhẹ ấy mà.
Ah, yesterday I went home and drank a bit with my uncle. But it‟s okay. Just
a small scratch.
Staff: Dạ!
Yes!
Manager: Hồ sơ đây phải không?
Here is the file?
(Đối thủ kỳ phùng, episode 24 – 21:05)
In this conversation, the staff greets her manager with the greeting verb
“chào” combined with the address terms “em” (younger sister) referring to the
speaker herself and “anh” (elder brother) referring to her partner. The choice of the
address terms “Em - Anh” (younger sister - elder brother) is because the staff is
younger than the manager. Remarkably, the manager responds to the staff‟s greeting
with the use of the greeting verb “chào” combined with the address term “cô” (aunt)
instead of “em” (younger sister). In this case, the kinship term “cô” (aunt) is used
interchangeably with the kinship term “em” (younger sister) because the manager
addresses his staff on his child‟s behalf. By taking his child‟s perspective to refer to
the addressee, the speaker aims to reinforce a solidarity relation with the addressee
(Tuc, 2014, p. 118).

118. 107

Particularly, to make the greeting utterances appear more polite, Vietnamese
parties have a preference to utilize the polite particle “dạ” (yes) at the beginning and/
or the polite particle “ạ” (yes) at the ending of the greeting utterances. The
employment of these polite particles is to convey politeness and respect for the
interlocutors or the addressees (Ensor, 1982, p. 21; Le, 2013, p. 90). More
specifically, Nguyễn Quang (2002) supposed that speakers utilize these polite
particles both to show respect towards their parties and to confirm their parties‟
power semantic that can be their social positions or their age (p. 137). It is
accountable that in the Vietnamese data, these two polite particles are only made use
of by the Vietnamese staff - the parties of lower social status instead of the managers
- the parties of higher social status. In office settings, the manifestation of power
distance is typically significant. Hence, it becomes unnecessary or even
inappropriate for managers to use these polite particles while interacting with their
staff. Let‟s examine the following example.
(31) Staff: (Knocking on the door)
Manager: Mời vào!
Come in!
Staff: Dạ, em chào anh ạ!
Manager: Polite particle younger brother greet elder brother Polite particle
Staff: Hello, brother!
Manager: Cậu ngồi đi. Kế này, hôm nọ cậu đánh thằng Cư xảy ra chuyện lớn rồi.
Sit down. Ke, that you bit Cu last time caused a big problem
(Đối thủ kỳ phùng, episode 8 – 27:50)
This example is the illustration of the utilization of all five components in a
greeting utterance. This form of greeting appears the most polite and formal in the
Vietnamese culture. As depicted in (31), the Vietnamese staff greets his manager by
using the kinship term “em” (younger brother) referring to the subject himself and
“anh” (elder brother) referring to the object (his interlocutor) in combination with
the polite particles “ạ” (yes) at the beginning and “dạ” (yes) at the end of the
utterance. Thanks to the combination of the kinship terms and polite particles, the
greeting utterance appears both close and respectful.
Especially, thanks to the utilization of polite particles, the Vietnamese staff
may produce greeting utterances without subjects as in (32).
(32) Manager: (Knocking on the door)
Staff: Mời vào! Chào chú ạ!
greet uncle polite particle
Come in! Hello, uncle!
Manager: Chào cháu! Nào, tôi đến xem anh đang làm việc gì đây.

119. 108

Greet nephew
Hello. Hey, I come to see what you are doing.
(Cảnh sát hình sự - Chạy án, season 1, episode 1 – 13:48)
As seen in (32), the staff produces a greeting utterance without the subject.
Nevertheless, thanks to the utilization of the kinship term “chú” (uncle) combined
with the polite particle “ạ” (yes) at the end of the utterance, the greeting still appears
polite and close. On the contrary, the manager, thanks to his higher social status,
does not need to employ the subject or polite particles. Only with the employment of
the greeting verb “chào” and the kinship term “cháu” (nephew) addressing the staff,
his greeting utterance is still appropriate and polite.
4.2.2.2. Calling the other’s address term
A greeting utterance can also be performed with the act of calling the other‟s
address term. It is essential to differentiate the strategy calling the other’s address
term in a summons-answer sequence and in a greeting sequence. In nature, the ways
of performing this strategy are similar in the two sequences but the purpose is
different. In a summons-answer sequence, this strategy is just to get the other‟s
attention whereas in a greeting sequence, it is a ritual exchange to help parties to
express politeness and respect to the other interlocutors. Accordingly, in situations
when the two parties are unaware of each other, it serves as a summons-answer
strategy yet in situations when they are aware of each other or under the sight of
each other, it functions as a ritual exchange. Thanks to the accessibility of audio-
visual channels of data in movies, the distinction of this strategy in the two
sequences can be revealed.
As illustrated in Figure 3.7, in the Vietnamese data, this strategy occurs quite
frequently with 19%. In this greeting strategy, the objects or the address terms
referring to the other interlocutors are compulsory while two polite particles are
optional. In this form of greeting, the subjects and the greeting verb “chào” are
omitted. The primary component of this form of greeting is the address terms
referring to the other interlocutors. Like the aforementioned greeting strategy, the
address terms in this strategy can be kinship terms, titles, terms of endearment or
personal names. Despite a wide range of address terms, kinship terms are by far the
most commonly used by the Vietnamese parties.
Specifically, a careful observation of the Vietnamese data indicates that this
strategy is chiefly employed by the Vietnamese staff instead of the managers. In a
greeting utterance, kinship terms can be used separately or in combination with
personal names or polite particles. To increase the politeness of greeting utterances,

120. 109

the Vietnamese staff are inclined to combine kinship terms with polite particles (dạ)
at the beginning and/ or (à), (ạ) at the ending of the greeting utterances. For
example, in (33) the kinship term “anh” (elder brother) is combined with the polite
particle “ạ” (yes) at the end of the greeting utterance.
(33) Staff: (Knocking on the door)
Manager: Vào đi!
Come in!
Staff: Anh ạ!
Brother polite particle (ạ)
Manager: Anh ngồi đi. Đề xuất của anh ko được chấp nhận.
Sit down. Your proposal is not accepted.
(Câu hỏi số 5, episode 7 –24:40)
Besides kinship terms, titles, terms of endearment and personal names can
also be utilized to form a greeting utterance. However, they are used extremely
limitedly with the occurrence in only one or two conversations. Their infrequency of
occurrence shows that although it is acceptable to employ these address terms in
greeting, it is not suggestible to apply them. The illustration of greeting by calling
the other‟s personal name is shown in (34).
(34) Manager: Hân!
Han!
Ơ, anh Hoàng!
(Surprise marker “Ơ”) brother Hoang!
Ah, Hoang!
Manager: Cô không sao chứ? Hôm nay đi làm sớm vậy?
Are you okay? Why do you go to work early?
Staff: Dạ, tại vì tối hôm qua em bị mất ngủ.
Because last night, I couldn‟t sleep.
Manager: Ừ, nếu vậy thì về nhà nghỉ ngơi đi. Tôi không khắt khe với phụ nữ đâu.
Uhm, then go home and rest. I'm not strict with women.
Staff: À, chuyện anh nhờ em, em đã nói với cậu Hòa rồi.
(Nguyệt thực, episode 23 - 11:25)
This example shows the difference in the way of greeting between a staff and
a manager. While the manager greets the staff just by calling her name, the staff
greets the manager by calling the kinship term “anh” (elder brother) combined with
his personal name. Especially, the use of surprise marker “ơ” (ah) at the beginning
of the greeting utterance functions as a way of expressing surprise and warmness of
the staff towards her manager. Thanks to this combination, staff‟s greeting utterance
appears to be both polite and intimate.
Remarkably, the strategy of calling the other‟s address term is the only shared
greeting strategy of the American and Vietnamese parties. As regards the American

121. 110

parties, it is the most frequently used strategy with 29%. Unlike the Vietnamese
parties with the employment of kinship terms as the primary address terms, address
terms in English can be personal names, professional titles or social titles. These
address terms can be used in separation or in combination.
In separation, among these three types of address terms, personal names are
deployed by far the most frequently. The American parties intend to use personal
names in the act of greeting others because personal names show “solidarity
semantic” or express closeness (Nguyễn Quang, 2002, p. 179; Wardhaugh, 1986, p.
260). Typically, the English data show that greeting by calling the others‟ personal
names is deployed by not only the American managers - the parties of higher social
status but also the American staff - the parties of lower social status as in the
following example.
(35) Staff: Jessica!
Manager: Harvey!
Staff: I don't recall giving you my key.
Manager: I don't recall authorizing you to negotiate behind Deron Williams' back.
Staff: His back is just fine. I'm standing right behind it.
Manager: Then why is the contract he signed in my hand? How much did you ask
for?
(Suits, season 3, episode 1 – 5:35)
In this conversation, the American staff - a party of lower social status greets
his manager - a party of higher social status just by calling her name. According to
Nguyễn Quang (2002), this phenomenon is unacceptable in the Vietnamese culture
and in this case, the manager may be shocked when greeted like that. However,
Americans are inclined to call others with their personal names, even with the
political figures or the President as a way to express their closeness and solidarity (p.
181). Accordingly, in this situation, the staff still appears polite when greeting his
manager by calling her name.
In combination, close examination of the English data unearths that the
American parties have three ways of combining these terms including social titles
with personal names, professional titles with personal names and social titles with
professional titles. Despite various ways of combination, only the combination of
social titles with professional titles is employed prevailingly, the two other forms of
combination rarely occur. Significantly, the English data show that this form of
greeting is particularly employed by the American staff to address their managers.
To account for this phenomenon, Nguyễn Quang (2002) claimed that greeting others
with the use of their titles is only deployed in formal contexts or by the parties of

122. 111

lower social status towards parties of higher social status (p. 184) as a way to
express power semantic or to show formality (p. 179). This combination can be
depicted in the following example.
(36) Staff: Madam Secretary, Mr. Jackson is asking to see you.
Manager: Already? He wants an update on the pipeline report? I... You can tell
him this: I'm on page 411 and I have real problems with it. Have you
read this?
(Madam Secretary, season 1, episode 5 – 15:51)
In this conversation, the social status between two parties can be unveiled
through the act of greeting. The use of a social title “Madam” combined with a
professional title “Secretary” in the greeting proves the lower social status of the
speaker and helps show his respect but a bit distance towards his manager. Similarly,
in example (37), the American staff greets his manager by calling the social title
“Mr” combined with his title “Vice President” yet the manager greets his staff just
by calling his personal name “Seth”.
(37) Staff: Mr. Vice President.
Manager: Seth, I thought you'd be at the hospital.
Staff: Just got back
Manager: How is he?
Staff: Recovering rapidly. The president should be back in the residence by the
end of the week.
(Designated survivor, season 1, episode 12 – 1:51)
4.2.2.3. Using time-bound greeting
Regarded as a typical greeting in English (Jibreen, 2010), the strategy of
using time-bound greeting can be called with other names such as time-oriented
greetings by Duranti (1992) or temporal greetings expressed with time words by
Alharbi and Al-Ajmi (2008). In this strategy, participants greet their interlocutors
according to the time of the day, including “good morning”, “good afternoon”,
“good evening”, and “good night”. Although it is seen as a typical and customary
greeting strategy in English, it occurs in only 16 conversations with 7%.
The findings reveal that this form of greeting can be deployed by both the
American staff and managers. Nevertheless, the managers have a preference to
deploy time-bound phases in isolation whereas the staff are inclined to use them in
combination with address terms. This difference is shown in (38) below:
(38) Staff: Good morning, Mr. President!
Manager: Morning! Anything happened during the three hours I slept?
Staff: Per your orders. Pentagon's working around the clock to find Majid
Nassar. Schools have reopened.
(Designated survivor, season 1, episode 4 – 01:25)

123. 112

In this conversation, the staff greets his superior by a time-bound greeting
phase “good morning” combined with an address term constructed with a social title
in the form of an honorific form - “Mr.” and a professional title - “President”. On the
contrary, the manager greets his staff just by a time-bound phase “morning”.
Through this way of greeting, the power distance and the social distance between
two parties can also be unveiled.
4.2.2.4. Using greeting proper
Besides time-bound greeting, the American parties can perform a greeting
utterance with greeting propers including “hi”, “hello” and “hey”. This form of
greeting is present in 23 English conversations, accounting for 11%. Interestingly,
these greeting propers are utilized equally by both the American staff and managers.
It appears that in English, this form of greeting is used regardless of parties‟ gender,
age and social status. For example, in the following conversation, the American staff
- a young woman and the American manager - an old man greet each other with the
greeting proper “hi”.
(39) Staff: Hi!
Manager: Hi!
Staff: I heard you were back. Should you be doing that?
Manager: Prescribed. Light walking. Need to get the blood flowing.
Staff: Okay. Good. Look, Louis, I am-- I'm sorry about what happened. I
really am.
Manager: Well, I'm gonna be fine, Rachel.
Staff: Good. I actually wanted to talk to you about a contracts issue.
(Suits, season 3, episode 14 – 23:15)
Additionally, like time-bound greetings, greeting propers can also be
combined with address terms to form a greeting utterance. This combination is
applicable to both the American staff and managers. For instance, in (40), the staff
and the manager perform a similar form of greeting with the combination of the
greeting proper “hi” with the personal names of the other interlocutors.
(40) Manager: Hi, Donna!
Staff: Hi, Louis!
Manager: I'm nothing if not a big man, and I am not ashamed to admit when I am
wrong.
Staff: You got Mike's transcript.
Manager: Arrived this morning.
(Suits, season 3, episode 11 – 24:41)
4.2.2.5. Concluding remarks
In conclusion, Vietnamese and English greeting strategies have more
differences than similarities. As to similarities, the American and Vietnamese parties

124. 113

share only one opening strategy, that is, calling the other‟s address term. The
findings prove that in both languages, participants can call the other‟s address term
as a way of greeting but the choice of address terms is largely different between
them. Furthermore, it appears that with greeting strategies, the power distance
between a staff and a manager can be primarily revealed in both languages. It is
proved that staff - the parties of lower social status have taken different greeting
strategies from managers - the parties of higher social status.
Inversely, the findings indicate that greeting strategies are notably different in
English and Vietnamese in terms of their frequency of occurrence and formulaic
structures. Compared with greeting utterances in English, those in Vietnamese
appear to be more complicated in terms of various aspects such as appropriate
choices of kinship terms, titles and polite particles “dạ”/ “ạ” (yes). Especially, the
use of kinship terms and polite particles “dạ”/ “ạ” (yes) as a way to express
politeness is rather typical in greetings in Vietnamese whilst these terms do not
occur in greetings in English. Accordingly, Vietnamese staff and managers tend to
have different ways of combining these terms to form a greeting utterance. Unlike
the Vietnamese parties, the American parties employ two other greeting strategies,
that is, time-bound greetings and greeting propers, which are quite formulaic and
simple to construct. The differences in the act of greeting between the American and
Vietnamese parties in this study are in line with the findings introduced by Trần
Ngọc Thêm (2004). According to him, in the greeting ritual, the Vietnamese perform
a greeting regarding participants‟ social relationships, address terms and emotions
while Westerners perform a greeting according to the time. This difference is
justified by the preference of stability of the Vietnamese agricultural culture but
priority of the mobility of the Western Normadic culture (pp. 314-316).
4.2.3. English and Vietnamese phatic communion strategies
Before raising the main topic of concern, interactants often produce a
preparation step to prepare a pleasant air of hospitality and to avoid unpleasant
tension that may develop in the opening section of a conversation. This preparation
step is regarded as the phatic communion sequence. To keep a conversation to be
carried out smoothly, the phatic communion sequence in the opening section serves
as a warming-up period of varying length (Stenstrom, 1994). In other words, phatic
talk paves the way towards sociolinguistic solidarity and provides the suitable
initiation of a tension-free interaction.

125. 114

Unlike the summons-answer and the greeting sequences, which are quite
formulaic with limited phases of expressions, the phatic sequence is much more
open regarding the language use. It is not difficult for parties to learn how to
perform a summons-answer or a greeting sequence. Nevertheless, it is challenging
for them to learn to express a phatic sequence due to its content and structural
diversity. As normal, a phatic sequence is to express politeness. However, if parties
do not know what to say or how to express, they may appear impolite or rude.
The content raised in the phatic communion sequence is conventional and
referentially irrelevant to the content of the interaction (Abdelhaleem, 2004, p. 20).
According to Althen (1988), American parties tend to engage in a kind of small talk
before raising the main topic of a conversation and the topics of small talk are varied
according to the life situation of the people involved and the setting in which the
conversation is taking place (p. 22). Differently, Abdelhaleem (2004) supposed that
the categories of utterances in the phatic communion sequence largely depend on the
degree of solidarity and relative social status (p. 21). He claimed that the most
common topics of small talk are weather, current surroundings such as the places
they are in, the sidewalk they are standing or experiences they have both had (p. 22).
In the same way, Chew (2011) supposed that the most frequent small talk topics are
the weekend and holidays, family and friends, personal experiences, food, the
weather and current events (p. 139). Specifically, Holmes (2005) conducted a study
on small talk in workplace settings and concluded that small talk in New Zealand
workplaces typically focuses on noncontroversial topics including the weather,
ritualized inquiries about health, out-of-work social activities, sport, generalized
complaints about the economy, positive comments on appearance, work, and so on
(pp. 353-354). In the continuation of the earlier work, Holmes and Stubbe (2015)
proved that small talk between work colleagues normally occurs in passing as well
as at the beginning of planned activities (p. 90).
In the present study, the types of phatic utterances encountered in examined
conversations are categorized. The themes mentioned in English and Vietnamese
phatic sequences will be grouped into categories to provide language users with
sufficient linguistic understanding. Laver (1981) divided phatic communion in initial
phases of conversations into three categories, that is, neutral, self-oriented and other-
oriented. Although Laver‟s (1981) categories are easy to follow, they are too broad
and general. These categories do not provide a range of linguistic resources to help
learners to imagine what parties really talk in this sequence. In the present study,

126. 115

specific phatic strategies employed in initial phrases of staff-manager conversations
will be grouped and categorized with the method of open coding or the application
of data-driven categories. Thanks to this method, the study finds out 15 phatic
strategies performed by the American and Vietnamese parties as illustrated in Figure
3.8 below.

Figure 3.8: English and Vietnamese phatic strategies
Unexpectedly, as seen in Figure 3.8, the American parties employ more
phatic strategies than the Vietnamese ones. In fact, the American parties perform 15
phatic strategies, with the occurrence of 198 times (93%) while the Vietnamese
parties conduct only 11 phatic strategies with the occurrence of 171 times (87%).
These findings prove that compared with the Vietnamese parties, the American
parties have more selection of content to mention or topics to raise in a phatic
sequence. As aforementioned, phatic communion strategies are supposed to be
politeness strategies to help build solidarity and rapport and maintain good
relationships between or among coworkers (Holmes, 2000; Pullin, 2010). The more
frequency of occurrence of these strategies in the English data disproves the
affirmation that in individualist societies, tasks are supposed to prevail over any
personal relationships whereas in collectivist societies, the personal relationship

127. 116

predominates over the task (Hofstede et al., 2010, p. 123). Compared with the
Vietnamese parties, the American parties may be more direct and straightforward.
However, they still highly appreciate phatic talk in interaction as a way to build,
maintain and foster the superior-subordinate relationship in workplaces. The process
of analyzing, comparing and contrasting the English and Vietnamese phatic
strategies will be presented in the following parts.
4.2.3.1. Referring to the other's state
The strategy of referring to the other's state is utilized equally by the
American and Vietnamese parties with 18% and 17% respectively. This strategy,
regarded as the strategy of reference to other in Krivonos and Knapp‟s (1975, p.
121) works, is comments on the current states of the addressees. It can be
understood as a way of expressing concern towards the other interlocutors, so it
consolidates their relationship and promotes the effectiveness of a conversation. It is
regarded as a situational strategy. As a result, it is impossible for parties to prepare it
before the interaction.
According to Saberi (2012), in the Persian language and culture, much like
others, asking about one‟s health, well-being, state of affairs and news are often,
though not always, employed prior to daily social encounters (p. 67). However,
these exchanges appear to be brief because Americans are generally impatient with
long ritual interchanges about family members‟ health or invocations of supreme
being‟s goodwill, considering them a waste of time (Althen, 1988, p. 24). In the
present study, due to the typical office settings, the comments on the others‟ states
include their appearance or presence, their feelings like being happy, being angry,
being tired or being upset and their behaviors such as coming early, staying late,
concentrating on their work. Consider the following example.
(41) Manager: Good morning, Monica!
Staff: Jessica!
Manager: You look tired. Did you get much rest last night?
Staff: I want to explain.
Manager: I'm not here for excuses.
(Suits, season 2, episode 8 – 34:15)
In this conversation, the American manager shows his concern on his staff‟s
health with the comment “You looked tired”. This comment makes the conversation
more informal and the relationship between the staff and the manager more intimate,
which helps enhance the effectiveness of the conversations.

128. 117

4.2.3.2. Referring to the current situation/ work
The strategy of referring to the current situation/ work makes up 12% of the
English conversations and 11% of the Vietnamese conversations. It is regarded as a
situational strategy because parties give comments on the current situations the
addressees are in or the current work they are doing. The American and Vietnamese
parties deploy this strategy to show concerns towards the others as a way to maintain
their relationship, to get the other‟s attention and to avoid an abrupt opening. For
example:
(42) Staff: Anh ạ!
Hello!
Manager: Ờ, cậu đang làm số mới đấy à?
Yes. Are you are printing the new issue?
Staff: Vâng ạ!
Yes!
Manager: Mấy giờ thì ra phim?
When will the film be coated?
Staff: Báo cáo anh 11 rưỡi!
11:30, sir!
Manager: À, cậu đưa lại cho tôi bài viết về công ty Hoàng Quân!
Ah, give me the article on Hoang Quan Company!
Staff: Anh định in à?
You will print it?
(Cảnh sát hình sự - Chạy án, season 1, episode 6 – 23:50)
As seen in (42), the manager does not raise the main topic of the conversation
or the purpose of his coming right after the greeting sequence. Instead, he performs
some phatic talk by commenting on the current work his staff is doing. Although the
manager knows that his staff is printing a new issue, he asks “Cậu đang làm số mới
đấy à?” (Are you printing the new issue?). After this question, the staff and the
manager exchange several turns relating to the staff‟s current task before the
manager initiates the topic of the conversation. The exchanges on the current task in
(42) function as phatic communion that helps the conversation to be carried out
more smoothly.
4.2.3.3. Referring to previous task/ action
The strategy of referring to previous task/ action is used more often by the
American parties with 11% than the Vietnamese parties with 6%. Previous tasks or
actions mentioned may be related to the current tasks or not. The employment of this
strategy is due to the typical settings and the particular relationship in which the
conversations occur. The examined conversations take place in office settings
between a staff and his/ her manager. Hence, the use of this strategy is appropriate

129. 118

and useful in initiating a conversation. For example, in (43), the American staff
refers to his previous action “I was just headed to you” as a way to open his
conversation.
(43) Staff: Hey!
Manager: Hey!
Staff: Uh, I was just headed to you.
Manager: What's that?
Staff: A speech that should shake up the standoff. Are there any metaphors?
I'm kind of off metaphors for a while.
Manager: Uh, Saigal needs to push around the U.S. before accepting its aid, right?
Staff: Unfortunately, yes.
(Madam Secretary, season 1, episode 7 – 34:20)
4.2.3.4. Asking confirmation question
The strategy of asking confirmation question constitutes 11% of the
Vietnamese data and 9% of the English data. Typically used confirmation questions
are “you wanted to see me?” or “did you call me?”. Specifically, this strategy is
made use of by staff rather than managers in the two languages. It appears that when
a manager wants to talk to his staff, he will leave a message or send a notice and
when the staff comes into the manager‟s office, he tends to ask a confirmation
question. Although performed similarly in the two languages, its function appears
different in English and Vietnamese. Elaborate examination reveals that in all the
English data, this strategy is performed as the first exchange to function as an
attention getting device. Inversely, in the Vietnamese conversations, it is employed
after several exchanges to promote the process of topic initiation. Example (44) and
(45) unearth this difference.
(44) Staff: You wanted to see me?
Manager: Sit down. I looked through your work on the Bainbridge briefs.
Spectacular. You caught the discrepancies between listed assets and
potential assets. That had a huge impact, Mike.
Staff: Yeah, I know. Millions. But anyone would've caught that, right?
(Suits, season 1, episode 2 – 8:10)
(45) Staff: (Knocking on the door)
Manager: Mời vào!
Come in, please!
Staff: Anh Thiết!
Mr. Thiet!
Manager: Chào anh!
Hello!
Staff: Anh cho gọi tôi à?
You wanted to see me?
Manager: Vâng, mời anh ngồi! Hôm nọ tôi định gặp anh để nói chuyện nhưng

130. 119

anh lại đi Hà Nội công tác nhân đây tôi xin cảm ơn anh Tuy vì đã
gửi Hoa chúc mừng ngày cưới của vợ chồng tôi, tôi thật sự cảm động
trước tấm lòng của anh.
Yes, sit down, please! I intended to meet you but you went on a business
trip in Hanoi. By the way, I would like to thank you for sending flowers
to our wedding anniversary. I‟m really moved by your affection.
Staff: Thấy anh vui thì tôi cũng mừng, tôi thành thật chúc mừng vợ chồng
anh mãi hạnh phúc bên nhau.
I‟m glad to see you be happy, I sincerely wish you happy forever.
Manager: Xin cảm ơn anh!
Thank you!
Staff: Nghe nói anh bị điều đi tập huấn cho hội nghị xúc tiến đầu tư của tỉnh
(Đối thủ kỳ phùng, episode 29 – 5:40)
Occurring in the first turn of speaking, the question “you wanted to see me?”
in (44) functions as an attention getting device. Via this question, the staff gets the
manager‟s attention and informs him about his coming. On the other hand, as seen in
(45), the confirmation question is produced after several exchanges of the summons-
answer and greeting sequences, so its function is not to get the other‟s attention. In
fact, the confirmation question “Anh cho gọi tôi à?” performed by the staff can be
understood as “I‟m here, what do you want to discuss with me?”. In other words, its
function is to facilitate the other interlocutors to raise the main topic of the
conversation.
4.2.3.5. Inviting the other to sit down
The strategy of inviting the other to sit down is most frequently utilized by
the Vietnamese parties with 21% yet infrequently deployed by the American parties
with only 5%. The findings especially show that the American parties often stand to
exchange information with their partners regardless of whether their partners are
standing or sitting. It seems that the American parties only focus on the talk and the
effectiveness of the task rather than the others‟ behaviors. The infrequent occurrence
of this strategy can be justified by the Americans‟ fast pace interaction. In formal
conversations discussing work-related issues, the act of inviting the other to sit down
seems to be unnecessary and time-consuming to the American parties. On the
contrary, the act of inviting the other to sit down at the preliminary stage of a
conversation is a common ritual behavior in the Vietnamese culture. In the
Vietnamese culture, it is regarded as polite to invite other interlocutors to sit down
rather than let them stand during the interaction. As observed from the Vietnamese
data, the Vietnamese parties are inclined to sit while discussing matters that take
time to finish. Inversely, in quick exchanges, such as presenting files or informing of
the guest‟s coming, this act is unnecessary. The staff may have a quick conversation

131. 120

and then leave the room immediately. The frequency of occurrence of this strategy
in the Vietnamese conversations can also be justified by the low pace of interaction
in this culture. In other words, the Vietnamese parties seem to prolong raising the
main topic of the conversations with ritual exchanges functioning to enhance social
relationship between two parties and express politeness as illustrated in (46).
(46) Staff: (Knocking on the door)
Manager: Vào đi!
Come in!
Staff: Anh cho gọi tôi ạ?
You called me?
Manager: Ờ, anh ngồi đi! Anh nắm được thông tin về kẻ biến chất trong đội ngũ
của ta chưa?
Yes, take your seat! Do you have any information about the corrupt guy
in our organization?
(Câu hỏi số 5, episode 3 –24:40)
4.2.3.6. Referring to oneself’s state
The strategy referring to oneself‟s state, regarded as the strategy of reference
to self by Krivonos and Knapp (1975, p. 121), constitutes 7% of the English data and
5% of the Vietnamese data. In interaction, participants may mention their own states
in initial exchanges of conversations. It can be indicated that the way of performing
this strategy is different between the American and Vietnamese parties. In most of
the cases, the American managers make use of this strategy to refer to their busy
state as a way to show that they are not ready for the current conversations or the
current conversations should be brief.
Differently, the Vietnamese parties deploy this strategy to refer to their
current feelings or state of health. This finding is in line with Chew‟s (2011) point of
view. According to him, referring to self or other is a common topic for phatic
communion (p. 142). The infrequent occurrence of this strategy may be explained by
the formal relationship between staff and managers and formal office settings. The
exposure of current feelings or state of health is much more appropriate between
close friends or relatives rather than staff and managers in formal settings. Thanks to
the application of this strategy, the relationship between two parties appears closer
and less formal. Accordingly, the effectiveness of the conversation may be
enhanced. The utilization of this strategy is illustrated in the following example.
(47) Staff: Chị ơi!
Hey, sister!
Manager: Chị đau đầu quá, gì hả em?
I have a headache. What‟s up?
Staff: Chị ơi, sau khi chị tuyên bố cho anh Nghĩa rút vốn từ những mặt hàng

132. 121

khác để đầu tư nhập mặt hàng cao cấp do anh ấy phụ trách, anh ấy làm
quá tay ảnh hưởng đến lợi nhuận.
Hey, after you let Nghia withdraw capital from other items to invest in
high-class items which he was in charge of, he made a deficit.
(Mưa bóng mây, episode 20– 4:00)
Customarily, the issues of health and feelings are only told to the members of
family or close friends. However, in this situation, the manager expresses her health
problem to her staff when initiating a conversation. This strategy, in this situation,
creates a special effect on the talk. Thanks to it, the manager wants to convey that
she regards the staff as her relative or her close friend. In this way, not only the
purpose of the interaction can be achieved but also participants‟ relationship can be
maintained and promoted.
4.2.3.7. Referring to personal life at home
The strategy of referring to personal life at home, which is similar to the
strategy of personal inquiry suggested by Krivonos and Knapp (1975, p. 121), makes
up 3% of the English data and 5% of the Vietnamese data. This strategy has the
same functions with the strategy of referring to the other‟s state to express speakers‟
concern on the hearers. In this strategy, two parties exchange questions and answers
about their personal activities at home. The phatic communion on personal topics
appears informal. Its infrequency of occurrence in both languages is accounted for
by the typical working environment and the participants of collected conversations.
Questions on life at home may make conversations more personal and less formal,
which seems to be inappropriate with relationship between staff and managers in
office settings. In fact, conversations on work-related issues between staff and
managers are rather formal. Consequently, personal issues, even in the opening
sections, tend to be avoided. The act of referring to the personal life at home
contributes to the informality of the conversation as in (48).
(48) Staff: Morning, Mr. President. Did you get any sleep?
Manager: I'm sure that bedroom's seen a lot of things, but I don't think a good
night's sleep is one of them. Look, I need you to stay on top of the
Nassar investigation.
(Designated survivor, season 1, episode 7 – 9:35)
In this conversation, the American staff initiates his conversation by greeting
his manager and asking about his personal life at home with the question “did you
get any sleep?”. In this situation, this personal question helps the staff to express his
concern towards his manager, so makes their relationship closer and more intimate.

133. 122

4.2.3.8. Inviting the other to come in
The third strategy, inviting the other to come in, accounts for 5% of the
Vietnamese conversations and 4% of the English conversations. It is essential to
distinguish this strategy in a summons-answer sequence and in a phatic communion
sequence. In a summons-answer sequence, parties invite the others to come in as a
response of a summons and in these cases, they do not know who they are talking to
because of the obstacle of the door. In other words, in a summons-answer sequence,
this strategy is only a physical behavior of informing the awareness of the others‟
summonses. However, in a phatic communion sequence, this strategy is performed
only after two parties recognize each other. It functions as a polite behavior to help a
party to express respect and politeness towards other interlocutors. A close
observation of the data reveals that the infrequency of occurrence of this strategy in
both languages is because parties tend to enter the others‟ working place without an
invitation. Example (49) below describes the use of this strategy.
(49) Staff: (Knocking on the door)
Manager: Mời vào!
Come in!
Staff: Cháu chào chú ạ!
Hello, uncle!
Manager: Thức đấy à, vào đây cháu. Cháu ngồi đi. Có việc gì vậy?
Thuc, come in. Sit down. What‟s up?
Staff: Thưa chú, cháu nghe nói tập đoàn Bỉnh Sơn đang tích cực xin giảm án
cho tay cựu trưởng phòng Vũ Cư, em ruột của Vũ Gia, phó viện trưởng
viện kiểm soát thành phố.
Dear sir, I heard that Binh Son corporation is trying to request a
reduction of the sentence for the former manager Vu Cu, younger
brother of Vu Gia, Deputy Director of the city procuracy.
(Đối thủ kỳ phùng, episode 8 – 30:00)
As seen in this conversation, the manager produces two acts of inviting the
other to come in, the first one is in the summons-answer sequence while the second
one is in the phatic communion sequence. In the phatic communion sequence, if the
manager does not invite the staff to come in, he will still come in. However, the
manager performs an invitation in this situation just to express a warm welcome
towards his staff.
4.2.3.9. Offering a drink
The strategy of offering a drink is present in only two English conversations
(1%) and six Vietnamese conversations (3%). Especially, while the Vietnamese
parties offer tea, the American parties prefer other beverages like scotch or coffee.
For a long time, offering tea has become a cultural feature of Vietnamese people.

134. 123

The infrequency of occurrence of this strategy in both cultures can be accounted for
by the formal relationship between parties and formal settings in which the
conversations take place. As usual, drinking tea is regarded as a time-consuming act.
Hence, it is typically appropriate when the parties are free. Accordingly, in office
settings and in work-related conversations, it is not habitual for parties to offer their
interlocutors a cup of tea.
The act of offering tea is rather significant and typical in the Vietnamese
culture. In the Vietnamese community, tea is the most common drink, drunk at any
time during the day and always served tea in tiny teacups (Ellis, 1996, p. 218). As
usual, when a guest visits a family, the first act the host does is to offer him a cup of
tea. The act of offering tea, originating from the Vietnamese community culture, is
to express politeness, hospitality and intimacy of speakers towards other
interlocutors. Despite the popularity of this culture in the Vietnamese community,
this strategy is infrequently utilized by the Vietnamese staff and managers.
According to Kohl (2007), the infrequency of occurrence of this act in office settings
is because in modern time, Vietnamese people are inclined to invite their business
partners to dine in fancy restaurants instead of offering tea as they used to (p. 2). The
employment of this strategy is illustrated in the following Vietnamese conversation.
(50) Staff: (Knocking on the door)
Manager: Vào đi!
Come in!
Staff: Chào thủ trưởng!
Hello boss!
Manager: Cậu ngồi đi!
Sit down, please!
Staff: Vâng ạ! Mời thủ trưởng uống nước ạ!
Yes! Invite boss drink water PoP
Yes, drink tea with me, please!
Manager: Tay cậu sao rồi?
Is your hand better?
Staff: Đạn chỉ sượt qua thôi ạ.
Just a small wound
Manager: Do Linh công tử làm?
Shot by Linh
(Câu hỏi số 5, episode 7 –20:00)
As described in (50), the act of offering a drink is diversified and meaningful
in the Vietnamese culture. In this conversation, the manager invites the staff to come
in, to sit down, and then he pours tea into a cup to offer the staff. The manager
accomplishes the act of inviting the staff to drink nonverbally. However, when the
staff takes the cup of tea to drink, he invites the manager to drink together. This act

135. 124

is not actually an invitation but just a Vietnamese ritual behavior to show the
politeness when Vietnamese people eat or drink with others.
4.2.3.10. Expressing surprise
The strategy of expressing surprise justifies for extremely limited percentages
in both English and Vietnamese with only 1% and 4% respectively. This strategy is
often expressed briefly via such surprise markers as “ồ”, “ôi”, “ủa” in Vietnamese
and exclamation sentences in English. In office settings, it is routine for staff and
managers to meet each other frequently, even several times a day. Their frequent
encountering in office settings accounts for the rare appearance of this strategy in
both languages. This strategy is typically used in unexpected encounters or in
encounters in which participants have not seen each other for a time as in (51).
(51) Manager: Congresswoman, what a pleasant surprise!
Staff: Sir, it's been a whole week since Majid Nassar confessed to the Capitol
bombing. The entire country is on pins and needles. Where are we on
our search?
(Designated survivor, season 1, episode 4 – 2:00)
In this conversation, the manager, the President of the United States,
expresses a surprise because he meets his staff - a congresswoman in an unexpected
situation or the sudden appearance of the staff makes the manager surprise.
4.2.3.11. Referring to external circumstances/ objects
Different from Krivonos and Knapp (1975) who maintained that the strategy
of referring to external circumstances/ objects occurs frequently in conversational
opening process, the findings reveal that this strategy only constitutes 5% of the
English data and only 2% of the Vietnamese data. It is a situational strategy because
a party will base on the current circumstances or surrounding objects to give
comment. The external circumstances or objects function as the common knowledge
to help parties to involve in the conversation as in (52).
(52) Staff: Louis. I just need-- I just--
Manager: Yeah.
Staff: Looks delicious! What is that?
Manager: It's a spinach and kale power smoothie. I'm in the middle of my
quarterly cleanse. What do you want?
Staff: To apologize... for any misunderstanding we might have had.
Manager: That you might have had.
(Suits, season 2, episode 13 – 12:23)
In this conversation, the staff intends to raise the main topic of the
conversation immediately in the first turn of speaking. However, she recognizes that
her staff is busy preparing a special drink. Instead of raising the main topic, she

136. 125

comments on the mixture of drink that her manager is holding. The manager replies
to her comment and asks for her reason for meeting him. In this situation, the small
talk on the drink appears to help the staff proceed the conversation smoothly and
avoid abrupt opening.
4.2.3.12. Expressing pleasure, expressing apology and expressing thanks
Among four phatic strategies only used by the American parties, three
strategies of expressing pleasure, expressing thanks and expressing apology making
up 2%, 3% and 3% respectively are used in rather similar manner. In interaction,
these strategies function as a ritual behavior for the American parties to express
politeness. The two first ones are positive politeness strategies to help parties
maintain and consolidate their relationship while the latter is a negative politeness
strategy to help parties to offer compensation for the inconvenience they create.
The strategy of expressing pleasure is notably deployed by the American
managers. As normal, in staff-manager conversations, staff are members who come
to the managers‟ places. The managers deploy this strategy as a positive politeness
strategy to welcome the staff‟s coming and presence as in (53).
(53) Manager: Kimble, how nice to see you!
Staff: Thank you, sir. I know you've got a Senate vote coming up fast, so I
won't take much of your time. What I came to tell you is, with the
proper encouragement, I think a few moderate Republicans in the Senate
might just vote yes.
Manager: What kind of encouragement are we talking about?
(Designated survivor, season 1, episode 16 – 19:36)
Whereas the strategy of expressing pleasure is often deployed by the
American managers, the strategy of expressing thanks is usually utilized by the
American staff. As shown in the examined conversations, the American staff express
thanks towards their managers not because they receive any special privilege from
them but just because they want to express the politeness. Conventionally, the
American staff use this strategy to express their gratitude towards their managers for
having a chance to meet them as in (54).
(54) Staff: Thank you for taking the time, Mr. President.
Manager: I'll always make time for you, Kimble.
Staff: I know how busy you must be since your schedule's been cleared of
most every appointment. I suppose you could say I‟m looking for
explanations. In one day, you fired your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
and arrested a sitting governor. It's erratic, sir.
(Designated survivor, season 1, episode 5 – 10:28)
Similarly, the American parties do not apologize to others for making any
mistakes or faults, but for their interruption, inconvenience or sudden appearance. It

137. 126

is regarded as a negative politeness strategy conducted when the American staff
think that they invade their managers‟ privacy and, to some extent, exert certain
effects on their current work as in (55).
(55) Staff: Madam Secretary, I'm sorry to interrupt.
Manager: Did you hear back from the China desk?
Staff: Uh, yes. We're holding a Chinese spy that Beijing very much wants
back.
(Madam Secretary, season 1, episode 4 – 17:52)
4.2.3.13. Asking/ checking for the other’s availability for talking
The strategy of asking/ checking for the other’s availability for talking,
making up 8% of the English data, is to make sure that the other interlocutors are
ready to talk and the speakers‟ appearance does not interfere to the other
interlocutors. It is a negative politeness strategy because it helps speakers to show
their care and respect towards their interlocutors. Speakers express that they
recognize and want to minimize the threat they may put on the others when they
invade their privacy. The findings unearth that this strategy is used by both the
American staff and managers in two forms, to ask for the other‟s availability for
talking as in (56) or to check for the convenience for talking as in (57). In both
conversations, the American parties produce hedges to make sure that their
appearance and their interruption have the least threat to the others.
(56) Manager: Louis, got a minute?
Staff: I'm a little busy, but sure.
Manager: I deserve that. A little payback among senior partners is fair play.
Staff: I'm listening.
(Suits, season 2, episode 9 – 33:38)
(57) Manager: Mind if I come in?
Staff: Uh, truth be told, I was taking off for the afternoon.
Manager: Late night?
Staff: Nothing I can't handle.
Manager: I believe it. I heard your speech to the associates. And I just wanted
to tell you how impressed I was.
Staff: Thank you.
Manager: I always knew you were the right man for the job, so it feels good to see
it in action.
(Suits, season 2, episode 3 – 38:24)
4.2.3.14. Concluding remarks
In conclusion, the American and Vietnamese parties share more similarities
than differences in deploying phatic strategies. Regarding similarities, the frequency
of appearance of phatic strategies in both languages justifies for their significance in

138. 127

conversational opening process. It is habitual for the American and Vietnamese
parties to perform phatic strategies in the initial phase of a conversation, even a
formal conversation in office settings. Although the main purpose of staff-manager
conversations is to accomplish certain tasks or work, it is essential or crucial for the
American and Vietnamese parties to produce small talk as a way of leading to a
main topic of concern. In addition, most of the English and Vietnamese phatic
strategies are utilized equally. This demonstrates that in a rather equivalent setting
and participants‟ relationship, parties are inclined to behave in a same way. Finally,
it is revealed from the findings that parties in both languages try to behave politely
in the process of initiating a conversation. It can be concluded that conversational
opening sections in both languages have dual functions, to help parties to raise a
topic of concern smoothly and politely and to maintain and foster participants‟ social
relationship.
As regards differences, compared with the Vietnamese parties, the American
ones make use of more number and types of phatic strategies. This finding is
opposed to the results of the previous research which claims that Americans are
straightforward speakers (Lewis, 2005, p. 70). This finding also indicates that the
American parties have a wider range of content to raise in a phatic sequence than
Vietnamese ones. Furthermore, although parties in both languages try to behave
politely in the initial phase of a conversation, their ways of behaving are different.
While the Vietnamese parties are inclined to make use of positive politeness
strategies to express their concern or regards on their interlocutors, the American
ones are prone to perform negative politeness strategies to minimize their imposition
on their interlocutors.
4.2.4. English and Vietnamese topic initiation strategies
Topic initiation sequence is not mentioned in Schegloff‟s (1968) work, but
has been discussed by a number of other researchers in their work (Button & Casey,
1984; Krivonos & Knapp, 1975). This strategy functioning as a bridge helps in
moving a conversation to a topic of concern. Naturally, interactants are prone to
raise a topic of concern right after this sequence. Accordingly, unlike the three
aforementioned sequences, this sequence is not constructed by adjacency pairs. It is
usually performed briefly in one turn of speaking with a word, a phase or a sentence.
The findings indicate that to perform this sequence, the American and
Vietnamese parties deploy four strategies, that is, asking for the reason of the talk,

139. 128

telling the reason of the talk, using disjunct markers and using topic initiation
devices. The distribution of these strategies is shown in Figure 3.9 below.

Figure 3.9: English and Vietnamese topic initiation strategies
As depicted in Figure 3.9, topic initiation strategies are deployed differently
in the English and Vietnamese data. Only the two first strategies occur in both
languages, the third one only occurs in the English data while the last one only
appears in the Vietnamese data. The details of the usage and features of each
strategy are discussed in following parts.
4.2.4.1. Asking for the reason of the talk
The first topic initiation strategy, asking for the reason of the talk, justifies for
18% of the English data and 15% of the Vietnamese data. Usually, in a two-party
conversation, one party is a topic initiator who will raise a topic of concern while the
other is a topic recipient to whom the topic is given. In some cases, two parties may
exchange the role of raising and receiving the topics. In both languages, this strategy
is particularly employed by the topic recipients as the way to put an end to the
opening section and ask the other interlocutor to initiate the topic immediately. It is
explicable that in both languages, this strategy tends to be used by the managers in
lieu of the staff. In staff-manager conversations, thanks to their more power, the
managers tend to be the leaders or the controllers of the conversations whether they
are topic initiators or not. Thanks to their leading role, the managers control a
conversation by the act of ending an opening section and moving to a topic of
concern.
In more details, the questions to ask for the reason of the talk are divided into
three types: hearer-oriented questions constructed with the subject “you”, speaker-
oriented questions formed with the subject “I”, and non-personal questions. The
American parties use all these three types of questions while Vietnamese parties

140. 129

only deploy hearer-oriented and non-personal questions. Speaker-oriented questions
like “what can I do for you?” are utilized by the managers to offer help or aid to
their staff. The absence of the speaker-oriented questions in the Vietnamese
conversations can be justified by the modesty and self-restraint of the speakers. In
the Vietnamese culture, modesty is one of the most important virtues that everyone
is encouraged to acquire (Le, 2013, p. 51). Due to the modesty, the Vietnamese
managers intend to care about others with hearer-oriented questions instead of
promoting their own positions. For example, in (58), the Vietnamese manager uses
the strategy of asking for the reason of the talk with a hearer-oriented question while
in (59), the American manager employs this strategy with a speaker-oriented
question.
(58) Manager: Ngồi đi con!
Take your seat!
Staff: Dạ!
Yes!
Manager: Con có chuyện gì muốn nói với cô hả?
What do you want to talk to me?
Staff: Dạ, con đã suy nghĩ kĩ rồi cô ạ. Chuyện mà hôm trước cô muốn giúp cho
con của con được vào trường tư thục, con thấy công việc của cô bận quá
thật là con không muốn làm phiền cô chỉ vì chuyện riêng của con.
Yes, I thought of it carefully. You want to help my son to study in the
private school but I know you are too busy, I do not want to bother you
with my private problem.
(Ván bài tình yêu, episode 19 – 34:39)
(59) Staff: (Knocking on the door). Louis.
Manager: Hi, Donna. What can I do for you?
Staff: Not for me. For Katrina.
Manager: Which one's Katrina again?
Staff: Okay, you know what? You've had your fun. Time to let it go.
(Suits, season 2, episode 13 – 27:28)
In both conversations, the managers make use of the strategy of asking the
reason of the talk to put an end to the opening sections and lead to the main topics of
the talk. However, whereas the Vietnamese manager expresses her concern towards
her staff with a hearer-oriented question, the American manager shows his power
with a speaker-oriented question.
4.2.4.2. Telling the reason of the talk
The second topic initiation strategy, telling the reason of the talk, makes up
13% of the English conversations but only 7% of the Vietnamese conversations.
Unlike the strategy of asking for the reason of the talk, this strategy is performed by
topic initiators. This strategy functions as a signal device to inform the other

141. 130

interlocutors of the main topic. Thanks to it, the topic recipients are aware that the
opening section is closed and the main topic is going to be raised. In English, this
strategy is made use of by both staff and managers and it is formed with structures
like “I came to tell you…”, “I want you to know…” or “I need you to know…”. As
depicted in (60), the American manager informs the reason of the talk with “I have
something to say”. The manager states the topic of the conversation right after
mentioning the reason of the talk.
(60) Staff: Good evening, Russell!
Manager: I have something to say that the president thought you should hear in
person
Staff: I'm sure it gives you no pleasure to say it.
Manager: That speech of yours... was reckless, impulsive, damn near
insubordinate.
(Madam Secretary, season 1, episode 6 – 24:44)
Likewise, in Vietnamese, this strategy is commonly formed with the
combination of structures like “I came here to”, “I want to” and “I have something
to” with a performative verb. In deploying this strategy, the Vietnamese parties
employ different categories of performative verbs, for example, “trình bày”
(present), “tranh thủ ý kiến” (ask), “hỏi ý kiến” (ask), “hỏi” (ask), “bàn” (discuss),
“trao đổi” (discuss) and “thông báo” (inform). The choice of these verbs depends on
the content of the conversation and the level of intimacy of interactants. For
example,
(61) Staff: Bác cho gọi con ạ?
You wanted to see me?
Manager: Ừ, con ngồi đi! Bác có chuyện muốn hỏi con.
Yes, sit down! I have something to ask you.
Staff: Dạ chuyện gì vậy bác?
What‟s up?
Manager: Giữa con và cô Ngọc cấp dưới có vấn đề gì không?
Is there a problem between you and Ms. Ngoc, your staff?
(Ván bài tình yêu, episode – 33:28)
In this conversation, the manager uses the strategy of telling the reason of the
talk to end the opening section and lead to the main topic of the conversation. Based
on the content of the topic the manager is going to raise, she chooses the
performative verb “ask” as a way to pre-inform the staff her purpose or aim.
4.2.4.3. Using disjunct markers
The third topic initiation strategy, using disjunct markers, is only utilized by
the American parties with 10%. Disjunct markers, only having textual function,
serve as a tool to attract the other‟s attention or a link between the opening section
and the body of a conversation. Such disjunct markers as “so”, “well”, “ah”, “oh”,

142. 131

“uh” and “look” are used by both the American staff and managers as a way to
inform a topic of concern. Remarkably, being a link between the opening section
and the body of the conversation, this strategy cannot be used individually to
construct an opening section. Ordinarily, before this strategy, the American parties
often produce at least one of three sequences, that is, summons-answer, greeting or
phatic communion. For instance, in (62), after exchanging a greeting sequence, the
manager initiates a topic of concern with the help of the disjunct marker “well”.
Thanks to it, the staff is aware that the opening section is closed and the topic is
going to be raised.
(62) Manager: Madam Speaker!
Staff: Mr. President!
Manager: Well, this afternoon took a turn, didn't it?
Staff: Yes, sir. Please!
(Designated survivor, season 1, episode 18 – 14:03)
4.2.4.4. Using topic initiation devices
The final topic initiation strategy, using topic initiation devices, is only
utilized by the Vietnamese parties with 27%. This strategy is regarded as an
assistance for a topic of concern to be raised smoothly. As shown in the findings, it
is the most favorable strategy deployed by both the Vietnamese staff and managers.
However, the Vietnamese staff and managers have different ways of employing this
strategy. On the one hand, the Vietnamese managers make use of the attention-
getting tokens including “này”, “nào”, “à”, “ơi”, “ờ”, “nè” and “ủa” (hey) as topic
initiation devices. With the application of these attention-getting tokens, Vietnamese
managers get the staff‟s attention and inform them that they are going to have
something to say.
Especially, to enhance the politeness in interaction, these tokens are often
combined with the interlocutors‟ kinship terms and/ or personal names, for example,
“Kế này!” (Hey, Ke!), “Anh Hóa à!” (Hoa!), “À Lan này” (Hey, Lan!), “Anh ơi”
(elder brother!). For example, in (63), after exchanging several turns of talk, the
manager initiates the topic of the conversation with the help of the attention-getting
token “này” combined with the staff‟s personal name. The attention-getting token
“này” makes the staff focus on the topic that is going to be raised by the manager.
(63) Staff: (Knocking on the door)
Manager: Mời vào!
Come in!
Staff: Dạ, em chào anh ạ!
Hello, brother!

143. 132

Manager: Cậu ngồi đi. Kế này, chuyện hôm nọ cậu đánh thằng Cư xảy ra chuyện
lớn rồi.
Sit down. Ke, that you bit Cu last time caused a big problem.
(Đối thủ kỳ phùng, episode 8 – 27:50)
On the other hand, the Vietnamese staff utilize this strategy by using either
honorific particles or reporting verbs. The findings indicate that the Vietnamese staff
intend to deploy the honorific particles “thưa” and “dạ thưa” in combination with
kinship terms or titles denoting the hearers as a topic initiation device. With the
application of these honorific particles, the Vietnamese staff can both get the
manager‟s attention and show respect to them. Accordingly, their opening sections
appear polite and appropriate. Besides these polite particles, the Vietnamese staff
also apply the reporting verb “báo cáo” (report) at the beginning of the utterance
expressing a topic of concern. Like the usage of honorific particles, the reporting
verb “báo cáo” is also combined with kinship terms or titles referring to the hearers.
This reporting verb is a link to help the Vietnamese staff lead to a topic of concern
smoothly and politely.
Especially, to increase the level of politeness, the Vietnamese staff usually
put the polite particle “dạ” (polite yes) at the beginning of an utterance. It can be
shown from these combinations that the Vietnamese staff normally start a topic of
concern with an utterance begun with such phrases as “báo cáo sếp” (reporting
boss), “báo cáo tổng giám đốc” (reporting manager director), “báo cáo chú”
(reporting uncle), “thưa anh” (dear brother), “dạ thưa bác” (dear uncle) and the like.
For example, in (64), the Vietnamese staff combines polite particle “dạ” (yes),
reporting verb “báo cáo” and kinship term “chú” (uncle) denoting the manager to put
at the beginning of the topic raising utterance.
(64) Staff: (Knocking on the door)
Manager: Mời vào!
Come in, please!
Staff: Dạ, báo cáo chú cháu mời chú đi họp ạ!
Manager: Polite particle, report uncle
Staff: Dear sir, you have a meeting now!
(Đối thủ kỳ phùng, episode 26 – 5:41)
4.2.4.5. Concluding remarks
In conclusion, the utilization of topic initiation strategies in English and
Vietnamese bears more similarities than differences. On the one hand, the parties in
both languages can initiate a topic by asking for the reason of the talk or telling the
reason of the talk. The first strategy is especially deployed by topic recipients with
three types of questions including speaker-oriented questions, hearer-oriented

144. 133

questions and non-personal questions. Inversely, the second strategy particularly
utilized by topic initiators is rather formulaic and comparable in both languages.
On the other hand, the strategy of using disjunct markers is only employed by
the American parties while the strategy of using topic initiation devices is only
employed by the Vietnamese parties. Despite the different forms and usage, these
two strategies function similarly as an assistance for a topic to be raised smoothly.
4.3. Summary
In conclusion, this chapter has answered the first and the second research
questions: “How are opening sections of English and Vietnamese staff-manager
conversations structured in office settings?” and “What strategies are employed in
opening sections of English and Vietnamese staff-manager conversations in office
settings?”. Regarding the first research question, the study has identified four
opening sequences including summons-answer, greeting, phatic communion and
topic initiation, utilized to construct an opening section in the two languages. In
English and Vietnamese, the overall frequency of appearance of these four
sequences is quite equivalent. However, the distribution of them in each opening
structure is relatively dissimilar. In the one-sequence opening structure, summons-
answer and greeting sequences are deployed in isolation much more repeatedly than
phatic communion and topic initiation sequences. In the two-sequence opening
structure, while the Vietnamese parties are free to combine any two sequences to
construct an opening section, the American ones have a preference to choose
particular forms of combination. In the three-sequence opening structure, among
four forms of combination, the American parties prefer the combination of greeting,
phatic communion and topic initiation sequences yet the Vietnamese parties like the
combination of summons-answer, greeting and phatic communion, the two other
structures are utilized equally in both languages. Finally, compared with English
opening sections, Vietnamese ones are more formulaic and extended with the use of
the four-sequence opening structure.
In terms of the second research question, the study has unearthed and
deliberated opening strategies in the two languages. These opening strategies have
been analyzed in each opening sequence. Firstly, to perform a summons-answer
sequence, the American and Vietnamese parties may knock on the door, call the
other‟s address term or use attention-getting tokens. Unlike the Vietnamese parties,
the American parties knock on the door and enter the other‟s office without an
invitation. Additionally, dissimilar to the Vietnamese parties with the calling of the

145. 134

other‟s kinship terms, the American parties call the other‟s social titles, professional
titles or personal names.
Secondly, to accomplish a greeting sequence, the American and Vietnamese
parties use greeting verb, time-bound words, greeting proper or call the others‟
address terms. English and Vietnamese greeting strategies are exceedingly different
as regards the frequency of occurrence and formulaic structures. The English
greeting strategies are relatively simple with the use of time-bound words, greeting
propers and address terms. On the contrary, the Vietnamese greeting strategies are
complicated with the choice of various kinship terms to address the interlocutors as
well as appropriate titles and polite particles to apply.
Thirdly, despite the formality of staff-manager conversations in office
settings, both the American and Vietnamese parties have a habit of conducting ritual
talk as phatic strategies to open a conversation. Totally, to accomplish a phatic
communion sequence, the American and Vietnamese parties need 15 strategies. Due
to the comparable settings and participants‟ relationship, the American and
Vietnamese parties tend to deploy phatic strategies similarly. They both make use of
phatic strategies to initiate a topic of concern smoothly and politely as well as
enhance their social relationship. Nevertheless, compared with the Vietnamese
parties, the American parties have a wider choice of strategies and the way of
applying each phatic strategy is dissimilar between the two languages.
Finally, the American and Vietnamese parties use four strategies to perform a
topic initiation sequence namely asking for the reason of the talk, telling the reason
of the talk, using disjunct markers and using topic initiation devices. The two first
strategies, deployed by both parties, are regarded as direct strategies to initiate a
topic of concern. The two latters are indirect strategies having the same function as a
link to connect the opening section with the body of a conversation.

146. 135

CHAPTER V: ENGLISH AND VIETNAMESE CONVERSATIONAL
CLOSING IN OFFICE SETTINGS
Introduction
This chapter is to examine English and Vietnamese conversational closing as
regards opening structures and opening strategies. The first part deals with closing
structures in both languages. In this part, closing sequences that the American and
Vietnamese parties follow to terminate a conversation are revealed and depicted. In
addition, one-sequence, two-sequence and three-sequence closing structures are
analyzed, compared and contrasted between English and Vietnamese. The second
part examines closing strategies in each sequence. Accordingly, this part includes
three sections: the first one examines topic termination strategies; the second one
uncovers and discusses pre-closing strategies; and the final one deliberates terminal
strategies. The closing strategies occurring in each sequence are accounted for,
compared and contrasted between the two languages based on the cultural
background.
5.1. English and Vietnamese closing structures in office settings
5.1.1. English and Vietnamese closing sequences in office settings
Commonly, a normal social encounter has an opening, a body and a closing.
Depending on situations and contexts, these stages may be elaborate, short or
medium (Saberi, 2012, p. 108). Openings and closings considered conversational
routines are exceedingly essential for the negotiation and control of social identity
and social relationships between interactants in conversation (Laver, 1981, p. 304).
While some people have difficulties in initiating a conversation, others meet
challenges in terminating it. According to Hargie et al. (1994), a person may
thoroughly prepare for the best way to greet another person, he may hardly think of
an appropriate way to say goodbye to that same person (p. 161). This phenomenon is
because leave-taking is regarded as unplanned action rather than a planned ritual
(Hargie et al., 1994, p. 161). Consequently, the process of moving a conversation to
an end seems to be a complex and difficult task to interactants. This process in a
foreign language becomes much more challenging due to the obstacles of language
and cultural diversity.
An appropriate closing contributes to the success of a conversation. With a
good closing, a party helps create good impression on the other interlocutors and
maintain their relationship. A closing section may be exceedingly extended, medium
or brief depending on various factors, for example, the context, the relationship of

147. 136

participants, the level of intimacy of participants and so forth. According to Saberi
(2012), in many languages, it is not acceptable to abruptly terminate a conversation
and to take a leave, unless there are good reasons for that (p. 112). Sharing the same
point of view, Pawley (1974) claimed that an English leave-taking might extend up
to ten adjacency pairs.
This chapter is to examine English and Vietnamese closing sections with the
focus on the structures and strategies. On the one hand, English and Vietnamese
closing structures are delineated. Conversational closing structures are analyzed
based on the sequences or phases that the American and Vietnamese parties follow
and the ways of combination of them to construct a closing section. As usual, to
close a conversation, participants may go through one or several sequences. The
common sequences that the American and Vietnamese parties follow to terminate a
conversation are shown in this part. On the other hand, closing strategies employed
by the American and Vietnamese parties are described in each closing sequence.
Generally, to terminate a conversation, participants usually go smoothly
through a number of phases in an attempt to save the positive face needs of the other
interlocutors. Closing a conversation abruptly may make the other interlocutors feel
uncomfortable while spending too much time negotiating a closing section may be
time-consuming and inappropriate. The findings reveal that the American and
Vietnamese parties go through three sequences to terminate a conversation including
topic termination, pre-closing and terminal exchange. The distribution of the three
closing sequences is shown in Figure 4.1 below:

Figure 4.1: English and Vietnamese conversational closing sequences
Totally, the American parties produce 290 closing sequences in 232
conversations while the Vietnamese parties produce 364 closing sequences in 186
conversations. On average, the Vietnamese parties employ two sequences while the
American parties only need one sequence in a closing section. Initially, due to the
employment of more sequences in one closing section, it appears that the

148. 137

Vietnamese closing sections are lengthier than the English ones. However, a closer
investigation reveals that the length of a closing section does not depend on the
number of sequences it has because a sequence may be brief with one turn of
speaking or extended with several turns of speaking. In details, as illustrated in
Figure 4.1, the distribution of closing sequences in English and Vietnamese is fairly
diversified. The Vietnamese parties make use of three closing sequences quite
equally whereas the American parties are inclined to employ the pre-closing
sequence by far more often than the two others. The frequency of appearance of
each sequence in both languages is stated and justified as follows.
Firstly, a topic termination sequence is to close the final topic of a
conversation. Naturally, a conversation may include one or several topics. Often,
when one topic is closed, another may be introduced. A topic is considered a final
one when it is closed and both participants agree that there is nothing more to say or
all topics are exhausted. The closure of the final topic makes the closing section
accessible because there are not any “unmentionables” to be raised. In other words,
it is a signal of the upcoming closing section. The findings unearth that the
Vietnamese parties utilize this sequence nearly as twice as the American ones with
56% vs. 30% respectively. This unveils that unlike the American parties, the
Vietnamese parties have a habit of closing the final topic before moving to the
closing section.
Secondly, when the topic termination sequence is agreed by both parties, they
move to the process of closing negotiation or the pre-closing sequence. The pre-
closing sequence is the main phase of a closing section with exchanges of verbal and
nonverbal behaviors to help end a conversation politely and appropriately. Pre-
closing sequence seems to be rather lengthy because parties tend to conduct some
small talk or phatic communion in it with the purpose to save and maintain the social
relationship of the two parties. In English and Vietnamese, it is the most common
sequence with the frequency of occurrence of 88% and 78% respectively. Its
extremely frequent occurrence in both languages suggests that the pre-closing
sequence is an exceedingly essential part of a closing section.
Finally, the final sequence is the terminal exchange in which final behaviors
before two parties really depart each other are often produced. In this phase,
participants tend to employ such typical phrases as “goodbye”, “so long”, “see you
later” and so forth (Pawley, 1974, p. 4). The findings unearth a big difference
between the American and Vietnamese parties in the employment of this sequence.

149. 138

While this sequence is popular in the Vietnamese conversations with 62%, it is
rarely present in the English conversations with only 7%.
5.1.2. English and Vietnamese closing structures formed with sequences
In the previous part, the frequency of occurrence of each closing sequence is
discussed. However, to close a conversation, parties can employ one sequence or
combine several sequences. In other words, parties may utilize one-sequence, two-
sequence or three-sequence closing structures to terminate a conversation. The
findings indicate that these closing structures are used differently in the two
languages. These differences are illustrated in Figure 4.2 below.

Figure 4.2: English and Vietnamese conversational closing structures
As illustrated in Figure 4.2, the American parties are inclined to terminate a
conversation briefly with only one closing sequence (75%). In some cases, the
American parties also employ two-sequence closing structure (25%) but they do not
use three-sequence closing structure in any conversations. On the contrary, the
Vietnamese parties use all three kinds of closing structure. Among these three
structures, the two-sequence closing structure is used most frequently with 60%
while the two others are utilized rather equally by the Vietnamese parties. It can be
inferred that in Vietnamese office settings, a too brief or too extended closing
section is not suggestible. Instead, a medium-length closing section is much more
appropriate. In the following parts, the three closing structures will be analyzed and
deliberated in details.
5.1.2.1. English and Vietnamese one-sequence closing structure
To terminate a conversation, the American and Vietnamese parties may use
one or combine two or three sequences. This section is to focus on analyzing one-
sequence closing sections in English and Vietnamese. The distribution of these
sequences in this structure is presented in Figure 4.3 below:

150. 139


Figure 4.3: English and Vietnamese one-sequence closing structure
As depicted in Figure 4.3, one-sequence closing sections are used by far more
frequently in the English data with 75% than in the Vietnamese data with only 23%.
More especially, the distribution of each sequence in this structure is also
diversified.
Firstly, the findings show that closing sections constructed with a topic
termination sequence is utilized limitedly in both the English and Vietnamese data
with 8% and 4% respectively. It is explicable that the main function of a topic
termination sequence is to close a topic. Closing a topic does not mean closing a
conversation at the same time because when a topic is closed, another may be raised.
If the closed topic is the final topic, this sequence will function as a signal for the
conversational closing. Accordingly, closing a conversation at this point seems to be
abrupt and sudden except for good reasons, for example, emergencies. This
contributes to the infrequency of occurrence of this structure in both languages. For
instance, in (65), the American staff closes the conversation with the application of
the agreement token “yes”. This token is to close the current topic they are
discussing yet in this situation, it is used to close their conversation as well.
(65) Manager: Anything cheap.
Staff: Goes to the interns.
Manager: You know what to do with the cards.
Staff: Yes, sir.
(House of cards, season 2, episode 1 – 12:45)
In this conversation, the staff is a secretary and she closes their conversation
just by the use of a topic termination sequence. Careful examination of the English
and Vietnamese data also shows that a closing section constructed with the topic
termination sequence is often used by parties of regular encounters such as
secretaries and managers or parties working in the same rooms. These parties may
meet each other several times in a working day. Hence, an extended closing section
with ritual exchanges is unnecessary and even inappropriate.

151. 140

Secondly, the one-sequence closing structure formed with a pre-closing
sequence justifies for the largest percentages in both the English and Vietnamese
data with 64% and 15% respectively. The enormous appearance of this sequence in
the English data suggests that most of the English conversations are habitually
closed with only a pre-closing sequence. On the contrary, although this sequence is
the most frequently used by the Vietnamese parties to construct a one-closing
structure, it is not suggestible for Vietnamese to employ this closing structure. The
employment of this structure is depicted in an English conversation as below:
(66) Staff: Since when are you two on opposite sides? Liv's one of us.
Manager: Fix the Keating thing! Now!
(Scandal, season 1, episode 2 – 14:41)
To terminate this conversation, the American manager assigns his staff a task.
This closing section is constructed with a pre-closing sequence formed with the
strategy of assigning the other a task.
Finally, the one-sequence closing structure formed with a terminal exchange
is rarely utilized by both the American and Vietnamese parties with 3% and 4%
respectively. As aforementioned, this sequence includes the final exchanges of
participants before they really depart each other. A conversation closed with only a
terminal exchange sequence seems to be abrupt because parties are not informed or
prepared for the closing. Except for special situations such as emergencies, closing a
conversation with only terminal exchange may be considered hasty. The use of this
structure is portrayed in the following example.
(67) Manager: ……….
Staff: Nhưng mà kêu con xem thường cách viết của mình con không thể làm
được. Con chào chú!
But you ask me to look down on my writing style. I cannot. Goodbye!
(Nguyệt thực, episode 9 – 17:16)
As presented in (67), the Vietnamese staff closes the conversation only by
saying “goodbye”. According to Pavlidou (2008), closing a conversation simply by
saying “goodbye”, without having properly initiated the closing section may destroy
the relationship between participants (p. 132). However, in this situation, the staff‟s
act of saying “goodbye” to close this conversation is justifiable and acceptable. In
this conversation, the manager asks the staff to change his writing style to make their
newspaper more commercial. However, the staff disagrees with his manager‟s
proposal. He becomes a bit angry because he thinks that the manager does not value
his writing style. In this case, if the staff takes a leave without saying goodbye, he
will be considered rude or even insolent. Nevertheless, to produce a polite and