Nghiên cứu liên văn hóa việt úc về các hành vi động chạm trong giao tiếp

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FALCUTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES BÙI THANH HUỆ A VIETNAMESE- AUSTRALIAN INTERCULTURAL STUDY ON HAP

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FALCUTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

BÙI THANH HUỆ

A VIETNAMESE- AUSTRALIAN INTERCULTURAL STUDY ON HAPTICS IN COMMUNICATION

NGHIÊN CỨU LIÊN VĂN HÓA VIỆT-ÚC VỀ CÁC HÀNH VI ĐỘNG

CHẠM TRONG GIAO TIẾP

M.A MINOR THESIS

Code: 60.22.02.01

Hanoi-2013

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FALCUTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

BÙI THANH HUỆ

A VIETNAMESE- AUSTRALIAN INTERCULTURAL STUDY ON HAPTICS IN COMMUNICATION

NGHIÊN CỨU LIÊN VĂN HÓA VIỆT-ÚC VỀ CÁC HÀNH VI ĐỘNG

CHẠM TRONG GIAO TIẾP

M.A MINOR THESIS

Code: 60.22.02.01 Supervisor: Dr Huỳnh Anh Tuấn

DECLARATION

This thesis is a presentation of my original research work Wherever contributions of others are involved, every effort is made to indicate this clearly, with due reference to the literature, and acknowledgement of collaborative research and discussions The work was done under the guidance of Dr Huynh Anh Tuan The research was approved by the University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi

Hanoi, October 18th, 2013

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to all those who gave me the possibility

to make my thesis reach an end

I would like to express my faithful gratitude to my supervisor, Dr Huynh Anh Tuan for his patient guidance, stimulating suggestions and encouragement throughout my research

I wish to thank all the staff members of the Faculty of Post Graduate Studies, University of Languages and International Studies, VNU for providing me the best environment to fulfill my thesis

Especially, my sincere thanks send to my friend Vu Thi Kim Huong, Vice Director of Atlantic Company and Nguyen Thi Thu Ha, an oversea student in Australia for their helping me to contact Australian informants

I am greatly indebted to my friends for their assistance of collecting data and conducting interview without which this study could not have been successful

Last but not least, I would like to express my special thanks to my family who offered me their love, care, support and encouragement so that I could accomplish my study

Hanoi, October 2013

ABSTRACT

This study aims to investigate haptics in communication of Vietnamese and Australian people, examine the cultural values of the Vietnamese and the Australian that influence norms of haptics in communication, and make comparison and contrast of touching behavior between the two cultures It also raises an awareness

of cultural differences in intercultural communication and gives some suggestions

to lessen the possibility of haptics miscommunication

The data collection tools used in this study included observations and interviews Then contrastive analysis was carried out to clarify both similarities and differences in haptics between the two cultures: Vietnamese and Australian

The major findings of the study showed that both Vietnamese and Australian people share some similar perceptions of haptics in communication For example, they feel quite free to practice some touching behavior with their relatives and close friends like holding hands, linking/locking arms, hugging shoulder, hugging waist, etc., or only hand-shaking with someone they do not know much of or meet at the first time; and they feel more pleasant to touch or get touched by others of the same sex more than those of the opposite sex Besides, the study also denoted some differences in touching norms between the Vietnamese and the Australian cultures Australian people seem to be more comfortable to touch each other in communication, and not to pay much attention to sex distinction when touching their relatives or close friends On the other hand, Vietnamese people‟s touching behavior tends to be influenced by sex distinction They touch their relatives or friends of the same sex more freely than they touch those of the opposite sex Based

on the findings of the study, some discussions and implications were made along with recommended suggestions for further research

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

PART A INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale…… 1

2 Aim and objectives of the study 2

3 Scope of the study 2

4 Research questions 3

5 Methods of the study 3

6 Structure of the study 3

PART B DEVELOPMENT 5

CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW 5

1.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 5

1.1.1 Cross-cultural Communication vs Intercultural Communication………5

1.1.1.1 Definitions of communication 5

1.1.1.2 Cross-cultural Communication vs Intercultural Communication 5

1.1.2.Nonverbal communication 6

1.1.2.1.Definitions of nonverbal communication 6

1.1.2.2.Classification of nonverbal behavior 8

1.1.2.3.Functions of nonverbal behavior 9

1.1.2.4.The importance of nonverbal behavior 10

1.1.3.Haptics in communication 11

1.1.3.1.Definitions of Haptics 12

1.1.3.2.Classification of Haptics 12

1.1.3.3.The role of Haptics in communication 14

1.1.3.4.Haptics culture: high-contact, low-contact, and medium-contactb

cultures 17

1.2 PREVIOUS STUDIES 19

CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 21

2.1 An overview of survey approach 21

2.2 Research method 21

2.3 Data collection method 22

2.4 Data analysis method 23

CHAPTER 3 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 24

3.1.he findings from observation 24

3.1.1 Touching behavior of the Vietnamese and the Australian 24

3.1.2 Touching behavior in communication between the Vietnamese and the Australian 29

3.1.3 Major similarities and differences in haptics between the Vietnamese and the Australian 31

3.2.The findings from interview 32

3.2.1 The findings from interviews with the Vietnamese 33

3.2.2 The findings from interviews with the Australian 34

3.2.3 Major similarities and differences in the Vietnamese and the Australian’s perception of haptics in communication 36

3.3.Discussion on the findings 37

3.3.1 Cultural values of the Vietnamese influence their norms of haptics in communication 37

3.3.2 Cultural values of the Australian influence their norms of haptics in

communication 38

PART C CONCLUSION 41

1.Summary 41

2.Suggestions for more effective intercultural communication 42

3.Limitations of the study and suggestions for further study 43

REFERENCES 44 APPENDIX I

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale

“We should never denigrate any other culture but rather help people to understand the relationship between their own culture and the dominant culture When you understand another culture or language, it does not mean that you have to lose your own culture ”

Edward T Hall

In the wake of globalization, people of different nations nowadays become closer and closer The academic study of intercultural communication focuses on the interactions between people from different cultures Misunderstandings and conflicts happen in various aspects of intercultural communication such as linguistic differences, diverging stereotypes, social roles and belief systems The intercultural studies assume the responsibility of facilitating resolution to intercultural communication problems In fact, people often not only interact with each other by words but also a range of touching behavior to express their intents The combination of verbal and nonverbal language in communication sometimes creates culture shock and communication breakdown because every culture has its own norms and customs and has a different way of communicating with its members Haptics-touching behavior is considered to play an important role in communication because it can replace words to express speakers‟ feelings, greetings and opinions and reduce cognitive burden for speakers Moreover, haptics can help listeners facilitate comprehension of a spoken message as well as convey thoughts not presented in speech However, Toomey (1998) emphasized that different cultures have different expectations as to who should touch whom in different interaction scenes It is due that touching behavior is habitual and routine, thus people tend to use it unconsciously and spontaneously The meaning of each touch depends upon the individuals involved, the context in which the act is performed, and the cultural backgrounds of the interacting people Understanding your own culture as well as

the others‟ is very important for everybody to find it easier to communicate effectively and know the reason why people act in the different ways and avoid unnecessary miscommunication According to Toomey (1998), the Vietnamese is a member of low-contact cultures and the Australian is a member of moderate-contact cultures, so when people from these two cultures interact with each other, miscommunication always runs the risk of breaking out In this study, the touching behavior of the Vietnamese and the Australian will be observed to explore the comparison and contrast in norms of haptics influenced by different cultural values between the Vietnamese and the Australian cultures It is expected to raise an awareness of cultural differences when interacting across cultures, and then give some suggestions to lessen the possibility of haptics miscommunication

2 Aim and objectives of the study

This study is carried out with the aim of making comparison and contrast between the Vietnamese and the Australian cultures of haptics, so it is expected to fulfill the following specific objectives:

 Investigating the similarities and differences of haptics in communication between Vietnamese and Australian people

 Raising an awareness of cultural differences when interacting across cultures

 Making contribution to avoiding intercultural problems of haptics in communication by giving some suggestions

3 Scope of the study

This study discusses the topic of nonverbal communication linguistically, the study especially emphasizes on haptics communication in the two cultures: Vietnamese and Australian

Extra-4 Research questions

To satisfy the purpose of the study, two research questions, which are suitable and applicable of viewing the norms of haptics in communication between the Vietnamese and the Australian under the cultural perception, are raised

Therefore, it is expected to seek answers to the following questions:

1 How do Vietnamese and Australian people practice their haptics in communication?

2 What cultural values influence the norms of touching behavior of Vietnamese and Australian people?

5 Method of the study

The study was carried by using observations and interviews as the tools to collect the data from a sample of the Vietnamese and the Australian Videos on Youtube were used to observed how Vietnamese and Australian people practice their touching behavior The interviews with the Vietnamese and Australian informants were conducted to understand more about their perceptions of haptics in communication

6 Structure of the study

This study consists of three parts: Introduction, Development and Conclusion

Part A: Introduction- presents the reasons for carrying out this study,

defines the specific purposes, research questions, the scope of the study and the outline of the study

Part B: Development- consists of 3 chapters:

Chapter 1: Literature Review - provides the theoretical background

needed for the study and reviews some previous studies which is related to the topic

of the study

Chapter 2: Methodology - discusses the methodology for this study and

the procedure for carrying out the research such as the selection of the sample, the data collection procedures, and the data analysis

Chapter 3: Result and Discussion - reports the results of the data analysis

and discussion

Part C: Conclusion- draws some conclusions from all the findings and

proposes some implications for more effective intercultural communication These are followed by the limitations of the study, and some suggestions for further studies

Following Part C is References listing all reference books or materials The final section of the thesis contains the appendices that show all documents serving this research

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1.1 Cross-cultural Communication vs Intercultural Communication

1.1.1.1 Definitions of communication

To understand communication in its relation to intercultural communication, Martin and Nakayama (2004) analyzed Carey (1989)‟s definition of communication: “Communication may be understood as a “symbolic process whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired and transformed” (p 23)” This definition views communication as:

 Communication is symbolic: this means that we use symbols that carried

both verbal and nonverbal meanings to interact with each other We often assume that the other person shares the exact message we send, but in fact, the communicated messages can be misunderstood due to the different cultural backgrounds and experiences of the communicators

 Communication is the process by which we negotiate meaning is dynamic: it

means that people are actively taken part in communication process The message of a communication is unstably sent and received, which relies on the context in which communicators are creating, maintaining, repairing, or transforming reality

1.1.1.2 Cross-cultural Communication vs Intercultural Communication

It is very important to take consideration into the definitions of Cultural Communication (CCC) and Intercultural Communication (ICC) as well as the difference between these two concepts in this study According to Scollon & Scollon (2001), studies in CCC start from an assumption of distinct cultural groups and investigate aspects of their communicative practices comparatively and studies

Cross-in ICC start from an assumption of cultural differences between distCross-inct cultural groups but study their communicative practices in interaction with each other This distinction was modified by Scollon, Scollon & Jones (2012) as “The basic distinction that we are trying to capture is the distinction between comparing

communication of different groups when considered abstractly or when considered

independently of any form of social interaction and looking at communication when members of different groups are directly engaged with each other.” (Scollon,

Scollon & Jones, 2012: 17) These concepts are simply drawn by Gudykunst (2003)

as “Cross cultural involves comparisons of communication across cultures.” and

“Intercultural involves communication between people from different cultures.” (Gudykunst, 2003: 1)

1.1.2 Nonverbal communication

When you smile, pat on the shoulder to call someone, or hold your friend‟s hands to express your intimacy, you are communicating nonverbally Hall (1959) indicated that what people do sent more information than what they talked Albert Mehrabian has been well-known for his “3Vs” rule standing for Verbal, Vocal and Visual His study on the relative importance of verbal and nonverbal messages found that only seven percent of speakers‟ attitude and feelings was expressed by words Ninety-three percent of message was nonverbally communicated through tone of voice and body language In fact, people always interact with each other by both verbal and nonverbal behavior In intercultural communication, nonverbal elements “are highly dynamic and play an important role in understanding communication Reading nonverbal communication within various cultural spaces can be a key to survival, depending upon the situation.” (Martin and Nakayama, 2004: 235)

1.1.2.1 Definitions of nonverbal communication

In the broadest sense, nonverbal communication is understood as all human communication events that transcend spoken and written words (Knapp & Hall,

2007) or the “silent language including of gestures, facial expression and eye contact” (Levine & Adelman, 1993: 100) Those concepts do not mention to the other elements that can determine and influence communication such as culture and context Therefore, many later scholars pay more attention to cultural context in

which people interact Nguyen Quang (2008) emphasized the role of tangible

language and environmental (or contextual) language in nonverbal communication

He views nonverbal communication as that is all elements which do not belong to verbal code make out communication It means that nonverbal communication is not encoded by words, but it belongs to both vocal and non-vocal channels Then Samovar et al also stated that nonverbal behavior “involves all those nonverbal stimuli in a communication setting that are generated by both the source and his or her use of the environment and that has potential message value for the source and

receiver” (Samovar et al, 2007: 197) According to Cruz (2001), nonverbal

communication was defined as “the nonlinguistic messages that are consciously or unconsciously encoded and decoded through such means as facial expression, body gestures (kinesics), space (proxemics), touch (haptics), eye contact (oculesics), time (chronemics), tone (paralinguistics), and the environment in which people communicate” (Cruz, 2001: 51) However, people taking part in communication may come from the same or different cultures They may share some cultural values

or not It is important to have regard to nonverbal behavior in intercultural communication To share this view, Griffin (2009) stated that the process of interpersonal communication is mutual and ongoing and both verbal and nonverbal messages are used with another person to create and alter the images in both minds This definition is somehow in consistent with the dialectical thought of nonverbal communication by Martin and Nakayama (2004) According to them, we need to think dialectically about nonverbal element in intercultural communication, which means that it is essential to place much attention to the relationship between the nonverbal behavior and the social and cultural contexts in which the nonverbal

behavior accompanies with the verbal message

1.1.2.2 Classification of nonverbal behavior

Since the differences in viewing nonverbal communication, scholars have various ways of classifying nonverbal codes Knapp (1978) classified nonverbal behavior as follows:

a Body motion or Kinesic behavior: refers to nonverbal signals which involve visible body actions In this category, s discussion usually focuses on gestures, movement of parts of body, expression on one‟s face, actions with eyes and the ways people stand or walk

b Physical characteristics: refers to all unmoving characteristics of a person, such as the appearance of a person in general

c Touching behavior: refers to physical contacts between people

d Paralanguage: refers to the way people say something that affects the meaning of verbal messages

e Proxemics: refers to spatial distances between people

f Artifacts: refers to the use of certain things, such as perfume and lipstick, to create “nonverbal stimuli”

g Environmental factors: refer to things surrounding, such as furniture and lighting, that can indirectly influence people‟s interactions

Based on previous classifications, Samovar et al (2007) divided nonverbal behavior into two major divisions The first group comprises of behavior related to human body including of physical looks, movements of various parts of body, and nonverbal elements of speech The second one consists of the combination between human action and situational background including of proximity, time and silence

According to Martin and Nakayama (2004)‟s classification, nonverbal codes contains of proxemics (studying how people use personal space), eye contact (regulating interpersonal distance), facial expression, chromenics (concepts of time and the rules that govern its use), and silence

Nguyen Quang (2008) separates nonverbal communication into very detailed parts I like his classification because it counts all elements influencing communication His classification is presented in the following table:

(Adapted from Nguyen Quang (2008), Giao tiếp phi ngôn từ qua các nền văn hóa: 82)

1.1.2.3 Functions of nonverbal communication

According to Samovar et al (2007), “nonverbal communication is multidimensional This multidimensional aspect is revealed in the fact that nonverbal communication often interacts with verbal messages The interfacing of

-Setting

- Conversational distance/Proxemics

- Make up -Artificial scents

- Gift

- Flowers

- Eye contact

- Facial expression

- Physical characteristics

- Gestures

- Postures and Body

the verbal with the nonverbal carries over the many uses and functions of nonverbal behavior.” (Samovar et al., 2007: 198) They explained five functions of nonverbal behavior as follows:

 Repeating: to repeat a point they are trying to make

 Complementing: to add more information to messages

 Substituting: to perform some actions instead of speaking

 Regulating: to regulate and manage your communication by using some form

of nonverbal behavior

 Contradicting: to send signals opposite from the literal meanings contained

in your verbal language

Nguyen Quang (2008) also shared a partly similar view to Samovar et al (2007) when emphasizing the interaction of verbal and nonverbal language He mentioned four functions of nonverbal behavior as:

 to complement and clarify meaning and shade of verbal language

 to contradict verbal language

 to regulate a chain of verbal communication

 to replace verbal language

1.1.2.4 The importance of nonverbal communication

The proverb “Actions speak louder than words” emphasizes the importance

of nonverbal communication What you do say more than the words you use Nonverbal communication has the ability to persuade, confuse and empower the

people directly around you It can be used to complement, contradict or substitute

for the verbal message and regulate interactions Knapp (1978) affirmed that when a contradiction between verbal and nonverbal message occurs, people prefer to rely

on the nonverbal signals Furthermore, the important role of nonverbal behavior can

be demonstrated across different fields

A study by Mast and Hall (2004) found that nonverbal cues could confirm someone‟s status Their study concluded that “downward head tilt” was significantly perceived as a sign of higher status with female targets, while male targets were considered to have higher status through wearing more formal clothes and leaning forward posture

Samovar et al (2007) indicated that non-verbal communication is so important because people use this message system to express attitudes, feelings and emotions It is partially responsible for creating impressions and offers communicators clues about their conversation The most important is that not everyone can verbally communicate well, but everyone can learn how to communicate via nonverbal language, or to interpret the nonverbal messages of others

Like verbal communication, cultural differences in nonverbal considerations might result in problematic situations among various cultures, so it is necessary to raise an awareness of cultural differences in intercultural nonverbal communication

1.1.3 Haptics Communication

Haptic, also called tactile or touching behavior is a type of nonverbal codes which plays an important role in human interactions For instance, during the early years of childhood, a baby can feel his/her mom‟s warmth and caring through her touches; you can place your hands on your friend‟s shoulders to express your empathy or consolation when he/she is in troubles; or you can hug your child and rub his/her back to comfort him/her Which touches permissible will be determined

by our cultural norms and the relationship with our partners Levels and meanings

of touches may vary from one to another Therefore, taking consideration into cultural differences in haptic norms is very crucial in intercultural communication

1.1.3.1 Definitions of Haptics

Montagu (1971) suggested that “touch is perhaps the most primitive form of communication” (quoted in De Vito, 2002: 146) Developmentally, touch is probably the first sense to be used A child, even in the womb, is stimulated by touch Then soon after birth, he/she is fondled and caressed by his/her mother‟s touches In turn, the child explores its world through touch and learns to communicate a wide variety of meanings through touch in a short time as Camps (2010) stated that “Even after a few hours mothers can identify their babies by stroking the back of their hand.” (Camps, 2010: 1) Samovar et al (2007) defined that “Touch is the earliest sense to mature; it manifests itself in the final embryonic stage and comes into its own long before eyes, ears, and the higher brain centers begin to work” (Samovar et al., 2007: 213) Fujishin (2000) also made contribution

to the concept of haptics by claiming that “touching is the most intimate form of nonverbal communication behavior Touching behavior, or haptics, as it is called by social scientists, includes all behaviors that involve the skin Primarily, touching behavior deals with our hands, and how we use them to communicate.” (Fujishin,

2000: 58)

Haptics then is simply defined as “the study of touch in nonverbal communication” (Cruz, 2001: 53); “haptic studies investigate the perceptions, functions and meanings of touching behavior as communication in different cultures” (Toomey, 1998: 130); or “the study of touch communication” (De Vito, 2002: 146)

1 Functional/Professional touch: A touch used to accomplish a task, such

as a physical therapist positioning a client‟s arm or a dancer gripping his partner‟s waist for a lift

2 Social/Polite touch: A touch, such as a handshake, used to demonstrate

social norms or culturally expected behaviors

3 Friendship/Warmth touch: A touch used to convey regard, affection, or

camaraderie, such as an arm across another‟s shoulders, a victory slap between teammates, or playful jostling between friends

4 Love/Intimacy touch: A touch indicating deep emotional feeling, such as

two romantic partners holding hands or two close friends embracing

5 Sexual/Arousal touch: An intentional touch designed to arouse sexually

(Retrieved from http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Haptic_communication )

Nguyen Quang (2008) listed some common haptic behavior as the following table:

Some common touching behavior

Touching behavior Sub-types

Handshaking

+ The all-American + The bone crusher + The push-off/The stiff-arm thrust + The palm-down thrust/ The topper

+ The pull-in/The arm-pull + The palm-up thrust + The finger-tip grab + The lingering handshake

+ The palm pinch/The royal + The dead fish +The two-handed shake/ The double-handed shake + The twister

+ The finger squeeze/The knuckle grinder Bowing

In terms of positions and motions of arms:

Hugging/Embracing + Neck hugging + Shoulder-Neck

hugging + Shoulder hugging +Upper-back hugging

+ Under-the-Chin kissing

Patting

+ Head patting + Shoulder patting + Back patting + Arm patting + Hand patting

Holding hands

+ Hand-in-hand holding + Both hands holding + Two hands holding one +Finger alternating + Finger tip holding

Linking arms + Arm in arm linking + Hand holding arm

+ Arm locking arm

(Adapted from Nguyen Quang (2008), Giao tiếp phi ngôn từ qua các nền văn hóa:

189-220)

1.1.3.3 The role of Haptics in Communication

Haptics is wildly used as one form of nonverbal communication we experience as humans, and people believe that it is really vital to our development and health We may use touches to share feelings and relational meanings For

relative passes away, or a sweet lip kissing for your spouse will express all the loving words you want to say De Vito (2002), based on Jones & Yarbrough (1985)‟s view that was “touch can communicate a wide variety of messages”, analyzed five major ones that will illustrate this great variety as follows:

• Touch communicates positive feelings for example, support, appreciation,

inclusion, sexual interest or intent, composure, immediacy, affection, trust, similarity and quality, and informality (Jones & Yarbrough, 1985; Burgoon, 1991) Touch also stimulates self-disclosure (Rabinowitz, 1991)

• Touch often communicates your intention to play, either affectionately or

aggressively

• Touch may control the behaviors, attitudes, or feelings of the other person

To obtain compliance, for example, you touch the other person to communicate “move over,” “hurry,” “stay here,” or “do it.” You might also touch a person to gain his or her attention, as if to say “look at me” or “look over here.” In some situations touching can even amount to a kind of nonverbal dominance behavior

• Ritualistic touching centers on greetings and departures; examples are

shaking hands to say “hello” or “good-bye,” hugging, kissing, or putting your arm around another‟s shoulder when greeting or saying farewell

• Task-related touching is associated with the performance of some function,

as when you remove a speck of dust from another person‟s coat, help someone out of a car, or check someone‟s forehead for fever

Touch is used to fulfill five communicative functions as: (1) ritualistic interaction such as shaking hands and bowing; (2) expressing affect such as kissing and kicking; (3) playfulness such as flirtatious stroking and poking; (4) a control function such as grabbing someone‟s arm; and (5) a task- related function such as a nurse taking a patient‟s pulse at the wrist (Toomey, 1998: 130)

Knapp and Hall (2010, 2007) incorporated Jone & Yarbrough (1985)‟s findings along with others to mention the meanings and impact of interpersonal touch as:

 Touch as positive affect: Positive touching may involve support, appreciation, affection, sexual attraction, or, if the touch is sustained, it may send a message of inclusion

 Touch as negative affect: An expression of anger of frustration may be conveyed by hitting, slapping, pinching, or tightly squeezing another‟s arm

so the person cannot escape

 Touch as discrete emotions: Touch can convey discrete emotions for communicating certain feelings, such as love and sympathy

 Touch as play: Sometimes we can interpret the touching we give and receive

as attemps to reduce the seriousness of a message-whether it is affection or aggression

 Touch as influence: Touch is associated with influence when the goal of touch is to persuade the other to do something

 Touch as interaction management: The “management touches” may guide someone without interrupting verbal conversation; get someone‟s attention; indicate or mark the beginning or end of a conversation; or fulfill some ritualistic functions

 Touch as physiological stimulus: The impact of touch depends on contextual factors and interpretations given to the touch

social- Touch as interpersonal responsiveness: Acts of touch that are perceived as deliberate are extremely salient in interaction; they are almost certain to be noticed or are likely to produce strong reactions, either positive or negative

 Touch as task related : touches serve professional or functional purposes

 Touch as healing: Touch can be used as a miraculous cure for the sick and infirm

 Touch as symbolism: The act of touch itself comes to represent the significance of the relationship, ritual, or occasion

(Knapp & Hall, 2010, 2007: 271-279)

From these views, it can be argued that interpersonal touch may not always have positive and impact on communication That is, if touch would be perceived

as dominant by the person being touched, this would likely influence the cooperative interaction in a negative way Therefore, touch must be carefully given and received due to its multi-meanings across cultures

1.1.3.4 Haptics culture: high-contact, low-contact, and medium-contact cultures

The role of haptics is undeniable; however, it can be differently encoded and decoded among cultures through the world Therefore it is necessary for everyone

to pay attention to cultural differences when using haptic in communication These differences in touching behavior around the world have led to the idea of contact and noncontact cultures Hall (1966) and Montagu (1978) divided cultures into two main types in terms of haptics perception: “contact” cultures are “where people tend to interact at close distance and touch each other frequently” and “noncontact” cultures are “where people tend to interact at close distance at greater distance and avoid touching” (Nanda & Warms, 2011,2007: 111) Nanda & Warms (2011, 2007) classified contact cultures including of Middle East, Indian, the Mediterranean, and Latin American; and noncontact cultures which are in Northern Europe, Northern America, and Japan

Toomey (1998) stated that “Different cultures have different expectations as

to who should touch whom in different interaction scene” (Toomey, 1998: 130) For example, opposite-sex handshake is accepted by Chinese, but not by Malays and Arabs; it is more common for two males in Latin America to have a friendly full

embrace than in Britain or the United States; or it is normal when you see two females in Asian cultures walking hands in hands in streets

The findings from Remland and Jones (1995)‟s study found that “Southern European is more tactile/haptic than Northern European Middle Eastern and Latin cultures tend toward highly haptic behavior in communication, while Asian cultures are less haptic” (Freitag & Stokes, 2009: 66) According to Freitag & Stokes (2009), Thais never touch another‟s head because they consider the head the symbol of one‟s spirit and power; Japanese do not like a stranger to touch them; or shaking hands between a man and a woman is taboo in Malaysia but normal in China

Grundwald (2008) reported from the previous studies that the least haptically active region on earth is Asia including Myanmar-former Burma, China, Honkong, Japan, the Philipines, Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam

Northern European cultures, such as those from Finland, Germany, Great Britain, Norway, and Sweden and Anglo- Americans, and Canadian are low-contact cultures The most interpersonally haptic active areas in the world are the Mediterranean as France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Latin America, Arab

countries, Eastern Europe, and Indonesia Touching degree is moderate in Australia and the United States

From all these views above, the importance of nonverbal communication in general and haptics in particular cannot be denied It's so powerful that the message sent can sometimes outweigh the verbal language In addition, non-verbal language can help smooth out and effect the communication It can be more of a hindrance than a help, due to different cultures' details in intercultural communication Therefore, it is important to be aware of these details and cultural rules of non-verbal language to help our interpretation of a message, and also to modify our behavior to fit the cultural context we are in

1.2 Previous Studies

Studies in intercultural communication and their valuable consequences have proved to play a necessary role in contemporary life However, there are not many intercultural studies on touching behavior between Vietnamese and other cultures

In a review of studies on touching behavior in Vietnam, Dao Thi Thu Trang (2006) carried out a cross-cultural study on touching behavior between Vietnamese and American Her study focuses on the frequency of touching behavior that Vietnamese and American practiced with their family members, friends, colleagues, acquaintances and boss of both male and female Her study paid no attention to cultural differences in intercultural communication as it was design to understand Vietnamese‟s and American‟s touching behavior when they interact with each other within their cultures only Can Ha Khanh (2007) did a research on differences in touching to show intimacy between Vietnamese and Anglicist The emphasis of the thesis was put on the areas of touching when showing intimacy the influence of social-cultural factors on the areas of touching The findings show that the Vietnamese people tend to touch people of the same sex more often than the Anglicist ones and hand-shaking is mostly used to show friendship towards close friends of opposite sex by Vietnamese In addition, the touches among family member in the Anglicist culture are more intimate than the Vietnamese The thesis also indicates that three factors which affect people in choosing touching behavior

to show intimacy are age, gender and personality of informants The thesis take consideration into cultural differences in communication via touches, however it only concerns with intimacy touch, not other commonly-used touches in daily life There are some other studies on non-verbal communication, but touching behavior

is limited as an element of nonverbal language in communication

Studying the Australian culture of touching behavior, Mokogita (2009) observed the nonverbal behavior of Indonesian and Australian students in two Australian Universities and investigated how they perceive that nonverbal behavior

The study denotes some similarities and differences in nonverbal behavior such as smiling, posture, body movements, facial expressions, pointing, hand-raising, etc between Indonesian and Australian, in which, in terms of touching behavior, only hugging, hand-shaking and cheek pressing are discussed as a common behavior in greeting of Australian students regardless of their sexes

Chapter 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this chapter is to provide readers detailed description of how the study was carried out Firstly, a brief look about survey approach will be mentioned Subsequently, the information about the data collection tools, the data analysis method are discussed

2.1 An overview of survey approach

Denscombe (2007) denoted that “The survey approach is a research strategy, not a research method Many methods can be incorporated in the use of a social survey.” (p 8) He also discussed that researchers who adopt the survey strategy are able to use a whole range of methods within the strategy: questionnaires, interviews, documents and observation

The adoption of observations and interviews as the tools collecting data for this study would be expected to explore the Vietnamese and the Australian cultures

of haptics in communication Therefore, survey approach is the most appropriate for this study

2.2 Research method

Hartman and Stork (1972:53) define contrastive linguistics as “A method of linguistic analysis which shows the similarities and differences between two or more languages or dialects with the aim of finding principles which can be applied

to practical problems in language teaching and translation, with special emphasis on transfer, interference and equivalents” Similarly, Fisiak (1981:1) also shared the same view that contrastive analysis as a subdiscipline of linguistics concerned with the comparison of two or more languages or subsystems of languages in order to determine both the differences and similarities between them

In this study, the contrastive method was used with the aim to clarify both similarities and differences in haptics between the Vietnamese and the Australian

2.3 Data collection method

Two tools used to collect the data in this study are observations and interviews:

*Observation: Due to the difficulties of getting informants‟ consent to make videos

as well as taking observation of some types of touch such as functional, social and frriendship touches Thirty videos of Vietnamese people, thirty ones of Australian people, and other thirty videos of the interaction between the Vietnamese and the Australian were carefully selected from Youtubes to investigate which touching behavior Vietnamese and Australian people often practice in communication in terms of five types of touching behavior:

*Interview: There were 24 interviews to be conducted in total: 12 with 12

Australian people (6 males and 6 females) and another 12 with the Vietnamese (6 males and 6 females) of the same age group The informants taking part in the study