Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 8:3 (2018) ► pp.363–389

Vietnamese telephone openings

Both universals and particulars

| Ton Duc Thang University Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam)
| Ton Duc Thang University Ho Chi Minh (Vietnam)
| Vietnam National University Hanoi (Vietnam)
This study builds upon Schegloff’s model as a template to investigate the phenomenon of how Vietnamese people perform their telephone openings. We use a corpus of 50 audio recordings of Vietnamese telephone openings to analyze such a phenomenon through both Conversation Analysis and Ethnography methods in order to capture the data in naturally-occurring settings, and to provide insights into Vietnamese culture that makes Vietnamese telephone openings different from North American ones. The findings demonstrate that Vietnamese telephone openings share some common features with telephone openings in different language communities, especially North American culture. Nevertheless, a number of variations, due to language and cultural differences, still exist. We discuss both theoretical and practical implications.
Keywords: telephone openings, conversation analysis, ethnography, dialogue analysis, Vietnam
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Telephone conversation and face-to-face interaction
    • 2.2Telephone openings
    • 2.3Telephone openings across languages and cultures
    • 2.4A canonical telephone opening
      • 2.4.1Summon-answer sequence
      • 2.4.2Identification/ recognition sequences
      • 2.4.3Greeting sequences
      • 2.4.4How are you? sequences
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Pilot study
      • 3.1.1Results of the pilot
    • 3.2Main study
      • 3.2.1Participants
      • 3.2.2Results
  • 4.Data analysis and findings
    • 4.1Vietnamese summons: Answer sequence
    • 4.2Vietnamese identification/ recognition
    • 4.3Vietnamese greeting sequences
    • 4.4How are you sequence in Vietnamese
    • 4.5What are you sequences in Vietnamese
  • 5.Significant findings and discussion
    • 5.1Vietnamese telephone openings towards universals
    • 5.2Vietnamese telephone openings towards particulars
    • 5.3Social relationships based on age between interactants
    • 5.4Social relationships based on social status between interactants
  • 6.Conclusion
    • 6.1Theoretical implications
    • 6.2Practical implications
    • 6.3Limitations and directions for future research
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 November 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00022.do
References (33)
References
Coronel-Molina, Serafin M. 1998. “Openings and Closings in Telephone Conversations between Native Spanish Speakers”. Working Papers in Educational Linguistics 14(1): 49–68.Google Scholar
Desrosiers, Lori A. 2006. “Japanese telephone openings: both universal and cultural determined.” 宇都宮大学国際学部研究論集, (10)221: 147–164.Google Scholar
Godard, Daniele. 1977. “Same setting, different norms: Phone call beginnings in France and the United States.” Language in Society 6(2): 209–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grieve, Averil and Seebus, Ingrid. 2008. “G’day or Guten Tag?: A cross-cultural study of Australian and German telephone openings.” Journal of Pragmatics, 40(7): 1323–1343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hang, Nguyen T. B. 2009. Contrastive Analysis: English and Vietnamese Greetings. Hanoi: University of Education.Google Scholar
Hopper, Robert and Chia-Hui Chen. 1996. “Languages, cultures, relationships: telephone openings in Taiwan”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29(4), 291–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Robert. 1992. Telephone Conversation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Robert and Kent Drummond. 1992. “Accomplishing Interpersonal Relationship: The telephone Openings of Strangers and Intimates.” Western Journal of Communication 56(3): 185–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Robert, et al. (1990/1991). “Universals and Particulars in Telephone Openings.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 24(1–4): 369–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Robert. 1989. “Speech in telephone openings: Emergent interaction v. routines.” Western Journal of Speech Communication 53(2): 178–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ITIM International. 2003. “Compare your host culture with your home culture: Vietnam and the USA.” Retrieved December 8, 2007, from [URL].
Kraemer, Helena Chmura, Jim Mintz, Art Noda, Jared Tinklenberg, and Jerome A. Yesavage. 2006. “Caution regarding the use of pilot studies to guide power calculations for study proposals.” Archives of General Psychiatry 63(5): 484–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, Gillian A., Susanna Dodd, and Paula R. Williamson. 2004. “Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice.” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 10(2): 307–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lindstrom, Anna. 1994. “Identification and recognition in Swedish telephone conversation openings.” Language in Society 23(2): 231–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 2009. Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. North Carolina: Information Age Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
Luke, Kang Kwong and Theodossia Pavlidou (eds). 2002. Telephone Calls: Unity and Diversity in Conversational Structure across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lumsden, Charles J. and Edward O. Wilson. 1981. Genes, Mind, and Culture: The Coevolutionary Process. New Jersey/ London/ Singapore/ Beijing/ Shanghai/ Hong Kong/ Taipei/ Chennai: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Nguyen, Hung T. 2002. “Vietnam: Cultural Background for ESL/EFL Teachers.” The Review of Vietnamese Studies, 2(1): 1–6.Google Scholar
Paltridge, Brian. 2006. Discourse Analysis. London and New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
Phillips, Diana, and Philip C. Riley. 2000. “Managing telephone talk: the sequential organization of telephone openings.” Journal of Language for International Business 11(2): 39–59.Google Scholar
Rezazadeh, Mohsen. 2009. “A conversation analytical study of telephone conversation openings of Iranian speakers.” Journal of International Social Research 2(8): 376–384.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey and Emanuel A. Schegloff. 1979. “Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction.” In Everyday language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 15–21. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1968. “Sequencing in conversational openings.” American Anthropology 70(6): 1075–1095. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1972. Sequencing in conversational openings. In Directions in Sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, ed. by John J. Gumperz and Dell H. Hymes, 346–380. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1979. Identification and recognition in telephone conversation openings. In Everyday language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, ed. by George Psathas, 23–78. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
1986. “The routine as achievement.” Human Studies 9(2–3): 111–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 1989. “On the telephone again! Differences in telephone behavior: England versus Creel.” Language in Society 18(4): 527–544. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
So’o, Ainslie, and Anthony J. Liddicoat. 2000. “Telephone openings in Samoan.” Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 23(1): 95–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Srichampa, Sophana. 2004. “Comparison of greetings in the Vietnamese dialects of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City.” Mon-khmer Studies 351: 83–99.Google Scholar
Taleghani-Nikazm, Carmen. 2002. “A conversation analytical study of telephone conversation openings between native and non-native speakers.” Journal of Pragmatics 341: 1807–1832. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Them, Tran N. 1997. Cơ s văn hoá Vit Nam. Hanoi: Education Publishing House.Google Scholar
Van Teijlingen, Edwin R., and Vanora Hundley. 2001. “The importance of pilot studies.” University of Surrey.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar