Vietnamese and Australian interpretations of silence: similarities, differences and accommodation

Abstract

This study investigated interpretations of silence used by Vietnamese and Australians and the cultural differences and similarities in perceived likelihood of silence and its interpretations. It also examined if and how Vietnamese adapt silence-related behaviour in communication with Australians. This work was exploratory, inspired by the relative lack of detailed studies of silence in Vietnamese culture and in intercultural contexts with Australians, since existing research tends to rely on a stereotype of Vietnamese as more silent. There were three research questions in this study: (1) How do Vietnamese and Australians interpret silence in everyday contexts?; (2) What are their beliefs about the use and appropriateness of silence?; (3) To what extent do Vietnamese adapt their interpretations and beliefs about silence when in regular communication with Australians? A mixed methods research design, integrating both quantitative and qualitative data, was adopted. Specifically, the study used a questionnaire, followed by record sheets and interviews. The 275 participants in the initial questionnaire comprised three groups: Vietnamese in Vietnam (VV), Australians in Australia (AA), and Vietnamese in Australia who had regular contact with Australians (VA). Participants completed a survey on the likelihood of responding with silence in each of 35 situations, also providing the possible meanings of silence. Participants’ views, judgments and perceptions were also identified through the use of record sheets and interviews. In the record sheets, participants described their interactions involving silence with same-culture people, except for the VA group who reported silence involving interactions with Australians. The purpose of the record sheets was to see real incidents of silence which the participants considered noteworthy. The interviews probed these issues further and also asked the VA group if and how members adapted silence-related behaviour in communication with Australians. Based on the comparison of reported likelihood of silence and speaking, the study found that contrary to the stereotype, the VV were not more likely to be silent than the AA group, indeed Australians believed they would be silent in slightly more situations than the VV. Meanwhile the VA were the most likely to be silent in only one situation. The image of the Vietnamese as more silent was therefore not supported by this study in a straightforward way. Focusing on the interpretations of silence, this study showed that silence is more than an absence of sound. Participants supplied a range of interpretations of silence including, in order of frequency, acquiescence, disregard, avoidance, processing, courtesy, apprehension, discourtesy, displeasure, dissent, discomfort, and regret. The results showed significant similarities among all three groups in more than one third of the surveyed situations. In a number of cases, for example dealing with strangers and/or threats of conflict, participants across all groups were likely to be silent, and interpreted silence as a means of avoidance. This study found that in many of the other 21 surveyed situations where reported likelihood of silence differed across the three groups that the interpretations of silence were highly context dependent. Surprisingly there were situations where silence had both positive and negative connotations, for example, courtesy and discourtesy, acceptance and refusal. The interviews showed that VA participants, who had regular contact with Australians while living and studying in Australia, perceived talking as characteristic of Australians’ communication style and desirable. In some circumstances, VA exhibited accommodating behavior which took the form of speaking. The extent to which VA accommodated was greatly affected by (i) their perceived beliefs about Australians, (ii) their awareness of the importance of adaptation, for example their belief they would be negatively evaluated if they did not accommodate, and (iii) their experiences of L2 failure in communication with Australians. This study presented evidence that VA convergence was a conscious strategy and most noticeable in relation to their positive attitudes to talking. Concerning divergence, the current study highlights the unwilling choice of silence of the VA in communication with Australians. Unwilling divergence was due to VA lack of English proficiency and cultural differences in communication styles between Vietnamese and Australians. VA maintenance took place when speakers had strong beliefs in their identity and communication styles, and chose to perpetuate their existing culturally determined behavior, whether involving silence or speaking. The strong evidence of VA accommodation when communicating in English helps to support the hypothesis of pragmatic transfer when VA communicating with other Vietnamese. This study contributes to research on communication, culture and silence by adding a more nuanced understanding of the likelihood, meanings and functions of silence, specifically among Vietnamese and Australians. This lays the basis for speakers to better overcome intra- and/or inter- cultural problems associated with silence. The study builds awareness of the importance of accommodation in intercultural encounters, thereby promoting better Australian-Vietnamese communication.