Đề tài A vietnamese - American cross-cultural study of conversational distances

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

I. Rationale 1

II. Aims of the study 2

III. Scope of the study 2

IV. Methodology 3

V. Design of the study 3

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 4

Chapter 1: Literature review 4

1. What is communication? 4

1.1 Definition of communication 4

1.2 Types of communication 5

2. What is nonverbal communication? 7

2.1 Definition of nonverbal communication 7

2.2 Significance of nonverbal communication 9

2.3 Main categories of nonverbal communication 11

Chapter 2: Conversational distance as nonverbal communication 14

1. Definition of conversational distances 14

2. Classification of conversational distances 15

2.1 Intimate distance 15

2.2 Personal distance 17

(Photo credits: dantri.com.vn) 17

2.3 Social distance 18

2.4 Public distance 19

3. Factors effecting conversational distances 19

3.1 High - low contact culture 20

3.2 Gender 20

3.3 Relationship 21

3.4 Age 21

3.5 Population density 22

3.6 Intended message 23

Chapter 3: Data analysis and discussion 24

1. Methodology 24

1.1 Participants 24

1.2 Instruments 24

1.3 Procedures of data collection 24

2. Data analysis and findings 26

2.1 Use of conversational distance as seen from communicative partner’s role relationship 26

2.2 Use of conversational distance as seen from informants’ parameters 32

PART C: CONCLUSION 36

I. Summary of main findings: 36

II. Implications for avoidance of culture shock and cross-cultural communication breakdown 36

III. Suggestion for further study 37

PART A: INTRODUCTION

I. Rationale

II. Aims of the study

III. Scope of the study

IV. Methodology

V. Design of the study

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

Chapter 1: Literature review

1. What is communication?

1.1 Definition of communication

1.2 Types of communication

2. What is nonverbal communication?

2.1 Definition of nonverbal communication

2.2 Significance of nonverbal communication

2.3 Main categories of nonverbal communication

CHAPTER 2: CONVERSATIONAL DISTANCES AS NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

1. Definition of conversational distances

2. Classification of conversational distances

2.1 Intimate distance

2.2 Personal distance

(Photo credits: dantri.com.vn)

2.3 Social distance

2.4 Public distance

3. Factors effecting conversational distances

3.1 High - low contact culture

3.2 Gender

3.3 Relationship

3.4 Age

3.5 Population density

3.6 Intended message

Chapter 3: Data Analysis and Discussion

1. Methodology

1.1 Participants

1.2 Instruments

1.3 Procedures of data collection

2. Data analysis and findings

2.1 Use of conversational distance as seen from communicative partner’s role relationship

2.2 Use of conversational distance as seen from informants’ parameters

PART C: CONCLUSION

I. Summary of main findings:

II. Implications for avoidance of culture shock and cross-cultural communication breakdown

III. Suggestion for further study

Bibliography

AppendixSurvey Questionnaire 44

Bản điều tra 47

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

I. Rationale 1

II. Aims of the study 2

III. Scope of the study 3

IV. Methodology 3

V. Design of the study 3

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 6

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND CONCEPTS 6

1. What is communication? 6

1.1 Definition of communication 6

1.2 Types of communication 7

2. What is nonverbal communication? 9

2.1 Definition of nonverbal communication 9

2.2 Significance of nonverbal communication 12

2.3 Main categories of nonverbal communication 13

CHAPTER 2: CONVERSATIONAL DISTANCES AS NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 17

1. Definition of conversational distance 17

2. Classification of conversational distances 18

2.1 Intimate distance 18

2.2 Personal distance 19

2.3 Social distance 20

2.4 Public distance 21

3. Factors effecting conversational distances 22

3.1 High - low contact culture 22

3.2 Gender 23

3.3 Relationship 23

3.4 Age 24

3.5 Population density 24

3.6 Intended message 25

CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 27

3.1 Use of converstional distance as seen from communicative partnet’s role relationship 27

3.1.1 Data analysis 27

3.1.2 Major similarities and differences: 33

3.2 Use of conversational distance as seen from informants’ parameters 34

3.2.1 Data analysis 34

3.2.2 Major similarities and differences: 37

PART C: CONCLUSION 38

I. Summary of main findings: 38

II. Suggestion for further study 40

 

 

doc74 trang | Chia sẻ: maiphuongdc | Ngày: 11/09/2013 | Lượt xem: 4666 | Lượt tải: 28download
Bạn đang xem nội dung tài liệu Đề tài A vietnamese - American cross-cultural study of conversational distances, để tải tài liệu về máy bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
... Diagram 1: Classification of nonverbal communication CHAPTERhapter 2: Conversational distance as nonverbal communication CONVERSATIONAL DISTANCES AS NONVERBAL COMMUNICATIONIt is advisable to add a short introduction to this chapter. Reading through chapter two, I don’t see much literature review on the conversational distances by Vietnamese people, do you think you can add some on Vietnam? This chapter concentrates on conversational distances in terms of definition, classification and factors affecting them. 1. Definition of conversational distances Conversational distance or personal space is defined in a variety of ways, especially when in differenta varying culturesWhat do you mean? . For Americans, personal space is very important and often results in some of the most offensive actions when not respected. Scientifically termed "proxemics", personal space can make us feel warm and fuzzy but also make us feel alienated and defensive, especially on social and interpersonal relationships. When addressing issues of personal space, we often do not perceive our own physical actions as being offensive or intimidating to others. It is only when we are "invaded" into our own personal space that the concept of "proxemics" becomes important in our lives. So, in theory, what is the proper amount of personal space between you and another individual? For strangers, personal space should equate a distance greater than four feet. To feel comfortable, Americans often find they feel less defensive when they have, at least, four feet between themselves and the "next guy". In contrast, if you are within 18 inches of another individual, this is often subconsciously perceived as being more intimate with the individual. For some Americans, like those who ride packed subways in New York City, intimacy abounds when these distance terms are applied. Is it necessary, then, to walk around all day with a ruler and space ourselves appropriately away from the person next to us? No. Actually, scientific research, in proxemics, has found that we have a subconscious method for gauging an appropriate distance. Unfortunately, for some individuals, this subconscious activity is not functioning properly. 2. Classification of conversational distances Leather defines distance as a "relational concept, typically measured in terms of how far one individual is from the other"Should we use italic format for the quotation in bracket, it may help to highlight the info? If you decide to use italic format, please apply to all other quotations in the thesis. (Leather 1978: 87). People have certain patterns for delimiting the distance when they interact, and this distance varies according to the nature of the social interaction. In an attempt to identify and classify the distance people use, Hall identifies four types of distances: intimate, personal, social, and public. These distances can vary according to "personality and environmental factors," since an abnormal situation could bring people closer than they usually are (Hall 1959: 116). 2.1 Intimate distance Sub-distance Length Communicators Far phase 6 - 18 inches (15 - 46 centimetres) - Spouses, lovers, parents-children, close friends... showing intimate emotion; or - Communicators expressing high negative attitude Close phase 0 - 6 inches (0 - 15 centimetres) - Spouses, lovers, parents-children, close friends... showing love emotion; or - Communicators expressing very high defiance attitude which can leads to physical conflict Table 2: Sub-distances of intimate distance and their communicators Sub-distance Length Communicators Far phase 6 - 18 inches (15 - 46 centimetres) - Spouses, lovers, parents-children, close friends... showing intimate emotion; or? ?If you want to show link with the second point, either use “and” or nothing. - Communicators expressing high negative attitude Close phase 0 - 6 inches (0 - 15 centimetres) - Spouses, lovers, parents-children, close friends... showing love emotion; or?? - Communicators expressing very high defiance attitude which can leads to physical conflict Intimate distance ranges from body contact to approximately eighteen inches (just less than half a meter). According to Hall, the close phase (up to six inches) includes intimate activities which require extensive contact of the bodies while the far phase (from six to 18 inches) does not allow for much, if any, body contact. We maintain an intimate distance in love relationships and with close friends. Intimate distance exists whenever we feel free to touch the other person. (Photo credits: tintuc.com.vn) People from different cultures use this intimate space differently. For instance, North Americans may feel physical discomfort when someone does not keep the proper distance from them; and this feeling may be aggravated considerably if the person they feel is "too close" is of the opposite sexPlease check the grammar of this part . Hall also mentions that some English expressions such as "get your face out of mine" and "he shook his fist in my face" show how important body boundaries are for Americans. By contrast, the Costa Rican expression, "I don't bite" shows the discomfort people from this culture feel when others are too far from them. Hall affirms that the use of intimate distance is not proper in public places in the United States. (this can be seen similarly in Vietnam). However, this distance is common among members of other cultures (e.g. Latin Americans and Arabs). 2.2 Personal distance 2.2 Personal distance Sub-distance Length Communicators Far phase 2.5 - 4 feet (0.77 - 1.23 metres) - Communication among friends, colleagues; or?? - Communicators possiblymay expressing negative attitude Close phase 1.5 - 2.5 feet (0.46 - 0.77 metres) - Communication among close relatives; or?? - Communicators expressing negative attitude Table 3: Sub-distances of personal distance and their communicators Personal distance ranges from 1.5 to four feet between people. Hall identifies a close and a far phase. The close phase (1.5 to 2.5 feet) permits one person to touch another, while the far phase of personal distance (2.5 to four feet) "an arm's length" does not permit this. As Hall points out "nobody touches or expects to touch another person unless there is a special effort" (1959:120). This is the distance we keep most often when we are in casual and personal conversation. It is close enough away not to encroach or intimate distance. (Please check this sentence.Not sure what it means? Can you reformat this picture to be next to the words? (Photo credits: dantri.com.vn) It is not difficult to realize that Vietnamese normally use far phase of personal distance if they are of the opposite sex. Close phase of personal distance can be used more by the communicators who are both female than those who are both male. 2.3 Social distance Sub-distance Length Communicators Far phase 7 - 12 feet (2.16 - 3.7 metres) - Communication among strangers Close phase 4 - 7 feet (1.23 - 2.16 metres) - Communication among acquaintances Table 4: Sub-distances of social distance and their communicators Sub-distance Length Communicators Far phase 7 - 12 feet (2.16 - 3.7 metres) - Communication among strangers Close phase 4 - 7 feet (1.23 - 2.16 metres) - Communication among acquaintances Social distance (four to 12 feet) is the casual interaction-distance between acquaintances and strangers. It is common in business meetings, classrooms, and impersonal social affairs. Its close phase (four to seven feet) is the characteristic of informal interaction, while more formal interaction requires the far phase (seven to 12 feet). Some physical barriers such as desks, tables, and counters, usually make people keep this distance. (Photo credits: www.123rf.com) Hall mentions that this type of proxemic behavior is culturally conditioned and arbitrary. To illustrate, Nydel (1987) mentions that for Arabs it is normal to stay close to and touch strangers; the distance they keep in ordinary social conversations is the same as what Westerners use in intimate conversations. People from other cultures such as North Americans and British normally offer an excuse if they touch a stranger. From my observation, an excuse also tends to be used by Vietnamese if they touch a stranger in social communication. 2.4 Public distance Sub-distance Length Communicators Far phase 15 - 25 feet (4.6 - 7.7 metres) or further - One person speaks in public Close phase 12 - 15 feet (3.7 - 4.6 metres)12 - 15 feet (3.7 - 4.6 metres) - Communication among strangers Table 5: Sub-distances of public distance and their communicators Public distance ranges from 12 to 25 feet or more. Its close phase (12 to 15 feet) provides the amount of space generally desired among strangers, while its far phase (15 to 25 feet) is necessary for large audiences. In this case, speech must be projected or amplified to be heard. Communication at this distance is more formal and permits few opportunities for people to be involved with each other. (Photo credits: www.123rf.com) Researchers (e.g., Hall 1959; Vargas 1986) identify high-contact cultures such as Arabs, Latin Americans, Greeks, Turks, French, and Italians, who usually keep small distances among themselves; and low-contact cultures who "stand further apart,", like the Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Germans, Dutch, and North Americans (Vargas 1986:106). 3. Factors effecting conversational distances Hall notes that different cultures maintain different standards of personal space. In Latin cultures, for instance, those relative distances are smaller, and people tend to be more comfortable standing close to each other; in Nordic cultures the opposite is true. Realizing and recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helps eliminate discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is too large (“stand-offish”) or too small (intrusive). Comfortable personal distances also depend on the culture, social situation, gender, and individual preference. Besides, Allan Pease, in his book “Body langua”, adds several other factors affecting personal distance, that is: age, population density and intended messages. Combining the views of two researchers, we have six factors affecting personal distance: 3.1 High - low contact culture Cultural background is one of the most influential factors in nonverbal communication in general and proxemics in particular. Researchers have divided cultures into three types: high-contact culture, moderate-contact culture and low-contact culture. - In high-contact culture, people favour higher sensory exposure, French, Italian, Latin American, Arab and African are considered to be high-contact culture, in which interactants usually keep small distances among themselves. - American, Canadian, Northern European, New Zealander and Australian belong to moderate-contact cultures as they employ less touching and maintain a further distance during their conversations. - Asian (Chinese, Vietnam, Indonesian, Japanese and , and Korean), German and Dutch are identified as low-contact cultures, whose interactants “stand further apart”. 3.2 Gender In terms of gender, distance between peolepeople of the same sex is smaller than between those of the opposite sex. Summarizing diverse studies, Vrugt and Ketstra (1984) concludes “iIn interaction betwenbetween strangers, the interpersonal distance between women is smaller than betwenbetween men and women”. 3.3 Relationship Another factor in deciding the interpersonal distance is relationship. The more intimate the interactants are, the smaller the physical distance tends to be in communication. This can be seen very clearly in the four distance zones: - Public distance is employed between speakers and audience. - Social distance is used for conversations between acquaintances and strangers - Personal distance is for friends, family members and relatives. - Intimate distance is reserved for lovers, couples, spouses, sometimes for close friends and family members 3.4 Age Generally, during childhood, people tend to stand closer to each other. (Photo credits: thugian.com.vn) When being teenagers and over, we begin to havehaving awareness ofn social distance and the personal space becomes greater. (Photo credits: www.123rf.com) Old age will lead to close distance in communication as human are assumed to receive the subject’s support for being weak. (Photo credits: www.123rf.com) 3.5 Population density According to Pease (1984), the amount of personal space required by an individual is related to the population density of the area in which he/swhe was brought up. Those who were brought up in sparsely-populated areas require more space than those raised in densely-populated area. Watching how far a person extends his arm to shake hands can give a clue whether he is from a major city or from a remote country area. (Photo credits: www.123rf.com) The two pictures above illustrate the difference in the use of personal space between men from the city and those from the countryside. City dwellers have their private 18-inch bublebubble, this is also the measure distance when they reach to shake hands. They tend to step forward to greet each other. Meanwhile, people from the countryside tend to stand with their feet firmly planted on the ground and to lean forward as far as they can meet your handshake. 3.6 Intended message It is believed that nature of the transmitted messages also influence conversational distances. The following table shows the interactions among messages, tones of voice and distances between faces which are considered to be popular in the North America: Distances between faces Tones of voice Types of message Very close (3 - 6 inches) Soft whisper Top secret or sensual Close (8 - 12 inches) Audible whisper Very confidential Neutral Soft voice, low volume Personal subject matter Far (4.5 - 5 feet) Full voice Non-personal information Across the room (8 - 20 feet) Loud voice Talking to a group Stretching the limits (20 - 24 feet) indoor and up to 100 feet Loud hailing voice Departures and arrivalsPlease add caption to this table and number it. Please also explain who develop this table and cite it if need be. Table 26: Interactions among messages, tones of voice and distances between faces (Nguyen QuangI cited this table from Nguyen Quang (Giao tiep phi ngon tu qua cac nen van hoa). However the book has not been published yet. So how can I cite here? Apart from the six major factors mentioned aboveWho develop these six major factors. Please cite it if need be. As stated from the first paragraph of bullet 3, the six major factors were combined from the views of Hall and Allan Pease , there are other factors influencing our use of space, such as: social status, topic of interaction, physic appearance, personality, occupation, communicating area, state of emotion. ChapterHAPTER 3: Data aAnalysis and dDiscussionATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSIONA short introduction to this chapter is advisable. The chapter focuses on analyzing the use of conversational distances by the American and Vietnamese informants through a survey conducted by the author. The similarities and differences were also clarified based on the analysis results. 1. Methodology 1.1 Participants The survey was conducted with two groups of 100 informants. The first group were 50 Vietnamese who are all living the North of Vietnam. The second group were 50 Americans who are living in Houston, the United States. The informants are from 20 to over 40 years old and living in both rural and urban areas. They include male and female, single and married people. Information of occupation and acquisition of language(s) other than their mother tongue was also provided. However, the informants were assured that they would not be identified in any discussion of data. 1.2 Instruments As the study dwells largely on the practical aspects of cross-cultural communication, the main method employed in the study is quantitative with due reference to qualitative method. Besides, contrastive analysis is also used. 1.3 Procedures of data collection In order to collect sufficient data for contrastive analysis, the author designed two types of survey questionnaires: one in English and the other in Vietnamese. In the survey questionnaire, the conversational distance is divided into 16 phases and the research was Please check the tense, I suppose the survey was conducted?? conducted to find out which phases are the most likely to be used by communicators. 16 following phases were given to informants for choosingtheir selection: A: Close phase of intimate distance: 0-6 inches (0-15 cm) B: Far phase of intimate distance: 6-18 inches (15-46 cm) C: Close phase of personal distance: 1.5-2.5 feet (0.46-0.77 m) D: Far phase of personal distance: 2.5-4 feet (0.77-1.23 m) E: Close phase of social distance: 4-7 feet (1.23-2.16 m) F: Far phase of social distance: 7-12 feet (2.16-3.7 m) G: Close phase of public distance: 12-15 feet (3.7-4.6 m) H: Far phase of public distance: 15-25 feet (4.6-7.7 m) The informants’ communicating partners were people in family, social and business relations: Mother Father Brother Sister Close same-sex friend Close opposite-sex friend Same-sex acquaintance Opposite-sex acquaintance Same-sex colleague Opposite-sex colleague Boss Beside survey questionnaires, in order to clarify the reasons for choosing types of conversational distances, elaborated discussions with some Vietnamese and American informants were conducted. 2. Data analysis and findings 23.1 Use of converstionalconversational distance as seen from communicative partnert’s role relationship 3.1.1 Data analysisData analysis should be one of the main parts in this chapter. Then the use of CD as seen from different aspects will be the sub-component. And before getting to the data analysis section, there should be other section to provide background information, introduction to the questionnaire and the procedure to collect the data for your analysis. Please add these sections. In order to collect sufficient data for contrastive analysis, the author designed two types of survey questionairesquestionnaires: one in English and the other in Vietnamese. The survey was conducted with both Vietnamese and American informants. The author has received answers from 50 Vietnamese and 50 American informants.More information on the informants should be give, for instance, their ages, gender, language proficiency, residential area, etc. Where are these Americans? Are they living in the US or are they Americans living in Vietnam? Such information should be given. They were required to tick the appropriate boxes, corresponding to which phase of conversational distances they applied for communicating and they also provided some personal information to help produce a more precise result (such as age, gender, marital status, ect.) The data was then analyzed from a cross-cultural perspective, in the light of nonverbal communication. In the survey questionnaire, the conversational distance is divided into 16 phases and research will be Please check the tense, I suppose the survey was conducted?? conducted to find out which phases are the most likely to be used by communicators. 16 following phases were given to informants for choosing: A: 0-6 inches (0-15 cm) B: 6-18 inches (15-46 cm) C: 1.5-2.5 feet (0.46-0.77 m) D: 2.5-4 feet (0.77-1.23 m) E: 4-7 feet (1.23-2.16 m) F: 7-12 feet (2.16-3.7 m) G: 12-15 feet (3.7-4.6 m) H: 15-25 feet (4.6-7.7 m) Should you give the title for each of the phase in this section so that readers can have some idea of what A, B, C, etc stand for? This should be in a separate section, probably called “Data collection” 2.1.1 Data analysis (a) Mother Informants A B C D E F G H American 40% 30% 20% 7% 3% 0% 0% 0% Vietnamese 15% 45% 23% 12% 5% 0% 0% 0Please add caption to the tables and number them. For example “Table 1: Figures on ….” % Table 7 : Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their mother American people tend to use close phase of intimate distance when showing intimate emotion with mothers more than Vietnamese (40% compared to 15%). According to the Vietnamese-American study of touching behaviour by Dao Thi Thu Trang (2007), iIt is the fact that Americanthey touch their mothers on face and forehead in form of kissingHow did you get this? more often than Vietnamese. (American is 40% in compared with only 15% of Vietnamese). Whereas, Vietnamese people tend to touch their mothers on upper arms, hands, lower arms and shoulders,How did you find this if there is no section in your questionnaire to gather information? thus far phase of intimate distance is used more frequently than American (Vietnamese is 45% compared towhile American is 30%). Some other ways to express this idea can be “45% compared to 30%” so you don’t have to mention the words “Vietnamese or American twice in a short sentence. The data also shows that both many American and Vietnamese people tend to use close phase of personal distance and few of them use far phase of personal space or close phase of social distance in daily communication with their mothers, with only 3% by Americans and 5% by Vietnaemese for close phase of social distanceE Please insert the type of distance for E here. and none of the respondents chose far phase of social distance. (F). (b) Father Informants A B C D E F G H American 10% 30% 35% 20% 5% 0% 0% 0% Vietnamese 5% 25% 40% 25% 5% 0% 0% 0% Table 8: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their father The table shows that men tend to avoid touchingHow can you draw this conclusion when we don’t know how many male informants responded to this. Please check and reword this part. when showing intimate emotion. It results in the little use of close phase of intimate distance ibyn both American and Vietnamese people (10% and 5% correspondingly). Far phase of intimate distance and close phase of personal distance are more likely to be used (total 65% by both American and Vietnamese). These can be explained through the Vietnamese-American study of touching behaviour by Dao Thi Thu Trang (2007) that men tend to avoid touching andT the most likely parts to be touched isare the father’s upper arm, back and shoulders. Therefore, far phase of intimate distance and close phase of personal distance are more likely to be used. Far phase of personal distance is also quite common for in both Americans and Vietnamese in daily communication with fathers than mothers (with 20% inby Americans and 25% in by Vietnamese for fathers in compared withto 7% and 12% correspondingly for mothers). (c) Brother Informants A B C D E F G H American 3% 15% 30% 35% 17% 0% 0% 0% Vietnamese 2% 16% 30% 40% 12% 0% 0% 0% Table 9: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their brother The same result as with father holdsis found for between brothers forby both Americans and Vietnamese. That is, they tend to touch on shoulders, upper arms or patting on the back. However, in the case of sisterYou have sister in the next section, how come you analyze it here? I suppose the case that the informant is sister and her partner is brother, not the case of two brothers and brother, touching can also be found in lower arms, hands and forehead. AnywayThis is too informal. Please check. , iIn general, close phase of intimate distance is rarely used with only (3% for Americans and 2% for Vietnamese); and fFar phase of intimate distance is likely to be little used more by Please use different sentence structure for the (by15% for Americans (at 15%) and 16% for Vietnamese (at 16%). Whereas, close phase and far phase of personal distance are the mostmore commonly used in communication, (30% and 35% correspondingly for the Americans and 30% and 40% correspondingly for Vietnamese respectively). (d) Sister Informants A B C D E F G H American 5% 15% 30% 32% 18% 0% 0% 0% Vietnamese 12% 20% 385% 225% 8% 0% 0% 0% Table 10: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their sister The most commonly used when showing intimate emotion is far phase of intimate distance (American 15% and Vietnamese 20%). Similarly as in case of brother, close phase and far phase of personal distance are more commonly used in communication, 30% and 32% for American and 38% and 22% for Vietnamese respectively. In order to clarify the data, after data collection and review, I have made an elaborate discussion with some Vietnamese and American informants and found that, Ffor the Americans, there is not m

Các file đính kèm theo tài liệu này:

  • docA vietnamese - american cross-cultural study of conversational distances.doc
Tài liệu liên quan