A vietnamese american cross cultural study of conversational distances

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

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT

| certify my authority of the Study Project Report submitted entitled

A VIETNAMESE - AMERICAN CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

OF CONVERSATIONAL DISTANCES

In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts

Le Thi Huyen

Acknowledgements

J owe my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, M.A Nguyen Thi Thanh Huong, without whose valuable comments and guidance, my thesis would not have been accomplished

My special thanks go to my colleagues from Haiphong Water Supply Company, those who helped me fill in my survey questionnatre and Give me constructive suggestions in completing this thesis

And J am tmmensely grateful to my former teacher, Ms Stacy Thompson, who ts living and working in the United States She has helped me conduct my survey in the United States

J owe my family great attitude for thety love, support and

CHCOUS: agement

Finally, J should acknowleage my indebtedness to all my friends for thetr assistance during the process of preparing for this research

Le Thi Huyen

ABSTRACT

Even the best verbal communication skills are not enough to create and sustain successful relationships Good relationships, both at home and at work, require the ability to communicate with emotional intelligence

Part of our culture involves an unspoken rule that people should ignore nonverbal elements— as if the injunction were, "hear what I say, and don't notice the way I say 1t." These elements are often ignored in school or overridden by parents, so the task of incorporating conscious sensitivity to nonverbal communications is made more difficult Thus, this thesis is an attempt to provide a cross-cultural comparison of common conversational distances, their frequency used in American and Vietnamese cultures and factors affecting conversational distances

Special emphasis is given to classification and usage of conversational distances as well as factors affecting conversational distances

The implications are suggested and recommendations provided for avoidance of culture shock and cross-cultural communication breakdown For instance, American people tend

to use close phase of intimate distance when showing intimate emotion with mothers more than Vietnamese Besides, there is not much difference whether between brothers or sisters

in keeping intimate distance when showing intimate emotion in American, whereas, Vietnamese people tend to keep closer distance with their sister than brother It is also concluded that if two Americans of opposite sex are conversing, they find close phase easier, freer and more conventional , however, it is applied for every case that if the communicative partners are of the same sex then closer distance is more popular with

Vietnamese informants.

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 9.000.000 69.49)9)0/00/9)0772 1

1 Definition of conversational distances .c:ssseseecceececeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeaees 14

2 Classification of conversational] distances :cccccccssssesteccecsessesetneeeeeeees 15

2.2 Per.sonidÏ (đÏÌSÍQfIC€ 90909 18 1 811 11 và 17 (Photo credlifS: (4HÍFi.COFH VRI) 5 5< << << 3311113380 395555533 111111111 5334 17

2.4 PHDÏIC (ÏÌSÍ(H1C€ - SG G5003 vn 19

3 Factors effecting conversational dIsfa'C©S . - - << << Ă se 19 3.1 High - low Contact CHỈẨHC << EEEEEEEEEEEESEEEEEEEkkkkkekekee 20 3.2 GENEL icc ceccceccscccnsccsccusccnsccsccusccuscnscassccascusccuscusccusensecusccesecsscsscusccuscuecs 20

6 7 21 3.5 POpUlation AENSItY cccccccccccccccccccecccccceecccscceeeceecanaeeeeeeauaaaaeeeeauaqaaaaaqoaaas 22 SN.V(, / , 8 n6nnns 23 Chapter 3: Data analysis and 1SCUSSIOTI 777555555 S BS 1333115331153 554 24

N8 ⁄2/ 7n 24 1.2 TAStrUMENIS nen he.e 24 1.3 Procedures 0ƒ dfq CỌÏGCÍÏOfH cc <S << 1 1 KV 119 11 191 1x re 24

2 Data analysis and Íindings - - S3 31311 1111111155111 55 26 2.1 Use of conversational distance as seen from communicative

J2241/124-842)1-2/2/:/7.2),1/1// 0g 26 2.2 Use of conversational distance as seen from informants’ parameters 32 PART C: CONCLUSION 36

I Summary of main findings: .cccccccessccsesssseececeeeceescececeeseeceeceeeeeseeees 36

II Implications for avoidance of culture shock and cross-cultural

communIcation breakdown - - - - << 3 31 x0 0 vn 36 III Suggestion for further sfUdy - - - << Ă 5< S9 S199 1 0 111111 xke 37 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 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 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

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.

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 questionnaires;

Statistics, descriptions and analysis of the collected and selected data;

Personal observations and experience;

Consultations with supervisors;

Discussions with Vietnamese and foreign teachers

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

PART C: CONCLUSION

PART B: DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1: Literature review

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

> Emphasis on the hearer:

According to Ronald B Alder & George Rodman (1998), “communication 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

“communication refers to the process man being responding to the face-to-face symbolic behaviour of other persons’”’, Levine and Adelman (1993) described it as “the process of sharing meaning through verbal and nonverbal behaviour”’

> Emhasis on the meaning of the intended message:

If Zimmerman et al (1991: 4) mentioned this when illustrating communcation as “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 “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

“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 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, the means to carry out communication and different

levels of communication

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 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 made 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 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, 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 expansive 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?

2.1 Definition of nonverbal communication

Even if someone decides to say nothing, they are still communicating So in fact, how is the information conveyed?

Today, many researchers are concerned with the information sent by communication that is independent of and different from verbal information; namely, the nonverbal communication Verbal communication is organized by language; nonverbal

communication is not

Communication is the transfer of information from one person to another Most of us spend about 75 percent of our waking hours communicating our knowledge, thoughts and

ideas to others However, most of us fail to realize that a great deal of our communication

is a nonverbal form as opposed to the oral and written forms Nonverbal communication includes facial expression, eye contact, tone of voice, body posture and motions, and positioning within groups It may also include the way we wear our clothes or the silence

we keep

One study done by Albert Mehrabian (1972) in the United States showed that in the communication of attitude, 93 percent of the message was transmitted by the tone of the voice and by facial expressions, whereas only 7 percent of the speaker’s attitude was transmitted by words Apparently, we express our emotions and attitudes more nonverbally than verbally Thus the way a person uses voice, body movement (for example eye contact, facial expression, gesture, and posture), clothing and body appearance, space, touch and time is an essential part of every message that he or she sends

How People Communicate (Body language)

Facialexpression and other body language

55 %

Nonverbal communication expresses meaning or feeling without words Universal emotions, such as happiness, fear and sadness are expressed in a similar nonverbal way throughout the world There are, however, nonverbal differences across cultures that may

be a source of confusion for foreigners For example, feelings of friendship exist everywhere but their expression varies It may be acceptable in some countries for men to embrace each other and for women to hold hands; in other countries these displays of

affection may be shocking What is acceptable in one culture may be completely unacceptable in another One culture may determine that snapping fingers to call waiter is appropriate; another may consider this gesture rude We are often not aware of how gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, and the use of space affect communication In order to correctly interpret another culture’s style of communication, it is necessary to study the “silent language” of that culture

Simply defined, nonverbal communication is everything that is communicated beyond what is expressed in words According to Levine and Adelman (1993), “nonverbal communication is the ‘silent’ language, including the use of gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, and conversational distance”

Nonverbal communication can be further clarified based on the following table:

(Intralanguage) loudness, and other

paralinguistic factors

Written words Gesture, movement,

(Intralanguage) expression, touch, and other

According to Allan Pease cited in Body Language (1984: 10), “the fascinating thing is that the human animal is rarely aware of his postures, movements and gestures that can tell one story while his voice may be telling another”

And it seems incredible that people are hardly aware of the existence of nonverbal aspects

in communication until 1970s Albert Mehrabian found that the total impact of a message

is about 7% verbal (words only) and 38% vocal (including tone of voice, inflection and other sounds) and 55% non-verbal

Birdwhistell (1997) estimates that the average person actually speaks words for a total of about 10 or 11 minutes a day and that the average sentence takes only about 2.5 seconds

He also discovered that the verbal component of a face-to-face conversation is less than 35% and that over 65% of communication is done nonverbally

Harison (1965) has estimated that in face-to-face communication no more than 35% of the social meaning is carried in the verbal message

Mehrabian and Wiener (1966) have come to a conclusion from their studies that as much

as 93% of the social meaning is attributable to nonverbal communication

The real value of nonverbal communication lies in the insight it can give to your own behaviour Beisler et al (1997) believes that it is impossible to discuss oral communication without taking nonverbal communication into account because only up to one-third of a message in a person-to-person situation is conveyed by words alone

Nonverbal cues are important in communication since nonverbal communication occurs more frequently than verbal one and people can easily remember what they see than what they hear Moreover, people are hardly aware of the fact that they are communicating

11

nonverbally, thus, they often reveal themselves more That’s why people can easily be cheated by verbal communication but hardly by nonverbal one

2.3 Main categories of nonverbal communication

It is not possible to come up with a valid generalization of nonverbal communication However, messages generated by each category do not exist in isolation but rather exist in company of messages from other categories, verbal messages, contexts and people functioning as message receivers According to Richmond et al (1991), categories of

nonverbal forms are:

> Physical appearance: Physical appearance is generated when we send to anyone with whom we come in contact If the message is unacceptable by the other person, s/he may not even consider the later messages Body size, body shape, clothing, facial features and other subjects adorning ourselves can be seen as aspects of physical appearance that produce potential messages

> Face and eye behaviour: Face and eye behaviour is known as “oculesics” According to many researchers, it is virtually impossible to separate the messages sent by the eyes and those sent by the face, thus it is best to consider these together This category of nonverbal communication has a major impact in terms of expressing emotions and regulating interactions between people For example, when professor is giving a lecture, you read a magazine instead of looking at him/her and giving your full attention, this would indicate to the professor that you are disinterested in his/her lecture

> Gesture and movement: Gesture and movement is known as “kinesics”’ It focuses

on the movements of hands and arms, postures and gross bodily movement such as standing, walking and sitting Messages generated by this type of nonverbal communication have often been referred to as “body language’’ Although the body certainly is sending messages, such messages do not form a linguistic system, with the exception of the gesture language of the deaf, and thus “do not represent a language in any normal sense of that term” (Richmond et al 1991)

> Vocal behavior: Vocal behavior has been variously known as “vocalics’” or

“paralanguage” Characteristics of the voice and its use, including the accent with

12

which we speak a language, have a major impact on how verbal messages are received Some researchers argue that more of the meaning in interpersonal communication is stimulated by vocalic messages than the verbal messages themselves

Touch: Touch is known as “haptics” and has been called the most potent message

in human communication Although this may not be universally true, it seems to be very true in the general U.S culture where touch is so uncommon Touch does indeed send a potent message, one that rarely can be ignored

Space: Space is known as “proxemics’’ This is the area that this study is focusing There are reasons to believe that our basic approach to space is, at least in part, instinctual However, humans differ greatly in their use of space and as a result send very different nonverbal messages in communication

Environment: Researchers have examined the impact of environment on human behavior in general and its impact on communication specifically and in reality, it has such a major impact on communication We can exert considerable control over our environment through our behavior If we look at such things as architecture, music, spatial arrangements, music, color, lighting and temperature and how these can be used to send nonverbal messages

Scent and smell: Scent and smell has been referred to as “olfactics” If pornography is in the eye of the beholder, then certainly scent is in the nose of the smeller People react very differently to various scents and smells We can send important messages through our use of scents and smells in many cases American society evidences its concern with this nonverbal category by spending millions of dollars on deodorants, lotions and perfumes

Time: Time in nonverbal communication is referred to as “chronemics’” Our use of time sends strong messages about how we feel about ideas and people Because people are so “time bound’, they often fail to realize what their response to time communicates to others It has been said that time talks “Time shout” might be a

more accurate statement.

13

A classification of the author’s interest is the one proposed by Nguyen Quang (F:29) since

it is quite clear and sufficient

- Vocal characteristics - Eye contact - Clothing - Setting

+ Vocal quality - Postures - Artificial scents - Lighting system

- Types of vocal flow - Body movement - Gift - Colour

14

Chapter 2: Conversational distance as nonverbal

communication

This chapter concentrates on conversational distances in terms of definition, classification

and factors affecting them

1 Definition of conversational distances

Conversational distance or personal space is defined in a variety of ways, especially in different cultures For Americans, personal space is very important and often results in some of the most offensive actions when not respected Scientifically termed "proxemics", personal space can make us feel warm and fuzzy but also make us feel alienated and also make us feel alienated and defensive, especially on social and interpersonal relationships

When addressing issues of personal space, we often do not perceive our own physical actions as being offensive or intimidating to others It is only when we are "invaded" into our own personal space that the concept of "proxemics" becomes important in our lives

So, in theory, what is the proper amount of personal space between you and another individual? For strangers, personal space should equate a distance greater than four feet

To feel comfortable, Americans often find they feel less defensive when they have, at least, four feet between themselves and the "next guy" In contrast, if you are within 18 inches of another individual, this is often subconsciously perceived as being more intimate with the individual For some Americans, like those who ride packed subways in New York City, intimacy abounds when these distance terms are applied

Is it necessary, then, to walk around all day with a ruler and space ourselves appropriately away from the person next to us? No Actually, scientific research, in proxemics, has found that we have a subconscious method for gauging an appropriate distance Unfortunately, for some individuals, this subconscious activity is not functioning properly

15

2 Classification of conversational distances

Leather defines distance as a "relational concept, typically measured in terms of how far one individual is from the other" (Leather 1978: 87) People have certain patterns for delimiting the distance when they interact, and this distance varies according to the nature

of the social interaction In an attempt to identify and classify the distance people use, Hall identifies four types of distances: intimate, personal, social, and public These distances can vary according to "personality and environmental factors," since an abnormal situation could bring people closer than they usually are (Hall 1959: 116)

- Communicators expressing high negative attitude

close friends showing love emotion; or

- Communicators expressing very high defiance attitude which can leads to physical conflict

Close phase | 0 - 6 inches (0 - 15 centimetres)

Table 2: Sub-distances of intimate distance and their communicators

16

Intimate distance ranges from body contact to

approximately eighteen inches (just less than

half a meter) According to Hall, the close

phase (up to six inches) includes intimate

activities which require extensive contact of

the bodies while the far phase (from six to 18

inches) does not allow for much, if any, body

contact We maintain an intimate distance in

love relationships and with close friends

Intimate distance exists whenever we feel free

(Photo credits: tintuc.com.vn)

People from different cultures use this intimate space differently For instance, North Americans may feel physical discomfort when someone does not keep the proper distance from them; and this feeling may be aggravated considerably if the person they feel "too close" is of the opposite sex Hall also mentions that some English expressions such as "get your face out of mine" and "he shook his fist in my face" show how important body boundaries are for Americans By contrast, the Costa Rican expression, "I don't bite" shows the discomfort people from this culture feel when others are too far from them Hall affirms that the use of intimate distance is not proper in public places in the United States (this can be seen similarly in Vietnam) However, this distance is common among members of other cultures (e.g Latin Americans and Arabs)

Far phase 2.5 - 4 feet (0.77 - 1.23 metres)

- Communication among friends, colleagues; or

- Communicators possibly expressing negative attitude

Close phase | 1.5 -2.5 feet (0.46 - 0.77 metres) - Communication among close

relatives; or

- Communicators expressing negative attitude

Table 3: Sub-distances of personal distance and their communicators

Personal distance ranges from 1.5 to four feet

between people Hall identifies a close and a far

phase The close phase (1.5 to 2.5 feet) permits one

person to touch another, while the far phase of

personal distance (2.5 to four feet) "an arm's

length" does not permit this As Hall points out

"nobody touches or expects to touch another

person unless there is a special effort" (1959:120)

This is the distance we keep most often when we

are in casual and personal conversation

(Photo credits: dantri.com.vn)

It is not difficult to realize that Vietnamese normally use far phase of personal distance if they are of the opposite sex Close phase of personal distance can be used more by the

communicators who are both female than those who are both male

Table 4: Sub-distances of social distance and their communicators

Social distance (four to 12 feet) is the casual

interaction-distance between acquaintances and

strangers It is common in business meetings,

classrooms, and impersonal social affairs Its close

phase (four to seven feet) is the characteristic of

informal interaction, while more formal interaction

requires the far phase (seven to 12 feet) Some

physical barriers such as desks, tables, and counters,

usually make people keep this distance

(Photo credits: www.123rf.com)

Hall mentions that this type of proxemic behavior is culturally conditioned and arbitrary

To illustrate, Nydel (1987) mentions that for Arabs it is normal to stay close to and touch strangers; the distance they keep in ordinary social conversations is the same as what Westerners use in intimate conversations People from other cultures such as North

Americans and British normally offer an excuse if they touch a stranger From my observation, an excuse also tends to be used by Vietnamese if they touch a stranger in

social communication

2.4 Public distance

Far phase 15 - 25 feet (4.6 - 7.7 metres) or

further - One person speaks in public

Close phase 12 - 15 feet (3.7 - 4.6 metres) - Communication among strangers

Public distance ranges from 12 to 25 feet or

more Its close phase (12 to 15 feet) provides

the amount of space generally desired among

strangers, while its far phase (15 to 25 feet) is

necessary for large audiences In this case,

speech must be projected or amplified to be

heard Communication at this distance is

more formal and permits few opportunities

for people to be involved with each other

Table 5: Sub-distances of public distance and their communicators

(Photo credits: www.123rf.com)

Researchers (e.g., Hall 1959; Vargas 1986) identify high-contact cultures such as Arabs, Latin Americans, Greeks, Turks, French, and Italians, who usually keep small distances among themselves; and low-contact cultures who "stand further apart", like the Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Germans, Dutch, and North Americans (Vargas 1986:106)

3 Factors effecting conversational distances

Hall notes that different cultures maintain different standards of personal space In Latin cultures, for instance, those relative distances are smaller, and people tend to be more comfortable standing close to each other; in Nordic cultures the opposite is true Realizing

20

and recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helps eliminate discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is too large (“stand- offish’) or too small (intrusive) Comfortable personal distances also depend on the culture, social situation, gender, and individual preference Besides, Allan Pease, in his book “Body langua’”’, adds several other factors affecting personal distance, that is: age, population density and intended messages Combining the views of two researchers, we have six factors affecting personal distance:

3.1 High - low contact culture

Cultural background is one of the most influential factors in nonverbal communication in general and proxemics in particular

Researchers have divided cultures into three types: high-contact culture, moderate-contact

culture and low-contact culture

- In high-contact culture, people favour higher sensory exposure, French, Italian, Latin American, Arab and African are considered to be high-contact culture, in which interactants usually keep small distances among themselves

- American, Canadian, Northern European, New Zealander and Australian belong to moderate-contact cultures as they employ less touching and maintain a further distance during their conversations

- Asian (Chinese, Vietnam, Indonesian, Japanese and Korean), German and Dutch are identified as low-contact cultures, whose interactants “stand further apart’

3.2 Gender

In terms of gender, distance between people of the same sex is smaller than between those

of the opposite sex Summarizing diverse studies, Vrugt and Ketstra (1984) concludes “in interaction between strangers, the interpersonal distance between women is smaller than

between men and women’’.