"Stand on the shoulders of giants."
Pragmatics, often defined as the study of meaning in context, is inherently shaped by culture. Every pragmatic choice—whether it involves making a request, refusing an offer, or interrupting a speaker—reflects not only linguistic knowledge but also sociocultural values and interactional expectations. Yet culture in pragmatics is not simply about recognizing differences in politeness formulas or preferred speech acts. It involves understanding how individuals from different backgrounds perceive social relationships, enact power and solidarity, and construct meaning through language.
For EFL learners in Vietnam, cultural norms deeply inform how English is used and understood. Teachers and researchers alike must recognize that pragmatic miscommunication is often not a matter of linguistic error, but of culturally embedded assumptions about what is appropriate, respectful, or effective in a given interaction.
A central concept in cultural pragmatics is that communicative behavior is guided by culturally specific norms—many of which are unspoken and internalized from a young age. What counts as “polite,” “honest,” “cooperative,” or “rude” varies across cultural groups and often goes unquestioned until miscommunication occurs. For example, in Vietnamese culture, silence in response to bad news may indicate empathy or restraint, while in many Western contexts, it may be interpreted as discomfort or disengagement.
These interpretive frameworks are part of what Hall (1976) called high-context and low-context cultural communication systems. In high-context cultures like Vietnam, Japan, or Korea, communication relies heavily on shared knowledge, relationship history, and non-verbal cues. Much is left unsaid because it is assumed to be understood. In contrast, low-context cultures such as the United States, Germany, or Australia value explicitness and transparency, where meaning is encoded directly in words rather than inferred.
These differences manifest in everyday pragmatic choices. For instance, a Vietnamese student may avoid direct eye contact or overt disagreement with a teacher out of respect, while a Western instructor may misinterpret this behavior as lack of confidence or disengagement. Understanding these differing expectations is crucial to interpreting pragmatic behavior accurately.
Each culture encodes typical routines for specific social interactions—what pragmatists call pragmatic scripts. These scripts guide how people initiate conversations, express gratitude, complain, apologize, or end an encounter. While the surface language may differ, the deeper structure of the interaction is shaped by cultural logic.
Consider the act of refusing an invitation. In many Anglophone settings, a polite refusal might follow a direct structure with some softening:
“Thanks for inviting me, but I already have plans.”
In contrast, a Vietnamese refusal is often less direct and may follow a more elliptical script:
“I’d love to… Let me check my schedule and get back to you.” (with no follow-up)
To native English speakers, this may seem evasive. To Vietnamese speakers, it maintains harmony by avoiding a face-threatening act. Without awareness of the script’s cultural basis, pragmatic misinterpretation is likely.
Another example involves classroom participation. In many Vietnamese classrooms, students wait to be called on and avoid speaking unless explicitly invited, a reflection of Confucian values emphasizing respect for authority and social harmony. In contrast, English-speaking academic cultures often encourage self-initiated participation and challenge as signs of engagement. An MA student studying pragmatic behavior in classroom interaction could examine how these cultural scripts affect learners’ use of discourse markers, questions, and turn-taking in L2 classroom settings.
Pragmatic failures among L2 learners can be classified into pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic errors (Thomas, 1983). The former involves misusing the linguistic forms for specific functions—such as using “Can you…” instead of “Could you possibly…” in formal requests. The latter involves misjudging the social norms that govern the interaction—such as assuming it is acceptable to use humor when declining an offer from a superior.
Vietnamese EFL learners often manage pragmalinguistic forms well due to strong grammar-focused instruction. However, they may struggle with sociopragmatic appropriateness—especially in unfamiliar or ambiguous contexts. A learner might thank a teacher multiple times after receiving feedback, thinking it is polite, while the teacher interprets it as overcompensation or insecurity.
Moreover, learners sometimes transfer L1 cultural assumptions into L2 interactions. This pragmatic transfer may not always be negative—some strategies (e.g., indirectness) may be acceptable or even preferred in English. However, without cultural and situational awareness, learners may overapply these strategies, leading to unintended impressions. A graduate-level research project might explore how Vietnamese students use refusals or apologies in English emails to foreign lecturers and how these are perceived by native speakers.
Beyond surface behaviors, culture shapes how individuals understand who has the right to speak, how relationships are enacted, and what constitutes appropriate behavior. These ideologies—often invisible—are learned through language socialization. In Vietnamese contexts, respect for hierarchy, deference to elders, and self-effacement are deeply embedded in everyday interaction. These norms affect how learners approach English pragmatics, especially in intercultural settings.
For example, learners may avoid challenging others’ opinions, interrupting conversations, or initiating disagreement. In Western professional or academic discourse, however, assertiveness and direct engagement are often valued. A Vietnamese employee giving feedback in English may soften every suggestion or avoid criticism entirely, which may be interpreted as lacking initiative. Here, the issue is not linguistic, but ideological: the speaker’s understanding of what is appropriate in terms of power, politeness, and social roles.
Pragmatic development, then, is not merely about acquiring expressions—it involves reshaping one’s communicative identity to align (or negotiate alignment) with target language norms. MA students studying EFL pragmatics in Vietnam should consider how learners navigate these conflicting expectations and how teachers can support this process through critical reflection and guided adaptation.
The cultural dimension of pragmatics suggests several directions for applied teaching and research. From a pedagogical perspective, teachers should move beyond teaching set phrases and provide learners with scenarios that highlight cultural contrasts, encouraging discussion of why particular forms are used. Raising awareness of underlying cultural scripts can help learners avoid miscommunication and adapt more flexibly to diverse contexts.
Instructional approaches such as noticing tasks, meta-pragmatic reflection, and comparative discourse analysis can help learners recognize differences between their L1 and English pragmatic systems. Materials should include both native and non-native speaker models, representing the diversity of Global Englishes rather than a single “native” norm.
From a research perspective, MA students might explore topics such as:
How do Vietnamese learners interpret indirectness in English emails or dialogues?
How do pragmatic norms in textbooks align with those in real intercultural encounters?
What cultural assumptions underlie Vietnamese EFL learners’ responses to compliments, refusals, or disagreement?
How do learners reconcile conflicting ideologies of respect, initiative, and politeness across languages?
These questions can be addressed using qualitative methods (e.g., interviews, stimulated recall), discourse analysis of learner-produced texts, or comparative analyses of classroom interactions.
Pragmatic competence cannot be fully understood without accounting for culture. Language use is always shaped by culturally grounded ideologies, expectations, and interactional norms. For Vietnamese learners of English, challenges in pragmatic communication often stem not from lack of language ability, but from conflicting cultural scripts and assumptions about what is socially appropriate.
As future researchers and educators, MA students must be equipped to explore and address these cultural dimensions—helping learners not only to speak grammatically, but to communicate appropriately, empathetically, and effectively across cultural boundaries.