VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI

UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION

NHU HA PHUONG

BARGAINING IN VIETNAMESE AND AMERICAN LANGAGUE AND

CULTURE

SUMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS (TEFL)

Hanoi, 5/2010
 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGAUGE TEACHER EDUCATION

NHU HA PHUONG

BARGAINING IN VIETNAMESE AND AMERICAN LANGUAGE AND

CULTURE

SUMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS (TEFL)

supervisor: Phan thi van quyen, ma.

Hanoi, 5/2010
 ACCEPTANCE

I hereby state that I: Nhu Ha Phuong, currently study in class 061E4, being a
candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (TEFL) accept the requirements
of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation
Paper deposited in the library.

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in

the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in
accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the
care, loan or reproduction of the paper.

Signature
Nhu Ha Phuong
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research would not have been completed without support from a

number of people. My teachers at University of Languages and International

Studies, Vietnam National University, friends and family have given me

support and have in one way or another contributed to the work present

here.

First and foremost, I owe my greatest debt of gratitude to my

supervisor, Ms. Phan Thi Van Quyen, M.A who has been encouraging since the

start. She followed the research from the initial stage giving support and

constructive criticism. I am very grateful and have learnt much from her.

My particular thank goes to Mr and Mrs Pingel, my ex-English

teachers and now are my close friends for their help with the collection of

the data. Though they have come back to America, I feel greatly indebted

them for their inspiration me to CCC, their interest in my work and their

time spent on countless discussions through emails. I thank them for being

caring and supportive.

And I am immensely grateful to my friends who nonstop encourage me

to continue the research, without their help the study would not have come

to fruition.

Without the well of love and support from my family this thesis would

not have been as successful.

Last but not least, there are unnamed others who contributed to this

study in both tangible and intangible ways.

Nhu Ha Phuong
 ABSTRACT
Phuong, N.H (2010): Bargaining in Vietnamese and American
language and culture. A Bachelor’s Thesis submitted to Vietnam National
University, University of Foreign Languages and International Studies.
When people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds come
into contact, there always exists the possibility for misunderstandings, as a
result of dashing rules of interaction. As one of the first attempts to explore
bargaining practices in Vietnam and America, this paper shed light on
bargaining characteristics in Vietnamese and American language and
culture.
For the accomplishments of these purposes, the study is carried out in
the light of cross-cultural pragmatics and is based on the authentic data
collected.
The findings of the study provide evidence that bargaining, as a
speech event, is a sensitive and subtle communicative event. Therefore, the
various bargaining strategies resorted to by both American and Vietnamese
informants suggest that the performance of bargaining is culture-specific and
reflective of the fundamental values of the society.
 LIST OF TABLES

Chart 1: Classification of Communication

Chart 2: Bargaining and other speech events
Table 1: The five general functions of SA
Table 2: Vietnamese and American respondents encoded
Table 3: Informants’ parameters
Table 4: Shopping places
Table 5.1: Frequency of shopping
Table 5.2: Genders differences in shopping frequency
Table 6.1: Frequency of bargaining
Table 6.2: The frequency of bargaining as seen from Vietnamese
informants’ parameters
Table 6.3: The frequency of bargaining as seen from American informants’
parameters
Table 7: The factors that influence decision to bargain
Table 8: The influence of the relationship with the seller on the intention of
bargaining
Table 9: Bargaining frequency as affected by the shopping items
Table 10: The influence of the shopping time on bargaining decision of
American and Vietnamese
Table 11: Language used by American and Vietnamese in bargaining
Table 12: Bargaining strategies often used by Vietnamese and American
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Questionnaire for American respondents

Appendix 2: Questionnaire for Vietnamese respondents
Appendix 3: Transcription of an interview with a Vietnamese respondent.
Appendix 4: Transcription of an interview with an American respondent.
Appendix 5: Transcription of an interview with a Vietnamese seller for
foreign tourists.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements i
Abstract ii
Lists of figures, tables iii
Lists of appendices iv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1. Statement of the problem and rationale for the study 1
2. Aims and objectives 2
3. Significance of the study 2
4. Scope of the study 3
5. Methods of the study 3
6. Organization 3
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 5
1. Culture and Language 5
1.1. Culture 5
1. 2. Language 7
1. 3. Language and culture relationship 8
2. Communication 8
2. 1. Communication 8
2. 2. Classification of Communication 9
2. 3. Cross Cultural Communication 11
3. Speech act and speech event 12
3. 1. Speech act theory 12
3. 2. Classifications of speech acts 13
3. 3. Speech events 16
4. Bargaining 17
4. 1. Definition of bargaining 17
 4. 2. Bargaining as a speech event 18
4. 3 Bargaining and other speech events 19
4. 4. Bargaining strategies 21
4. 5. Cultural differences in bargaining 22
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 24
1. Research design 24
2. Selection of subjects 25
3. Research instruments 25
3. 1. Observation 25
3. 2. Questionnaires 26
3. 3. Semi-structured and in-depth interviews 27
4. Procedures of data collection 28
5. Procedures of data analysis 29
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 31
1. Findings 31
2. Discussion 43
2.1. Bargaining in Vietnam 43
2.2. Bargaining in America 45
2.3. Similarities and differences 46
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 50
1. Summary of the study 50
2. Implications 51
3. Limitations of the study 53
4. Suggestions for further study 53
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

This initial chapter states the problem and the rationale of the study,
together with the aims, objectives and the scope of the whole paper. Above
all, it is in this chapter that the research questions are identified to work as
clear guidelines for the whole research.

1. Statement of the problem and Rationale for the study:

People are living in an age when changes in technology, traveling,

political systems, population density and economy have enhanced demand
for interaction with others from different cultures. Whether welcomed or
not, those changes will probably grow in both frequency and intensity. As a
matter of fact, no one can learn everything about all cultures, likewise, no
one knows everything about one’s own culture, but “even rather sweeping
generalities, so long as they are not false, may be a help, if one avoids the
pitfall of stereotyping and does not expect all members of a culture to fit
generality” (Valdes, J. M, 1995: 49). Furthermore, as international trade is
increasingly sophisticated, materials for negotiating techniques in general
are abundant. Needless to say, as far as cross-cultural communication is
concerned, bargaining is a relatively new subject. Noticeably, few of these
materials discussed in details the bargaining practices in Vietnam, especially
in comparison with those in the United States. To the best of the researcher’s
knowledge, the previous studies which investigated Vietnamese negotiation
in comparison with American negotiation notably are by Nguyen (2001), Vu
(2006). However, none of them mentioned the similarities and differences
between bargaining in Vietnamese and American language and culture. This
gap has intrigued the researcher to conduct a survey on this topic. With this
in mind, “Bargaining in Vietnamese and American language and culture”
becomes the title of this study.

2. Aims and objectives:

The purpose of the study is to achieve the following objectives:
 To ascertain ways Vietnamese and American people bargaining.
 To investigate the cultural similarities and differences in bargaining in
Vietnamese and American language and culture.
 To provide recommendations for successful intercultural
communication.
The research questions, therefore, are:
1. What are the characteristics of bargaining in Vietnamese language and
culture?
2. What are the characteristics of bargaining in American language and
culture?
3. What are the cultural similarities and differences in Vietnamese and
American bargaining?

3. Significance of the study:

With the objectives mentioned above, the study primarily contributes
its knowledge of bargaining from cross-cultural point of view to the existing
literature. Together with the survey findings, the study displays insightful
knowledge of bargaining practiced by Vietnamese and American people.
The study also plays its own important part in upgrading the current level of
cross-culture awareness of Vietnamese and American bargaining style.
Above all, it helps potential intercultural communicators reduce culture
shocks when practicing bargain in Vietnam and America.

4. Scope of the study:

The study focuses mainly on verbal strategies and the analysis of the
data collected from the survey questionnaire on bargaining. Culturally, the
study highlights the cultural differences and similarities between Vietnamese
and American ways of bargaining. Thus, the Vietnamese Northern dialect
and the American English are chosen for contrastive analysis.

5. Methods of the study:

The major method of the study is a qualitative and quantitative one.
All the considerations, comment and assumption are based on the analysis of
statistic data and reference to relevant publications.
In order to fulfill the aims of the study and ensure the reliability and
validity of the collected data, the main instruments used are:
*Survey questionnaires
*Personal observations of daily bargaining practice
*Semi-structured interviews

6. Organization:
Chapter I- Introduction describes the study’s rationale, aims,
objectives, research questions, scope, methods and significance.
Chapter II- Theoretical Background lays the theoretical foundation
for the research.
Chapter III- Methodology details the research methods that have been
used and the procedures of conducting the study.
 Chapter IV- Results and Discussion presents the research’s findings
about similarities and differences in bargaining in Vietnamese and American
language and culture and then explains these findings from cross-cultural
perspectives. This explanation will lead to some possible implications
behind the findings.
Chapter V- Conclusions ends the study by summarizing its main
points, implications for communication, limitations and suggestions for
further studies.
Moreover, the thesis includes Appendices where the study’s bibliography,
sample questionnaires and interview transcription are attached for reference.
 CHAPTER TWO: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter attempts to provide the framework within which the research is
carried out.

1. Culture and Language

1. 1. Culture
The concept of “culture” has been the concern of many different
disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, anthropology, literature and
cultural studies. Hence, the definitions offered in these fields vary according
to the particular frame of reference invoked.
Culture, in this study, is not “high culture” but “refers to the informal
and often hidden patterns of human interactions, expressions, and
viewpoints that people in one culture share.” (Nguyen Quang, 1998: 3) and
“are transmitted from one generation to the next.” (Moore, 1985:4). In other
words, Culture does not belong to any single person but to all people. It is
more powerful than instinct.
Apte (1994) in the tenth volume of the Encyclopedia of Language and
Linguistic proposes the following definition: “Culture is a fuzzy set of
attitudes, beliefs, behavioral conventions, and basic assumptions and values
that are shared by a group of people, and that influence each member’s
behavior and his/her interpretations of the ‘meaning’ of the other people’s
behavior.”
Nguyen Quang in his “Lectures-notes on cross-cultural
communication” (2004: 31) also describes culture as “a complex whole of
tangible and intangible expressions that are created and adapted by a
society or a social group as well as that ways it functions and reacts in given
situations.”. Therefore, culture is different from society to society. What is
“right” in one culture may not be “right” in another culture. No culture is
good or bad. Cultures are different but equal.
Since culture is a complex term which is difficult to define, there are a
number of views on the particular content of culture. As an illustration, in
Stephen Moore’s opinion (1985:4), culture has six components as follow:
*Beliefs: There are general, vague opinions held about the world and about
the nature of the society.
*Values: These are vague beliefs about what is right and correct in the
world.
*Norms: These are socially expected patterns of behavior.
*Roles: Social roles are patterns of behavior expected of certain people in
accordance with the occupation or position they hold in society.
*Role conflict: There are innumerable social roles, for instance, father,
mother, child, and shopkeeper. All of us occupy a number of roles, which
are generally complementary, but sometimes they may conflict.
*Status: This refers to the position of a person or social role in society
according to the amount of prestige received from others.
Samovar, L. A, et.al (2007) (2007, 18-19) describe five elements of
culture, namely: history, religion, values, social organization and language.
*History: All cultures seem to believe in the idea that history is a kind of
chart that guides its member into the future. What is interesting about a
culture’s history is that it gets transmitted from generation to generation.
*Religion: The influence of religion can be seen in the entire fabric of a
culture. Both consciously and unconsciously religion impacts everything
from business practices to politics to individual behavior.
*Values: It helps to determine how people ought to behave.
*Social Organizations: These organizations (sometimes referred to as
social systems or social structures) represent the various social units
contained within the culture. Such units and institutions- including the
family, government, schools, and tribes- help the members of the culture
organize their lives.
*Language: Not only does language allow the members of a culture to share
ideas, feelings, and information, bit it is also one of the chief methods for the
transmission of culture.
1. 2. Language
It is undeniable that language is the highest and the most amazing
achievement of mankind. Crystal (1992: 212) defines language as “the
systematic, conventional use of sounds, signs, or written symbols in a human
society for communication and self-expression”. Supporting that point of
view, Verderber (1990:62) states: “Through language we can create,
maintain, and alter our environments. We can choose or seek information or
we can choose to avoid doing so. Through language we can be clear or be
ambiguous, we can disclose what we are thinking or feeling or we can hide
those thoughts and feelings. And perhaps most importantly, through
language we can affect every aspect of our relationship”. It is also noted
that language is the basic tool by which people are most frequently judged,
and through which they may make and lose friends.
Halliday (1973: 143) proposes three basic functions of language as
follows:
*Ideational function: expressing the speaker’s experience of the real world
including the inner world of his own consciousness.
*Interpersonal function: establishing and maintaining social relations.
*Textual function: making links with language itself and with features of
the situation in which it is used.
In short, from all the functions of language mentioned above, it can be
concluded that language plays a double role to human interaction.
Concretely, it is not only the vehicle of the universal communication process
but used to express the internal world of the human as well.
1. 3. Language and culture relationship
The relationship between language and culture is well established.
Robert B.K. (cited in Valdes, J. M (1986: 8)) asserts that “it is certainly
possible to claim that the phenomenology of a community of speakers is
reflected in the language spoken, and the language spoken helps us in some
way to shape the phenomenology”.
Clearly, culture and language are closely interrelated and interwoven.
Kramsch, C. (1998:3) clarifies the correlation between language and culture
by emphasizing three functions of language related to culture. They are
“expressing cultural reality, embodying cultural reality and symbolizing
cultural reality”. R.A.Hudson (1982: 81) argues: “As for the relation
between language and culture, most of language is contained within
culture”. Hence, in Goodenough’s word “the relationship of language to
culture is that of part to whole”. That is why it is of extreme importance to
pay due attention to culture when teaching and learning a language.

2. Communication:
2. 1. Communication
Communicating is a major activity of human beings. Through
communication, people exchange information, perception and social
experiences. Human culture values, as a result, are reserved and transmitted
from generations to generations. Lustig (1996: 29) defines communication
as “a symbolic process in which people create shared meanings”. In this
definition, the key term is symbols which are considered central to
communication process. A symbol, according to this author, including “a
word, action or object”, represents a perception, thought or feeling that one
wants to communicate with others.
S. Hybels and R. L. Weaver II (1992:6) share the same idea, asserting
that: “Communication is any process in which people share information,
ideas and feelings. That process involves not only the spoken and written
word, but also body language, personal mannerisms and style”. In other
words, communication involves not only the what (idea, information), the
how (feeling), but also the where (place or surrounding in which we
communicate).
2. 2. Classification of Communication
Flowchart of Communication
 COMMUNICATION

VERBAL NONVERBAL
COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION

INTRALANGUAGE PARALANGUAGE EXTRALANGUAGE

- Vocabulary - Vocal characteristics

- Grammatical rules + Pitch
- Phonetic rules + Volume
- Rules of language use + Rate
- ... + Vocal quality
- Types of vocal flow
- Vocal interferences
- Silence/Pauses
- ...

BODY LANGUAGE OBJECT LANGUAGE ENVIRONMENTAL LANGUAGE

- Eye contact - Clothing - Setting

- Facial expressions - Jewelery/Accessories - Conversational distance/
- Physical characteristics - Make-up Proxemics
- Gestures - Perfume/Artificial scents - Time/ Chronemics
- Postures - Flowers - Lighting system
- Body movements - Gifts - Color
- Touch/Haptics/Tactile -… - Heat
- ... -…

(Nguyen Quang, 1998)

Chart 1: Classification of Communication
It can be inferred from the flowchart that communication is divided
into Verbal communication and Non-verbal communication. Verbal
communication can be defined as communicating through words while non-
verbal communication can be understood as communicating other than
words that people use in interaction. However, due to the scope of the study,
the author only concentrates on verbal communication category.
 In daily life, people mainly communicate with each other verbally.
Because of its effectiveness, verbal communication accounts for a dominant
part of human communicate activities. As seen from the above flowchart,
verbal communication consists of such intra-language factors as grammar,
lexis, phonetics, pragmatics, and so on. To communicate verbally, a set of
words are combined in a strict rule to make sense and to be spoken out.
Moreover, the meaning of an utterance is not just exposed between the
words but beyond the words. The speaker’s intonation is a basic to
understand his utterance accurately.
2. 3. Cross Cultural Communication
History shows that a country or an area cannot exist and develop
without relationships with others economically or politically. In that context,
a phenomenon so-called “cross-cultural communication” occurs. Cross-
cultural communication, according to Richards et al. (1992: 92), is “an
exchange of ideas, information, etc. between persons from different cultural
backgrounds”. Similarly, in the book “Communication between cultures”,
Samovar, L.A, et. al (2007, 10) assert that cross-cultural communication
“involves interaction between people whose cultural perceptions and symbol
systems are distinct enough to alter the communication event”.
In Levine and Adelman’s opinion, “cross –cultural communication or
intercultural communication is the process where one’s culture affects
interaction with a person from another culture.” (Levine & Adelman,
1993). This definition emphasizes on the influence of culture on the
interaction among people. Participants, whose personalities are constructed
from cultural features, bring with them the typical beliefs and values of that
culture into communication. Concurring this opinion is Dr Nguyen Quang,
who put forth in his book (1998: 3) that “CCC is the communication (verbal
or non-verbal) between people from different culture: communication that is
influenced by actual values, attitudes and behavior, the influence of culture
on people and reactions and responses to each other”.
It can be concluded that successful cross-cultural communicators need
to have not only knowledge of the source and target languages but also that
of the cultures and other non-linguistic social factors such as communicative
situations, contexts, themes, and environment and so on. In Byram and
Fleming’s opinion, what contributes to the success of communication is the
“acquisition of abilities to understand different modes of thinking and living,
as they are embodied in the language to be learnt, and to reconcile or
mediate between different modes present in any specific interaction” (1998:
12).

3. Speech act and speech event

3.1. Speech act theory
In expressing themselves, “people do not only produce utterances
containing grammatical structures and words, they perform actions via
those utterances” (Yule, 1996: 47). Actions performed by language are
generally called speech acts. Moreover, “The number of speech acts
performed by the average individual in the course of any ordinary day when
our work and leisure bring us into contact with others probably runs into the
thousands” (Austin, 1962: 94).
More specifically, speech act theories developed overtime. So far, to
the best knowledge of the researcher, a number of works has been done on in
this field by eminent philosophers and linguists such as Grace (1957, 1975),
Hymes (1964), Searle (1969, 1975, 1979), Levinson (1983), Brown and Jule
(1983), Mey (1993) and Thomas (1995). The results of these studies have
proved that when conversing people use grammatical and lexical units not
only to produce utterances, but also to perform actions.
In short, speech acts are acts of communication. To communicate is to
express a certain attitude, and the type of speech act being performed
corresponds to the type of attitude being expressed. In other words, a
statement expresses a belief, a request expresses a desire, and an apology
expresses a regret. “I’ll be there on time”, for instance, is not only a
meaningful utterance but also an act of promising. As an act of
communication, a speech act succeeds if the audience identifies, in
accordance with the speaker's intention, the attitude being expressed.
3. 2. Classifications of speech acts:
Austin (1962) believes that a single speech act actually contains three
separate but related acts, and he introduces a threefold distinction among
speech acts, namely: locutionary acts, illocutionary acts and perlocutionary
acts.
(i) Locutionary act: the producing utterance of a sentence with
determinate sense and reference.
(ii) Illocutionary act: the making of statement, offer, promise,
etc. in uttering a sentence, by virtue of the conventional
force associated with it (or with its explicit performative
paraphrase)
(iii) Perlocutionary act: the bridging about effects on the
audience by means of uttering the sentence, such effects
being special to the circumstances of utterance.
Of the three acts, the illocutionary act tends to receive the most
attention.
 Searle (1969: 70), one of Austin’s followers, groups speech acts in the
following macro-classes:
* Declarations: change states of affairs, comprising namings, firings,
appointments, etc.
* Representatives: state what the speaker believes to be the case or not,
including assertions, descriptions, reports, statements, etc.
* Expressives: state what the speaker feels; express psychological states or
attitude. They can be apologies, compliments, greetings, expressing
gratitude, etc.
* Directives: attempt to get the hearer to do something and express what the
speaker wants. They are requests, suggestions, orders, etc
* Commissives: commit the speaker to a course of action, expressing his/her
intention such as promises, threats, refusals, etc.
The difference between Austin’s and Searle’s classifications,
according to Wardhaugh (1992: 287), is that Austin emphasizes how
speakers realize their purpose in speaking whereas Searle focuses on how
listeners respond to utterance. Noticeably, the two authors agree that people
use language intentionally. Together with the social context, the speaker’s
communicative intention plays an important role in determining how a
particular utterance is interpreted.
G. Yule (1996:55) summarizes this taxonomy of speech acts with key
features of each category in the table below:
SA type Direction of fit S = Speaker
X = Situation
Declarations words change the S causes X
Representatives world S believes X
 Expressives make words fit the S feels X
Directives world S wants X
Commissives make words fit the S intends X
world
make the world fit
words
make the world fit
words
Table 1: The five general functions of SA (following G. Yule 1996)
Regarding the relationship between structure and function of speech
acts, there is another approach to classify speech acts into direct and indirect
speech acts. For example:
Examples Structure Function
You eat chocolate. Declarative Statement
Do you eat chocolate? Interrogative Question
Eat chocolate. Imperative Command/ Request
As shown above, there is an easily recognized relationship between
the structural forms (declarative, interrogative, imperative) and the three
general communicative functions (statement, question, command/ request).
“Whenever there is a direct relationship between a structure and a function,
we have a direct speech act. Whenever there is an indirect relationship
between a structure and a function, we have an indirect speech act” (Yule,
1996: 55).
For example, there is a direct relationship between a structure and a
function as in:
(i) Close the window! (Directive)
which directly gets the addressee to close the window, i.e, an imperative is
used to perform a request. This is a direct speech act.
Conversely, speaker can perform one speech act with the intention of
performing another. For instance, he might say:
(ii) It’s so cold here!
Superficially, this utterance is a representative, simply asserting that
the room is cold but also be taken as a directive affecting the hearer to close
the window. Such an indirect relationship between structure and function
marks an indirect speech act.
3. 3. Speech events:
Hatch (1992) proposes that the ways people use speech acts within a
larger discourse structure called the speech event. A speech event analysis,
then, in her viewpoint, “attempts to establish the components or template
like parts of a functionally described interaction” (1992: 136).
Yule (1996) states that a speech event is “an activity in which
participants interact via language in some conventional way to arrive at
some outcome. It may include an obvious central speech act”. To clarify his
statement, the author provides the simple sentence “I don’t really like this”
as an example. It can be recognized as the central speech act in a speech
event of “complaining”. This speech event may also include other utterances
leading up to and subsequently reacting to that central action.
Hatch (1992, 152) also mentions that speech event analysis would
include a description of the speech setting, the participants and the structure
of the event set in a template sequence in sociolinguistics and “the ways the
structure varies across settings and participants form an important area of
sociolinguistic research”.
4. Bargaining
4. 1. Definition of bargaining
Bargaining and negotiating pervade many aspects of economic life
and social interactions. Historically, the art of bargaining is as old as
mankind’s own history. Adam Smith, the prominent 18th century economist,
had a famous saying: “Man is an animal that makes bargain. No other
animal does this- no dogs exchanges bones with another”. Obviously, the
first time a salesperson meets his potential buyer, there is an imbalance. The
seller’s desire to sell something exceeds the buyer’s desire to purchase.
Why people bargain? People, organization and states bargain as they
want something somebody else has or controls. To get it they offer
something in return. The currency of bargaining is usually money, goods or
services. Anyone or a combination of these may be exchanged for another.
Typically, a bargainer offers something it values or needs less for the more
valuable one. That is, people bargain to make gains and prevent loses. Stated
in general and broad terms, bargaining happens when two parties have
common interests to co-operate, but have conflicting interests over exactly
how to co-operate.
In his book, “The art of bargaining”, Lebow (1996: 9) defines
bargaining as: “a search for advantage through accommodation. When
people, organizations, or states bargain, they try to glean information about
others’ preferences, influence their estimates of their own preferences, and
exchange proposals in search of mutually acceptable agreements”.
Jerome M. Chertkoff and James K. Esser (1976) define bargaining as
a situation consisting these characteristics:
(1) There are two or more parties with divergent interests
(2) The parties can communicate
 (3) Mutual compromise is possible
(4) Provisional offers can be made
(5) The provisional offers do not fix the tangible outcomes until an offer
is accepted by all sides.”
“Bargaining can be understood as the exchange of offers and
counter-offers, concessions and retractions, as bazaar-like haggling in
contrast to joint problem-solving.” (Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse-
Kappen, Beth A. Simmons, 2002: 218). According to these writers, “In any
event, there is broad agreement that a bargaining situation is characterized
by the coincidence of cooperative and conflictual elements as well as
interdependent decisions.” (2002:218). In other words, without common
interest there is nothing to negotiate for and without conflict there is nothing
to negotiate about.
Specifically, Bargaining has traditionally been discussed in financial
terms. Uchendu (1967: 37) defines it as a rational system of price formation
"which aims at establishing particular prices for specific transactions,
acceptable to both buyer and seller within the price range that prevails in
the market."
4. 2. Bargaining as a speech event:
Bargaining is a speech event, in the technical sense proposed by
Hymes (1974:52): “The term speech event will be restricted to activities, or
aspects of activities, that are directly governed by rules or norms for the use
of speech. An event may consist of a single speech act, but will often
comprise several ones.”
It can be analyzed as in the following example:
Seller: Mua gì cháu ơi? (What would you like to buy?)
Customer: Ví này trông được đấy. Bao nhiêu hả cô? (This purse looks quite
Ok. How much is it?)
Seller: 30000 nghìn (30000 VND)
Customer: Giá của cô hơi cao. Cô giảm xuống chút đi. 20000 cô nhé.
(The price is pretty high. Can you reduce it a little bit? 20000 VND, ok?)
Seller: Không được cháu ạ. (No)
Customer: 25000 cô nhé. Tối rồi cô bán đi. (25000, ok? It’s dark now).
Seller (silent in a few seconds, nodding her head): Thôi được, cháu lấy đi.
(Ok, take it).
Customer: Cháu xin. (Thank you).
Seller: Lần sau lại đến hàng cô nhé. (Come here next time).
(At a souvenir shop in Vietnam)
Bargaining is typically a speech event having a definite structure that
can be described. The context is at a souvenir shop in Vietnam. The outcome
is that the seller can sell her goods and the buyer can buy with the price that
he satisfies with. Parts of the event are optional (compliments: “This purse
looks quite ok”, question: “What would you like to buy?”, thanking,
inviting: “Come here next time”). Parts are obligatory (bargaining
statements such as “The price is pretty high, Can you reduce it a little bit?"
and “25000, ok?”. )
4. 3. Bargaining and other speech events:
Bargaining is intimately related to some other activities involving
language. They may overlap in the following aspects:
 Persuading: This is the act of persuading someone to do something.
The persuader successfully urges another to perform a particular action,
especially by reasoning, coaxing or pleading. He sometimes makes others
believe in doing something by giving good reasons for doing so.
  Negotiating: In literature, the terms “bargaining” and “negotiating”
can have the same meaning and can be used interchangeably. Bargaining
and negotiating is one of the most frequent phenomena in social interactions
including goods exchange, labor disputes and even wars. However, the two
terms have a small difference in meaning. Specifically, according to Vu, T.
N. (2006), the former is like the competitive haggling over price that goes on
in an open-air market or in informal discussion, while the latter is the more
formal, civilized process that occurs when two parties are trying to reach a
mutually acceptable solution.
 Arguing: the act of giving reasons why you think that something is
right/wrong, true/not true, and so on, especially to persuade people.
The interrelation of these activities is represented in the following diagram:

BARGAINING

PERSUASING ARGUING

NEGOTIATING

Chart 2: Bargaining and other speech events.

This diagram is relative; its mere aim is to describe the comparative
interrelation between negotiation and other speech events.
4. 4. Bargaining strategies:
Three essential conditions to productive bargaining which are
highlighted by Lebow (1996) are:
 The parties involved must believe that their interests would be served
by an agreement. To be specific, if one party believes that it would be better
off without an agreement, it has no incentive to bargain
 The parties must have conflicting preferences about the terms of that
agreement. In other words, if both sides want the same outcome, they do not
have to bargain.
 The parties must have incomplete information about each other
preferences. Bargaining, in this case, can be considered a strategy for
reducing uncertainty in situations of reciprocally contingent choice.
Miscalculation can be the result of inadequate information, poor judgment or
“misinformation”. In many bargaining encounters, parties find it
strategically advantageous to mislead the other side about their preferences,
resolve, or the nature of the constraints acting on them.
Mayr (2006) describes three bargaining strategies:
* A tough bargaining strategy always chooses a maximal element in the set
of reasonable offers with respect for the player’s partial order. If successful,
a tough strategy may end up with an agreement that is nearly optimal for the
player. However, a tough strategy bears the risk of long duration bargaining
and last counteroffers.
* A soft bargaining strategy is quite the opposite of a tough strategy. That is,
it chooses a minimal element in the set of reasonable offers with respect to
the player’s partial order. Soft strategies lead to fast agreements, but they
almost jump immediately to accepting the first counteroffer.
* A compromise bargaining strategy aims at an agreement somewhere in the
“middle” of the set of reasonable offers. Such an outcome is assumed to be
mutually acceptable. The bargainer therefore chooses an offer that lies
between this compromise result and a maximal element in the set of
reasonable offers, but usually more closely to the compromise than the
maximum.
4. 5. Cultural differences in Bargaining
The strong tie between language and culture as mentioned above
naturally leads to the discussion of cultural differences in this section.
The event of making bargain is universal as a daily life activity.
However, in cross-cultural communication, this speech event, like any
others, is affected by the culture to which the language belongs and it may
differ from one society to another. Based on this assumption, a style of
bargaining, which is adapted in Vietnamese culture, may be more or less
appropriate in American culture.
It is widely accepted that the attitude towards bargaining depends
mainly on contextual issues. In some cultures, like Vietnam, bargaining is an
intrinsic part of business and is applied with virtually no limits, whereas in
another culture like American, there is nearly no bargaining. In his famous
book “American ways”, Gary Althen writes that:

“With a few exceptions, Americans are accustomed to fixed prices on

the merchandise they buy and sell. Typical exceptions include houses,
automobiles, and sometimes major appliances such as refrigerators
and washing machines. (…). In general, though, Americans are not
accustomed to bargaining over prices, and in fact usually feel quite
uncomfortable with the idea. People who try to bargain for a lower
price in a shop or store are likely to be considered either quite odd or
startlingly aggressive.” (2003, 206)
 Furthermore, the most celebrated aspect of bargaining is its social
aspect, where all participants engage in price-making, utilizing their social
and linguistic skills to build and negotiate their identity, relationships. The
invocation of cultural differences becomes apparent when comparing the
language local sellers’ use when they converse with local buyers, as opposed
to the one they use with tourists, which is utterly stripped from any reference
to such cultural norms. “Since the bargaining discourse is socially
constructed and culturally oriented, analysts of bargaining language should
pay special attention to the cultural dynamics driving this international
exchange” ( Brahim C. , 2007: 45).
 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
In the light of the theoretical background reviewed in Chapter Two,
the present study was undertaken with its own methods to bridge gaps
existing in the research to date. Hence, the aim of Chapter Three is to report
details of this implementation, including participant profiles, methods of
data collection and analysis and procedures of collecting and analyzing
data. Justification for each step in the whole procedure will also be given.

1. Research design
As the research lays the primary focus on the differences and
similarities in Vietnamese and American bargaining, the most appropriate
research design is deemed a comparative study (Vijver & Leung, 1997). The
research compares the language and culture between the two groups,
namely: Vietnamese native speakers and American native speakers. Firstly,
observation without any intervention was substantiated to ensure the
reliability of the study. Then, the same sets of survey questions were given
to two groups. The Vietnamese did the Vietnamese version; the American
did the American-English version. Besides, two informants from each group
were invited to semi-structured interviews.
Of the four types of comparative data analysis, the research falls into
the last one, external validation studies, with the purpose to “explore the
meaning and causes of cross-cultural differences with the aid of context
variables” (Vijver & Leung, 1997, p.21).
Additionally, as the study focuses on relationships among variables
and tries to “identify similarities and differences in these relationships across
cultures”, it is structure-oriented. (Vijver & Leung, 1997, p.21)
 To sum up, the design chosen for the research is an external validation
study, a kind of comparative studies, with its structural orientation. This
design has determined the choice and design of data collection instruments
and data analysis methods.

2. Selection of subjects
As the participants are typically difficult to access for a number of
reasons, the researcher only chose 30 American and 30 Vietnamese
respondents. Besides, the proposed sample of participants could provide the
researcher with sufficient data to cast a comprehensive look into the research
issue.
Afterwards, two people from each of the group were asked to take
part in a semi-structured interview at random. Besides, the researcher also
had an interview with a Vietnamese seller whose buyers are foreigners
mainly coming from America.

3. Research instruments
The data were collected during a period of six weeks using various
instruments to increase their validity and reliability. The principal sources of
data are (1) Observation, (2) Questionnaires and (3) Semi-structured
interviews. The Questionnaires and interviews will be presented at the end
of the research paper in the appendix.
The description and justification of each data collection instrument is
revealed below.
3. 1. Observation
Since “Bargaining in Vietnamese and American language and
culture” was a practical topic by its nature, personal observation was
employed to provide greater insights for the survey. The researcher chose
observation as it not only records people’s behavior but also what people
say. Indeed, the participants’ actual recorded behavior can be occasionally
compared to their statements, to check for the validity of their responses.
“As its best, non-participant observation can and does provide researcher
with valuable and quantifiable data”. (Verma & Mallick, 1999). Moreover,
observation, in Fannin and Tapela’s words (2005) was a qualitative, non-
numerical data collection method used widely in various areas of research
especially in cultural, social and psychological studies.
Bargaining exchanges in Vietnam were recorded in a variety of
settings, including flea markets, corner-shops and big shops. Although the
number of observations was rather modest, information from such contacts
was proved to be helpful to design the Questionnaire as well as to detect and
disqualify any irrational findings collected from the Questionnaire and the
interviews.
3. 2. Questionnaires
Questionnaires, according to Verma and Mallick (1999:24), “can
provide data economically and in a form that lends itself perfectly to the
purposes of the study” if well-structured. Moreover, the fact that “the
employment of open-ended in addition to the conventional close-ended
questions of this method provide more helpful, reliable data and more
accurately reflecting what the respondents want to say” (Nunan, 1992) led
the researcher to choose questionnaire as one of the major methods to collect
data.
Pools of feedback from a large number of people were collected at
different times via the questionnaire. In order to have a comprehensive view
of the issue, two versions of questionnaires were designed, one for
Vietnamese respondents and one for American ones.
The questionnaire was designed after the researcher had identified
major topics from the theoretical background and observation. It consists of
two main parts. The first part is intended to elicit personal information of the
participants, such as: age, gender, occupation, marital status, living area,
favorite shopping places and frequency of go shopping. Meanwhile, the
second part consists of seven questions, which are described below:
Question 1 examines the frequency of bargaining in both cultures.
Question 2 looks at influential factors on people’s decision to bargain.
Question 3 examines whether the relationship with the seller affects
buyer’s intentions of bargaining.
Question 4 describes the bargaining frequency as affected by the
shopping items.
Question 5 investigates the influence of the shopping time on
bargaining decision.
Question 6 concerns the language use in bargaining.
Question 7 aims at finding out the bargaining strategies.
3. 3. Semi-structured interviews
Since interactions in an interview could be “incredibly rich” and the
data could be “extraordinary evidence about life that might not be gained in
a questionnaire” in Nunan’s viewpoint (1992), in-depth information around
the topic were expected to be pursued.
In the present study, researchers used semi-structured interviews with
the average length of 15 minutes administered in both Vietnamese and
English, and the choice of informal or formal settings depends on each
interviewee. The interviews helped to check the validity of the data from the
questionnaires. In addition, it allowed the researcher to gain an insight into
the informants’ perception of bargaining in each culture.
The interviewees were given a certain degree of control in the
conversation to voice their opinions but were directed to the main areas if
necessary. All the interviews were tape-recorded to be transcribed at a later
stage.
All in all, for a collection of sufficient reliable and valid data for the
study, observation, questionnaire and interviews were fully employed.

4. Procedures of data collection

Generally speaking, to collect the necessary data, the researchers have
followed the procedure below.
Phase one: Design questionnaires and interview questions
This phase focuses on the preparation for data collection and involves
the designing of the questionnaire and interview questions.
Phase two: Pilot the questionnaires and interview questions
The Questionnaire was given to seven relevant respondents to get
their feed back on the workability of the Questionnaire e.g: which questions
or expressions were not clear and/ or lead to ambiguity and/ or
misunderstanding. Adjustments were made afterwards.
Phase three: Deliver the questionnaire
The final draft of the questionnaire was delivered to the targeted
groups of respondents either in person or via mail.
Phase four: Collect the questionnaire and conduct interviews
After the Questionnaires had been collected, the interviews were
conducted to the preference of the interviewees. The interviews were tape-
recorded. Lastly, the tapes from the interview were rechecked for technical
mistakes regarding the tape’s quality and loudness incase they needed to be
done again.

5. Procedures of data analysis

First, analyzing documents was a critical part because after the survey
was conducted, its results were often compared with the fundamental
theories and previous findings. Therefore, critical reading of concerning
fields is essential to select a suitable approach to the issue.
Then, the collected data were systematically analyzed following the
procedures:
Phase one: Code the data
The data collected are encoded
Vietnamese V
American A
Vietnamese male respondent VM
Vietnamese female respondent VF
American male respondent AM
American female respondent AF
Table 2: Vietnamese and American Respondents Encoded.
Phase two: Analyze the data
In the questionnaires, the participants’ answers for close-ended
questions were statistically analyzed, synthesized and presented in forms of
charts, graphs and tables. The open-ended questions were also handled and
put in appropriate categories. As for interview recordings, transcribing was
conducted.
Phase three: Compare the data of Vietnamese and American groups
 As the target of the study is to compare and contrast two specific
cultural groups, once the data of each group were coded and analyzed, they
were subject to comparison and contrast.
Broadly speaking, the three steps above are the procedure that was
followed with the purpose to analyze the collected data.
Summary:

To conclude, this chapter has justified the methodology applied in this

paper by elaborating the two groups of participants involved in the process
of data collection, namely Vietnamese and American. Next, the triangulation
of data collection method was also described and followed by the accounts
of the four-phase process of data collection and the process of data analysis
in this chapter.
 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS & DISCUSSION

This chapter aims to present and discuss the study’s finding with
regard to the following research questions:
1. What are the characteristics of bargaining in Vietnamese language and
culture?
2. What are the characteristics of bargaining in American language and
culture?
3. What are the cultural similarities and differences in Vietnamese and
American bargaining?
Moreover, the implications of this survey results will be discussed.
Additional explanations as well as the introduction of the cultural linguistic
characteristics are also made.

1. Findings:
The survey is conducted with thirty American and thirty Vietnamese.
The information about them is believed to be necessary for data analysis;
therefore, they were requested to provide such personal information as: age,
gender, marital status, occupation, area where they spent most of their time,
places where they often go shopping and the frequency of their shopping.
For more specific information, please look at the following summary
table and charts:
INFORMANTS’ PARAMETERS INFORMANTS’
NATIONALITIES
V A
Age 20-29 50% 40%
30-50 30% 40%
 > 50 20% 20%

Gender Male 40% 47%

Female 60% 53%
Occupation Student 30% 27%
Working people 43% 53%
Retired people 27% 20%
Marital status Single 53% 70%
Married 47% 30%
Living area Urban 75% 75%
Rural 25% 25%
Table 3: Informants’ parameters

Shopping places V A
Supermarket 45% 63%
Flea market 35% 20%
Big shop 40% 50%

Small shop 45% 50%

Street vendor 10% 38%

Table 4: Shopping places
As is illustrated by the table, most American go shopping in
supermarket (63%) and shops (50%). Similarly, most Vietnamese choose
supermarket and shops as shopping places; however, the percentage is lower
than American (around 45% of them made this chose). Interestingly, 35% of
Vietnamese respondents often go shopping at flea markets compared to 20%
of American. 38% of Americans are accustomed to buy things from street
vendors while only 10% of Vietnamese do this.

Shopping frequency
Informants Always Sometimes Seldom
V 25% 60% 15%
A 13% 87% 0%
Table 5.1: Frequency of shopping
The table presents a noticeable difference between two groups of
informants. 15% of Vietnamese informants admit that they seldom go
shopping but the rest tend to go shopping more frequently than the
Americans. In contrast, no Americans say they seldom go shopping and 87%
of them sometimes go shopping.
A closer look at the gender of the informants from each country
reveals interesting statistics as below:

Informants
Shopping frequency VF VM AF AM
Always 31% 0% 30% 20%
Sometimes 50% 60% 70% 80%
Seldom 19% 40% 0% 0%
Table 5.2: Gender differences in shopping frequency
While there is a slight difference between American male and female
in the frequency of shopping, Vietnamese informants show a great contrast.
More detailed, no Vietnamese male assert he always goes shopping
compared to 31% of Vietnamese female. Surprisingly, no Americans
(regardless of their genders) say he/she seldom go shopping whereas 40% of
Vietnamese male admit this habit.
Question 1 in the survey questionnaire: “Do you often bargain when
shopping?” focuses on the frequency of bargaining in both cultures. There is
a clear-cut distinction in the choice of Vietnamese and American people.
While 80% of Vietnamese respondents say “Always”, no American
informants choose this option.

Frequency of bargaining

Informants Always Seldom Never

V 80% 20% 0%
A 0% 37.5% 62.5%
Table 6.1: Frequency of bargaining
As can be seen from table 4, the habit of bargaining is considerably
different in American and Vietnamese culture. The table reveals that
bargaining practice is common in Vietnam; whereas it is rare in American
society (80% versus 0%). 37.5% of Americans report that they seldom
bargain, in comparison with 20% those from Vietnam. Significantly, none
of Vietnamese respondents forget to bargain, while 62.5% of American
informants admit that they never bargain. In fact, the researcher’s personal
observation also showed that bargaining is a daily common practice in
Vietnam. Except in the supermarket and some typical big shops, Vietnamese
buyers tend to have negotiations with the sellers before making decisions.
 Frequen Informants’ parameters
cy Age Gender Marital Occupation Living
of Status area
bargaini 20 30 > M F

Employed people
ng - - 50

Retired people
29 50

Married

Student
Single

Urban

Rural
Always 71 80 86 25 87 67 85 63 72 65 71 83
% % % % % % % % % % % %
Seldom 29 20 14 75 13 33 15 37 28 35 29 17
% % % % % % % % % % % %
Never 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 6.2: The frequency of bargaining as seen from Vietnamese
informants’ parameters
It can be seen from the table that:
- Vietnamese respondents tend to bargain more when they get older.
- Vietnamese females have the tendency to bargain more than
Vietnamese males.
- The married people bargain more than the single ones.
- Surprisingly, the working people seem to bargain more than the retired
or students who are supposed to earn less money.
- As far as living areas are concerned, city dwellers seem to bargain less
than country folks (71% vs. 83%).
Frequen Informants’ parameters
cy of Age Gender Marital Occupation Living
bargaini Status area
ng 20 30 >5 M F

Employed people
- - 0

Retired people
29 50

Married

Student
Single

Urban

Rural
Always 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Seldom 20 30 28 33 20 40 30 10 20 30 33 35
% % % % % % % % % % % %
Never 80 70 72 67 80 60 70 90 80 70 67 65
% % % % % % % % % % % %
Table 6.3: The frequency of bargaining as seen from American
informants’ parameters
For American informants’ parameters, as a small number of
respondents practice bargaining, the parameters have little effect with minor
differences. Noticeably, it can be recognized from the table that:
-Americans (regardless of their age, gender, marital status, occupation
and living areas) do not always bargain.
-American males tend to bargain more than American females.
-The single people practice bargain more than the married ones.
-The retired (or old people) seem to bargain more than students or the
employed.
 Question 2 in the survey questionnaire: “Do these factors influence
your bargaining decision?” investigates the influential factors on people’s
decision to bargain. They are: kinds of item they want to buy, kind of shop,
the attitude of the seller, the money they have in pocket and others.
Influential factors V A
Kind of shopping item 80% 63%
Kind of shop 90% 63%
Attitude of the seller 40% 50%
Money in their pocket 60% 50%
Others: (Quality/ Value of the
item) 10% 15%
Table 7: The factors that influence decision to bargain

It was apparent from this chart that though both groups of informants
are most affected by the kind of shop and kind of item they want to buy, the
Vietnamese percentage is higher (90% and 80% versus 63% and 63%). The
third most important factor affecting buyers from both countries is the
money they have in their pocket, with 60% of Vietnamese and 50% of
American taking this into their consideration. Besides, half of American
suggested that the attitude of the seller also affected their bargaining
decision in comparison with 40% Vietnamese. One American further
explained that: “If the seller is friendly or easy-going, I would like to make
some bargain with him, sometimes for fun”. Likewise, when being
interviewed, a Vietnamese respondent added: “I’d like to find vegetable or
meat sellers with a kind face. They look pleasing and smiling…” (Appendix
3). A small number of informants from both countries are also influenced by
some other factors such as the quality of the shopping item.

Question 3 in the survey questionnaire “Does your relationship with

the seller affect your intention of bargaining?” asks people whether their
relationship with the seller affects their intention of bargaining.
V A
Relationship Yes No Yes No
Relative 95% 5% 75% 25%
Close friend 95% 5% 75% 25%
Acquaintance 70% 30% 63% 38%
Owner of frequently-visited shop 50% 50% 25% 75%
Owner of first-visited shop 0% 100% 15% 85%
Table 8: The influence of the relationship with the seller on the intention
of bargaining

Obviously, the closer the relationship is, the more it affects the
buyer’s decision to bargain. From the table, it can be seen that relative and
close friend are the most influential factors on both groups of respondents
with 95% Vietnamese and 75% American. Occupying the second rank is the
acquaintance with 70% Vietnamese and 63% American. Half of Vietnamese
and a quarter of American participants say that the owner of their favorite
shop also has effect on the bargaining intention. Interestingly, owner of the
first-visited shop has influence on no Vietnamese but on 15% of American
respondents.
 Question 4 in the survey questionnaire: “Do you often make bargain
when buying these items?” illustrates bargaining frequency as affected by
the shopping items in the two cultures.

Levels of frequency Never Sometimes Always

Items
V A V A V A
Houses 25% 20% 15% 0% 65% 80%
Vehicles (car, motorbike,...) 30% 25% 30% 25% 40% 50%
Furniture 25% 63% 35% 37% 40% 0%
Jewelry 50% 63% 11% 37% 39% 0%
Electrical items 40% 88% 35% 12% 25% 0%
Household goods 25% 88% 30% 12% 45% 0%
Stationery (book, pen,…) 65% 100% 10% 0% 25% 0%
Clothes 0% 100% 35% 0% 65% 0%
Toys 15% 100% 55% 0% 30% 0%
Food & Vegetables 5% 100% 10% 0% 85% 0%
Fruits 0% 100% 30% 0% 70% 0%
Others: (Cosmetics,
footwear, alcohol…) 30% 88% 40% 12% 30% 0%
Table 9: Bargaining frequency as affected by the shopping items

An easily seen point is that the items are roughly arranged from the
more expensive to the cheaper. Clearly, Americans never bargain items of
small-value, namely: stationery, toys, food, vegetables, fruits, clothes
whereas Vietnamese do so more often. To be more specific, in Vietnam, the
lower cost the items are of, the more often people bargain. Vietnamese
people always bargain trivial things like food and vegetables (85%), fruits
(70%), and clothes (65%). In contrast, the higher cost the items are of, the
more frequently the American people bargain. 80% Americans always
bargain when buying a house and 50% Americans always bargain when
buying a vehicle. Regarding houses and vehicles, both groups bargain quite
often but Americans bargain frequently than Vietnamese. Overall,
Vietnamese have the habit to bargain when buying any things whereas
Americans just haggle when buying high-cost items. Besides, both groups of
informants also reveal that they sometimes bargain when buying cosmetics,
footwear or alcohol.

Question 5 in the survey questionnaire: “To what extent does the

shopping time influence your bargaining decision?” demonstrates the
influence of the shopping time of the day on bargaining decision.
Level of frequency
Never Sometimes Always
Shopping time V A V A V A

45% 100% 25% 0% 35% 0%

Early morning

40% 100% 45% 0% 15% 0%

During the day

15% 100% 40% 0% 35% 0%

Late evening
Table 10: The influence of the shopping time on bargaining decision of
American and Vietnamese
This table clearly indicates that Americans are never affected by the
shopping time. On the contrary, early morning and late evening are
considered to be sensitive shopping time in Vietnam. One of the Vietnamese
interviewees adds that not only the time of the day, but of the month also
affects the bargaining decision. For example, Vietnamese avoid going
shopping on the first day of the lunar month as it is difficult to make bargain
on such days.

Question 6 in the survey questionnaire “How do you use language in

bargaining?” concerns the language used by American and Vietnamese in
bargaining

Language use V A
Use polite language 60% 50%
Modify the degree of politeness according to the attitude
of the seller and specific situations 20% 13%
Use clear language to avoid misunderstanding 35% 25%
Use both vague and clear language 20% 0%
Table 11: Language used by American and Vietnamese in bargaining

It can be inferred from the table that both groups prefer to use polite
language when bargaining (60% of Vietnamese and 50% of Americans).
Noticeably, while none of Americans uses both vague and clear language,
20% of Vietnamese choose this as a strategy when bargaining. This proves
that Vietnamese are more indirect than Americans.

Question 7 in the survey questionnaire “Which strategies do you

often use when bargaining?” attempts to find out the strategies used by
people in the two countries when bargaining. Here are the results:
 Strategies V A
Say you are not interested in the things you want to buy 30% 50%
Keep bargaining until the seller feels tired and reduces the
price 0% 0%
If the price is high, say you will go and hope the seller call
you back 75% 45%
Just say a few words 20% 13%
Promise to go back to the shop the next time if you can
buy things at a reduced price 50% 13%
Immediately ask if you can get a discount when entering a
shop 35% 0%
Give some compliments on the goods 10% 45%
Give disparagements on the goods 45% 10%
Others: (Start with low cost…) 15% 20%
Table 12: Bargaining strategies often used by Vietnamese and American

In general, as can be seen from the table, none of Vietnamese and

American respondents chose strategy “keep bargaining until the seller feels
tired and reduces the price”, because it is seen as tough bargaining strategy.
Strategy “go and hope the seller to call back” proves to be the most popular
one to be employed by both groups with 75% of Vietnamese and 45% of
Americans.
-Half of American respondents often say they are not interested in the
things they want to, compared to 30% of Vietnamese informants. On the
other hand, half of Vietnamese employ strategy “Promise to go back to the
shop…”, which are nearly four times as much as Americans.
 -45% of Vietnamese participants often give disparagements on the
goods. However, the same percentages of Americans tend to give some
compliments on the goods.
-Another difference is while 35% of Vietnamese informants
immediately ask if they can get a discount, no Americans choose this as a
bargaining strategy.
-Besides, 15% of Vietnamese and 20% of American add that they
often start with low cost, then gradually raise the cost to the extent they think
it would be suitable.

2. Discussion:
2.1. Bargaining in Vietnamese language and culture
First and foremost, as a matter of fact, it is acceptable to bargain
almost everywhere in Vietnam, except for restaurants or supermarkets. That
is why Vietnamese are generally accustomed to practicing bargaining.
Moreover, Ellis, the author of the famous book “Culture shock! Vietnam”
states that “bargaining is much tougher than in many other parts of Asia and
the discount you are likely to get varies enormously depending on what you
are buying and where, how long you spend haggling over the price”. (1995,
86)
Secondly, there is a stark contrast in the frequency of shopping
between Vietnamese male and female informants. To be more concrete, 31%
of Vietnamese female always go shopping while no male respondents do this
daily. A big percentage (40%) of Vietnamese males seldom goes shopping
compared to only 19% of Vietnamese females. The figures reflect the
inequality between two sexes, which is still rooted in Vietnamese culture. It
is commonplace in Vietnam that the mother or the woman in the family is
the principal caregiver. That is, she shops and does most of the household
chores. In America, shopping seems to be done equally by both sexes.
Thirdly, the relationship with the seller has enormous influence on
Vietnamese buyers as the statistics revealed above. The closer the
relationship is, the bigger the influence is. The author’s observation also
shows that the relationship with the seller has two opposite effects in
Vietnam. On the one hand, the buyers in general would make no bargain
when the relationship is close; on the other hand, they tend to take advantage
of this relationship to force the sellers to reduce the price. It is explained by
Vietnamese beliefs “strong sense of community” and family-oriented
lifestyle. Ellis (1995, 58) writes that: “A strong sense of community is felt by
all Vietnamese” and “as in many parts of Asia, Vietnamese life revolves
around the family”. That is, all family members have the responsibility to
help one another financially and spiritually. “It is more of an obligation than
a voluntary gesture of generosity” (Ellis, 1995: 59).
Fourthly, the lower the cost of the item is, the more frequently
Vietnamese bargain. Around 80% of Vietnamese respondents always
bargain when buying food, vegetables and fruits compared to 65% always
bargain when buying houses or 40% when buying vehicles.
Fifthly, shopping time is considered to be sensitive in Vietnam,
especially in the early morning and late evening. It can be understood if we
look into Vietnamese beliefs and psychology. It has been fixed in mind of
Vietnamese sellers that if they had a good deal at the beginning of the day or
the beginning of the month, they would sell things easily during the day or
the month. That is why Vietnamese sellers often expect generous customers
and a number of Vietnamese buyers do not like to go shopping at this time to
avoid bargaining. However, at the end of the day, after earning good profit,
Vietnamese sellers want to relax; consequently, bargaining at this time is
easier for the buyers and they often has a price advantage.
Sixthly, in terms of language use, 60% of Vietnamese respondents
prefer polite language when bargaining. However, a fifth also mentions that
they would like to modify the degree of politeness or use vague or clear
language, depending on their intentions. It is affected by Vietnamese
adaptability, which is regarded as one of Vietnamese strong points.
Adaptability enables Vietnamese to tune their actions to the reality as one
saying goes “Honor when honor is due” (Đi với bụt mặc áo cà sa, đi với ma
mặc áo giấy).
Last but not least, in terms of different bargaining strategies followed,
Vietnamese favor three tricks, namely: go and hope the seller to call back
(45%), promise to come back if they can buy things at a reduced price (50%)
and give some disparagements on the goods (45%). Two least favorable
strategies in Vietnam are: “Just say a few words” (20%) and “give
compliments on the goods”, which is chosen by only 10% of participants.
2.2. Bargaining in American language and culture
To begin with, bargaining is not known as a common practice in
America. The U. S garage sale is one of a few venues where Americans
bargain for low to moderately priced goods, but common understanding
about the garage-sale bargaining are unevenly shared among American
participants, who are accustomed to fixed-price merchandise. According to
Americans’ beliefs, fixed-price means fair. An American respondent say:
“We see bargaining as being rude and offensive, or undermining the
merchant’s integrity”. She also adds: “My feeling was that it was not kind to
the seller if I asked for a discount”. (Appendix 4)
 Secondly, there is almost no difference between American male and
female in the frequency of shopping. Obviously, there is a common
consensus that equality has long been trademark of American culture.
“Americans have a deep faith that in some fundamental way all people (at
least all American people) are of equal value, that no one is born superior to
anyone else” (Gary Athen, 1998:8). That is why the housework is thought to
be equally shared among the member of the family.
Thirdly, time has no effect on the American bargaining decision. As a
matter of fact, bargaining takes time. However, in American beliefs and
values, time is considered a precious commodity; waste of time is viewed as
an opportunity lost. Americans are very time-conscious. This may somewhat
explain why Americans normally do not bargain.
Fourthly, bargaining is popularly used in the purchase of high-priced
items, namely houses and vehicles (80% and 50% respectively). Americans
generally never bargain low-cost items like fruit, vegetables and the like.
Fifthly, in terms of language use, Americans have the tendency to use
polite language. Besides, they do not use both vague and clear language at
the same time. Again, it can be explained by the American value, namely:
“assertive”. Americans generally prefer being open and direct in their
dealings with others.
Last but not least, the American’s prominent strategy implemented
when bargaining is “say they will go and hope the seller to call back”, which
is the choice of 75% informants. Besides, they tend not to give
disparagements, but compliments on the goods.
2.3. What are the similarities and differences in bargaining in
Vietnamese and American language and culture?
2.3.1. Similarities:
 To start with, Americans or Vietnamese, once having the intention to
bargain, often take into consideration such factors, namely: kind of shopping
items, kind of shop, attitude of the seller, the money in their pocket and the
relationship with the seller.
In the second place, both groups of participants would like to use
polite language when bargaining.
Another similarity is the common strategies used when bargaining
between the two groups. None respondents from the two countries keep
bargaining until the seller feels tired and reduces the price. Besides, two
groups most often adopt the strategy “say they will go and hope the seller
call back”.
2.3.2. Differences:
According to the survey results, the hypothesis that the habit of
bargaining is different in different cultures, with Vietnamese and Americans
taken as representatives is true.
The first sharp difference is the frequency of bargaining. According to
the statistics, bargaining is popular in Vietnam whereas it is not a common
practice in America. In other words, the majority of Americans never
bargain. There is no doubt that bargaining is a form of social oil, a way to
create and sustain relationship and is most impacted by the culture in many
Asian countries, e.g: Vietnam. Paradoxically, Americans take the idea of fair
payment far too seriously while Vietnamese locals might look at the process
of dickering down the price as a game or a gamble. The American culture
often does not embrace the need to create a larger environment for trade offs
in order to come to an agreement. Their considerations are often limited to
cost or price and are fact-based, either on data provided or an audit.
Therefore, knowledge of the art of bargaining is a perquisite for the travelers
to Vietnam to avoid any pity consequences. As in Vietnam, even when an
item has a price tag, the numbers are not the final figure. Almost everything
is negotiable in Vietnam and this practice has been so far part of the
Vietnamese way of life. As observed in the number of shops in Old Quarters
Streets in Hanoi, not being aware of this truth, when faced with uncertain
pricing situations (that is, no price signs or labels are attached to the items or
a merchant asks customers what they would like to pay), many Americans
simply walk away or they naively pay the quoted price without questioning
price alternatives. Americans have an idea that “fixed price” are fair, as
revealed by many American respondents. However, Vietnamese have a
different conception: “How much are you able to pay and how far am I able
to accept it”.
Secondly, the frequency of going shopping shows significant
differences in Vietnamese male and female. In America, there is nearly no
contrast between male and female in the frequency of shopping. Apart from
gender, other parameters like marital status, age, occupation, area of living
also exert great influence on the frequency of bargaining in Vietnam.
However, in America, these factors have no impact on bargaining decision.
Thirdly, in terms of factors influence decision to bargain, Americans
consider equally kind of shopping item and kind of shop most, and then
comes attitude of the seller and money in their pocket. On the contrary,
Vietnamese take into consideration kind of shop most; the second most is
kind of shopping item, next is money in their pocket and last goes to attitude
of the seller.
Fourthly, in terms of the shopping time, no Americans participants
pays attention to the time to go shopping while Vietnamese take a great
notice of the time. This is because of the Vietnamese beliefs: the first
customer who is generous would bring good luck to the seller during the day
or the month.
Fifthly, in terms of language use, no Americans use both clear and
vague language at the same time while a number of Vietnamese informants
employ this strategy. The difference can be explained by the directness and
assertive of Americans and the indirect of Vietnamese.
Sixthly, Americans tend to give compliments on the goods while
Vietnamese give disparagements on them. Again, it is because of the
American’s assertive characteristics. Obviously, people buy things only
when they like them. However, Americans have the habit to “talk up on”, on
the contrary, Vietnamese would like to adapt the “talk down on”
communication style to lower the price.
To sum up, this chapter has consecutively provided answers to each of
the research questions via a thorough analysis and discussion of the
collected data. Major findings would be summarized in the conclusion as the
final chapter of this research paper.
 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Previous chapters have thoroughly elaborated the introduction, the
theoretical background, the implementation and the results of the research.
Finally, this concluding chapter will summarize and evaluate the outcomes
of the whole paper by and provide implications for cross-cultural
communication. It also states the, limitations of the study as well as putting
forward several suggestions for further studies.

1. Summary of the findings:

It is clear that socio-cultural knowledge plays a vital role in forming
communicative competence, which guarantees successful interactions. In
cross-cultural communication, miscommunication, communication
breakdowns, and cultural shocks occur partly, due to the participants’ lack of
knowledge of the target language’s culture. On the whole, this research
paper performs as a fairly comprehensive study on bargaining in Vietnamese
and American language and culture. Through exhaustive analysis and
discussion of data collected from interviews, questionnaires and observation,
significant findings concerning the research questions were revealed as
follows:
Initially, the study confirms that bargaining in Vietnamese and
American has profound similarities and differences. The differences are
resulted from the specific features of the two languages and cultures. The
similarities underneath the two cultures prove that the cultural understanding
is possible and the cultural barrier can be lifted.
Specifically, in terms of language use, both groups prefer to use polite
language when bargaining. However, as revealed in the data analysis,
Americans seem to be more assertive and direct than Vietnamese
respondents.
Next, virtually everywhere in Vietnam, bargaining is the means of
determining a price. On the contrary, in America, bargaining happens in the
purchase of high-priced items or at the garage sale only as they believe it is
not fair to the seller. Shopping time is taken into buyers’ consideration in
Vietnam while it has no influence in American culture. Though both groups’
bargaining intentions are affected by the relationship with the seller,
Vietnamese are under greater influence than Americans.
Finally, a number of strategies have been used by both groups of
informants. Significantly, Americans have the trend to give compliments on
the goods while Vietnamese have the habit to give disparagements.
From what have been presented, one can draw the conclusion that
cultural awareness is of great importance to comprehending and appreciating
your own culture and adapting effectively to other cultures. Overall,
bargaining in Vietnam and America has shown several notable differences
as well as similarities.

2. Implications:
Conclusively, the findings from data analysis bring out certain
implications in (i) cross-cultural communication between American and
Vietnamese (ii) second/ foreign language teaching and learning with a set
aim of building up in the learner the cross-cultural communicative
competence.
2. 1. For intercultural communicators:
Understanding cultural differences ultimately promotes clearer
communication, breaks down barriers, builds trust, and strengthens
relationships. Because of different cultures, Vietnamese and American
people have both similar and different ways of bargaining. Therefore, in
intercultural communication, apart from mastering the language skills, they
should be aware of those cultural similarities and differences. It is essential
to note that cultural awareness is the foundation of successful
communication. People see, interpret and evaluate things in different ways.
What is considered an appropriate behavior in one culture maybe
inappropriate in another one. Obviously, our culture provides guidelines for
our linguistic and social behaviors. The best solution for intercultural
communicators is, like a famous saying, “When in Rome do as the Romans
do”.
2. 2. For English teaching and learning
It is imperative that the learning and teaching of a language
concentrate on communication with an emphasis on communicative
competence rather than on linguistic competence only. Teaching culture
should be embedded in teaching foreign language. To help students use the
language they learn accurately and naturally, teachers should provide them
with both linguistic and cultural input.
Although learning a language requires the acquisition of its culture, in
English classes in Vietnam, language learning seems to be separated from
culture learning. Thus, teaching the target culture to students is the foremost
task of ELT in Vietnam. Students should understand why certain behavior,
though polite in Vietnam, is not appreciated by native speakers of English.
However, as a matter of fact, when learning English in Vietnam, students do
not have a native language environment and do not have enough access to
authentic language as well as “real culture”. In this situation, the role of
language teachers is very remarkable as they are the first source through
which the students learn the second culture. Thus, English teachers should
focus on both correctness and appropriateness, as well as assist students to
understand the relationship between culture and language. In short, teaching
the target language’s culture is of extreme importance in English language
teaching.

3. Limitations of the study:

Though this research has been conducted to the best of the
researcher’s efforts, there remain several shortcomings for a number of
reasons.
Firstly, the shortage of materials, documents and reference books
related to the topic placed an obstacle to the researcher.
Secondly, the researcher only involved 60 questionnaire respondents
and two interviews from each country, so these respondents’ comments
cannot represent all the Vietnamese and American’s opinions.
Last but not least, the writer admits that her knowledge and
experience are still limited; therefore, minor mistakes are inevitable.
Therefore, any constructive comments, suggestions and recommendations
would be highly appreciated.

4. Suggestions for further study:

The issues mentioned in this study can be reviewed and studied again.
Hopefully future researchers would find this study useful, so that they could
conduct their own studies, particularly on the same matter, in a more
successful way. Furthermore, here are some specific suggestions for further
study:
● Cultural differences in attitude towards bargaining.
 ● The role of context in bargaining.

● Bargaining across genders.

The findings of these studies together with those of this research

would be useful references for those who are interested in Vietnamese and
American culture.
 REFERENCES

Apte, (1994). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford University

Press

Austin,J.L. (1962). How to do things with words. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Brahim, C. (2007). Retrieved on February 11st, 2010 from

http://studentorgs.utexas.edu/salsa/proceedings/2007/Chakrani.pdf

Byram, M and Flemming, M. (1998). Language Learning in Intercultural

Perspective. CUP.

Crystal, D. (1992). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. USA:

Cambridge University Press.

Ellis, C. (1995). Culture shock! Vietnam. Portland, Oregon: Times Editions

Pte Ltd.

Fannin, D. & Tapela, L. (2005). Observation, Data collection method paper.

Retrieved Jan 6, 2010 from www. Campus.

Gary Athen (2003). American Ways. Intercultural Press, Inc.

Halliday. M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the Functions of Language.

London: Longman

Hatch, E. M. (1992). Discourse and Language Education. CUP

Hudson, R. A. (1982: 81). Sociolinguistics Cambridge. CUP.

Hybels, S. and Weaver, R. , (1992), Communicating Effectively. McGraw-ill,
Inc.

Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic

approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Jerome M. Chertkoff and James K. Esser (1976). A review of experiments in

explicit bargaining Indiana University, USA. Retrieved on February 15th,
2010 from http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=8075

Kramsch, C. (1998), Language and Culture, Oxford: OUP

Lebow, R. N (1996). The Art of Bargaining. The Johns Hopkins University

Press.

Levine, D. R. and Adelman, M. B. (1993). Beyond Language- Cross-

Cultural Communication. Regents/Prentice Hall Inc.

Lustig M. W., et. al., (1996). Intercultural Competence. Harper Collins

College Publishers.

Mayr (2006). Integration of Bargaining into E-Business Systems. Retrieved

on February 11st, 2010 from
http://www.informatica.si/pdf/30-
3/08_mayr_integration%20of%20bargaining%20into%20e-business.pdf

Moore, S (1985). Sociology. Letts Educational Aldine House, London.

Nguyễn Quang.(1994). Intercultural Communication. CFL - Vietnam

National University - Hanoi.
Nguyễn Quang. (1998). Cross-cultural Communication. CFL - Vietnam
National University - Hanoi.

Nguyễn Quang. (2004). Lecture Notes on CCC. CFL - Vietnam National

University - Hanoi.

Nunan. D (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge: CPU

Richard, J. et al. (1992). Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics.

Longman.

Samovar, L. A., R. E. Porter and E. R. McDaniel (2007), Communication

between cultures (6th ed.), Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont, CA

Searl, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the Philosophy of Language.

Cambridge: CUP.

Uchendu, Victor C. (1967), "Some Principles of Haggling in Peasant

Markets," Journal of Economic Development and Cultural Change, 16 (1),
37-50.

Valdes, J. M. (ed,). (1995). Culture Bound. Cambridge: CUP

Verderber, R. F. (1990). Communicate!. CUP.

Verma, G.K and Marllick, K. (1999). Research Education: Perspectives and

techniques. London: Falmer Press

Vijver, F. & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural
research. London and New Dehli: SAGE Publications.
Vu, T. N. (2006). A cross-cultural study on negotiation in Vietnam and the
United States. (Bachelor dissertation, Vietnam National University of
Hanoi, College of Foreign Language, 2006).

Wardhaugh, R. (1992). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford:

Blackwell Publishers.

Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse-Kappen, Beth A. Simmons (2002).

Handbook of International Relations. SAGE Publication Ltd

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: OUP