Tài liệu A vietnamese australian intercultura l study on haptics in communication = nghiên cứu liên văn hóa việt úc về các hành vi động chạm trong giao tiếp .

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FALCUTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES BÙI THANH HUỆ A VIETNAMESE- AUSTRALIAN INTERCULTURAL STUDY ON HAPTICS IN COMMUNICATION NGHIÊN CỨU LIÊN VĂN HÓA VIỆT-ÚC VỀ CÁC HÀNH VI ĐỘNG CHẠM TRONG GIAO TIẾP M.A. MINOR THESIS Field: Code: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS 60.22.02.01 Hanoi-2013 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FALCUTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES BÙI THANH HUỆ A VIETNAMESE- AUSTRALIAN INTERCULTURAL STUDY ON HAPTICS IN COMMUNICATION NGHIÊN CỨU LIÊN VĂN HÓA VIỆT-ÚC VỀ CÁC HÀNH VI ĐỘNG CHẠM TRONG GIAO TIẾP M.A. MINOR THESIS Field: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS Code: 60.22.02.01 Supervisor: Dr. Huỳnh Anh Tuấn Hanoi-2013 DECLARATION This thesis is a presentation of my original research work. Wherever contributions of others are involved, every effort is made to indicate this clearly, with due reference to the literature, and acknowledgement of collaborative research and discussions. The work was done under the guidance of Dr. Huynh Anh Tuan. The research was approved by the University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi. Hanoi, October 18th, 2013 Bui Thanh Hue i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my gratitude to all those who gave me the possibility to make my thesis reach an end. I would like to express my faithful gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Huynh Anh Tuan for his patient guidance, stimulating suggestions and encouragement throughout my research. I wish to thank all the staff members of the Faculty of Post Graduate Studies, University of Languages and International Studies, VNU for providing me the best environment to fulfill my thesis. Especially, my sincere thanks send to my friend Vu Thi Kim Huong, Vice Director of Atlantic Company and Nguyen Thi Thu Ha, an oversea student in Australia for their helping me to contact Australian informants. I am greatly indebted to my friends for their assistance of collecting data and conducting interview without which this study could not have been successful. Last but not least, I would like to express my special thanks to my family who offered me their love, care, support and encouragement so that I could accomplish my study. Hanoi, October 2013 ii ABSTRACT This study aims to investigate haptics in communication of Vietnamese and Australian people, examine the cultural values of the Vietnamese and the Australian that influence norms of haptics in communication, and make comparison and contrast of touching behavior between the two cultures. It also raises an awareness of cultural differences in intercultural communication and gives some suggestions to lessen the possibility of haptics miscommunication. The data collection tools used in this study included observations and interviews. Then contrastive analysis was carried out to clarify both similarities and differences in haptics between the two cultures: Vietnamese and Australian. The major findings of the study showed that both Vietnamese and Australian people share some similar perceptions of haptics in communication. For example, they feel quite free to practice some touching behavior with their relatives and close friends like holding hands, linking/locking arms, hugging shoulder, hugging waist, etc., or only hand-shaking with someone they do not know much of or meet at the first time; and they feel more pleasant to touch or get touched by others of the same sex more than those of the opposite sex. Besides, the study also denoted some differences in touching norms between the Vietnamese and the Australian cultures. Australian people seem to be more comfortable to touch each other in communication, and not to pay much attention to sex distinction when touching their relatives or close friends. On the other hand, Vietnamese people‟s touching behavior tends to be influenced by sex distinction. They touch their relatives or friends of the same sex more freely than they touch those of the opposite sex. Based on the findings of the study, some discussions and implications were made along with recommended suggestions for further research. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION ........................................................................................................ i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................ii ABSTRACT. ............................................................................................................ iii PART A. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 1. Rationale…… ....................................................................................................... 1 2. Aim and objectives of the study .......................................................................... 2 3. Scope of the study ................................................................................................. 2 4. Research questions ............................................................................................... 3 5. Methods of the study ............................................................................................ 3 6. Structure of the study .......................................................................................... 3 PART B. DEVELOPMENT ..................................................................................... 5 CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................... 5 1.1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND.................................................................. 5 1.1.1. Cross-cultural Communication vs. Intercultural Communication………5 1.1.1.1. Definitions of communication ..................................................................... 5 1.1.1.2. Cross-cultural Communication vs. Intercultural Communication ......... 5 1.1.2.Nonverbal communication .............................................................................. 6 1.1.2.1.Definitions of nonverbal communication .................................................... 6 1.1.2.2.Classification of nonverbal behavior ........................................................... 8 1.1.2.3.Functions of nonverbal behavior ................................................................. 9 1.1.2.4.The importance of nonverbal behavior ..................................................... 10 1.1.3.Haptics in communication ............................................................................. 11 1.1.3.1.Definitions of Haptics .................................................................................. 12 1.1.3.2.Classification of Haptics ............................................................................. 12 1.1.3.3.The role of Haptics in communication ...................................................... 14 iv 1.1.3.4.Haptics culture: high-contact, low-contact, and medium-contactb cultures ..................................................................................................................... 17 1.2. PREVIOUS STUDIES ..................................................................................... 19 CHAPTER 2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................. 21 2.1. An overview of survey approach .................................................................... 21 2.2. Research method .............................................................................................. 21 2.3. Data collection method .................................................................................... 22 2.4. Data analysis method ....................................................................................... 23 CHAPTER 3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION ....................................................... 24 3.1.he findings from observation ........................................................................... 24 3.1.1. Touching behavior of the Vietnamese and the Australian ........................ 24 3.1.2. Touching behavior in communication between the Vietnamese and the Australian................................................................................................................ 29 3.1.3. Major similarities and differences in haptics between the Vietnamese and the Australian .......................................................................................................... 31 3.2.The findings from interview ............................................................................. 32 3.2.1. The findings from interviews with the Vietnamese ................................... 33 3.2.2. The findings from interviews with the Australian ..................................... 34 3.2.3. Major similarities and differences in the Vietnamese and the Australian’s perception of haptics in communication ......................................... 36 3.3.Discussion on the findings ................................................................................ 37 3.3.1. Cultural values of the Vietnamese influence their norms of haptics in communication ....................................................................................................... 37 3.3.2. Cultural values of the Australian influence their norms of haptics in communication ....................................................................................................... 38 PART C. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 41 v 1.Summary ............................................................................................................... 41 2.Suggestions for more effective intercultural communication .......................... 42 3.Limitations of the study and suggestions for further study ............................. 43 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 44 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................... I vi PART A: INTRODUCTION 1. Rationale “We should never denigrate any other culture but rather help people to understand the relationship between their own culture and the dominant culture. When you understand another culture or language, it does not mean that you have to lose your own culture. ” Edward T. Hall In the wake of globalization, people of different nations nowadays become closer and closer. The academic study of intercultural communication focuses on the interactions between people from different cultures. Misunderstandings and conflicts happen in various aspects of intercultural communication such as linguistic differences, diverging stereotypes, social roles and belief systems. The intercultural studies assume the responsibility of facilitating resolution to intercultural communication problems. In fact, people often not only interact with each other by words but also a range of touching behavior to express their intents. The combination of verbal and nonverbal language in communication sometimes creates culture shock and communication breakdown because every culture has its own norms and customs and has a different way of communicating with its members. Haptics-touching behavior is considered to play an important role in communication because it can replace words to express speakers‟ feelings, greetings and opinions and reduce cognitive burden for speakers. Moreover, haptics can help listeners facilitate comprehension of a spoken message as well as convey thoughts not presented in speech. However, Toomey (1998) emphasized that different cultures have different expectations as to who should touch whom in different interaction scenes. It is due that touching behavior is habitual and routine, thus people tend to use it unconsciously and spontaneously. The meaning of each touch depends upon the individuals involved, the context in which the act is performed, and the cultural backgrounds of the interacting people. Understanding your own culture as well as 1 the others‟ is very important for everybody to find it easier to communicate effectively and know the reason why people act in the different ways and avoid unnecessary miscommunication. According to Toomey (1998), the Vietnamese is a member of low-contact cultures and the Australian is a member of moderate-contact cultures, so when people from these two cultures interact with each other, miscommunication always runs the risk of breaking out. In this study, the touching behavior of the Vietnamese and the Australian will be observed to explore the comparison and contrast in norms of haptics influenced by different cultural values between the Vietnamese and the Australian cultures. It is expected to raise an awareness of cultural differences when interacting across cultures, and then give some suggestions to lessen the possibility of haptics miscommunication. 2. Aim and objectives of the study This study is carried out with the aim of making comparison and contrast between the Vietnamese and the Australian cultures of haptics, so it is expected to fulfill the following specific objectives:  Investigating the similarities and differences of haptics in communication between Vietnamese and Australian people  Raising an awareness of cultural differences when interacting across cultures  Making contribution to avoiding intercultural problems of haptics in communication by giving some suggestions 3. Scope of the study This study discusses the topic of nonverbal communication. Extralinguistically, the study especially emphasizes on haptics communication in the two cultures: Vietnamese and Australian. 2 4. Research questions To satisfy the purpose of the study, two research questions, which are suitable and applicable of viewing the norms of haptics in communication between the Vietnamese and the Australian under the cultural perception, are raised. Therefore, it is expected to seek answers to the following questions: 1. How do Vietnamese and Australian people practice their haptics in communication? 2. What cultural values influence the norms of touching behavior of Vietnamese and Australian people? 5. Method of the study The study was carried by using observations and interviews as the tools to collect the data from a sample of the Vietnamese and the Australian. Videos on Youtube were used to observed how Vietnamese and Australian people practice their touching behavior. The interviews with the Vietnamese and Australian informants were conducted to understand more about their perceptions of haptics in communication. 6. Structure of the study This study consists of three parts: Introduction, Development and Conclusion. Part A: Introduction- presents the reasons for carrying out this study, defines the specific purposes, research questions, the scope of the study and the outline of the study. Part B: Development- consists of 3 chapters: 3 Chapter 1: Literature Review - provides the theoretical background needed for the study and reviews some previous studies which is related to the topic of the study. Chapter 2: Methodology - discusses the methodology for this study and the procedure for carrying out the research such as the selection of the sample, the data collection procedures, and the data analysis. Chapter 3: Result and Discussion - reports the results of the data analysis and discussion. Part C: Conclusion- draws some conclusions from all the findings and proposes some implications for more effective intercultural communication. These are followed by the limitations of the study, and some suggestions for further studies. Following Part C is References listing all reference books or materials. The final section of the thesis contains the appendices that show all documents serving this research. 4 PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 1.1.1. Cross-cultural Communication vs. Intercultural Communication 1.1.1.1. Definitions of communication To understand communication in its relation to intercultural communication, Martin and Nakayama (2004) analyzed Carey (1989)‟s definition of communication: “Communication may be understood as a “symbolic process whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired and transformed” (p. 23)”. This definition views communication as:  Communication is symbolic: this means that we use symbols that carried both verbal and nonverbal meanings to interact with each other. We often assume that the other person shares the exact message we send, but in fact, the communicated messages can be misunderstood due to the different cultural backgrounds and experiences of the communicators.  Communication is the process by which we negotiate meaning is dynamic: it means that people are actively taken part in communication process. The message of a communication is unstably sent and received, which relies on the context in which communicators are creating, maintaining, repairing, or transforming reality. 1.1.1.2. Cross-cultural Communication vs. Intercultural Communication It is very important to take consideration into the definitions of CrossCultural Communication (CCC) and Intercultural Communication (ICC) as well as the difference between these two concepts in this study. According to Scollon & Scollon (2001), studies in CCC start from an assumption of distinct cultural groups and investigate aspects of their communicative practices comparatively and studies 5 in ICC start from an assumption of cultural differences between distinct cultural groups but study their communicative practices in interaction with each other. This distinction was modified by Scollon, Scollon & Jones (2012) as “The basic distinction that we are trying to capture is the distinction between comparing communication of different groups when considered abstractly or when considered independently of any form of social interaction and looking at communication when members of different groups are directly engaged with each other.” (Scollon, Scollon & Jones, 2012: 17). These concepts are simply drawn by Gudykunst (2003) as “Cross cultural involves comparisons of communication across cultures.” and “Intercultural involves communication between people from different cultures.” (Gudykunst, 2003: 1). 1.1.2. Nonverbal communication When you smile, pat on the shoulder to call someone, or hold your friend‟s hands to express your intimacy, you are communicating nonverbally. Hall (1959) indicated that what people do sent more information than what they talked. Albert Mehrabian has been well-known for his “3Vs” rule standing for Verbal, Vocal and Visual. His study on the relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages found that only seven percent of speakers‟ attitude and feelings was expressed by words. Ninety-three percent of message was nonverbally communicated through tone of voice and body language. In fact, people always interact with each other by both verbal and nonverbal behavior. In intercultural communication, nonverbal elements “are highly dynamic and play an important role in understanding communication. Reading nonverbal communication within various cultural spaces can be a key to survival, depending upon the situation.” (Martin and Nakayama, 2004: 235) 1.1.2.1. Definitions of nonverbal communication In the broadest sense, nonverbal communication is understood as all human communication events that transcend spoken and written words (Knapp & Hall, 6 2007) or the “silent language including of gestures, facial expression and eye contact” (Levine & Adelman, 1993: 100). Those concepts do not mention to the other elements that can determine and influence communication such as culture and context. Therefore, many later scholars pay more attention to cultural context in which people interact. Nguyen Quang (2008) emphasized the role of tangible language and environmental (or contextual) language in nonverbal communication. He views nonverbal communication as that is all elements which do not belong to verbal code make out communication. It means that nonverbal communication is not encoded by words, but it belongs to both vocal and non-vocal channels. Then Samovar et al. also stated that nonverbal behavior “involves all those nonverbal stimuli in a communication setting that are generated by both the source and his or her use of the environment and that has potential message value for the source and receiver” (Samovar et al, 2007: 197). According to Cruz (2001), nonverbal communication was defined as “the nonlinguistic messages that are consciously or unconsciously encoded and decoded through such means as facial expression, body gestures (kinesics), space (proxemics), touch (haptics), eye contact (oculesics), time (chronemics), tone (paralinguistics), and the environment in which people communicate” (Cruz, 2001: 51). However, people taking part in communication may come from the same or different cultures. They may share some cultural values or not. It is important to have regard to nonverbal behavior in intercultural communication. To share this view, Griffin (2009) stated that the process of interpersonal communication is mutual and ongoing and both verbal and nonverbal messages are used with another person to create and alter the images in both minds. This definition is somehow in consistent with the dialectical thought of nonverbal communication by Martin and Nakayama (2004). According to them, we need to think dialectically about nonverbal element in intercultural communication, which means that it is essential to place much attention to the relationship between the nonverbal behavior and the social and cultural contexts in which the nonverbal behavior accompanies with the verbal message. 7 1.1.2.2. Classification of nonverbal behavior Since the differences in viewing nonverbal communication, scholars have various ways of classifying nonverbal codes. Knapp (1978) classified nonverbal behavior as follows: a. Body motion or Kinesic behavior: refers to nonverbal signals which involve visible body actions. In this category, s discussion usually focuses on gestures, movement of parts of body, expression on one‟s face, actions with eyes and the ways people stand or walk. b. Physical characteristics: refers to all unmoving characteristics of a person, such as the appearance of a person in general. c. Touching behavior: refers to physical contacts between people. d. Paralanguage: refers to the way people say something that affects the meaning of verbal messages. e. Proxemics: refers to spatial distances between people. f. Artifacts: refers to the use of certain things, such as perfume and lipstick, to create “nonverbal stimuli”. g. Environmental factors: refer to things surrounding, such as furniture and lighting, that can indirectly influence people‟s interactions. Based on previous classifications, Samovar et al. (2007) divided nonverbal behavior into two major divisions. The first group comprises of behavior related to human body including of physical looks, movements of various parts of body, and nonverbal elements of speech. The second one consists of the combination between human action and situational background including of proximity, time and silence. According to Martin and Nakayama (2004)‟s classification, nonverbal codes contains of proxemics (studying how people use personal space), eye contact (regulating interpersonal distance), facial expression, chromenics (concepts of time and the rules that govern its use), and silence. 8 Nguyen Quang (2008) separates nonverbal communication into very detailed parts. I like his classification because it counts all elements influencing communication. His classification is presented in the following table: Nonverbal Communication Paralanguage Vocal Characteristics: + Pitch + Volume +Rate +Vocal quality: -Types of vocal flow - Vocal interferences; - Silence Extra-language Body language/ Object language/ Kinesics Artifacts Environmental language - Eye contact -Clothing -Setting - Facial expression - Jewellery and - Conversational distance/Proxemics Accessories - Physical characteristics - Make up - Gestures -Artificial scents - Postures and - Gift Body movements - Flowers - Time/Chronemics - Lighting system - Color - Heat - Humidity/ Ventilation/Smell - Touch/Haptics/ Tactile (Adapted from Nguyen Quang (2008), Giao tiếp phi ngôn từ qua các nền văn hóa: 82) 1.1.2.3. Functions of nonverbal communication According to Samovar et al. (2007), “nonverbal communication is multidimensional. This multidimensional aspect is revealed in the fact that nonverbal communication often interacts with verbal messages. The interfacing of 9 the verbal with the nonverbal carries over the many uses and functions of nonverbal behavior.” (Samovar et al., 2007: 198). They explained five functions of nonverbal behavior as follows:  Repeating: to repeat a point they are trying to make  Complementing: to add more information to messages  Substituting: to perform some actions instead of speaking  Regulating: to regulate and manage your communication by using some form of nonverbal behavior  Contradicting: to send signals opposite from the literal meanings contained in your verbal language Nguyen Quang (2008) also shared a partly similar view to Samovar et al. (2007) when emphasizing the interaction of verbal and nonverbal language. He mentioned four functions of nonverbal behavior as:  to complement and clarify meaning and shade of verbal language  to contradict verbal language  to regulate a chain of verbal communication  to replace verbal language 1.1.2.4. The importance of nonverbal communication The proverb “Actions speak louder than words” emphasizes the importance of nonverbal communication. What you do say more than the words you use. Nonverbal communication has the ability to persuade, confuse and empower the people directly around you. It can be used to complement, contradict or substitute for the verbal message and regulate interactions. Knapp (1978) affirmed that when a contradiction between verbal and nonverbal message occurs, people prefer to rely on the nonverbal signals. Furthermore, the important role of nonverbal behavior can be demonstrated across different fields. 10 A study by Mast and Hall (2004) found that nonverbal cues could confirm someone‟s status. Their study concluded that “downward head tilt” was significantly perceived as a sign of higher status with female targets, while male targets were considered to have higher status through wearing more formal clothes and leaning forward posture. Samovar et al (2007) indicated that non-verbal communication is so important because people use this message system to express attitudes, feelings and emotions. It is partially responsible for creating impressions and offers communicators clues about their conversation. The most important is that not everyone can verbally communicate well, but everyone can learn how to communicate via nonverbal language, or to interpret the nonverbal messages of others. Like verbal communication, cultural differences in nonverbal considerations might result in problematic situations among various cultures, so it is necessary to raise an awareness of cultural differences in intercultural nonverbal communication. 1.1.3. Haptics Communication Haptic, also called tactile or touching behavior is a type of nonverbal codes which plays an important role in human interactions. For instance, during the early years of childhood, a baby can feel his/her mom‟s warmth and caring through her touches; you can place your hands on your friend‟s shoulders to express your empathy or consolation when he/she is in troubles; or you can hug your child and rub his/her back to comfort him/her. Which touches permissible will be determined by our cultural norms and the relationship with our partners. Levels and meanings of touches may vary from one to another. Therefore, taking consideration into cultural differences in haptic norms is very crucial in intercultural communication. 11 1.1.3.1. Definitions of Haptics Montagu (1971) suggested that “touch is perhaps the most primitive form of communication” (quoted in De Vito, 2002: 146). Developmentally, touch is probably the first sense to be used. A child, even in the womb, is stimulated by touch. Then soon after birth, he/she is fondled and caressed by his/her mother‟s touches. In turn, the child explores its world through touch and learns to communicate a wide variety of meanings through touch in a short time as Camps (2010) stated that “Even after a few hours mothers can identify their babies by stroking the back of their hand.” (Camps, 2010: 1). Samovar et al. (2007) defined that “Touch is the earliest sense to mature; it manifests itself in the final embryonic stage and comes into its own long before eyes, ears, and the higher brain centers begin to work” (Samovar et al., 2007: 213). Fujishin (2000) also made contribution to the concept of haptics by claiming that “touching is the most intimate form of nonverbal communication behavior. Touching behavior, or haptics, as it is called by social scientists, includes all behaviors that involve the skin. Primarily, touching behavior deals with our hands, and how we use them to communicate.” (Fujishin, 2000: 58). Haptics then is simply defined as “the study of touch in nonverbal communication” (Cruz, 2001: 53); “haptic studies investigate the perceptions, functions and meanings of touching behavior as communication in different cultures” (Toomey, 1998: 130); or “the study of touch communication” (De Vito, 2002: 146). 1.1.3.2. Classification of Haptics Heslin (1974) categorized haptic behavior into five types in terms of its degrees of intimacy. According to him, the intent of a touch is not always exclusive and touching can evolve to each one as follows: 12