ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

On behalf of Group 8, we would like to express our deepest gratitude to Ms.

Nguyễn Thị Thủy Chung, our esteemed lecturer for the course Principles of Business
English Communication.

Throughout the duration of the course, Ms. Thủy Chung has not only provided
us with valuable knowledge and practical insights into business communication, but
also inspired us with her professionalism, dedication, and passion for teaching. Her
engaging lessons and thoughtful feedback have greatly enhanced our understanding of
how to communicate effectively in a professional environment, both in theory and in
real-world situations.

We are especially thankful for her continuous encouragement, patience, and

support during the process of completing this discussion paper. Her guidance has been
instrumental in helping us stay focused, work collaboratively, and improve both our
academic and practical communication skills.

Once again, we sincerely thank Ms. Nguyễn Thị Thủy Chung for her
commitment to our learning and growth. This project would not have been possible
without her support and mentorship.

Respectfully,
Group 8
 ASSESSMENT TABLE

Group 8

No Name & Student Tasks Leader’s Lecturer’s

ID assessment assessment

Trần Anh Thư (II) Data/Corpus and A

Methodology

Trần Thị Thuỷ (IV)Analysis and A

Tiên Implementation
22D170239 Presentation

Lê Trần Quỳnh A
(V) Conclusion and
Trang
Recommendations.
22D170246
(VI) Limitations and Future
Directions

Nguyễn Thị Kim Introduction A

Trang (I)Theoretical
22D170249
Framework Presentation

La Thị Khánh Slides for the presentation

Vân
22D170262

Đào Khánh Vinh A

(III) Analysis
(Leader)
22D170264 Presentation
 SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM

Independence – Freedom – Happiness

—————

Ha Noi, April 24, 2025

MEETING MINUTES

Group: 8 Class: 251_ENTH3121_03

I. Time, address, participants included:

- Time: 10:00 p.m, August 24, 2025.

- Address: Google Meet

- Participants included: 6 members

II. Content of the meeting

The group receives the discussion topic, researches the content that needs to be done,
and outlines the discussion. Next, the group assigns tasks as follows:

Name & Student ID Tasks

Trần Anh Thư (II) Data/Corpus and Methodology

Trần Thị Thuỷ Tiên (IV)Analysis and Implementation + Presentation

Lê Trần Quỳnh Trang

(V) Conclusion and Recommendations.

(VI) Limitations and Future Directions

Nguyễn Thị Kim Trang Introduction + (I)Theoretical Framework +Presentation

La Thị Khánh Vân Slides for the presentation

 Đào Khánh Vinh
(III) Analysis + Presentation

III. Conclusion of the meeting

- Editing outline based on instructor's comments.

- Obtaining agreement from all team members.

- The meeting ends at 11:00 p.m. the same day.

Leader
 SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM

Independence – Freedom – Happiness

—————

Ha Noi, August 29, 2025

MEETING MINUTES

Group: 8 Class: 251_ENTH3121_03

I. Time, address, participants included:

- Time: 10:00 p.m, August 28, 2025.

- Address: Online meeting on Google Meet.

- Participants included: 6 members

II. Content of the meeting:

- All members rehearsed the presentation.

- Group leader Đào Thị Khánh Vinh commented on the presentation and pointed out
some parts that needed to be edited in the slides: adding motion effects to slides,
cutting and reducing text on slides,...

- All members added their opinions.

III. Conclusion of the meeting:

- Obtaining agreement from all team members.

- The meeting ends at 10:30 p.m. the same day.

Leader
 SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM

Independence – Freedom – Happiness

—————

Ha Noi, September 5, 2025

MEETING MINUTES

Group: 8 Class: 251_ENTH3121_03

I. Time, address, participants included:

- Time: 10:00 p.m, September 3, 2025.

- Address: Online meeting on Google Meet.

- Participants included: 6 members

II. Content of the meeting:

- All members rehearsed the presentation.

- Group leader Đào Thị Khánh Vinh commented on the presentation and pointed out
some parts that needed to be edited in the slides: adding motion effects to slides,
cutting and reducing text on slides,...

- All members added their opinions.

III. Conclusion of the meeting:

- Obtaining agreement from all team members.

- The meeting ends at 10:30 p.m. the same day.

Leader
 TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................................
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................
I. Theoretical Framework.....................................................................................................................
1.1 Goffman’s Face Theory (1967)....................................................................................................
1.2 Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory (1987)........................................................................
1.3 Cross-Cultural Negotiation Styles................................................................................................
II. Data/Corpus and Methodology.......................................................................................................
2.1. Data / Corpus...............................................................................................................................
2.1.1. Video..................................................................................................................................
2.1.2. Transcript/Email.................................................................................................................
2.2. Method of Analysis.....................................................................................................................
2.2.1. Discourse Analysis.............................................................................................................
2.2.2. Erving Goffman's "Face Theory".......................................................................................
2.2.3. Brown & Levinson’s Politeness Theory............................................................................
2.2.4. Negotiation Styles..............................................................................................................
III. Analysis............................................................................................................................................
3.1. Verbal strategies..........................................................................................................................
3.2. Nonverbal strategies....................................................................................................................
3.3. Comparative Table......................................................................................................................
3.4. Sample dialogues.........................................................................................................................
IV. Analysis and Implementation........................................................................................................
4.1. Applications of face-saving strategies.........................................................................................
4.2. Meanings of face-saving strategies in negotiation......................................................................
4.3. Recommendations in negotiation................................................................................................
V. Conclusion and Recommendations.................................................................................................
VI. Limitations and Future Directions................................................................................................
VII. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................
 INTRODUCTION

In the era of globalization, negotiation has become an indispensable tool in

establishing and maintaining international partnerships. While negotiation often
involves the exchange of information, proposals, and interests, it is equally a form of
social interaction where cultural expectations and interpersonal dynamics play a
critical role. One such dynamic is the concept of "face"—a person’s social self-image
and desire for respect—which, if threatened through direct rejection or overt
disagreement, can lead to discomfort, tension, and breakdowns in communication.
This is particularly significant in cross-cultural settings, where differing norms
regarding politeness and confrontation shape how negotiators respond to conflict.

This paper investigates face-saving strategies in negotiation by comparing two

distinct cultural contexts: Vietnam and the United States. Rather than relying on
generalized East–West distinctions, this study focuses on specific national cultures to
gain a more nuanced understanding of communication styles. Vietnam, rooted in
Confucian and collectivist traditions, typically emphasizes indirectness, relational
harmony, and social hierarchy. In contrast, the United States, as a Western and
individualist society, tends to value directness, clarity, and personal autonomy. These
cultural orientations influence how negotiators in each country handle disagreement,
refusal, and concession. Given Vietnam’s growing economic engagement with the
international community and the United States’ status as a major trade partner,
understanding these differences has strong practical relevance in real-world business
and diplomatic contexts.

The objective of this study is to analyze how Vietnamese and American

negotiators maintain face during disagreement, focusing on both verbal and non-
verbal strategies. Grounded in Goffman’s (1967) Face Theory, Brown and Levinson’s
(1987) Politeness Theory, and intercultural negotiation style frameworks, the research
seeks to identify the key mechanisms by which politeness and face-saving are enacted
across cultures and to explore their implications for effective cross-cultural
communication.

I. Theoretical Framework

1.1 Goffman’s Face Theory (1967)

Erving Goffman conceptualizes "face" as the positive social value a person

effectively claims for themselves during interaction. Face consists of two key
components:

Positive face: the desire to be appreciated, respected, and approved of by others.

Negative face: the desire for autonomy, freedom of action, and non-imposition.

Disagreement, rejection, and criticism are categorized as Face-Threatening

Acts (FTAs), as they challenge either the positive or negative face of the interlocutor.
Consequently, in negotiation, mitigating or avoiding FTAs becomes crucial to
maintaining cooperation and social harmony.

1.2 Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory (1987)

Brown and Levinson expand on Goffman’s ideas by identifying linguistic

strategies that speakers use to preserve face. Their framework outlines three major
types of politeness strategies:

Positive politeness: strategies that emphasize closeness, solidarity, and

approval. These may include compliments, inclusive pronouns (e.g., “we”, “let’s”),
and expressions of shared values or interests.

Negative politeness: strategies that acknowledge social distance and the

interlocutor’s autonomy. This includes indirectness, hedging, apologies, and respectful
deference.
 Off-record strategies: highly indirect forms of communication such as hints,
metaphors, silence, or topic shifts, allowing speakers to avoid overt commitment to
potentially face-threatening content.

1.3 Cross-Cultural Negotiation Styles

Drawing on intercultural negotiation literature (e.g., Hofstede, 2001; Lewicki et

al., 2011), researchers observe that American negotiators typically adopt a competing
or collaborating style. This style tends to be direct, goal-oriented, and assertive,
though often accompanied by justifications to soften the impact of disagreement.

Conversely, Vietnamese negotiators often employ accommodating, avoiding,

or compromising styles. These approaches reflect a preference for indirect
communication, relational sensitivity, and the preservation of harmony over
confrontation. High-context communication, hierarchical values, and collectivist
norms further shape the Vietnamese approach to face and politeness.

These contrasting cultural orientations suggest that negotiators from different

backgrounds rely on distinct face-saving strategies, particularly in managing rejection,
concession, and disagreement. Understanding these differences is essential for
fostering mutual respect and successful outcomes in intercultural negotiations.

=> Through the videos, this is a summary table of the common features in how
Americans and Vietnamese use face-saving strategies.

Pattern U.S. illustration Vietnam Shared takeaway

illustration
No bare refusals “Unfortunately, “That may be Refusals are
(always give $40 is below our difficult due to justified to avoid
reasons) cost.” company policy.” embarrassment.
Softened wording / Hedges: Indirect hints, brief Make the “no”
indirectness “unfortunately,” silence, polite gentler to protect
“would you smile your face.
 consider…?”
Offer alternatives Conditional Flexible options: Keep the door
or conditions concession: “We volume discounts, open; reduce
could do 46 if other terms tension.
payment is
upfront.”
Protect the Emphasize future Emphasize Relationship >
relationship cooperation harmony and one-off win.
respect
Nonverbal Steady tone, Pause, soft tone, Nonverbals
softeners measured eye nod/smile support face-
contact saving intent.

II. Data/Corpus and Methodology

2.1. Data / Corpus

2.1.1. Video.

- Main video: https://www.tiktok.com/@sworldmedia/video/7102616002550172929

The main content of the video is an in-depth discussion on business, specifically how
businesses and startups can test products in the market with a small budget through
digital platforms. The video depicts a panel discussion with four speakers sitting on
stage: three Vietnamese Sharks and an American Shark (speaking in English, with
Vietnamese subtitles). The conversation takes place in an open and professional
atmosphere.
- Video about American negotiation style:
Intolerable Cruelty (3/12) Movie CLIP - It's a Negotiation (2003) HD
The Michael Scott Method of Negotiation - The Office
house of cards negotiation with chineses
- Video about Vietnamese negotiation style:
Startup Mường Khiến Shark Bình Lần Đầu Dùng VÉ VÀNG Chiến Tới Cùng Với
Shark Hùng Anh |Shark Tank 5
Khởi Nghiệp Với nến Thơm, Nữ Sinh 17 Tuổi Chinh Phục Được 3 Shark Bắt Tay
Cùng Đầu Tư| Shark Tank 5

=> Both sides soften refusals, give reasons, and propose alternatives to protect face
and maintain the relationship—differences are mainly in emphasis (U.S.: clarity &
autonomy; Vietnam: harmony & respect).

2.1.2. Transcript/Email

Email: This is “paralanguage features” (formal tone, paragraphing, choice of

words).
Context: Exchange between Ms. Mai (Vietnam) and Mr. David (USA) on dried
mango pricing. David requests a lower price ($8.5/kg), Mai refuses politely but offers
alternatives (flexible terms, discounts).
Email 1: From Mr. David
Subject: Inquiry on Pricing for First Order.
Dear Mrs. Mai,
] We have received and tested the dried mango sample. The quality is really
excellent and we believe this product will have great potential in our market.
However, at the listed price of $10/kg, we are afraid that it will be quite
difficult to compete with similar products in the US market. We would love to get
your product into supermarket chains, but to do that, we need a more competitive
entry price.
Would you consider $8.5/kg for the first order? We believe this is a good start
to establish a long-term business relationship.
Sincerely,
David Chen
Purchasing Director Green Harvest
Email 2: From Mrs. Mai
Subject: RE: Inquiry on Pricing for First Order
 Dear Mr. David,
Thank you for appreciating the quality of our products. We also believe that
this cooperation will bring long-term benefits to both parties.
We regret to say that the price of $8.5/kg is not feasible at this time. The listed
price of $10/kg has been carefully calculated to ensure that the production costs
comply with international organic standards and maintain the highest quality. Perhaps
we can discuss another option ?
We have some suggestions for more flexible payment terms, or a special
discount program for large orders. We believe that a win-win deal is what we both aim
for.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Mai Phuong
Director of Hung Thinh Agricultural Products

2.2. Method of Analysis

2.2.1. Discourse Analysis

This study applies discourse analysis to identify politeness markers in refusals

and concessions.

For example, in David’s email, the marker “Would you consider $8.5/kg…?”
functions as a hedge to soften refusal.

In Mai’s response, expressions such as “We regret to say that…” and “perhaps
we can discuss another option” show indirect refusals, protecting both sides’ faces.

TikTok panel: agreement markers (“right?”) with smiles and nodding →

cooperative atmosphere.
2.2.2. Erving Goffman's "Face Theory".

Erving Goffman's "Face Theory" defines face as the positive social value a
person claims for themselves in a given interaction, which is established and
maintained through a "dramaturgical" performance of verbal and non-verbal
behaviors.

Goffman classified face into two types:

Positive Face: The desire to be recognized, liked, and accepted by others.

Negative Face: The desire to act freely, without being constrained or imposed by
others.

According to two example emails, in this exchange, both Ms. Mai and Mr.
David "plays" a role on the "stage" of email negotiations.

Mr. David's role: “We appreciate your product's quality, but the proposed price
is slightly above our budget. Would you consider reducing it to around $8.5 per
kilo?”. Here, the phrase “Would you consider…” is important because it leaves the
decision-making power to the partner , without forcing them. Thus, even though they
refuse the initial price, the Americans still protect the negative face of the Vietnamese
company (the freedom to adjust or not adjust the price) => David protects Mai’s
negative face by framing the request as a suggestion, not an order. He presents himself
as a professional and rational buyer . He does not express emotions but makes
arguments based on "market" and "competition." This performance is intended to
create the impression of a trustworthy partner who is not influenced by emotions.

Ms. Mai's role: She portrays herself as a careful and responsible

businesswoman who puts quality and principles first. She maintains a positive face -
from tactful acceptance, thanking, offering alternatives to maintain the relationship
and face of both parties. This performance is intended to build trust, an important
element in Vietnamese business culture. => Ms. Mai protects David’s positive face
with thanks and relational focus.
=> Overall: Americans prioritize autonomy, Vietnamese prioritize harmony.

Based on these videos, we can have some commons.

Americans often consider "face" to mean professional reputation and

assertiveness , not personal harmony. They are straightforward and direct, willing to
attack the other side's arguments with data and evidence (like the video The Michael
Scott Method of Negotiation- At (0.05-1.30), rather than beating around the bush.
They accept the risk of losing face for their opponents in order to get the best deal.
However, when negotiating at a high level, especially in politics, they still understand
and respect saving face for the other side (as in the video House of Cards)- at (0.10-
1.30), as this can help achieve the ultimate goal or through the main video, both sides
express respect to each other. In short, for Americans, "face" in negotiation is not
always personal courtesy but the ability to achieve goals effectively and
professionally.

Vietnamese people consider "face" as personal prestige, respect and collective

face. Throughout the conversation, the Vietnamese listened carefully to the partner’s
opinions and waved an attitude of respecting the partner’s opinions and views.
Negotiation is not only a business transaction but also a social interaction. In Shark
Tank videos, at (1.25-5.00), the investor and the Sharks often open with a greeting,
introducing themselves modestly. Shark Lien, Shark Hung Anh and Shark Erik
showed respect for the efforts of young startups, even considering investment as
supporting "entrepreneurial spirit" rather than just for profit. This helps both sides
save face and create a friendly negotiation atmosphere. Unlike the pragmatism of
Americans (who only focus on numbers), Vietnamese people often incorporate
personal stories into negotiations to create emotional connections. Negotiations are
often not as confrontational as in American movies. Instead of attacking, parties often
make balanced proposals, or even collective proposals (like three Sharks investing
together). This helps both parties save face and feel more comfortable with the deal
they reach.
2.2.3. Brown & Levinson’s Politeness Theory.

Building on Goffman's face theory, Brown and Levinson developed a more

detailed framework of politeness strategies. They argued that people use these
strategies to minimize face-threatening acts (FTAs). There are two main types of
strategies:
Positive Politeness: Aims to protect the other person's positive face. Strategies
include:
Use compliments: "Your product is really great."
Find common ground: "We both share the goal of building a long-term
partnership."
Use affectionate nicknames or terms of endearment: "You" instead of
"Mr./Ms.."
Negative Politeness: Aims to protect the other person's negative face. These
strategies respect the listener's independence. They include:
Use mitigating words: "Perhaps," "I'm afraid," "Is it possible..."
Ask questions instead of giving orders: "Can you reconsider the price?" instead
of "Please lower the price."
● Apologize or express regret: "I regret saying that..."
Off-record: This is the most indirect form of communication. The speaker
gives a message but does not say it outright, allowing them to deny their intentions if
necessary.
● Hints : : Don't say what you want directly, but give a vague statement so
the other person can understand.
Example: In e-mail, David’s “Would you consider…?” (email), Mai’s “Perhaps
we can discuss another option.”
Americans tend to prioritize directness and straightforwardness . They often
"On-record" , meaning they say what they want directly to avoid misunderstandings
and achieve quick results. Only in complex political contexts (like in the House of
Cards video) do they use the "Off-record" strategy to allow the opponent to "save
face", but the ultimate goal is still to win.
 In contrast, Vietnamese people often use the "Off-record" strategy as an
essential tool to maintain harmony and protect relationships. Instead of saying, “I
think your valuation is too high,” the Sharks will ask indirect questions like, “What is
your five-year growth plan?” or “What are your production costs?” These questions
help them assess risk and signal doubt without damaging the investor’s reputation.
Silence: Silence is also a form of communication. It can express rejection,
discomfort, or simply let the other person think and make a decision without pressure.
Example: In Shark Tank Vietnam, pauses and smiles soften rejection;
Americans tend to respond immediately.
After making an offer, the American negotiator may use silence to put pressure
on the other party, forcing them to respond or make concessions. Silence can also be a
sign of disagreement or a desire to change the subject.
For Vietnamese people, silence in negotiation has many deeper and more subtle
meanings. Silence is a sign of listening and respect. It can be used to give the other
party time to think, avoiding having to outright refuse, which can be embarrassing.
According to two example emails, both sides try to minimize face-threatening
acts (FTAs). This is a face-saving strategy in negotiations.
Mr. David's FTA: Demanding a price reduction from $10 to $8.50. This is a
negative face-threatening act by Ms. Mai (imposition, violation of price autonomy).
=> David's politeness strategy: He doesn't make a straightforward request. He
uses positive politeness (praising the product) at the beginning of the email to create
goodwill. Then he uses negative politeness with the mitigating phrase: " We're afraid "
and the indirect question " Would you consider ..." to show respect for Mai's right to
refuse.
Ms. Mai's FTA: Rejecting Mr. David's request for a price reduction. This is an
act of actively threatening Mr. David's face (rejecting, not recognizing his proposal).
=> Ms. Mai's politeness strategy: She does not refuse outright. She starts with
positive politeness (thanking and expressing agreement), then uses negative politeness
with mitigating phrases: " We regret to say that ," " it would be difficult to do ." She
also explains the objective reason (production standards) to protect her professional
reputation and that of the product.
=> From the analysis it can be seen that in international negotiations: Americans tend
to have a negative face : emphasizing freedom and freedom from imposition.
Therefore, they often use negative politeness – refusing or making direct suggestions
but with indirect language (“Would you consider…”, “Perhaps we could…”). This
helps them both protect their interests and respect their partners’ right to decide. In
addition, Vietnam tends to be positive : valuing respect and harmony in relationships.
Therefore, they often use positive politeness - politely refusing, thanking, offering
alternatives to maintain friendliness and a good image for both sides.
-According to the short video - the TikTok panel discussion, both Vietnamese and
American speakers avoided blunt refusals. Hosts and speakers frequently use phrases
that express agreement such as " right, ma'am? " or "right?" (At 0.13, 0.31, 0.57, 1.19)
and polite expressions to soften disagreement and show positive politeness. For
example, when responding to each other’s ideas, they nodded, smiled, and added
confirming words before giving their own opinions. This reflects a face-saving
strategy, as it maintains a cooperative atmosphere and prevents direct confrontation.
The Vietnamese Sharks emphasized respect and encouragement for startups, while the
American speaker highlighted market logic without dismissing others’ views directly.
This shows that in practice, verbal and nonverbal strategies are intertwined to balance
professionalism and harmony. We can see that the Americans have little in the way of
traditional politeness. Negotiations are direct and to the point. Speech is used to assert
positions, propose, and counter, rather than to maintain civility. For example “The
Office": Michael Scott awkwardly uses positive politeness when trying to get along
with his co-workers, but quickly switches to negative politeness by making direct,
even rude, requests. At 0.45, Michael said that “ I’ll see your situation and I’ll raise
you a situation..” with positive politeness but after that he bluntly demands another
manager be fired: "I want Charles gone.", “ I need him gone” with negative politeness.
And about Vietnamese negotiation, both the fundraisers and the investors used polite
strategies to create a friendly, cooperative environment. They are not only focused on
profit but also very focused on building and maintaining relationships . In Mường
Shark videos, at 2.00-3.50, the investor and the Sharks often open with a greeting,
introducing themselves modestly. Throughout the following video, Shark Lien, Shark
Hung Anh and Shark Erik showed respect for the efforts of young startups, even
considering investment as supporting "entrepreneurial spirit" rather than just for profit.
Instead of attacking, parties often make balanced proposals, or even collective
proposals (like three Sharks investing together). Politeness is not only a rule but also a
strategy to ensure that both parties feel respected, thereby easily reaching a common
agreement.

2.2.4. Negotiation Styles

Negotiation styles reflect an individual's or a culture's approach to the

negotiation process.
Integrative/Collaborative Negotiation Style: Focuses on finding a “win-win” solution
where both parties achieve their goals. This style emphasizes building relationships
and trust.
Distributive/Competitive Negotiation Style: Focuses on maximizing one's own
benefits, viewing negotiation as a "win-lose" game.
The emails from both sides clearly reflect the difference in negotiating styles.

David's style (USA): Competitive /distributive but flexible. America focuses on

economic interests, but still uses politeness to keep the negative face of the partner.
The goal is clearly to maximize benefits by reducing prices. However, he still uses the
language of cooperation ("establishing long-term business relationships") to maintain
relationships and the possibility of future cooperation.

Ms. Mai's Style (Vietnam): More collaborative /integrative. She used it

indirectly to protect a positive face and avoid conflict. She doesn't accept the other
party's demands, but she doesn't reject them either. Instead, she seeks to expand the
negotiation, focusing on other solutions that can benefit both parties ("flexible
payment terms," "volume discount programs"). This style prioritizes building trust and
maintaining relationships as the foundation for long-term success.

About the short video: Speakers do not confront each other but share
knowledge and experience to solve problems. This shows a constructive and mutually
beneficial negotiation style. But, through these videos, we can see the difference
between two countries:

American video negotiations tend to have a straightforward and direct

negotiating style , focused on the end goal. With the exception of some comedic
scenes, negotiations are highly competitive. Parties are willing to use tough tactics to
gain an advantage. For example, in "Intolerable Cruelty," the two lawyers treat the
situation as a battle, not a collaborative negotiation.They value proving with evidence
and data over maintaining relationships or harmony. In negotiations, they are willing
to challenge positions to achieve the highest benefit. However, in complex situations
such as politics, they still understand and use the strategy of politeness to allow the
other party to "save face" when necessary, in order to help the agreement go more
smoothly.

About Vietnamese business negotiations, their styles can be analyzed as

follows: Negotiation is not just a business transaction but also a process of building
trust and mutual respect. Vietnamese people often start by getting acquainted,
complimenting and creating a friendly atmosphere before getting to the main issue.
Negotiators avoid direct confrontation, do not use harsh words and always try to make
the other party feel respected, even if there is disagreement. Parties often use personal
stories or emotional details to create a connection. This helps soften the negotiation
and build a solid foundation for long-term cooperation.

Comparative framework: U.S. vs. Vietnam in negotiation strategies

Aspect U.S. (Western) Vietnam (Eastern)

Communication style Direct, explicit, Indirect, implicit,

data/evidence based relational

Politeness strategy Negative politeness Positive politeness

(hedges, apologies) (thanks, compliments)

Face concern Negative face (autonomy, Positive face (harmony,

 non-imposition) respect)

Negotiation style Competitive/distributive Collaborative/integrative

but flexible

Typical refusal formula “Unfortunately, we cannot “That may be difficult,

accept…” perhaps another way”

Relationship emphasis Task- and goal-oriented Relationship- and trust-

oriented

III. Analysis

3.1. Verbal strategies

Verbal communication can be defined as communicating thoughts through

words, which may include ideas, opinions, directions, dissatisfaction, objections,
emotions, and pleasures. The use of verbal strategies in negotiation clearly reflects
cultural differences between Western countries such as the United States and Eastern
societies like Vietnam.

In the United States context, negotiators tend to refuse requests directly, but
they usually soften the refusal with explanations and hedging devices. For example,
the statement “I understand your concern. Unfortunately, 40 is below our cost”
demonstrates this approach. The use of unfortunately illustrates a negative politeness
strategy (Brown & Levinson, 1987), which helps protect the interlocutor’s face while
still maintaining one’s own stance. The United States negotiators value clarity and
transparency, but they remain careful not to humiliate their partners.

In addition, The United States negotiators often use conditional concessions to

balance firmness with flexibility. A typical example is “We could do 46, if payment is
upfront.” This shows a willingness to compromise but only under certain conditions.
Such a communication style reflects the principles of low-context cultures, where
messages must be explicit, clear, and transparent (Hall, 1976). The frequent use of
hedges such as could, might, and unfortunately functions as face-saving markers,
softening refusals and reducing the threat to the counterpart’s dignity.

By contrast, Vietnamese negotiators tend to avoid direct refusals, preferring

instead to employ more indirect strategies. A statement such as “$40 may be a bit
difficult for us” is a classic case of an off-record politeness strategy (Brown &
Levinson, 1987), which conveys refusal without explicitly using no. In Vietnamese
contexts, direct refusal is perceived as too confrontational and may cause loss of face
for both sides. Vietnamese negotiators frequently shift responsibility to external
causes to avoid damaging relationships, for instance: “Our company policy does not
allow this” (Ting-Toomey, 1985). By shifting responsibility away from the speaker,
the refusal appears less personal and both parties can preserve face. Silence or delayed
responses may also serve as subtle strategies to soften rejection or buy time for
reflection (Nguyen, 2014). A pause before refusal gives the impression of careful
consideration, which softens the negative impact of the answer.

From a theoretical perspective, Goffman’s (1967) concept of face-threatening

acts (FTAs) explains why both The U.S and Vietnam adopt such strategies. Brown
and Levinson’s (1987) framework further clarifies the difference: Western negotiators
typically employ negative politeness, while Eastern negotiators favor off-record
strategies and sometimes positive politeness to maintain harmony and solidarity.

3.2. Nonverbal strategies

Nonverbal communication can be defined as the “silent language,” including

the use of gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, and conversational distance
(Levine & Adelman, 1993).

In the United States and Europe, eye contact, open palm gestures, and a steady,
confident tone are standard practices. In American communication, maintaining eye
contact conveys honesty, confidence, and engagement (Dalat TESOL, 2023). Open
hand gestures and a firm, assertive tone are commonly used to project transparency
and trustworthiness. Furthermore, Americans prefer to maintain a wider personal
distance during interactions, which aligns with Hall’s concept of proxemics in low-
context cultures (Hall, 1966). These features align with Western cultural values of
directness, clarity, and efficiency in business interactions.

In contrast, Vietnamese and other Asian negotiators rely heavily on nonverbal

signals to soften verbal refusals. In Vietnamese communication, avoiding direct eye
contact often signifies respect, especially when addressing elders or superiors (Dalat
TESOL, 2023). Smiling, nodding, or brief silence are commonly used to reduce
tension and avoid confrontation. They also tend to adopt a closer interpersonal
distance, which is perceived as a sign of warmth and relationship-building (Nguyen,
2014). A lowered tone of voice or indirect body orientation helps the speaker avoid
pressuring the other side. Such behaviors reflect the cultural emphasis on harmony
and the avoidance of open conflict.

Nonverbal strategies, therefore, can be seen as supportive politeness strategies.

However, their role differs across cultures: in Western contexts, verbal clarity tends to
dominate, while in Eastern contexts, nonverbal cues can be as important as, or even
more significant than, spoken words

In practice, verbal and nonverbal strategies are rarely separate. Vietnamese

negotiators often use indirect phrases along with smiles or silence to avoid
confrontation, while American negotiators reinforce direct refusals with steady tone
and eye contact. This interaction shows that both verbal and nonverbal cues jointly
serve the purpose of face-saving.

3.3. Comparative Table

Strategy Western (U.S) Eastern (Vietnam)

Directness Direct, but softened with Indirect, avoids saying

hedging “No”

Politeness type Negative politeness (avoid Positive politeness

 imposition) (maintain harmony,
respect hierarchy)

Refusal formula “Unfortunately, we “That might be difficult…

cannot… maybe another way”

Nonverbal cues Eye contact, open palms, Smile, nod, silence,

firm tone lowered tone

Eye contact Maintained, shows Softer or brief, shows

confidence and honesty respect and modesty

Goal Efficiency, clarity, Harmony, long-term

reaching outcome relationship

3.4. Sample dialogues

Context: U.S. Supplier vs. Vietnamese Distributor

The U.S. supplier sells technology products. The Vietnamese distributor is negotiating
for a lower price to expand in the local market.

Dialogue

Vietnamese Distributor (D1):

“We would like to propose $40 per unit, since our market is very price-sensitive.”

U.S. Supplier (S1):

“I understand your concern. Unfortunately, $40 is below our production cost. The
minimum we can consider is $46.”

Vietnamese Distributor (D2):

(Pauses, smiles slightly) “Hmm, $46 may be a little difficult for us… but perhaps if
we commit to a larger volume, could the price be adjusted?”
U.S. Supplier (S2):
“That sounds reasonable. If you can increase the order size, we could agree to $45 per
unit.”

Vietnamese Distributor (D3):

“Naturally, we will need time to evaluate the volume. But I think $45 for larger
orders is a fair basis for cooperation.”

U.S. Supplier (S3):

“Excellent. Let’s move forward on that agreement.

=> Analysis

1.Distributor (D1): “We would like to propose $40 per unit…”

+ Strategy: Direct proposal.

+ Face-saving: The Vietnamese side frames the offer with a justification (“our

market is very price-sensitive”). This protects the supplier’s face by showing that

the low price is not a personal undervaluation, but a response to external market

conditions.

2.Supplier (S1): “Unfortunately, $40 is below our production cost…”

+ Strategy: Direct refusal with justification.

+ Politeness theory: Negative politeness (hedging with “unfortunately” + giving

objective reason).

+ Face-saving: Protects the distributor’s negative face (avoids imposition) while

softening the refusal to protect positive face indirectly.

3.Distributor (D2): “$46 may be a little difficult for us…” + nonverbal cues

(pause, smile).

+ Strategy: Indirect refusal.

+ Politeness theory: Off-record politeness → avoids saying “No.”

+ Face-saving: The distributor softens refusal with hesitation and nonverbal

politeness (smiling), which avoids confrontation and maintains harmony.

4.Supplier (S2): “If you can increase the order size, we could agree to $45.”

+ Strategy: Conditional concession.

+ Negotiation style: Compromising/collaborating.

+ Face-saving: Supplier shows flexibility without “losing face,” because the

concession is linked to a logical condition (larger order).

5.Distributor (D3): “I think $45 for larger orders is a fair basis for
cooperation.”
+ Strategy: Acceptance framed positively.
+ Face-saving: The Vietnamese side acknowledges fairness, which protects the
supplier’s positive face, while also presenting agreement as mutual cooperation rather
than surrender.
6. Supplier (S3): “Excellent. Let’s move forward on that agreement.”
+ Strategy: Closure with a positive tone.
+ Face-saving: Expresses satisfaction and respect, ending negotiation on a harmonious
note.

IV. Analysis and Implementation

4.1. Applications of face-saving strategies

In U.S.–Vietnam business negotiations, face-saving strategies are applied

differently by each side. American negotiators often value clarity and directness,
while Vietnamese negotiators tend to use indirect expressions to maintain harmony.
For instance, when a Vietnamese partner says, “$40 is difficult,” the intended meaning
is usually a polite refusal. However, Americans may interpret it as an opening for
further negotiation. To avoid this miscommunication, Vietnamese negotiators could
state more explicitly: “$40 is difficult. The lowest we can accept is $45.” Conversely,
American negotiators are advised to soften refusals by framing them positively, such
as: “We really value our partnership. Unfortunately, we cannot accept $45, but
perhaps $42 might work?” This combination of directness and politeness reduces
misunderstanding while preserving face.

In addition, nonverbal signals may also be misinterpreted. For example, a

Vietnamese negotiator’s silence is often a respectful pause, but Americans might
interpret it as hesitation or agreement. Clarifying such cues is essential. Ultimately,
both sides must recognize that what appears as indirectness or bluntness is rooted in
cultural face-saving norms, not in unwillingness to cooperate.

4.2. Meanings of face-saving strategies in negotiation

Hall’s (1976) theory of high- and low-context communication provides a

framework for these differences. In high-context cultures such as Vietnam, negotiators
rely on implicit cues, relationship history, and nonverbal signals. Within this
framework, face-saving serves to maintain harmony, protect social dignity, and avoid
direct confrontation. In contrast, low-context cultures such as the United States
prioritize explicit, task-focused communication, where efficiency and clarity often
outweigh relational concerns.

Building on this foundation, Ting-Toomey’s (1985) Face-Negotiation Theory

explains how negotiators from different cultural backgrounds manage face during
conflict. In collectivist contexts like Vietnam, negotiators emphasize other-face and
mutual-face, adopting indirect strategies such as avoidance, compromise, or deference
to maintain harmony. In individualist contexts such as the United States, the focus is
more on self-face, leading to directness and assertiveness in protecting personal goals.

Theory Vietnam (High-context / U.S. (Low-context /

Collectivist) Individualist)

Hall (1976) Implicit, relational, rely on Explicit, task-oriented,

context rely on words

Ting-Toomey (1985) Other-face / mutual-face Self-face → direct,

→ indirect, avoid conflict assertive, protect own

 goals

Taken together, these perspectives highlight that face-saving strategies are not
simply matters of etiquette. Rather, they are mechanisms that sustain trust, minimize
relational damage, and enhance long-term cooperation in international negotiations.

4.3. Recommendations in negotiation

Party Recommend strategies

American negotiators - Use hedges (e.g., “perhaps,” “I’m afraid”) to soften

refusals.

- Insert compliments before rejecting offers to reduce

offense.

- Double-check ambiguous responses instead of assuming

agreement.

Vietnamese - Reduce vagueness by presenting clear figures and

negotiators deadlines.

- Provide explicit terms to align with American

expectations.

- Use small talk to build rapport before moving to hard

bargaining.

Both parties - Pay close attention to nonverbal signals (smiles, nods,

hesitations) as markers of implicit disagreement.

- Engage in cross-cultural role-play training to enhance

adaptability and improve negotiation success.

- Explicitly confirm agreements in writing to avoid

 misinterpretation.

V. Conclusion and Recommendations.

In conclusion, face-saving strategies are essential for maintaining trust and

building long-term relationships in negotiation, particularly in cross-cultural contexts.

On the one hand, in Vietnamese culture, the concept of “face” is closely tied to
personal honor, social status, and interpersonal relationships. People tend to avoid
expressing ideas directly and use more tactful expressions to prevent others from
losing face, thereby preserving long-term relationships.

On the other hand, American culture tends to value directness, transparency,

and efficiency. While face-saving is still important, Western people would rather
voice clear opinions or reject offers directly to gain the successful deals in
negotiations.

These differences reflect deeper cultural values: Vietnamese prioritize

harmonious relationships, while American people prefer direct communication, and
task-oriented efficiency. Therefore, to overcome cultural gaps and enhance the
effectiveness of international negotiations, we should use several practical strategies.

First, organizations and businesses should create some training in raising cross-
cultural awareness for employees. They can encourage role-play simulations in
international negotiation courses which allow employees to practice real-life
negotiation scenarios By understanding cultural norms, values, and face-saving
expectations, they can deeply understand the differences in communication styles,
expectations, and face-saving strategies, to build stronger relationships with
international partners.

Moreover, negotiators should learn to balance clarity with politeness, adjusting

their communication style based on the cultural background of their counterparts.
While directness may be appreciated in America, it may negatively influence trust in
Vietnamese settings. By remaining both clear and respectful, negotiators can
effectively convey their ideas without damaging the relationship or causing loss of
face.

VI. Limitations and Future Directions

However, there are several limitations of this study.

Firstly, the collected data is relatively small, relying mainly on transcripts and
simulations. Even though they are useful for identifying patterns, they may not fully
capture the complexities, and the pressures of the real negotiations.

Secondly, the scope of analysis between Vietnam and America is still limited
because they encompass a wide range of cultures, languages, and negotiation styles.
Therefore, it may lead to a lack of information.

As a result, we believe that future research about the topic should aim to work
with a larger corpus, including authentic negotiation cases from different sectors and
cultural backgrounds. Incorporating multilingual negotiations, gender perspectives,
and online communication formats, or hybrid platforms might provide deeper insights
into how face-saving strategies impact on the digital environment.

We could research and expand our knowledge about other cultures in

negotiations such as China, Japan, or France, UK. This might help us identify and
compare varied models of power dynamics, face-saving approaches, and negotiation
styles. With these researches, Vietnamese businesses will widely understand our
position which enables them to adjust communication behaviors based on specific
partners and cultural contexts. Moreover, developing training about different cultures
may avoid deploying only one style within varied cultures and help our organizations
carefully prepare to engage with a variety of global markets.

Furthermore, with the development of technology, it is essential to widen

studies about negotiations with the application of online communication formats such
as email, video calls or hybrid platforms such as Zoom, Google Meet. We can analyze
the advantages and disadvantages of applying technology to flexibly choose between
direct or indirect negotiation methods with the aim of increasing the likelihood of
success. For example, online negotiations allow us to control gestures, expressions,
and content more effectively, thereby enhancing face-saving in an appropriate and
professional way. On the other hand, this also brings various challenges, such as the
limitation or complete loss of non-verbal cues, which can lead to misunderstandings,
or technical disruptions due to unstable internet connections, potentially affecting the
negotiation process.

Moreover, considering the impact of gender on cross-cultural negotiation may

also help negotiators to gain a successful deal especially when dealing with cultures
that have differing views on gender dynamics. For example, we could see the
difference in some countries such as Sweden or Northern Europe, where women can
negotiate without facing cultural bias. However, in some Asian or Middle Eastern
cultures, women negotiators may face skepticism regarding their authority and
competence. This difference can lead to conflicts, or misunderstandings about roles if
there is a lack of cultural awareness and preparation.

Lastly, because of the difference in negotiation style within generation, the

extension of research related to generational differences should be done in the future.
On the one hand, gen Z prioritizes efficiency and decentralization, while older
generations such as Gen X tend to value hierarchy and formal communication styles.
Then, we should be flexible in adapting negotiation styles rather than relying on one
approach.

By deploying those studies, the understanding of face-saving strategies in

cross-cultural negotiation will be more comprehensive and realistic.

REFERENCE

1/ Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language

usage. Cambridge University Press.

2/ Dalat TESOL. (2023). Intercultural communication in English language teaching.

Proceedings of the Dalat TESOL International Conference, Dalat University.
3/ Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Anchor
Books.

4/ Hall, E. T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Doubleday.

5/ Hall, E. T. (1976). Beyond culture. Anchor Press.

6/ Levine, D. R., & Adelman, M. B. (1993). Beyond language: Cross-cultural

communication (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.

7/ Nguyen, T. T. (2014). Communication styles in Vietnamese business negotiation.

Journal of Asian Business Studies, 8(3), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-07-
2013-0043

8/ Rastogi, V. (2024, April 30). Gen Z vs Gen X: Whose workplace communication

style is more justified? ET HRWorld.
https://hrsea.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/workplace/gen-z-vs-gen-x-whose-
workplace-communication-style-is-more-justified/115293180

9/ Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). Toward a theory of conflict and culture. In W. B.

Gudykunst, L. P. Stewart, & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture, and
organizational processes (pp. 71–86). Sage.

10/ Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Feminism in Sweden. Wikipedia. Retrieved August

30, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_in_Sweden

11/ WomenTech Network. (n.d.). How does culture influence the perception of
women negotiators across borders? Retrieved August 30, 2025, from
https://www.womentech.net/how-to/how-does-culture-influence-perception-women-
negotiators-across-borders

12/ Shark Tank Vietnam. (2022, May 14). Startup Mường khiến Shark Bình lần đầu
dùng vé vàng chiến tới cùng với Shark Hùng Anh [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a6OtTghCUA

13/ Columbia Pictures. (2003). Intolerable cruelty [Film]. Universal Pictures.

14/ NBC Universal. (2005–2013). The Office [TV series]. NBC.

15/ Netflix. (2013–2018). House of cards [TV series]. Netflix.

16/ Shark Tank Vietnam. (2022, June 2). Khởi nghiệp với nến thơm, nữ sinh 17 tuổi
chinh phục được 3 Shark bắt tay cùng đầu tư [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK_i4S66wBY

17/ sworldmedia. (2022, June 15). How businesses and startups can test products with
a small budget [Video]. TikTok.
https://www.tiktok.com/@sworldmedia/video/7102616002550172929