VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
HOÀNG PHƯỢNG
ENGLISH-VIETNAMESE CROSS-CULTURAL NONVERBAL
COMMUNICATION: UNDERSTANDING PROXEMICS IN DIFFERENT
CULTURES
(Giao tiếp phi ngôn từ Anh-Việt: Sự lĩnh hội về khoảng cách trong các nền văn
hoá khác nhau)
M.A. MAJOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8020201.01
HANOI – 2018
VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES
HOÀNG PHƯỢNG
ENGLISH-VIETNAMESE CROSS-CULTURAL NONVERBAL
COMMUNICATION: UNDERSTANDING PROXEMICS IN DIFFERENT
CULTURES
(Giao tiếp phi ngôn từ Anh-Việt: Sự lĩnh hội về khoảng cách trong các nền văn
hoá khác nhau)
M.A. MAJOR PROGRAMME THESIS
Field: English Linguistics
Code: 8020201.01
Supervisor: Prof. NGUYỄN HÒA
HANOI - 2018
DECLARATION
I hereby certify the thesis entitled “English-Vietnamese cross-cultural
nonverbal communication: understanding proxemics in different cultures” as my
own work in the fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts at
the University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National
University, Hanoi.
Hanoi, 2018
Hoàng Phượng
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To be able to complete this thesis, I have been whole-heartedly supported by
many people to whom I would like to express my sincere thanks for their valuable
contribution.
First of all, I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to my beloved
supervisor, Prof. Nguyễn Hòa. He was the one who advised, supported, encouraged,
supervised, and inspired me throughout the realization of this thesis. I highly
appreciate his valuable advice, detailed comments, enthusiastic and careful
guidance as well as his great patience throughout this process.
Second of all, I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere
thanks to my respectful lectures in Faculty of Post-Graduate Studies at University of
Languages and International Studies for their devotion and their fascinating, and
informative lectures which have provided me useful information to fulfill this
thesis.
What is more, I would like to give my great thanks to my colleagues and my
students for their willingness to participate in this project. Without them, this study
would have been impossible.
Last but not least, I owe particular thanks to my family and my friends who
have enthusiastically assisted and encouraged me to finish this thesis.
ii
ABSTRACT
Conversational distance has been the focus of hundreds of previous research
studies. However, the conclusions of previous studies on interpersonal distance
preferences were limited, especially the conclusions on Vietnamese‟s preferable
proxemic distance were also restricted due to some certain problems of research
methodologies. The objective of the present study was to find out the preferred
social, personal and intimate distances of Vietnamese communicators as a case of
proxemics behavior. This study also indicated the factors which have influence on
interpersonal distance of Vietnamese communicators, in which a number of
research methods were exploited. The values of preferred conversational distance,
then, can be used as a reference in related future research.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION ....................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... ii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ iv
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................. vii
PART A ......................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................1
1.
Rationale for the study ........................................................................................ 1
2.
Aims of the study.................................................................................................. 1
3.
Research questions: ............................................................................................. 2
4.
Scope of the study ................................................................................................ 2
5.
Structure of the thesis .......................................................................................... 2
PART B ......................................................................................................................4
DEVELOPMENT .....................................................................................................4
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................4
1.1
. What is communication? ................................................................................... 4
1.2
. What is nonverbal communication? ................................................................ 4
1.3
. Areas of Proxemics ............................................................................................ 6
1.4. Factors affecting conversational distances............................................................ 11
1.4.1. Culture .................................................................................................................. 11
1.4.2. Gender ................................................................................................................... 13
1.4.3. Social Status – Power Distance ........................................................................... 14
1.4.4. Age ......................................................................................................................... 14
1.4.5. Personality ............................................................................................................ 15
1.4.6. Marital Status ....................................................................................................... 15
1.4.7. Living Area ........................................................................................................... 16
1.4.8. Relationship .......................................................................................................... 16
1.4.9. Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures: ....................................................... 17
iv
CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY ........................................................................21
2.1. Data-collection instruments.................................................................................... 21
2.1.1. Survey questionnaires .......................................................................................... 21
2.1.1.1. Participants ........................................................................................................ 22
2.1.1.2. Procedure ........................................................................................................... 23
2.1.2. Personal observation-video recordings: ............................................................. 25
2.1.2.1. Participants ........................................................................................................ 25
2.1.2.2. Procedure ........................................................................................................... 26
2.1.3. Informal interviews:............................................................................................. 27
2.1.3.1. Participants ........................................................................................................ 27
2.1.3.2. Procedure ........................................................................................................... 27
2.2. Data analysis ............................................................................................................ 29
2.2.1. Quantitative analysis ............................................................................................ 29
2.2.2. Qualitative analysis .............................................................................................. 30
CHAPTER III: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ..............................................32
3.1. Research question 1: What are the factors that affect the conversational
distance between Vietnamese dyads? ........................................................................... 32
3.1.1. Age ......................................................................................................................... 32
3.1.2. Gender:.................................................................................................................. 37
3.1.3. Marital status ........................................................................................................ 39
3.1.4. Social Status .......................................................................................................... 41
3.1.5. Living Area ........................................................................................................... 42
3.1.6. Personality ............................................................................................................ 44
3.2. Research question 2: What is the proxemic distance preferred by .................... 48
Vietnamese speakers during communication process? .............................................. 48
3.3. Discussions: .............................................................................................................. 57
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................60
1.
Summary of major findings .............................................................................. 60
2.
Implications ........................................................................................................ 62
3.
Limitations of the study ..................................................................................... 63
4.
Suggestions for further study............................................................................ 64
v
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................65
APPENDENCES .....................................................................................................68
APPENDIX 1 .................................................................................................................. 68
APPENDIX 2 .................................................................................................................. 72
APPENDIX 3 .................................................................................................................. 77
APPENDIX 4 .................................................................................................................. 78
APPENDIX 5 .................................................................................................................. 79
APPENDIX 6 .................................................................................................................. 82
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. ANOVA descriptions of data on conversational distance measured for three
age-groups........................................................................................................................... 33
Table 2. Test of Homogeneity of Variances of Age-Factor ............................................ 34
Table 3. ANOVA results of statistical analyses of different relationships .................... 35
Table 4. The Post hoc tests result of the three different age groups ................................. 36
Table 5. The Robust Tests of Equality of Means of Different Relationships ............... 37
Table 6. Group Statistics of data on conversational distance measured for Gender .. 38
Table 7. Independent Samples Test of data on conversational distance measured by
male and female communicators ...................................................................................... 38
Table 8. Group Statistics of data on conversational distance measured for Marital
Status ................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 9. Independent Samples Test of data on conversational distance measured by
married and single communicators .................................................................................. 40
Table 10. Independent Samples Test of data on conversational distance measured by
high and low social status communicators ...................................................................... 42
Table 11. Independent Samples Test of data on conversational distance with living
areas as an effecting factor ................................................................................................ 43
Table 12. Independent Samples Test of data on conversational distance measured by
introvert and extrovert informants .................................................................................. 45
vii
PART A
INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale for the study
This study was conducted because of several reasons. In the first place,
proxemics can be considered as one of the most prominent aspects to investigate the
manifestation of nonverbal communication and to emphasize its significance in
human life. However, there has not been enough studies giving rise to proxemics
findings. In fact, none of the previous research has been performed to find out
Vietnamese common conversational distance.
In the second place, misbehavior in proxemics within cross-cultural
communication, especially in multicultual or multinational working environment,
might unexpectedly arise and entail misunderstanding then cultural shock, or even
communication breakdown. Thus, the reviewing of proxemics behaviors in other
mutual cultures in that great success in communication can be necessary.
Finally, nonverbal communication with attention is given to proxemics
behaviour has been one of my interest as a researcher. Hence, I am intending to
explore and discuss conversational distances and how it affects human
communication. Apparently, the ways Vietnamese informants apply conversational
distances will be explored and analysed. The findings and results of this study
would somehow expectedly raise the awareness that how important the nonverbal
communication would be. Also, the findings would focus on the preferred
conversational distance of Vietnamese communicators and then provide
recommendations to American speakers in order avoid culture shocks and
misunderstandings while interacting with Vietnamese informants.
2. Aims of the study
This thesis is inspired by Hall‟s work. He creates a framework which
indicated a need for my study. The purpose of this study is to find the factors that
affect the proxemics behaviors between Vietnamese dyads, mainly: age, gender,
marital status, power distance, living area, and character of the informants. In
1
addtion, it examines and explores the proxemic distances preferred by Vietnamese
speakers during communication process.
3. Research questions:
The study addresses the following research questions:
1. What are the factors that affect the conversational distance between Vietnamese
dyads?
2. What is the proxemic distance preferred by Vietnamese speakers during
communication process?
4. Scope of the study
This study focuses on only conversational distance, as one of the three areas
of proxemics (including space, distance and territory). However, the researcher was
delivering an overview of all aspects as listed.
Specifically, this research particularly identified conversational distance in
American-Vietnamese cross-cultural nonverbal communication. The data of
American informants would be supposed to be the baseline data, which will be
gathered through previous studies related to this field. That means, the data of
English communicators would be secondary data in which the author tried to exploit
the sources or materials from studies reported in researches, reports, professional
journals and books. The data of Vietnamese dyads, however, will be collected as
primary one, those will be gathered for the first time and thus happen to be original
in character.
5. Structure of the thesis
The study is divided into three main parts as follow:
Part A: Introduction covers the rationale for study, aims, research questions, the
scope, and structure of the study.
Part B: Development is organized around three chapters as follows:
Chapter I - Literature review provides the theoretical framework of the study
related to different approaches of proxemics behavior in different cultures, mainly
English and Vietnamese cultures. In this chapter, the author intends to give
2
explanations on the appropriate framework of proxemics that will be applied to the
study.
Chapter II - Methodology presents the context, the methodology of the research
which states the research design, data instruments including and questionnaires,
informal interviews as well as videotaped recordings in order to find the
conversational distance between communicative dyads. Also, one-way ANOVA
and Independence Sample t-test became the appropriate statically formulas which
helps the author analyze the data involved. A brief description of the participants of
the study, data collection procedure and summary of the methodology could be
found in this chapter.
Chapter III – Findings and Discussions describes and discusses the major findings
involving the issues of what factors affect and which factor has the most influence
on the conversational distances favored by Vietnamese talkers. Still, the detailed
explanation for the dissimilarities of preferable interpersonal distance of the two
cultures will be addressed in this chapter.
Part C: Conclusion offers a summary of the findings, from which
recommendations, limitations, and future directions for further related studies can
also be drawn out.
3
PART B
DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter reviews the theoretical issues related to the topic of the
current study. This part will present a variety of definition and type of nonverbal
communication.
1.1 . What is communication?
Communication occurs when we intentionally use symbols – words or nonspoken symbols – to create meaning for others (Jandt, 2015). There have been
numerous definitions of “communication” since it is one of the most basic
perceptions of humans. According to Nguyen Quang (1994), the word
“communication” can be simply defined as “the process of sharing meaning
through verbal and non-verbal behavior.”
Hybels, S. and Weaver, R (1992:5) identified that “communication is any
process in which people share information, ideas and feelings that involve not only
the spoken and written words but also body language, personal mannerisms and
style, the surrounding and things that add meaning to a message.”
According to Jandt (2015), communication has two critical functions:
Communication is the means by which individuals learn appropriate
behaviors and the means by which those behaviors are regulated.
Communication is the means by which individuals having one group
identity interact with individuals with other group identities and on a more general
level the means by which the groups interact with one another as formal groups.
1.2 . What is nonverbal communication?
In the study of communication, nonverbal behavior has been observed to
possess significant meaning. Nonverbal messages consist of eye contact and gaze,
4
facial expression, touching, posture, posture and gesture, proxemics, and nonverbal
vocalization (Argyle, 1988; Shulman & Penman, 1981). According to Jandt (2015),
messages sent without using words are nonverbal communication. Culture
determines nonverbal meanings within a society, or, the same nonverbal signal can
mean different things to different people in different cultures. In actuality,
nonverbal communication has been defined in various ways by different scholars.
The most common definition is that nonverbal communication comprises all
behaviors that are not words (cited in Laura & Kory, 2006). However, some
scholars define nonverbal communication more narrowly. Burgoon, Buller and
Woodall (1996) conceptualized nonverbal communication as subset of nonverbal
behavior. Also, Hall (1959) stated that culture itself serves as a means of
communication. That is, culturally determined behaviors associated with verbal
communication affect that communication.
Simply defined, nonverbal communication is the way of expressing meaning
or feeling without words. In other words, messages sent without using words are
nonverbal communication. According to Levine and Adelman (1993), “nonverbal
communication is the “silent” language, including the use of gestures, facial
expressions, eye contact, and conversational distance.”
Hall (1965) stated nonverbal communication as “culture hides much more
than it reveals, and strangely enough, what is hides, it hides most effectively from
its own”. Nonverbal cues can be meta-messages that affect the decoding of spoken
message. Nonverbal can reinforce the underlying meaning of verbal message.
Some scholars preferred to define nonverbal communication in indirect
ways, in which they focus on what is included within the study of nonverbal
communication. Leathers (1997) conceptualized nonverbal communication in terms
of “three major interacting systems: the visual communication system, the auditory
communication system, and the invisible communication system” (p.13). According
to Leathers (1997), the visual communication system tends to produce the most
shared meaning within face-to-face interaction. This system includes kinesics (e.g.,
5
body movement, gestures, eye behavior, and facial expression), proxemics (e.g.,
space, distance, and territory), and artifacts (e.g., physical appearance, clothing,
adornment such as jewelry or briefcase).
Also, nonverbal communication can be defined by types. The types of
nonverbal communication given the most attention can be proxemics, kinesics,
chronemics, paralanguage, silence, haptics, artifactual communication, and
territoriality. In the following chapter I intend to discuss more in details about one
type of nonverbal communication – proxemics.
1.3 . Areas of Proxemics
Edward Hall (1914-2009) was an American anthropologist who developed
the concepts of Proxemics. He made a great number of researches, intercultural
studies and observations about how people divide their personal distance, how it is
affected by cultures and what is the difference between personal space and territory.
Proxemics is labeled as one type of culturally determined behaviors in the field of
nonverbal communication. According to Hall, spatial communication is important
in conversation. Proxemics, the study of how communication is influenced by space
and distance, is historically related to how people use, manipulate, and identify their
space.
The term given to the study of our use of personal space is proxemics.
Proxemics is a word Hall coined in reference to “interrelated theories of man’s use
of space as a specialized elaboration of culture” (Hall, 1966). In “The Hidden
Dimension”, Hall established theories about spatial relationships. Distances people
establish between themselves and their fellow humans communicate meaning. In
other words, meaning attached to certain spatial behaviors is culturally determined.
Hall (1959) demonstrated that cultures differ substantially in their use of personal
space. How much space we each want between ourselves and others depends on our
cultural learning, our upbringing in our families, the specific situation, and our
relationship with the people to whom we are talking. For instance, in the United
States people assume that when one-person places himself close to another person,
6
he is doing so because he knows that person well. Americans are not likely to stand,
voluntarily, as close as twelve inches from a stranger. Therefore, physical distance
and partitions of space serve to establish a setting for communication. It would be
expected that spatial relationships, a variable in the communication setting, would
affect communication between people.
Hall (1963) defined proxemics “the study of how man unconsciously
structures micro-space – the distance between men in the conduct of daily
transactions, the organization of space in his houses and buildings, and ultimately
the layout of his towns.”
Hall (1964) also stated that proxemics was the study of the ways in which
man gains knowledge of the content of other men‟s minds through judgments of
behavior patterns associated with varying degrees of [spatial] proximity to them.
In reference to the model of communication, personal space is defined as a
form of nonverbal communication which describes the boundaries of intimacy
between people (Hall 1966, Porteous 1977). Hall (1959) also defined four
dimensions of personal space (among Americans), based on the level of intimacy
between the communicators. Intimate distance corresponds to a high level of
intimacy between two persons. Intimate distance covers the distance that extends
from one communicator to around 46 cm/ 18 inches. This spatial zone is normally
reserved for those people with close relationships – for example, close friends,
romantic partners, and family members.
Personal distance is the distance between two persons who know each other
with a relative intimacy, such as friends, brothers, and sisters. The personal distance
varies between 46 cm (18 inches) and 122 cm (4 feet). This is the space most people
use during conversations. This distance allows the speaker to feel some protection
from other who might wish to touch. The range in this distance type allows those at
the closest range to pick up physical nuances (such as dry skin, acne, body odor or
breath odor). However, we are still able to conduct business with those at the far
range – which Hall (1959) calls “arm‟s length” – but any signs of nonverbal
7
closeness are erased. Examples of relationships accustomed to personal distance are
casual friends or business colleagues. (West, R & Turner, L.H, 2009)
Social distance corresponds to a more superficial and impersonal form of
communication or business relation; for example, the interactions among coworkers with a boss or at a social gathering or public event. This is the spatial zone
which reserved for professional or formal interpersonal encounters. Some office
environments are arranged specially for social distance rather than intimate distance
or personal distance. The range is from 122cm to 210cm and can extend to 210 cm
to 370 cm in more formal settings.
Finally, public distance is when there is no intimacy between the speakers,
and the space varies from 370 cm to 760 cm or more in a formal setting. This spatial
zone allows listeners to scan the entire person while he or she is speaking. The
classroom environment exemplifies public distance. Most classrooms are arranged
with a teacher in the front and rows of desks or tables facing the teacher. This setup
can vary, but many classrooms are arranged with students more than twelve feet
from their teacher. Public distance is also used in large settings, such as when we
listen to speakers, watch musicals, or attend television show tapings.
Hall (1966) believed that proxemics is “the study of man‟s transactions as he
perceives and uses intimate, personal, social and public space in various settings”.
In other words, proxemics investigates how people use and organize the space they
share with others to communicate, typically outside conscious awareness, socially
relevant information such as personality traits (e.g., dominant people tend to use
more space than others in shared environments), attitudes (e.g., people that discuss
tend to sit or stand in front of the other, whereas people that collaborate tend to seat
side-by-side), etc. These distances are proved to be very culturally specific. For
some cultures, these distance zones may be compressed, for others they may be
expanded. When involved in cross-cultural communication, understanding these
variations of distance zones is essential to maintain effective communication. The
description of each concentric space can be summarized as below:
8
Intimate
Distance
Description
Voice
Touching to
Private situations with people who are
Whisper
18 inches
emotionally close. If others invade this
space, we feel threatened.
Personal
18 inches to
The lower end is handshake distance –
4 feet
the distance most couples stand in
Soft voice
public.
Casual/
4 feet to 12
The lower end is the distance
Social
feet
salespeople and customers and between
Full voice
people who work together in business.
Public
Greater than Situations such as teaching in a
12 feet
Loud voice
classroom or delivering a speech.
Hall (1959) also suggested that in most co-cultures in the United States,
people communicate with each other at a specific distance, depending on the nature
of the conversation. Starting with the closest contact and the least amount of
personal space, and moving to the greatest distance between communicators, the
four categories of personal space are intimate distance, personal distance, social
distance and public distance. (See Figure. below)
Figure 1. Edward T. Hall’s four types of personal distance. (West, R & Turner, L.H, 2009)
9
Hall (1959) divided the personal distance people keep from other into 4 main
zones. These zones serve as “reaction bubbles” – when entering in a specific zone,
some certain psychological and physical reactions in that person will be
automatically activated.
Proxemics can be divided into categories: space and distance. Proxemics
reveals that people handle space differently, depending on the type of culture they
come from. If personal space is violated, people from individualistic cultures may
react actively while people from collectivist culture may adopt a passive stance. It is
crucial for informants to understand more about how physical space is dealt with in
different cultures if they do not want to experience feelings of exclusion for
instance.
Knowing some proxemics cues is important to increase people‟s
comprehension and expression. Personal space is the space surrounding a person
into which intruders may not come. This space is different according to the culture.
Personal space is the distance we put between ourselves and others. We carry
informal personal space from one encounter to another; think of this personal space
as a sort of invisible bubble that encircles us wherever we go. Our personal space
provides some insight into ourselves and how we feel about other people. For
instance, some research shows that happily married couples stand closer to one
another (11.4 inches) than those who are martially distressed (14.8 inches) (Crane,
1987, cited in West, R & Turner, L.H, 2009)
Distance proxemics, or also called conversational distance can be considered
a culturally sensitive communication symbol. The distances between people
reserved for categories of acquaintance will vary depends on the cultural
interpretation of the distance. As I mentioned, Hall distinguishes four types of
informal distances: public (with unknown people), social (professional and
unofficial social occasions), personal (between friends) and intimate distance (with
close relationships). Once again, each culture has its body boundaries and the space
bubble or body language can be misinterpreted. Axtell (1997, p.40) classifies
10
cultures as follow: “high contact” are touching cultures (Middle East, Latin
American, …), “moderate contact” are middle ground (France, China, Ireland, …)
and “low contact” do not touch or stand to close to the others (Japan, US, England,
…). Therefore, conversational dyads need to be sensitive to these differences since
a body gesture can appear personal or intimate depending on the culture of the
person.
A theoretical model can help us understand the differences in distance
between people. The expectancy violations theory (Burgoon, 1978) states that we
expect people to maintain a certain distance in their conversations with us. If a
person violates our expectations (if, for instance, a work colleague stands in our
intimate space while talking with us), our response to the violation will be based on
how much we like that person. That is, if we like a person, we‟re probably going to
allow a distance violation. We may even reciprocate that conversational distance. If
we dislike the person, we will likely be irritated by the violation and perhaps move
away from the person. According to this theory, the degree to which we like
someone can be based on factors that include our assessment of their credibility and
physical attractiveness. Personal space violations, therefore, have consequences on
our interactions.
1.4. Factors affecting conversational distances
It has been demonstrated that the distance depends on the age of the animals,
their body size, sex and number of other factors (Hediger 1950, Tinbergen 1953,
Hall 1966). Some authors preferred to use the term interpersonal distance, due to
the fact that this expression clearly indicates that the interaction between individuals
is involved (Aiello 1987, Bell et al. 2001). There must be some variables which
have our use of space such as age, gender, culture, social status, personality, states
of mood, marital status and living areas.
1.4.1. Culture
Cultural background is one of the most influential factors in nonverbal
communication. The main idea is that people from different cultures have different
11
- Xem thêm -