Giao tiếp phi ngôn từ anh việt, sự lĩnh hội về khoảng cách trong các nền văn hóa khác nhau

Independent Samples Test of data on conversational distance measured by high and low social status communicators...42 Table 11.. The purpose of this study is to find the factors thataffe

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

Hanoi, 2018

Hoàng Phượng

To be able to complete this thesis, I have been whole-heartedly supported bymany people to whom I would like to express my sincere thanks for their valuablecontribution

First of all, I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to my belovedsupervisor, Prof Nguyễn Hòa He was the one who advised, supported, encouraged,supervised, and inspired me throughout the realization of this thesis I highlyappreciate his valuable advice, detailed comments, enthusiastic and carefulguidance as well as his great patience throughout this process

Second of all, I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincerethanks to my respectful lectures in Faculty of Post-Graduate Studies at University ofLanguages and International Studies for their devotion and their fascinating, andinformative lectures which have provided me useful information to fulfill thisthesis

What is more, I would like to give my great thanks to my colleagues and mystudents for their willingness to participate in this project Without them, this studywould have been impossible

Last but not least, I owe particular thanks to my family and my friends whohave enthusiastically assisted and encouraged me to finish this thesis

Conversational distance has been the focus of hundreds of previous researchstudies However, the conclusions of previous studies on interpersonal distancepreferences were limited, especially the conclusions on Vietnamese’s preferableproxemic distance were also restricted due to some certain problems of researchmethodologies The objective of the present study was to find out the preferredsocial, personal and intimate distances of Vietnamese communicators as a case ofproxemics behavior This study also indicated the factors which have influence oninterpersonal distance of Vietnamese communicators, in which a number ofresearch methods were exploited The values of preferred conversational distance,then, can be used as a reference in related future research

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

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

APPENDENCES 68

APPENDIX 1 68

APPENDIX 2 72

APPENDIX 3 77

APPENDIX 4 78

APPENDIX 5 79

APPENDIX 6 82

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

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 themanifestation of nonverbal communication and to emphasize its significance inhuman life However, there has not been enough studies giving rise to proxemicsfindings In fact, none of the previous research has been performed to find outVietnamese common conversational distance

In the second place, misbehavior in proxemics within cross-culturalcommunication, especially in multicultual or multinational working environment,might unexpectedly arise and entail misunderstanding then cultural shock, or evencommunication breakdown Thus, the reviewing of proxemics behaviors in othermutual cultures in that great success in communication can be necessary

Finally, nonverbal communication with attention is given to proxemicsbehaviour has been one of my interest as a researcher Hence, I am intending toexplore and discuss conversational distances and how it affects humancommunication Apparently, the ways Vietnamese informants apply conversationaldistances will be explored and analysed The findings and results of this studywould somehow expectedly raise the awareness that how important the nonverbalcommunication would be Also, the findings would focus on the preferredconversational distance of Vietnamese communicators and then providerecommendations to American speakers in order avoid culture shocks andmisunderstandings while interacting with Vietnamese informants

This thesis is inspired by Hall’s work He creates a framework whichindicated a need for my study The purpose of this study is to find the factors thataffect the proxemics behaviors between Vietnamese dyads, mainly: age, gender,marital status, power distance, living area, and character of the informants In

addtion, it examines and explores the proxemic distances preferred by Vietnamesespeakers during communication process

3 Research questions:

The study addresses the following research questions:

1 What are the factors that affect the conversational distance between Vietnamesedyads?

2 What is the proxemic distance preferred by Vietnamese speakers duringcommunication 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 wasdelivering an overview of all aspects as listed

Specifically, this research particularly identified conversational distance inAmerican-Vietnamese cross-cultural nonverbal communication The data ofAmerican informants would be supposed to be the baseline data, which will begathered through previous studies related to this field That means, the data ofEnglish communicators would be secondary data in which the author tried to exploitthe sources or materials from studies reported in researches, reports, professionaljournals and books The data of Vietnamese dyads, however, will be collected asprimary 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, mainlyEnglish and Vietnamese cultures In this chapter, the author intends to give

explanations on the appropriate framework of proxemics that will be applied to thestudy.

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 theconversational distance between communicative dyads Also, one-way ANOVAand Independence Sample t-test became the appropriate statically formulas whichhelps the author analyze the data involved A brief description of the participants ofthe study, data collection procedure and summary of the methodology could befound 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 detailedexplanation for the dissimilarities of preferable interpersonal distance of the twocultures 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 canalso be drawn out

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

non-spoken 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 appropriatebehaviors and the means by which those behaviors are regulated

 Communication is the means by which individuals having one groupidentity interact with individuals with other group identities and on a more generallevel 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 topossess significant meaning Nonverbal messages consist of eye contact and gaze,

facial expression, touching, posture, posture and gesture, proxemics, and nonverbalvocalization (Argyle, 1988; Shulman & Penman, 1981) According to Jandt (2015),messages sent without using words are nonverbal communication Culturedetermines nonverbal meanings within a society, or, the same nonverbal signal canmean 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 allbehaviors that are not words (cited in Laura & Kory, 2006) However, somescholars define nonverbal communication more narrowly Burgoon, Buller andWoodall (1996) conceptualized nonverbal communication as subset of nonverbalbehavior Also, Hall (1959) stated that culture itself serves as a means ofcommunication That is, culturally determined behaviors associated with verbalcommunication 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 indirectways, in which they focus on what is included within the study of nonverbalcommunication Leathers (1997) conceptualized nonverbal communication in terms

of “three major interacting systems: the visual communication system, the auditorycommunication system, and the invisible communication system” (p.13) According

to Leathers (1997), the visual communication system tends to produce the mostshared meaning within face-to-face interaction This system includes kinesics (e.g.,

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 ofnonverbal communication given the most attention can be proxemics, kinesics,chronemics, paralanguage, silence, haptics, artifactual communication, andterritoriality In the following chapter I intend to discuss more in details about onetype of nonverbal communication – proxemics

1.3 Areas of Proxemics

Edward Hall (1914-2009) was an American anthropologist who developedthe concepts of Proxemics He made a great number of researches, interculturalstudies and observations about how people divide their personal distance, how it isaffected 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 ofnonverbal communication According to Hall, spatial communication is important

in conversation Proxemics, the study of how communication is influenced by spaceand distance, is historically related to how people use, manipulate, and identify theirspace

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 peopleestablish between themselves and their fellow humans communicate meaning Inother 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 ourcultural learning, our upbringing in our families, the specific situation, and ourrelationship with the people to whom we are talking For instance, in the UnitedStates people assume that when one-person places himself close to another person,

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 distanceand partitions of space serve to establish a setting for communication It would beexpected that spatial relationships, a variable in the communication setting, wouldaffect 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 ofbehavior patterns associated with varying degrees of [spatial] proximity to them

In reference to the model of communication, personal space is defined as aform of nonverbal communication which describes the boundaries of intimacybetween people (Hall 1966, Porteous 1977) Hall (1959) also defined fourdimensions 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 extendsfrom one communicator to around 46 cm/ 18 inches This spatial zone is normallyreserved 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 distancevaries between 46 cm (18 inches) and 122 cm (4 feet) This is the space most peopleuse during conversations This distance allows the speaker to feel some protectionfrom other who might wish to touch The range in this distance type allows those atthe closest range to pick up physical nuances (such as dry skin, acne, body odor orbreath odor) However, we are still able to conduct business with those at the farrange – which Hall (1959) calls “arm’s length” – but any signs of nonverbal

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 workers with a boss or at a social gathering or public event This is the spatial zonewhich reserved for professional or formal interpersonal encounters Some officeenvironments are arranged specially for social distance rather than intimate distance

co-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 spatialzone allows listeners to scan the entire person while he or she is speaking Theclassroom environment exemplifies public distance Most classrooms are arrangedwith a teacher in the front and rows of desks or tables facing the teacher This setupcan vary, but many classrooms are arranged with students more than twelve feetfrom their teacher Public distance is also used in large settings, such as when welisten 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 theyshare with others to communicate, typically outside conscious awareness, sociallyrelevant information such as personality traits (e.g., dominant people tend to usemore space than others in shared environments), attitudes (e.g., people that discusstend to sit or stand in front of the other, whereas people that collaborate tend to seatside-by-side), etc These distances are proved to be very culturally specific Forsome cultures, these distance zones may be compressed, for others they may beexpanded When involved in cross-cultural communication, understanding thesevariations of distance zones is essential to maintain effective communication Thedescription of each concentric space can be summarized as below:

Distance Description Voice Intimate Touching to

18 inches

Private situations with people who are emotionally close If others invade this space, we feel threatened

Soft voice

Casual/

Social

4 feet to 12 feet

The lower end is the distance salespeople and customers and between people who work together in business

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 ofpersonal space, and moving to the greatest distance between communicators, thefour categories of personal space are intimate distance, personal distance, socialdistance and public distance (See Figure below)

Figure 1 Edward T Hall’s four types of personal distance (West, R & Turner, L.H, 2009)

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 beautomatically activated

Proxemics can be divided into categories: space and distance Proxemicsreveals that people handle space differently, depending on the type of culture theycome from If personal space is violated, people from individualistic cultures mayreact actively while people from collectivist culture may adopt a passive stance It iscrucial for informants to understand more about how physical space is dealt with indifferent cultures if they do not want to experience feelings of exclusion forinstance

Knowing some proxemics cues is important to increase people’scomprehension and expression Personal space is the space surrounding a personinto 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 carryinformal 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 spaceprovides some insight into ourselves and how we feel about other people Forinstance, some research shows that happily married couples stand closer to oneanother (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 peoplereserved for categories of acquaintance will vary depends on the culturalinterpretation of the distance As I mentioned, Hall distinguishes four types ofinformal distances: public (with unknown people), social (professional andunofficial social occasions), personal (between friends) and intimate distance (withclose relationships) Once again, each culture has its body boundaries and the space

bubble or body language can be misinterpreted Axtell (1997, p.40) classifies

cultures as follow: “high contact” are touching cultures (Middle East, LatinAmerican, …), “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 theperson

A theoretical model can help us understand the differences in distancebetween people The expectancy violations theory (Burgoon, 1978) states that weexpect people to maintain a certain distance in their conversations with us If aperson violates our expectations (if, for instance, a work colleague stands in ourintimate space while talking with us), our response to the violation will be based onhow much we like that person That is, if we like a person, we’re probably going toallow 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 moveaway from the person According to this theory, the degree to which we likesomeone can be based on factors that include our assessment of their credibility andphysical attractiveness Personal space violations, therefore, have consequences onour 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 nonverbalcommunication The main idea is that people from different cultures have different

concepts of what constitutes one’s “personal space” and that the way we use thespace around us is generally shaped by our culture In other words, interpretations

of personal space vary from cultures to cultures Therefore, it is crucial tounderstand the influence of culture diversity on nonverbal communication in order

to reduce friction and confusion during the process of cross-culturalcommunication

Cultures can be divided into three types: high-contact culture, contact culture and low-contact culture In high-contact culture, people prefer

moderate-higher sensory exposure while interacting; that means, people usually keep smalldistances among themselves

The culture people grew up has a tremendous effect on who people are asindividuals, whether they like it or not One of the direct cultural influences is onthe size of the individual personal proxemics distance

“Distant” cultures tend to keep more personal space and use less touchingthan other “warm” cultures By contrast, Asian cultures characterized by moreaccommodating accepting attitude when it comes to personal distance and thetheory states that it’s due to more crowded living conditions

Other cultures including American’s are considered to be “warmer” bynature-touch and close proximity are more welcome and socially accepted.Obviously, generalizing this information is a big mistake The researcher doesn’tintend to conclude that all Europeans are distant and Asians like to crowd, it’smerely an overall cultural code

For the purposes of understanding how different people communicate verbally, Edward Hall separated cultures into two basic categories: contact and non-contact In contact cultures, physical touching and intimate space betweenacquaintances is permitted and even necessary for establishing interpersonalrelationships For non-contact cultures, touching and personal space is reserved foronly the most intimate acquaintances Examples include the U.S., Norway, Japan,and most Southeast Asian cultures

By contrast, men are more territorial and aggressive by nature and will keepmore distance from other men, but when it comes to women, men usually prefer to

get a little closer Willis (1966) stated that women are approached more closely by

both two genders, men and women Burgoon (1991) found that photographed maleswere seen as more dominant at close than at norm or far distances; for females,there were no differences across distances Thus we might expect some genderdifferences associated with proxemic relational messages

What is more, distance between the dyads of the same sex if smaller than

between those of the opposite sex Vrugt and Ketstra (1984) stated that “in

interaction between strangers, the interpersonal distance between women is smallerthan between men and women.”

Research in sex differences in personal space indicates that the bubblessurrounding women are smaller than are those surrounding men For example, astudy using unobtrusive observation of people in a public setting found that femalepairs stood closer to each other than did male pairs In addition, this study foundthat male-female pairs stood closest of all Similarly, another study found that maleand female pairs who were unacquainted differed in their interpersonal distance.Specifically, it was noted that female pairs sat closer to each other than male pairs

in a waiting room situation Unequal space zones were also noted by Willis whofound, in studying the initial speaking distance set by an approaching person, thatwomen were approached more closely than were men by both men and women

1.4.3 Social Status – Power Distance

Power distance refers to the degree of hierarchy and the way organigrams areset-up Power distance affects verbal and nonverbal communication People fromindividualistic cultures tend to have a small power distance whereas people fromcollectivist cultures have a bigger one Depending of the culture, power isdistributed differently According to Altman & Vinsel (1977), dominant individualscommand and were afforded more personal space than submissive or low statusindividuals

Social status produces a huge effect on the personal distance and demand.Accordingly, the higher the status, the more space communicators consider to betheirs It is believed that distance used between co-workers is distinctive to thatbetween boss and worker, superior and inferior Hence, the first-class seats arebigger and have more space per individual When it comes to dominant-subordinaterelationships it means that the high-status person can invade the space of the lowerstatus person without too much resistance, and sometimes he is even encouraged to

do so

Dominant individuals command and are afforded more personal space thansubmissive or low status individuals (Altman & Vinsel, 1977; Burgoon, 1987), andBurgoon et al (1984) found that among five immedacy cues, proximity was thebiggest predictor of dominance interpretations Because dominant people areallowed to violate conversational distance norms, both close and far distances areassociated with more dominance that are intermediate distanes (Burgoon, 1991;Burgoon et al., 1984; Burgoon & Hale, 1988)

1.4.4 Age

In general, children tend to stand closer to the subject That is, they are muchmore open in nature than adults, which can be explained by the fact that they lacksome of the “social boundaries” Therefore, if a kid really like someone, he willeven hug that person during the conversation Yet, at teenager or over, people beginhaving some awareness of gender difference, the distance especially in intimate and

personal zone becomes further And at old age, we are found to interact in a closerdistance, because we are assumed to receive the interaction subject’s due to ourbeing weak

It is examined that children are used to closer and more intimate proxemics,

or, children are used to closer and more intimate proxemics Children have a strongneed to be around those who they feel can protect them, and who provide for them.Independence is a big issue in the study of all proxemics, and children are theperfect example of how much of a non-factor proxemics are with no sense ofindependence However, as children grow older their need to be close to parents

decreases and their want to be near playmates or friends decreases (Burgess, 1982)

It is also studied that when people age into adulthood, they develop socialskills to understand and manage their own proximity As people grow older theydesire independence and social control which greatly affect their proxemics

1.4.5 Personality

According to T Davies (1976:74), the image of one person was also affected

by the levels if extroversion or introversion of his or her personality When it comes

to personality, extrovert people naturally tend to keep less distance than introverts.That is, extroverts will get along fine with other extroverts and probably annoy theintroverts In short, extroverts have a strong outer reality whereas introverts have astrong inner reality Extroverts may well avoid self-analysis and feel uncomfortablespending a great deal of time on their own, they tend to stand closer to the partners.Meanwhile, introverts may well avoid the intimate behaviors, thus they tend tostand far from the partners However, people do not fall neatly into one category orthe other A person who is extrovert by nature may also have an introverted side atcertain time and in certain situations, and vice versa Most people are mixture,though one tendency usually dominates

1.4.6 Marital Status

Marital relationship has some effects on personal space Berman and Lief

(cited in Hill, R D., 1982), suggested that two “critical dimensions” of the marital

relationship are level of intimacy and degree of inclusion or exclusion of others, andthat both have potential impact on personal space needs Since a high degree ofintimacy is expected to occur within the marital relationship and preferableinterpersonal distance is generally considered socially appropriate, it is likely thatpersonal space needs among married couples would be relatively small.Furthermore, since sexual interaction and between a married person and anopposite-sexed non-spouse is generally considered inappropriate in both Americanand Vietnamese cultures, it is likely that personal space needs between a marriedperson and an opposite-sexed non-spouse would be relatively large, even though thecombination would represent a mixed-sex dyad Specifically, it was hypothesizedthat personal space needs would be smallest between married person to each other,somewhat greater between a married person and same-sexed stranger, and greatestbetween a married communicator and an opposite-sexed stranger

1.4.7 Living Area

According to Allan Pease (1993:34), the amount of interpersonal distance

required by an individual was related to the population density of the area in whichthat person was born and brought up Those who were brought up in sparselypolluted areas (rural areas) require more space than those raised in densely pollutedcapital cities (urban areas)

There’s also a difference between country living culture and the urban citylifestyle – country people are used to live in a vast and mildly populated areas whilecity dwellers are more used to crowding This meant that city dwellers will usuallyhave a smaller distance than country people due to this habit of density

1.4.8 Relationship

Relationship is one of the very important factors influencing conversationaldistances The more intimate the communicators are, the smaller the physicaldistance will tend to be when communicating Public space maintained betweenaudiences and speakers Social space is used for conversations among acquaintancessuch as friends and colleagues Friends, family members and relatives come to the

personal space And intimate space is ruled by lovers, couples, spouses, sometimes

by close friends and family members In other words, relationship has some effect

on distinction on conversational distances

In Manusov and Patterson’s text, they pointed out the fact that people are

more likely to sit closer to a romantic partner than their own friends (Manusov and Patterson, 265) One term in particular that is crucial in understanding the

proxemics in relationships is the term interpersonal distance This term is defined asthe physical space between two people The closeness or distance between twopeople can directly reflect the relationship between the two people If two peopleare very close then their interpersonal distance will be an indicator of this becausethey will close the space between themselves But, if two people are very distancethen it can almost always be assumed that they are not close in their relationship.Proxemics are very important in a relationship because research has shown thatbeing close to one another can have a positive effect on the relationship In romanticrelationships, one can also observe differences between couples that have recentlycome together versus couples that have been dating for a substantially longeramount of time When relationships begin to break down and a couple is headed for

a break up, the proxemics of the relationship changes dramatically

1.4.9 Individualistic and Collectivistic Cultures:

The style of nonverbal communication commonly employed by a specificethnic group depends on several dimensions of cultural variability In the broadestsense, cultural variability can be viewed in terms of two extremes: individualism

and collectivism (Gudykunst & Lee, 2002)

Dimensions of cultural variability and barriers have to be considered sinceindividualist and collective cultures shape people differently Individualism is “theopposite of collectivism; together they form on of the dimensions of nationalcultures Individualism stands for a society in which the ties between individuals areloose: everyone is expected to look after himself or herself and his or her immediatefamily only.” Collectivism “stands for a society in which people from birth onwards

are integrated into strong cohesive in-groups, which throughout people’s lifetime

continue to protect them in exchange for unquestioning loyalty” (Hofstede, 1994,

p.126) However, proximity does not obey global rules Territoriality, Contact,interpersonal distance, touch, sensory involvement can differ from one culture toanother one It has been theorized that the relations with other people depends onthe culture (individualistic or collectivist), the power distance (hierarchical ordemocratic), they are neutral or convey emotion High-context communication oftencorresponds with communitarian settings, while low-context communication oftenoccurs in individualist settings

Gudykunst and Kim (2003, p.235) explain that “close” and “far” mean

different things depending of the culture: a high-contact culture will consider more

closeness as something positive Mehrabian (1971) defines “immediacy” as “the

evaluative dimension of meaning, and it involves judgements of close-far, negative, and good-bad” all these things are used to indicate psychologicalcloseness to others Immediacy is associated with: close conversational distance,direct body orientation, forward lean, direct gaze, positive facial rein-forcers,postural openness, frequent gesturing and touch

positive-Individualism value privacy; collectivists do not value it as much and oftenfind being alone frightening Related to these points are differences in the waypersonal space is used Collectivists do not respect the personal space of other as

much as do individualists (Triandis, 1995)

Asian groups including Vietnamese have commonly been identified ascollectivistic They have interdependent self-construal, which lead them to act incertain ways based on their relation with their communication partner in a specific

context (Markus & Kitayama, 1998) That is, they expect to maintain harmony in their high context communication According to Lewis (1999), interpretations of

personal space vary from culture to culture People in South American countries,such as Brazil, require little personal space in an interaction Arabs, Hungarians,and African similarly reduce conversational distance In general, people from

individualistic cultures (for examples, United States, Germany, Canada) requiremore space than do those from collectivistic cultures The personal spacerequirements of people from collectivistic cultures can be partially explained by thefact that people from those cultures tends to work, sleep and have fun in closeproximity to one another (Andersen, 2003).

Context, as one of the influential dimensions of culture differences, waspresents by Hall (1976) He defined context as the information that surrounded anevent and classified people into high-/low-context (HC/LC) communicationsystems Context is inextricably bound with the meaning of that events: “The

cultures of the world can be compared on a scale from high to low context” (Hall & Hall, 1990, 6).

Hall (1976) also proposed that cultures can be identified based on the

messages people in a given culture prefer to use, and he defined these as HighContext (HC) or Low Context (LC) cultures, which are considered one frameworkfor approaching intercultural communication Cultures cannot be categorized as

“high context” or “low context” However, cultures can be on the two ends of acontinuum Some cultures tend to be at the higher end while others are at the lowerend of the continuum (Hall, 1976) American culture reflects LC values; Americans

are open, direct, and more confrontational (Chua & Gudykunst, 1987; Gudykunst

& Nishida, 1986) while Vietnamese culture historically values HC communication;

Vietnamese are more introverted and indirect Generally, cultures in which little ofthe meaning is determined by the context because the message is encoded in theexplicit code are labeled low context Cultures in which less has to be said orwritten because more of the meaning is in the physical environment or alreadyshared by people are labeled high context

A high-context culture relies on implicit communication and nonverbal cues.Gestures are also considered important within high context communication withnonverbal communication used frequently during information exchanges Asian,African, Arab, central European and Latin American cultures are generally

considered to be high-context cultures In high-context culture, space is communal.People tend to stand close to each other and share the same space

In low context cultures nonverbal communication is considered lessimportant in which many external and surrounding factors can be classified In otherwords, a low-context culture relies on explicit communication Cultures withwestern European roots, such as the United States and Australia, are generallyconsidered to be low-context cultures In low-context cultures, nonverbal elementsare not significant and space is compartmentalized It means that privacy isimportant, so people stand farther apart when communication processes

In reference to collectivist and individualist cultures, which

we have seen to be closely linked to high and low context cultures

(Ting-Toomey, 1994), Triandis (2010, p.149) noted that

collectivists sample the context of communications more thanindividualists This results in them ‘paying more attention togestures, eye contact, level of voice, the direction of the twobodies, touching and the distance between the bodies Suchparalinguistic cues can open the opportunity for misinterpretation

and error (Triandis, 2010).

CHAPTER II: METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes the research methodologies selected in the study In the sections below information about the context and the subjects of the study, the research questions, the data collection instruments, the data collection procedure, and the data analysis procedure will be presented.

2.1 Data-collection instruments

The main contents of this section include participants of the study, thedata collection instruments namely questionnaires, and interviews followed bythe study procedure This study was conducted in the form of mixed researchmethods (both qualitative and quantitative approaches) Three key researchinstruments for data collection were exploited including questionnaires,interview and video recordings

Accordingly, a variety of method was used in order to test the theoreticalpredictions or assumptions about the proxemics behaviors as well as the factors thatmight leave impact on preferred interpersonal distance of Vietnamese However,each method has its own strengths and weaknesses that will be discussed later Theimplementation of questionnaires, video recordings and informal interviews seemed

to be feasible

2.1.1 Survey questionnaires

Questionnaires were selected as the first tool for the process of datacollection Accordingly, I carefully studied the general features ofquestionnaires like the length, the layout, the topic; the main parts ofquestionnaire like the title, instructions, questionnaire items, additionalinformation, and final “thank you”; questionnaire content; and types ofquestionnaire items

The survey was conducted within a group of Vietnamese people Theparticipants included 50 native Vietnamese living both in rural and urban areas in

Hanoi and some other provinces mainly in the Northern areas of Vietnam.However, the participants would be assured that they would not be identified in anycircumstances as they wished The questionnaires then were designed to address theissues in such factors affecting the conversational distances between the twoselected cultures including age, gender, personality, social relationship, living areas,social status, mood and communication setting or areas It was the the author’sintention to design the questionnaire in Vietnamese because of the fact that therewould be no data needed from American speakers

The survey questionnaire (see the appendix) composed of two main partswith corresponding situations in which conversational distances were assigned to be

a prominent subject These two main parts with part 2 consists of 20 closed-openitems (see Appendix 1): I) a section on the subjects’ individual information interms of Age, Gender, Personality, Living Area, and Social Status This partaimed at helping frame the context for other data associated with the study;II.A) a section (3 items) in which one item related to the preferableinterpersonal distance of each communicator when having conversation toothers; II.B) the next 17 items (5-Likert scale: from strongly disagree tostrongly agree) related to the factors affecting the interpersonal distance ofVietnamese, which were mainly based on West & Turner (2009)

Meanwhile, the range of conversational distances of American culture will

be considered as the comparative baseline hypothesis of the study The author tried

to keep the 4 main zones (intimate zone, personal zone, social zone and publiczone) as the general guidelines in the process comparing and contrasting with theVietnamese’s

2.1.1.1 Participants

There would be the involvements of human subjects during research process.Vietnamese and American speakers (as participants at baseline’s) are selectedbecause they are considered collectivistic and individualistic manifestations

What is more, the researcher has an intention of exploiting conveniencesampling and explaining how they are selected All the members who areconveniently available are invited to participate in the study The participants willinclude 50 native Vietnamese living in the areas in the North of Vietnam, bothrural’s and urbans The characteristics of the study subjects, as I mentioned earlier,including age, gender, marital status, social status, living area and personality of theparticipants will be described.

In order to get cooperation from these respondents, first I asked myacquaintances (my friends, my colleagues and my students) who are living andstudying in Hanoi and some other provinces nearby Finally, 50 people agreed

to participate in the survey questionnaires After completing the questionnaires,they were invited to participate in the interview and the video recording as well

2.1.1.2 Procedure

First, data will be collected; then they will be analyzed and synthesized inorder to find the shared points among documents Besides, the researcher willclassify data into different categories following the guiding theory-based hypothesisaccording to their levels of importance and relations to the topic under investigation.Later, information would be presented in some kinds of comments, evaluations orarguments on the study which are mainly characterized by the figures of the surveyquestionnaires Below is the detailed description of the whole procedure

In order to collect valid data, survey questionnaires will be designed in bothEnglish and Vietnamese Moreover, the researcher tries to see how thequestionnaire works in the process of data collection by piloting thequestionnaires before delivering them to the participants

The first stage of data collection was questionnaires distribution 50 printedsurvey questionnaires (excluding back-ups) were distributed to Vietnamese nativeparticipants living both in rural and urban areas in the North of Vietnam Collectingthe data started at the beginning of December, 2017 and intended to last about onemonth The convenience samplings were exploited: the researcher’s students and

colleagues and many acquaintances like the researcher’s husband’s colleagues werealso invited to take part in the survey questionnaire

Apparently, the survey questionnaires will be conducted with the assistance of

50 native Vietnamese informants living in the North of Vietnam, consisting of threeparts:

Part I : In this initial part, the informants involved might be asked to give

personal information in case they do not find it disturbing Participants was required

to complete demographic questions (age, sex, marital status, social status, livingarea and personality)

as gender, age, social power, and personality of the informants There will also bequestions which are directly concerning to space violence Bases on the classicHall’s (1966) theory, we measured three separate categories of preferred

interpersonal distances – distance to (a) stranger, (b) an acquaintance, and (c) a close person These measures reflected the previously defined categories of interpersonal distance: (a) social distance (1.2-3.7m), (b) personal distance (46cm- 1.2m), and (c) intimate distance (0-46cm) (Hall, 1966), respectively The author

decided to use a very simple graphic task so that it will be easy for the participants

to imagine the distance which they prefer during the process of communication

Then, the participants will be asked to imagine that he or she should be

Person A The participant will also be asked to rate how close a person B could

approach to her/ him, so that he or she would have the most comfortable feeling in a

conversation with person B The participant will be required to mark the distance at

which person B should stop on the scale below the figures Thus, it is ideal that the

questionnaires should be completed by paper and pencil

B The author designs 17 questions in which the participants will have to

circle one answer in each line across to show their degree of agreement with eachstatement These questions are designed to collect the participants’ general opinionsabout the conversational distance and the factors which can leave some certaininfluence on the preferred interpersonal distance of the communicators

When all the questionnaires were collected, the researcher started to access,examine, and analyze the data Next, the responses from questionnaires were codedand then entered into SPSS (version 20.) and descriptive statistics includingfrequency, mean and standard deviation were calculated and interpreted for eachitem

2.1.2 Personal observation-video recordings:

Most proxemics research is conducted through author’s personal observation,either indoor or in a natural setting During observation, the actual subjects’distance maintained between each other was intentionally measured However, thedata used in this study will be collected by video recordings That is, all theconvenient sampling will be unconsciously recorded so that the conversationaldistances between these dyads will be objectively measured Then, these dyads will

be questioned: “Are these physical distances, according to you, generallyaccepted?” and the researcher then measured the distance between the objectsaccording to the given scale The results might be expected to be tested randomlybased on the hypotheses Furthermore, the hypotheses can be used to interview theother informants if possible (This kind of instrument will be presented in detailslater) Accordingly, the results must be tested again if there is any mismatchings inthe number or the data collected

2.1.2.1 Participants

The researcher tries to exploit the convenience sampling such as heracquaintances (friends and colleagues), her students and her family members

Participants were almost volunteers who most participated in a dyadic interaction,for a total of 50 cases varying from strangers’ relationship to people of intimaterelationships.

2.1.2.2 Procedure

Participants were unconsciously discussing some certain familiar or daily lifetopics and then they were recorded by the researcher The standing conversationswould be prioritized, which seemed to be an ideal scenario, not only because thiskind of conversations offer excellent examples of proxemics behavior, but alsobecause they allow one to work at the crossroad between close-observationtechnologies, often applied to monitor the behavior of people in public spaces, anddomains like social signal processing that focus automatic understanding of socialbehavior

All discussions were videotaped and last no more than five minutes for each.Distance, which is based on Hall’s method (1966), was measured with a tapemeasure, marking spots at 18 inches and 4 feet, denoting the intimate and socialconversational distance zones The actual measurement was between the two closesttips of toes of the two communicators, which was measured thanks to the assistance

of one of the researcher’s colleague or student The communicators, at the end ofthe discussion, would be intentionally informed that they had been being recordedand the distance between them was being measured if they wouldn’t bother Theresearcher then tried to ask the communicators to reveal their relationship except forthe stranger-stranger’s

Since all the data of video recordings were collected, the researcher started toaccess, examine, and analyze the data Next, the distance measured for each casewould be coded and categorized Still, the collected data would be performed andthen interpreted in bar-chart, which was believed that the difference in interpersonalspace would be easier to visualized

2.1.3 Informal interviews:

Face-to-face semi-structured interviews are essential to the flexible, informalnature of this study and therefore, where possible, this is the preferred interviewtechnique However, online interviews will be carried out via Skype due togeographical distance between the interviewer and the interviewees It seemed to

me that the online technique somehow advantageous thanks to the fact of the ability

to take notes without seeming impolite and of the replies which can be recordedwithout embarrassment to respondents The interview length varied from 20-30minutes on average With the permission of the participants, the interviews wererecorded so as to increase accuracy and to enable a more detailed analysis of thequalitative data The names of the interviewees are not revealed in order to maintainanonymity These following sections will discuss about detailed materials andmethods for collecting data from interviews

2.1.3.1 Participants

I had an intention of conducting numerous informal interviews with theassistance of 5 Vietnamese informants Specially, convenient sampling such ascolleagues, friends and students will be exploited so that information and feedbackswill be highly exchanged and controlled

2.1.3.2 Procedure

I intended to provide participants with knowledge of the themes before

semi-structured interviews take place According to Saunders (2007), this promoted

validity and reliability, enabling the interviewee to consider the aims and goals ofthe interview In interviewing, there will be turn-taking between the interviewer andthe interviewees, that is, one person asks a question and the other replies.Particularly, information interviews will be conducted in order to get informationabout the conversational distances

All the informants involved will be asked to answer the question: “At which distance would you feel most comfortable when communicating with the others?”

Also, the questions about the factors affecting conversational distances will also beasked during the interview process

Since it is important for interviewees to feel relaxed and open todiscussion of their experience, the technique was relatively informal Aconvenience sampling technique is chosen due to the accessibility to theresearcher’s colleagues and close people Interviews were chosen as a flow-upstep after questionnaires to help the researcher gain an in-depth data about theirperceptions and their challenges, which could be missed from questionnaires Inorder to construct the interview questions, the researcher based on Hall’sframework The researcher took the advantage of these “open and fairly loosely

structured interviews” (Watson, 1970, p.60) allowed me to come to the

interview with guiding questions and meanwhile remain open to “following theleads of informants and probing into areas that arise during interview

interactions” (Hatch, 2002, p 94)

Besides, in order to facilitate the process of interviews and to make therespondents not misunderstand questions, interviews were conducted inVietnamese and then translated into English Besides, due to the long distancebetween the researcher and some of the subjects, almost of the interviews wereconducted via Skype Responses from these participants will assist withanswering research question 2

During the interviews an attempt were also made to find if there consist anyrules about proxemics behavior in Vietnam and how these rules were exploited inthe daily life All interviews were supposedly tape recorded in which the subjectswere allowed to respond freely to the questions outlined in Appendix 4

Question 1 and 2 (Appendix 4) were attempts to get the participants tosupply their own definitions of conversational distance and their views on thefactors which have influence on interpersonal distance Question 3 tried to collectinformation about the participants’ first-hand experience on their favouriteconversational distance which occurs when they interact with people coming from

different countries Question 4 exploited interviewees on the underlying reasons ofculture conflicts, meanwhile the next question tests whether communicators canaware of conversational rules in Vietnam The 4 other questions gathered speakers’opinions about some specific case in which they have to decide how and why theychoose their own suitable conversational distance such as their reaction when beingapproached too closely, the distance between they and their closet people or theirexperience personal distance in a foreign country.

The researcher, then, analyzed the qualitative data gathered from interviews.After the interviews were transcribed, rechecked, and the responses werecategorized from the aspects of project work explored in the questionnaires

2.2 Data analysis

2.2.1 Quantitative analysis

The questionnaires and video recordings data were managed, coded and thenanalyzed through the IBM statistical analysis program, SPSS software, version (64Bit) 20 SPSS is software that allows comparison of data across different groups.SPSS can handle data flexibly and perform statistic procedures accurately The dataobtained from the dyads were entered into SPSS The factors such as Age, Gender,Marital Status, Social Status, Living Area, and Personality of the communicatorswere entered as independent variables, and Conversational Distances were entered

as dependent variables

After all the data were entered, I conducted some formulas to obtain theinformation needed Firstly, I calculated the means obtained each case ofcommunication to identify the means of conversational distance measured for eachgroup respectively This helps to determine which hypothesis best predict the preferredinterpersonal distance and the factor which has the most influence on distance in eachcase of communication Accordingly, I intended to use an Independent-Samples t-Test

to assume if two variables of each factor like Gender, Living Area, Social Status,Marital Status and Personality are independent of each other or not

Also, the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determinewhether there are any statistically significant differences between the means ofgroup differences with more than three variables such as Age This would help toidentify whether the preferred interpersonal distance of the three age-groups differstatistically

2.2.2 Qualitative analysis

Qualitative analysis was conducted with the one-to-one interviews with thecolleagues of the researcher considering as the main method of data collection Thewhole process, therefore, involved asking questions, listening to and recordinganswers from an individual (data collection); interpretation of data, transcribing andchecking (data analysis and management); and data synthesis Specifically, based

on participants’ responses, I worked out whether their experience would fit the waysthey selected particular answers of interpersonal distance in the surveyquestionnaires or not That means, I tried to figure out if there were commonpatterns related to how they selected particular answers and how they would do it inthe real-life situations

The data collection process involved audio-recording, which would be thentranscribed accurately before data analysis began The participants’ perspective thenwould be interpreted and reported on for other to read and learn from Still, thispaper data was managed, analyzed, and presented in an appropriate order Theinterpretation of the data seemed to depend on the theoretical points chosen by theresearcher This can be explained by the fact that such theories help the researcherfocus and direct to the participant’s related viewpoint

For the purposes of this paper it was assumed that interviews was recorded As I mentioned above, transcribing was a difficult process in which I had

audio-to convert the spoken word audio-to the written word for later analyses Then, thetranscript would be rechecked by the interviewees so that the misunderstandingscould be thoroughly avoided For instance, the researcher had to correct spellings or

other errors, or some details must be anonymized so that the participant cannot beidentified in any cases.

Video recordings are an excellent source of data that can be used to assessrelationships between behaviors that occur in close temporal proximity to oneanother In order to ensure the reliability of behavioral data obtained via videorecording, I tried to exploit some certain techniques and strategies during theprocess That means, I managed to capture naturally ocurring proximic behaviour ofparticipants