In this chapter, the study reviews literatures about culture, communication, intercultural communication, intercultural communication strategies, language, and communication strategies in second languages. More specifically, each term is defined accordingly and summaries are also given at the end of each section.
Culture & Communication
In this section, literatures of culture and communication are reviewed for providing fundamental concepts for this study to clarify the definitions.
Culture
Culture did not have a unisversally agreed definition. According to the statistics presented by Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2012), Chinese, Spanish, and English were the most spoken languages in the world. 12.44% of the world population spoke Mandarin Chinese, 4.85% Spanish, and 4.83% English. However, definitions of culture in these three languages are not exactly the same. In Chinese, “Wén-huà” meant culture, defined as “the totality of human invention and creation during the whole process of human development” in online Revised Mandarin Chinese Dictionary (2012). In Real Academia Española (2012),
“cultura” had two definitions: (1) it is the collection of knowledge that allows people to develop their critical thinking; (2) it is the collection of life styles, customs, knowledge and the degree of artistic, scientific and industrial development within an era, social group, etc. In Cambridge Dictionaries Online (2012), culture was defined as “the way of life, especially the general customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a particular time”. Since even the definition of the word itself varies from nation to nation and language to language, the definition used in this study should be defined with scrutiny.
Beamer and Varner (2003) explained that culture was “coherent,” learned,” and “shared
10
view of a group of people” (pp. 4-5). People within the same culture hold constant, coherent, and complete view of the universe. They also agreed on certain things without having to say so. In addition, Adler (2001) mentioned that culture, structuring one’s perception of the world, was shared by members of social groups and it would be passed to younger generations.
Similarly, Damen (1987) defined culture as “learned and shared human patterns or models for living; day to day living patterns” (p. 367). Lederach (1995) also stated that culture is the
“shared knowledge and schemes” (p. 9) which were created by a group of people in order to form our perception and interpretation of the world. Though some terms in the definitions were different, there were commonalities among four definitions which were “shared” and
“learned”. These two words suggested that culture was a shared view of a group of people and was learned and could be learned from others or older generations.
On the other hand, Hofstede (1984) defined culture as “the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one category of people from another” (p. 51).
His definition pointed out that culture helped identify a certain group of people. Beamer and Varner (2003) and Lederach (1995) also mentioned that culture was possessed by a certain group of people. Accordingly, culture was something that helped people distinguish themselves from those from different cultures.
In this study, the definition of culture is derived from the aforementioned literatures with the focus on intercultural communication. Culture, therefore, is defined as a shared and learned view of the world and the life pattern set by a certain group of people.
Communication
Communication had been recognized widely but defined unsatisfactorily (Fiske, 1990).
Fiske mentioned that there are two main schools in the study of communication. The first school was referred to “process school” (p. 2) and the second was “semiotic school” (p. 2).
Many communication theories developed from Shannon and Weaver’s communication model which included seven main components: sender, encoder, channel, decoder, receiver,
11
noise and feedback (Shannon & Weaver, 1949). It was a simple linear process (Figure 2.1.).
Figure 2.1. Shannon and Weaver model of communication. Adapted from Communication Theory, by Communication Theory, 2010, Retrieved from
http://communicationtheory.org/shannon-and-weaver-model-of-communication/. Copyright [2010] by Communication Theory.
Shannon and Weaver’s linear process model was also applied in George Gerbner’s model as a skeleton (Fiske, 1990). Gerbner’s model (Figure 2.2.) had two dimensions, perceptual dimension and media and control dimension (Gerbner, 1956).
Firstly, in the perceptual dimension, “E” means an event that happens and is perceived by “M” which could be human or machine. The difference between “E” and “E1” is that “El”
goes through the selection. “M” could not perceive “E” completely so “M” only selects what interest him/her. The perception process is complicated. According to Jandt (2007), the perception process was divided into three stages: selection, organization and interpretation.
After “M” selects a certain context, the meaning will be generated from “matching of external stimuli and internal concept” (Fiske, 1990, p. 25). “Availability” is based on “M’s”
12
culture or attitude which influenced how the matching is made and how the information is interpreted.
Secondly, in the mean and control dimension, “E2” means the event or content modified by “M” and delivered through the chosen channel. “M” uses signal, symbol, or statement to deliver the content and the signal is termed “SE2”. This model can be duplicated in the following communication if the content of the event were delivering continuously (Gerbner, 1956).
Figure 2.2. Gerbner’s communication Model. Adapted from Communication Theory, by Communication Theory, 2010, Retrieved from
http://communicationtheory.org/gerbners-general-model/. Copyright [2010] by Communication Theory.
For example, news reporters may see an event from diverse perspective and they only catch or select what they think important or attractive to their audience. Therefore, an event,
“E”, is perceived and a certain content is selected to be the “E1” which will be the source for
13
the reporter to write a news. They based on the content of “E1” modify the source into “E2”.
Then, the news reporters choose the channel like different position of a newspaper. The channel is called “SE2”. Finally, the news is delivered to the audience and again each audience will have various perceptions about this event, “E2”. If they share this news with others through facebook, speech, or chatting, the process goes on.
Shannon and Weaver’s Model was further developed continually. Berlo (1960) mentioned in The Process of Communication that Shannon and Weaver’s model was consistent with what Aristotle wrote in Rhetoric, including three important factors: speakers, speech, and the listener. Berlo got his basic idea about communication from Aristotle’s explanation and thus applied to examine other theories. Though there were many related theories, all of them possessed similarities with Shannon and Weaver’s model.
Figure 2.3. Berlo’s SMCR model of communication. Adapted from Communication Theory, by Communication Theory, 2010, Retrieved from
http://communicationtheory.org/berlos-smcr-model-of-communication/. Copyright [2010] by Communication Theory.
Berlo (1960) basically developed his communication model according to Shannon and Weaver’s model (Figure 2.3.). There are six main components in his communication process
14
model: communication source, encoder, message, channel, decoder, and communication receiver. Except process of encoding and decoding, the other four components all had five factors which could increase the fidelity.
With seven components in the communication process, Robbins and Judge (2011) also developed a similar model. However, “noise” in their model incorporated a boarder meaning.
It referred to the communication barrier which affects the clarity of messages. Cultural difference, language barriers, and information overload are all regarded as “noise”.
Jandt (2007) further developed the process communication and included more components into the model. There were source, encoding, message, channel, receiver, decoding, receiver response, noise, feedback, and context in Jandt’s model (Figure 2.4.). The source was the person who wanted to communicate.
Figure 2.4. Ten components of communication. Reprinted from An introduction to intercultural communication (p. 33), by F. E. Jandt, 2007, California: Sage.
Copyright [2007] by Sage Publication, Inc.
Due to different backgrounds, people cannot directly share their thinking and ideas.
People had to encode their idea into a symbol. For example, language was an obvious symbol
15
for people with the same cultural background (Beamer & Verner, 2003). Message “identifies the encoded thought” (Jandt, 2007, p. 32) which was defined as an outcome of encoding process. Channel referred to means by which messages were communicated. Noise referred to anything that influenced or distort the meaning of messages. It could be three main forms:
external noise, internal noise and semantic noise. External noise, for example, could be the noise from the traffic when students were studying. Internal noise, on the other hand, was generated internally. If a person was hungry during the communication, he/she would be distracted from the conversation. Lastly, semantic noise refers to the language use which happens especially when receivers were likely to misunderstand the words.
After the previous process, the message was transmitted to receivers who “attend to the message” (Jandt, 2007, p. 33). Decoding was the contrary process of encoding which was also consider equally active. Receiver response referred to any response or action the receiver might have after receiving the message. Feedback referred to receiver’s response to which the source attended to. Lastly, context was the environmental factor. The context could be physical environment, cultural context, or social relationships. Jandt mentioned that these components “are particularly useful in beginning a study of communication” (Jandt, 2007, p.
32). This study is mainly based on Jandt’s model.
On the other hand, the “semiotic school” were basically established and theorized by Peirce and Saussure. Semiotic referred to the study in sign and how it work. Semiotic school did not emphasize on communication as a process but instead regarded it as “generation of meaning” (Fiske, 1990, p.39). When a person communicated messages with others, he/she would transform the message into sign. The sign stimulated the receiver and then generated the meaning according to the receiver’s sign system. The more codes shared in two sign system, the closer the sign systems would be.
The semiotic school focused on three aspects: the sign, the sign system, and the culture generated the sign system (Fiske, 1990). The receiver’s position was viewed as a more active
16
role in semiotic school. As a matter of fact, receiver’s position was not emphasized in process school except Gerbner’s and Jandt’s model.
The first known semiotic scholar was Pierce. Peirce’s model was established by a triad with sign, object, and interpretant (Fiske, 1990; Peirce, 1931-58). An object represented the referred thing itself. A sign represented for concepts or ideas modified from an object. In other words, a sign conveyed the meaning modified by the sender. Interpretant was the one who received the meaning. The definition of interpretation of a meaning varies from interpretant to intepretant with diverse cultural or social background.
Similarly, Ferdinand de Saussure (1966), a Swiss linguist, also developed his model based on the same concept. He discussed communication from the perspective of linguistics.
Saussure proposed the linguistic sign was a bilateral entity (Figure 2.5.).
Figure 2.5. Two-sided psychological entity of linguistic sign. Reprinted from Course in general linguistics (p.66), by Ferdinand de Saussure, 1966. NY: McGraw-Hill. Copyright [1959] by The Philosophical Library, Inc.
Sound-image meant the referred object itself in reality. Concept meant a person’s mental concept of the sign. To make the model clearer, Saussure replaced two terms with “signifier”
and “signified” (Saussure, 1966, p. 67) respectively (Figure 2-8). Signifier replaced sound-image, simply referring to the object. Signified denoted a mental concept. Signifiers changed from language to language because they represented symbols, the words. People
17
easily thought that everyone shared the same signifieds but actually they differed from people’s mental concepts about the referred objects. In other words, signified would be influenced by cultural background or personal experiences.
Figure 2.6. Sassure’s elements of meaning. Reprinted from Course in general linguistics (p.66), by Ferdinand de Saussure, 1966. NY: McGraw-Hill. Copyright [1959] by The Philosophical Library, Inc.
Summary
Although culture has been divergently defined and communication models were diversely developed, the researcher attempted to filter out an appropriate definition of culture and an optimal communication model as bases of this study. As a result of literature reviews, the culture is defined as a shared and learned view of the world and the life pattern set by a group of people. On the other hand, Jandt’s communication model consisting of ten communication components is used as a basis of this study. In addition, Sassure’s concept about signifier and signified is also applied.
18
Intercultural Communication
Intercultural Communication basically meant a face-to-face interaction among people with various cultural backgrounds (Jandt, 2007). In other words, the source and the receiver of the communication process are from contexts and shared few symbols or signs. Two important concepts are reviewed when it comes to intercultural communication. They are high- and low-context cultures and dimensions of national culture.
Furthermore, literatures regarding intercultural communication strategies are also reviewed, summarized, and concluded.
High- and Low- Context
High- and low- context in intercultural communication were essential in this study. Hall (1976) introduced that, based on contextual features, intercultural communication was divided into two types in terms of verbal use which were high-context culture and low-context culture. People who were prone to rely on verbal codes were classified as being from low-context culture. In the low-context culture, everything would be explicitly explained in communicators’ spoken languages. The verbal code was the main source of the information for communicators. On the contrary, people from high-context culture relied more on the contextual elements. To put it another way, communicators could gain information from not only verbal codes but also the physical and psychological context.
National Culture
Besides the dichotomy of communicators in terms of context, how cultures vary from one nation to another is also critical in intercultural communication. Hofstede (2012) introduced in his personal website that there were in total six dimensions in national cultures.
These dimensions helped define and locate a nation’s culture. Dimensions included power distance (PDI), individualism versus collectivism (IDV), masculinity versus femininity (MAS), uncertainty avoidance (UAI), long-term versus short-term orientation (LTO), and
19
indulgence versus restraint (IVR). These dimensions would be scored for each nation and compared with one another. The scores were meaningful only when comparisons were made.
Power distance referred to the degree of inequality that people within a society could accept. In societies with large power distance, people lived with a clear hierarchical order. On the contrary, in societies with low power distance, people strived to equalize the social status and allocation of power.
Nations scoring high in dimension of individualism versus collectivism were taken as individualism. In other words, individuals were expected to be independent in a society.
Individuals would care more about themselves and their close families. In contrast, nations scoring low in this dimension were taken as collectivism. People in collectivism society would prefer establish intimate relationship with a group of people.
Nations fallen into the masculinity side of masculinity versus femininity preferred
“achievement”, “heroism”, and “material reward for success”. On the opposite, femininity represented a preference for “cooperation”, “modesty”, “caring for the weak” and “quality of life”.
Uncertainty avoidance represented the degree of uncertainty and ambiguity to which people of a society could tolerate. In societies with strong uncertainty avoidance, people tended to keep rules and codes without allowing any uncertainty. However, people in societies with weak uncertainty avoidance held relaxed attitude and were more willing to take risks.
The fifth dimension, long-term versus short-term orientation, was added in 1991. This dimension expressed as how people deal with searching for “virtue”. In the short-term oriented society, people were eager for building the “absolute truth”. They were less likely to think for the future and always wanted the quick result. Oppositely, in the long-term oriented society, people thought that the truth varies in different scenarios. They had strong propensity to invest for the future.
20
The last dimension introduced by Hofstede (2012) was indulgence versus restraint. In the indulgence society, people pursued “carpe diem”. They allowed their human nature navigate their behavior. Contrarily, in the restraint society, people were suppressed. Their lives were regulated and constrained strictly by social norms.
For example, according to statistics provided on website (2012) Taiwan scored 58 in PDI, 17 in IDV, 45 in MAS, 69 in UAI, and 87 in LTO. First, people in the society accept inequality of distribution of power and could live in the society with a hierarchical order.
Then, Taiwan got low score in IDV, meaning its society focused on relationship and bonding.
Accordingly, it was a collectivism society. Thirdly, scoring 45 in MAD, Taiwan was defined as a femininity society. People cared about qualities of their lives and solve problems through communication and negotiation mostly. High score in UAI represented the high uncertainty avoidance. People in Taiwan led their lives in a more conservative way. Finally, the high score in LTO echoed with the long tradition in teachings of Confucius in Taiwanese culture.
People were long-term oriented. They always prepared for their future. In the example, the IVR index was not provided on website due to incomplete construction of the data base.
Through the example, people could understand how to compare different cultures and how cultures influence people. In this study, participants and the group they guided would be classified and compared in accordance with these dimensions.
Intercultural Communication Strategies
Mary Hinchcliff-Pelias and Norman S. Greer (2004) discussed possible strategies to
“facilitate effective intercultural communication interactions” (p. 14). Strategies discussed included developing knowledge about one’s and the international partner’s cultural conventions, learning lessons from each misunderstanding in intercultural communication, freeing themselves from stereotypes of counterparts, and accumulating encountering experiences with international partners (Table 2.1.).
21
Table 2.1.
Intercultural Communication Strategies
Strategy Specification
Being bi-cultural aware Be aware of cultural conventions of both parties.
Learning from misunderstandings Learn from each intercultural communication.
Avoiding stereotype Avoid any presupposition about people of any group Increasing encountering experiences Increase intercultural interactions with international
partners.
First, being bi-cultural self-aware was one of the most widely discussed strategies. A recent study about cultivating cross-cultural competence in Chinese teachers highlighted the importance of possessing bi-cultural self-awareness (Gao, 2010). Chinese teachers for international students were supposed to be familiar with their own culture as well as their students’ cultures. Therefore, in the intercultural context, teachers would know how to handle the cultural shock appropriately. Another research also emphasized that Chinese teachers, who taught Chinese as second language, should have the cultural self-awareness for a more effective communication with international students (Liou, 2010).
Furthermore, Carbaugh (2012) illustrated similar concept by introducing two terms, communication cue and communication code. Communication cues could be language, gesture, facial expression or our dress. These cues transmitted our meanings, including explicit meaning and implicit meanings. People belonging to a community would have the same cues because they share specific values. These specific values related to communication were called communication code. Cues could be interpreted from different perspectives, depending on how people coded them. Therefore, understanding different codes or, to put it another way, cultures, were necessary in effective intercultural communication. Chen and
22
Yang (2012) also mentioned without knowledge of the counterpart’s cultural conventions would cause misunderstanding.
Second, Hinchcliff-Pelias and Greer (2004) collected data from 64 students from 20 countries and got a recurrent theme which was “no pain, no gain” (p. 15) approach to improve the effectiveness of intercultural communication. Students thought that each embarrassment or misunderstanding caused from cultural differences would reinforce their understanding of their international partners’ cultural attitudes, values and beliefs.
Third, avoiding stereotype was also pivotal in intercultural communication. One of the notorious problems for intercultural communicators was stereotype, which referred to an idea or judgment particularly on certain group of people (Jandt, 2007). Effective intercultural communication required both parties free themselves from stereotype (Hinchcliff-Pelias &
Third, avoiding stereotype was also pivotal in intercultural communication. One of the notorious problems for intercultural communicators was stereotype, which referred to an idea or judgment particularly on certain group of people (Jandt, 2007). Effective intercultural communication required both parties free themselves from stereotype (Hinchcliff-Pelias &