LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure 1: Percentage of verbal and nonverbal communication in common use
Diagram 1: Classification of nonverbal communication
Table 1: Further clarification of nonverbal communication
Table 2: Sub-distances of intimate distance and their communicators
Table 3: Sub-distances of personal distance and their communicators
Table 4: Sub-distances of social distance and their communicators
Table 5: Sub-distances of public distance and their communicators
Table 6: Interactions among messages, tones of voice and distances between faces
Table 7: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their mother
Table 8: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their father
Table 9: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their brother
Table 10: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their sister
Table 11: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex close friend
(two male friends)
Table 12: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex close friend
(two female friends)
Table 13: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex close
friend
Table 14: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex acquaintance
Table 15: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex
acquaintance
Table 16: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex colleague
Table 17: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex colleague
Table 18: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their boss
Table 19: Figures on using conversational distances by informants between 20 and 40 years old
Table 20: Figures on using conversational distances by informants above 40 years old
Table 21: Figures on using conversational distances by male informants
Table 22: Figures on using conversational distances by female informants
Table 23: Figures on using conversational distances by informants living in rural areas
Table 24: Figures on using conversational distances by informants living in urban areas
Table 25: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with teamwork occupation
Table 26: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with independent work
occupation
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
ChapterHAPTER 1: Literature reviewBACKGROUND CONCEPTS 4
1. What is communication? 4
1.1 Definition of communication 4
1.2 Types of communication 6
2. What is nonverbal communication? 7
2.1 Definition of nonverbal communication 8
2.2 Significance of nonverbal communication 10
2.3 Main categories of nonverbal communication 11
CHAPTERhapter 2: Conversational distance as nonverbal communication
CONVERSATIONAL DISTANCES AS NONVERBAL
COMMUNICATION 16
16
1. Definition of conversational distances 16
2. Classification of conversational distances 18
2.1 Intimate distance 18
2.2 Personal distance 21
2.2 Personal distance 21
(Photo credits: dantri.com.vn) 22
2.3 Social distance 23
2.4 Public distance 25
3. Factors effecting conversational distances 26
3.1 High - low contact culture 26
3.2 Gender 27
3.3 Relationship 27
3.4 Age 28
3.5 Population density 29
3.6 Intended message 30
ChapterHAPTER 3: Data aAnalysis and dDiscussionATA ANALYSIS AND
DISCUSSION 31
1. Methodology 31
1.1 Participants 31
1.2 Instruments 31
1.3 Procedures of data collection 31
2. Data analysis and findings 33
23.1 Use of converstionalconversational distance as seen from
communicative partnert’s role relationship 33
3.1.1 Data analysis 33
23.2 Use of conversational distance as seen from informants’ parameters
42
PART C: CONCLUSION 47
I. Summary of main findings: 47
II. Implications for avoidance of culture shock and cross-cultural
communication breakdown 47
III. Suggestion for further study 50
Appendices
References???
Appendices???
PART A: INTRODUCTION
I. Rationale
Stated briefly, how something is expressed may carry more significance and weight than
what is said, the words themselves. Accompanied by a smile or a frown, said with a loud,
scolding voice or a gentle, easy one, the contents of our communications are framed by our
holistic perceptions of their context. Those sending the messages may learn to understand
themselves better as well as learning to exert some greater consciousness about their manner
of speech. Those receiving the messages may learn to better understand their own intuitive
responses–sometimes in contrast to what it seems "reasonable" to think.
The use of physical space by individuals in their interactions with others can be considered
as one of the most critical signals of nonverbal communication as this use of physical space
seems to be different from culture to culture; thus, ways of interpretation of the same space
message are also various. In the 1950's, American anthropologist Edward T. Hall pioneered
proxemics to describe set measurable distances between people as they interact. Like gravity,
the influence of two bodies on each other is inversely proportional not only to the square of
their distance but possibly even the cube of the distance between them (Hall, 1966).
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.
In this thesis, we will discuss conversational distances and its effects on human
communication. Additionally, we will compare and contrast the way Vietnamese and
American informants apply conversational distances with certain subjects. It is expected that
the findings will, to a certain extent, raise readers’ awareness of the importance of nonverbal
1
communication and provide useful recommendations to Vietnamese learners of English for
avoidance of culture shock in conversational distances when conducting face-to-face
interactions with their Anglophone partners.
II. Aims of the study
The aims of the study are:
To investigate types of conversational distances in human interactions
To compare and contrast types of conversational distances in human interactions and
the influence of the informants’ parameters on conversational distances in the two
cultures in order to clarify similarities and differences in the way the Vietnamese and
the American apply conversational distances.
To provide recommendations to the Vietnamese learners of English for avoidance of
culture shock in conversational distances.
In order to achieve the aims of the study, the following research questions are to be
addressed:
1. What are the conversational distances of the Vietnamese informants in given
situations?
2. What are the conversational distances of the American informants in given
situations?
3. What are the main similarities and differences in conversational distances between
Vietnamese and American informants?
4. What are the recommendations to the Vietnamese learners of English for avoidance
of culture shock in conversational distances?
III. Scope of the study
The study stresses upon the nonverbal communication. Extralinguistically, the study
especially discusses the conversational distances in the two cultures: Vietnamese and
American.
2
IV. Methodology
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. Therefore, all considerations, comments and
conclusions in this thesis are largely based on:
Reference to relevant home and foreign publication in both primary and secondary
research;
Survey questionairesquestionnaires;
Statistics, descriptions and analysis of the collected and selected data;
Personal observations and experience;
Consultations with supervisors;
Discussions with Vietnamese and foreign teacherscolleagues
V. Design of the study
The study falls into three main parts:
PART A: INTRODUCTION:
Rationale
Aims of the study
Scope of the study
Methods of the study
Design of the study
PART B: DEVELOPMENT:
Chapter 1: Background concepts
Chapter 2: Conversational distances as nonverbal communication
Chapter 3: Data analysis and discussion
3
PART C: CONCLUSION
PART B: DEVELOPMENT
ChapterHAPTER 1: Literature reviewBACKGROUND
CONCEPTS
In this chapter, definition and types of communication will be presented. Simultaneously,
definition of nonverbal communication will be given out and significance of nonverbal
communication shall also be taken into consideration in order to emphasize its role in
human interactions.
1. What is communication?
1.1 Definition of communication
There have been many definitions of “communication” with various emphasis on different
factors. According to Nguyen Quang (F:27), they can be classified withinto:
Emphasis on the hearer:
According to Ronald B. Alder & George Rodman (1998), “: Ccommunication refers to
the process man being responding to the face-to-face symbolic behaviour of other persons”.
Emphasis on both the speaker and the hearer:
This point of view is shared by Ronald B. Alder & George Rodman (1998) and Levine
and Adelman (1993). If Ronald B. Alder & George Rodman (1998) supposed that “:
Ccommunication refers to the process man being responding to the face-to-face symbolic
behaviour of other persons”, .
Levine and Adelman (1993) described it as: T “the process of sharing meaning through
verbal and nonverbal behaviour”.
Emhasis on the meaning of the intended message:
4
If Zimmerman et al. (1991: 4) mentioned this when illustrating communcation as: T “the
process in which persons assign meanings to events and especially to the behaviour of other
persons”, .
Verderber (1989: 4) had another approach: “Communication may be defined as the
transactional process of creating meaning. A transactional process is one in which those
persons communicating are mutually responsible for what occurs”.
Emphasis on the message conveyed:
Saville-Troike (1986) identified that: C “communication is [ ] considered the process of
sharing and exchanging information between people both verbally and nonverbally”.
Emphasis on the information, concept, attitude and emotion of the message
conveyed:
It is clarified in the definition of Hybels, S. and Weaver, R. (1992: 5) that: “c
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”.
Among the definitions above-mentioned above, the one proposed by Hybels & Weaver
(1992) is the most sufficient and convincing since they have, according to Nguyen Quang (F:
29),
- pointed out the action, interaction and transaction nature of communication;
- specified the characteristics of communication
,- specified the means to carry out communication and
- specified different levels of communication.
5
1.2 Types of communication
Hybels, S. and Weaver, R II (1992: 14) explain that there are different kinds of
communication, among which the most frequently used ones areoften used kinds are:
intrapersonal, interpersonal, interviews, small group and public communication.
Intrapersonal communication
Intrapersonal communication is communication that occurs within us. It involves thoughts,
feelings and the way we look at ourselves. Because intrapersonal communication is centered
in the self, you are the only sender-receiver. The message is makde up of your thoughts and
feelings. The channel is your brain, which processes what you are thinking and feeling.
There is feedback in the sense that as you talk to yourself, you discard certain ideas and
replace them with others.
Interpersonal communication
Interpersonal communication occurs when we communicate on a one-to-one basis - usually
in an informal, unstructured setting. This kind of communication occurs mostly between two
people, though it may include more than two.
Interpersonal communication uses all the elements of the communication process. In a
conversation between friends, for example, each brings his or her background and
experience to the conversation. During the conversation each functions as sender-receiver.
Their messages consist of both verbal and nonverbal symbols. The channels they use the
most are sight and sound. Because interpersonal communication is between two (or a few)
people, it offers the greatest opportunities for feedback. The persons involved in the
conversation have many chances to check that the message is being perceived correctly.
Interpersonal communication usually takes place in informal and comfortable settings.
Interview
An interview is a series of questions and answers, usually involving two people whose
primary purpose is to obtain information on particular subject. One common type is the job
6
interview, in which the employer asks the job candidate questions to determine whether he or
she is suitable for the job. Another type is an information interview where the interviewer
tries to get information about a particular subject.
In interviewing, the sender-receivers take turns talking - one person asks a question and the
other responds. Both persons, however, are continuously and simultaneously sending
nonverbal messages. Because interviews usually take place face to face, a lot of nonverbal
information is exchanged. Feedback is very high in an interview. Since the interview has a
specific purpose, the communication setting is usually quite formal.
Small group communication
Small group communication occurs when a small number of people meet to solve a problem.
The group must be small enough so that each member in the group has a chance to interact
with all other members.
Because small groups are made up of several sender-receivers, the communication process is
more complicated than in interpersonal communication. With so many more people sending
messages, there are more chances for confusion. Messages are also more structured in small
group because the group is meeting together for a specific purpose. Small groups use the
same channels as interpersonal communication, however, and there is also a good deal of
opportunity for feedback, and the settings are also more formal.
Public communication
In public communication the sender-receiver (speaker) sends a message (the speech) to an
audience. The speaker usually delivers a highly-structured message, using the same channels
as interpersonal communication and small-group communication. In public communication,
however, the channels are more exaggerated than in interpersonal communication. The voice
is louder and the gestures are more expeansive because the audience is bigger. Generally, the
opportunity for verbal feedback in public communication is limited. In most public
communication the setting is formal.
2. What is nonverbal communication?
7
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét