Luận văn thạc sĩ Luật học: Văn hóa bối cảnh thấp và văn hóa cao: So sánh xuyên văn hóa trong quan hệ gia đình giữa người Mỹ và người Việt

The purpose of this paper is to clarify similarities and differences in low and high — context cultures and the perception of the Vietnamese and American people, namely in the family rel

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI LAW UNIVERSITY

NGUYEN TONG HUONG TRA

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HANOI LAW UNIVERSITY

NGUYEN TONG HUONG TRA

Hanoi-2023

I hereby state that I am Nguyen Tong Huong Tra, class 4430, being a

candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts accept the requirements of the

University relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper

deposited in the library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in

the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in

accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the

care, loan or reproduction of the paper

Supervisor Student

Nguyen Thi Hong Thu Nguyen Tong Huong Tra

April 04", 2023

First and foremost, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for my

wonderful Supervisor, Ms Nguyen Thi Hong Thu M.A., for her enormous

support towards my research with great patience, devotion, valued advice,

profound insight, and experience I have completed all the various obstaclesand finished this thesis thanks to her constant encouragement throughout thewriting process

Besides my supervisor, my sincere thanks go to all the Members of the Thesis

Committee, and the teachers who work hard and fair to evaluate this research

of mine to give perceptive comments and questions, as well as provide mewith detailed feedback to help my future studies

I would also like to extend my gratitude to all the administrative personneland staff members of Hanoi Law University and particularly the Department

of English for their generous assistance and services

Last but not least, I am particularly grateful for my family members and close

friends who have been supportive and caring throughout the journey with

their unconditional love and kindness

In the process of globalization, culture plays an important role in

people’s lives This process has made cross — cultural a research topic thatattracts many scholars The purpose of this paper is to clarify similarities and

differences in low and high — context cultures and the perception of the

Vietnamese and American people, namely in the family relationship To

achieve that objective, through qualitative and quantitative methods,

information, and data were obtained from 101 participants, including

Americans and Vietnamese The questionnaire was mainly used to obtainanalytical information showing differences between two low and high —context cultures According to the results, with a low context culture, infamily relationships, Americans experience fewer misunderstandings andhave a simpler way of communicating Meanwhile, in a culture with a highcontext, Vietnamese people need ingenuity and understanding in familycommunication In addition, the results of the interview express theperception of participants in this issue In the future, the difference betweenlow and high — context cultures in family relationships should be furtheranalyzed to limit communication problems Moreover, the information tobehave in accordance with each cultural context not only to avoidmisunderstandings but also to contribute to stronger family relationships

Keywords: Cultural context, cross — cultural communication, low —context culture, high — context culture, family relationships

Cross — cultural communication

High — and low — context culture

1.4.1 High — context culture

1.4.1.1 Definition of high — context culture

1.4.1.2 Characteristics of high — context culture

1.4.2 Low — context culture

1.4.2.1 Definition of low — context culture

1.4.2.2 Characteristics of low — context culture

Theories of family relationships

Vĩ

% œ œ re

14l6182020202222232424

252728

3.1.2 Perception of participants of the difficulty in intercultural

communication and recommendations

3.1.2.1 Perception of participants of the difficulty in intercultural

communication

3.1.2.2 Recommendations of participants

Discussions

3.2.1 Discuss similarities and differences in family relationships of

two cultural contexts

3.2.2 Discuss the perceptions and solutions proposed of the

333638394244

44

474848

51

525353

4.2 Recommendations for people from high — context culture

4.3 Summary

CONCLUSION

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

Appendix I: The survey questionnaire

Appendix II: Transcription of interview

545556

LIST OF TABLESTable 1 The association between family members in America and Vietnam

33

Table 2 Responsibility between family members in America and Vietnam_ 36

Table 3 Confrontation between family members in America and Vietnam 38

Table 4 Communication between family members in America and Vietnam

39

Table 5 Improvisation between family members in America and Vietnam 43

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Manifestation of Culture at Different Levels of Depth 10

Figure 2 Diagram comes from Lloyd E Kwast’s article Understanding

1 Rationale for the study

At the present time, issues of cross — cultural occupy the interest of notonly many researchers but also people all over the world It is straightforward

that, people from different countries tend to communicate in different ways,especially in family relationships These differences are more related todifferent communication cultures than other differences (Hall (1976)) It is

most obvious that the low and high culture context cultures will have

similarities and differences in communication in the family This can hindercommunication as well as human life if not studied and understood Beingaware of these differences usually leads to better comprehension, fewer

misunderstandings and mutual respect Regarding culture, it is ingrained in

human life since it can impact all aspects of life According to Hall (1976),

communication in culture is based on a continuum from high to low context!.

“High — context people tend to get intolerant and irritated when low — contextpeople urge giving them the information they do not need Contrarily, low —context people feel lost when high — context people do not provide enough

information’” In a cross — cultural situation, the difference would be

intensely revealed because there is an extensive gap between one culture andanother

Communication, culture, and the correlation between them havebecome a topic of great interest to many researchers Among them, Trudgill

(1983), Richards et al (1985, 1992), Saville — Troike (1986, 1996), Ting —

Toomey (1988, 2005), Blommaert (1991), Chick (1996), Samovar & Porter

(2001), Gibson (2002), Quang (2002, 2003), Thomson (2003), Wierzbicka(2003) are just a few popular names Several theoretical models have been

! Hall, E T (1976) Beyond Culture Anchor.

> Hall, E T (1987) Hidden differences: Doing business with the Japanese Garden City, New York:

Doubleday.

devised to apprehend how culture impacts communication Two of the most

frequently cited theoretical frameworks in communication are Hofstede’s

cultural dimensions? (1980, 2001) and Hall’s context theory* (1976, 1990) In

Hall’s context theory, different cultures have various ways of communicating;

if some are communicated implicitly (high — context culture), others are

communicated explicitly (low — context culture) The cultural context of

individuals influences how well they can comprehend messages (Hall andHall 1990, p 7)

In fact, studies on low — context culture and high — context culture inthe comparison of family relationships still have much to explore Thus, fordifferent cultures, the communication context is different In countries like the

US, Canada, Switzerland, communication is not affected by context, theydirectly understand and communicate the problem they need to discuss.Meanwhile, in countries like Japan, Vietnam, Greece If the speaker does notunderstand the context, the speaker will have inappropriate responses Forexample, when parents in these countries want to remind their children abouttheir studies, they rarely say it directly, but through a story about a certainbrilliant relative, with great admiration Children must understand that theirparents are comparing them to those people and reminding them to study hard

to achieve better results The main point of this article focuses on comparing

the differences in family relationships of two countries representing twocultures with different contexts, namely the US and Vietnam The issuerelated to the cultural context has been mentioned a lot, but there is not muchresearch related to the family scope, especially in these two countries

America is a culture of low — context, this is a country with cultural diversity,

3 Hofstede, G (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values SAGE

ethnicity, known worldwide for its advancement in thought Meanwhile,Vietnam is a Southeast Asian country, although it has been influenced by

culture in the process of becoming a colony of many countries (China, Japan,France) but still has bold characteristics of a high — context culture

2 Aims of the study

2.1 Overall purpose

In this thesis, the discussion revolves around the issue of interculturalcommunication in the family relationship between Vietnamese andAmericans In particular, the study will compare and contrast these two lowand high — cultural contexts to find out the similarities and differences in thefamily relations of the two cultures The overall aim of the study is that

people of two cultures can better understand the culture in which they live and

accept the differences of the culture other than their origin

2.2 Specific aims

To achieve the overall purpose, the study is aimed:

Firstly, find out the similarities and different manifestations in thefamily relationship of the two participants through the survey based on thecriteria that are said to be characteristic of the low and high cultures contexts.Namely, what methods do they use to communicate? Does context affect howfamily members communicate and think? These conclusions were drawn from

a field survey with American and Vietnamese participants

Second, in the next section, the article analyzes the perceptions ofAmericans and Vietnamese about the difficulties they think they may facewhen in a personal relationship At the same time, assess the level of

awareness and solutions to overcome those difficulties The author will give

reasons to explain the difference in expression of the two cultural contexts, aswell as the level of awareness of survey participants on this issue

Finally, the article will offer some solutions to deal with thecharacteristics of each cultural context These are reminders to help

Vietnamese and American people have better improvements in family

relationships, or knowledge if they meet or become a family member of acultural context other than their origin

3 Research questions

Low — context culture and high — context culture are not absolutely

separate from each other This is proven when pointing out the similarities

and grounded through the survey using quantitative methods From thesimilarities, the author highlights the characteristics of each cultural context

How cultural context affects how family members communicate, how people

treat each other and their thoughts The research aims to answer the followingresearch questions:

1 In terms of low and high — context cultures, what are the differences infamily relationships between Americans and Vietnamese?

2 What is the perception of Americans and Vietnamese of the difficulty

in intercultural communication between low and high contexts andrecommendations?

4 Scope of the study

This study involved 101 participants, including 26 Americans and 75Vietnamese The participants were of different ages, genders and occupations,

as well as from different cities of the two countries The questionnaire is

limited to 26 questions devoted to 101 participants, revolving around family

relationships between grandparents, parents, children, and siblings For theinterview part, 20 participants, including 7 Americans and 13 Vietnamese,

were asked questions related to their perception of difficulties that might be

encountered in a different cultural context Furthermore, offer solutions to

overcome family problems that may be encountered in their cultural context

This study focuses on verbal and non — verbal factors The verbal and

non — verbal interaction is restricted to the act of family relationships The

low and high cultural contexts focus on communication and the factors thatinfluence this activity, such as Vietnamese and American standpoints about

the role, power, worldview, and independence of family members The

frequency, as well as the role of language and nonverbal, are also analyzed

and indicated through some situations given in the questionnaire

The study focuses on aspects of family relationships betweenAmericans and Vietnamese Specifically, these people can be of different ages

and have different positions in the family (as parents or children or as siblings

in the family) The study was conducted both online and in person over aperiod of nearly three months For Americans, they participate in researchonline, while for Vietnamese, they do a mixture of both

5 Significance of the study

The study is expected to bring out some following contributions:

Theoretically, it contributes to surveying comparative American andVietnamese family relationships in two countries representing low and high —

context cultures These findings are expected to strengthen existing

hypotheses and provide insight into cultural contexts

Practically, its findings about the differences, especially the similarity

in the family relationship of the two cultural contexts, can be applied in theactual communication process of Americans and Vietnamese, as well as insome other countries that have similar contexts In addition, the interviewsalso revealed the participants’ awareness of low and high — context cultures,

as well as anticipating possible difficulties in contexts where the participantsdid not live

Methodologically, the research uses quantitative, data collectionobtained indirectly from the articles and directly from the participants of both

countries, so the results presented will be more realistic and accurate This isdifferent from studies that only use convenience samples for analysis or

theoretical studies without illustrative examples

6 Organization of the study

The present study is divided into four chapters: Chapter 1 — Theoretical

background, Chapter 2 — Methodology, Chapter 3 — Results and discussion,

and Chapter 4 — Recommendations

The introduction of the study, in which the author writes about thereasons for which the study is conducted Other issues clarified in this sectionare the aims, scope, research questions, methodology, and contributions of thestudy A summary of all the parts and chapters is also presented to help theaudience have an overall idea of the study

Chapter one is where a theoretical background is in light of the cultural

context It begins with an introduction to basic terminologies and concepts ofcultural, cultural context, cross — cultural communication, and familyrelationships Then, the cultural theory is visited with critical comments.Especially, cultural context approaches regarding the perception of the issue

by Vietnamese researchers to build up a theoretical background for chosen

theoretical framework in the present study

Chapter two describes the methodology of the present study In thischapter, the research method with similarities and differences between high —context culture and low — context culture is introduced with critical commentsbefore an introduction to the method in the present study is made With thequalitative method, the results from the interview show the participants’awareness of the difficulties encountered in other cultural contexts Then,

participants and data collection are introduced Finally, the data analysis isclarified with a thorough description.

Chapter three presents the data and information learned, discovered,and collected from the data analysis process This part discusses the

similarities and differences in family relationships, as well as perceptions of

cultural context between Americans and Vietnamese

Chapter four, on the one hand, is where the writer encourages other

researchers to continue learning about the research topic or to use thisresearch paper as a reference for other articles related to the research topic in

the future On the other hand, the author draws on advice for Americans andVietnamese to deal with dilemmas, gaining more knowledge and experience

of low and high — context cultures

Finally, the conclusion of the study is where the author summarizes themajor findings It is also where the major main purpose and maincontributions of the study Thereby summarizing the research results inrelation to each specific research objective Ultimately, the application,limitations and related future research opportunities are presented

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

1.1 Cultural

1.1.1 Definition of culture

In relation to language, culture is emphasized as the entire set of

beliefs, attitudes, customs, behaviors, and social habits, of the member of a

particular society (Richards et al (1985, p 94)) According to Cambridge

English Dictionary Online, culture is, the way of life, especially the general

customs and beliefs, of a particular group of people at a specific time” In

Nguyen Quang’s opinion (1998, p 3), culture is “a common background (e.g

national, ethnic, religious) resulting from a common language and style ofcommunication, customs, beliefs, attitudes and values Culture does not refer

to art, music, literature, food, clothing, It refers to the informal and oftenhidden ways of human interactions, expressions and viewpoints shared by

people in a culture The hidden nature of the culture has been likened to aniceberg, most of which is obscured underwater! As with the iceberg, culture’s

greatest influence on a person is not visible The exposed part of the culture isnot always the one that causes cross — cultural difficulties; hidden facets ofculture have significant implications for behavior and interactions with

others’.

On the other hand, UNESCO firmly hold on to a definition of culture,originally set out in the 1982 Mexico Declaration on Cultural Policies: In abroader sense, culture can now be viewed as the totality of spiritual, material,intellectual and affective characteristics that characterize a society or a socialgroup This includes art and letters, as well as, lifestyles, traditions, beliefs,basic human rights and value systems (UNESCO, 2001, p 148)

> Cambridge Dictionary, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/culture, assessed on 17/03/2023.

5 Nguyen Quang (1998) Cross-cultural Communication CFL - Vietnam National University - Hanoi.

Culture is the sum of the total of the cumulative deposit of knowledge,

experience, beliefs, values, attitudes, hierarchies, religion, notions of time,

spatial relations, concepts of the universe, material objects and possessions, acquired by a group of people through social learning Cultural values are

naturally accepted and exist in a way that is passed on from generation to

generation in that society or community Specifically, the essential core of

culture consists of traditional ideas and their corresponding values; on the one

hand, be considered because of the action, and on the other hand, as

influences upon other activities

In terms of cultural relativism, different cultural groups think, feel andact differently There is no scientific standard by which one group isinherently superior or inferior to another The study of cultural differences

between groups and societies (which does not imply normality for oneself,nor for one’s society), requires judgment when dealing with groups or

societies other than one’s own Therefore, information about the nature ofcultural differences between societies, their roots should be given beforejudgment and response Communication is more comfortable when the parties

involved understand the reasons for the difference of opinion

In fact, culture can be defined from different perspectives, below aspect

is the researchers’ observation In the anthropological sense, culture means toconsider any aspect of the ideas, communications, or behaviors of a group ofpeople that gives them a distinctive identity and serves to organize their inner

sense of cohesion and belonging’ In other words, culture is the totality of

beliefs, attitudes, customs, behavior, social habits, etc of the members of agiven society (Richards et al., 1985, p 84) In its simplest form, culture can be

7 Scollon, R., & Scollon, S (2001) Discourse and intercultural communication In D Schiffrin, D Tannen,

& H E Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (p 538-547) Oxford, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

viewed as the shared way of seeing, thinking and acting of people in a

community

1.1.2 Manifestations of culture

Subsequently, not only the ways to define but also cultural expression

manifests itself in different ways and degrees in different cultures The culture

onion is a metaphor or model for the visual representation of culture The

model was developed by the cultural scientist Geert Hofstede

Figure 1 Manifestation of Culture at Different Levels of DepthŠ

According to Hofstede, symbols are words, gestures, images, or objectsthat carry a specific meaning that only people who share a particular culture

will recognize Symbols can easily develop and take on new meanings, along

with the fading and disappearance of old meanings This explains why

symbols have a position in the outermost layer of a culture Heroes are people

in the past or present These can be real or fictional people, possessing traitsthat are highly valued in a culture They are a model of the culture’s ideas and

views, and a model for evaluating the behaviour of people in that culture

Since it means appreciation from the ages, the hero is a deeper expression

8 Gerard Hofstede (2005) created the model of the “Cultural Onion“.

than the symbol Rituals, there are collective activities, considered essentialfor spiritual life in society Therefore, they are performed mainly for their

own sake (how to greet, show respect to others, religious and socialceremonies, ) The first three layers are visible to an observer, though the

observer cannot easily deduce their importance to the culture These three

levels can be summed up under the term “practices” Outsiders can easily

imitate the practices, but the meaning behind the actions is often not

perceived

The core of a culture is shaped by values They are broad biases aboutthe preference of a certain status for others (good — evil, right — wrong, ).Values can only be inferred from how people act in different circumstances

These values are brought up almost as truths for that culture The level of

formation, development, and change does not depend on the subjective factors

of one or a small group and takes longer to change than the remaining factors.Therefore, it becomes a standard, as a reference system, externally expressedfactors, even if they develop, must be based on the limits of values At thecore of the culture onion are values that Hofstede describes as general

tendencies to prefer certain circumstances’ Values are also defined as

feelings with a strong positive or negative bias Most people are unaware oftheir values because they are learned early in life and unconsciously Inaddition, they are used daily, which also contributes to your subconsciouscarry The core that informs and from which all previous layers derive arevalues They represent ingrained beliefs in the culture and are the toughest toidentify, especially from the outside They are usually fairly basic, butabsolutely crucial as they support the rest of the culture The double — edged

sword of values is that they are entrenched and difficult to change Symbols,

heroes, and rituals are tangible, visual aspects of a culture The real cultural

? Geert Hofstede, (2001) “Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors and institutions across

nations” (2nd edition), Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.

significance of practices is intangible — values, this is revealed only whenthose aspects are interpreted by people of that culture.

The same study of the manifestations of culture but different fromGeert Hofstede, Lloyd Kwast divided into four layers: behavior, values,beliefs, and worldview These four levels of expression are ranked in order

from the obvious to the core

Figure 2 Diagram comes from Lloyd E Kwast’s article Understanding Culture!®

Anthropologist Lloyd Kwast created this model, which demonstratesculture as a profound intersection of behaviors, values, beliefs, and

worldviews Firstly, Behavior — “What is Done” By behavior we refer to the

activities and rituals that make up a common and shared routine within acultural group This includes greetings, gestures, responses, and ways of

interacting that are expected when someone is to be accepted by others in the

group Every culture sets certain standards of behavior regarding all these

things Some of these practices are obvious to the outside observer, whileothers are not Understanding the behavioral aspect of a culture will help you

'0 Lloyd E Kwast (2009) “Understanding Culture” (2nd edition), Perspectives Reader (p 397-399).

answer the following questions: The way people dress: How do they dress in

practice? How does clothing classify people in society? Greetings: Do

greetings differ based on attitude and relationship? Gender roles and familynorms: Who prepares the meals, educates the children, provides financial

support,

The second layer is Values with the question “What is Good or Best?”

When we talk about values, we are talking about deep — seated preferences forone thing over another This includes ideals, principles, feelings, andconditions of a society that the people in the group effectively relate to.People see their values positively with corresponding negative opposites

Individual people have personal values, so cultural values are more difficult to

identify than behaviors because they are not directly observable.Understanding the values of the culture will explain: What qualities do peoplevalue in others? Who is considered a hero? What makes a hero?

In addition, Beliefs — “What is True?” Beliefs make a vitalcontribution to the formation of cultural values Beliefs are things people aresure about the truth People from the same culture share beliefs that help themunderstand the world and each other Beliefs are acquired early when a personhas no awareness and when awareness develops, they are contemplated andthen become ingrained in their worldviews They are unobservable and maynot be discussed very regularly because they are self — evident to the believer.The culture’s beliefs will explain: How do people explain disease, natural

disasters, or similar problems? Who, what or where do people turn to when

they require help? What do you think happens when people die?

Finally, the core manifestation of culture, according to him is

Worldview — “What is Real?” The deepest level of culture 1s the worldview

A worldview is a set of preconceived ideas and assumptions that address the

deepest issues of existence and guide beliefs, values, and behavior It provides

the perspective from which the world is viewed and interpreted Real changewithin a person or culture occurs only when their worldview is affected The

worldview provides answers to questions such as: What is an external realitylike, that is, the world around us? What is a human? What is the significance

of human history developing like that?

1.2 Cultural context

According to the historical progress of research, context has beenunderexplored in Terminology until the advent of new terminological currents(Gaudin, 1993; Temmerman, 2000; Condamines, 2005; Diki — Kidiri, 2008Faber, 2012), which acknowledged the need to study terms and concepts incommunicative contexts Furthermore, although culture is one of the mainpragmatic aspects that can influence communication worldwide, it has also

been extensively studied in terms of Terminology In Frame — Based

Terminology (Faber and Leon Araúz, 2014; Leon Araúz and Faber, 2014), therole of context in the acquisition of knowledge is emphasized This is also

emphasized in the Culture — Bound Terminology (Diki — Kidiri, 2008)!!.

Results accentuate the fact that specialized communication can differ betweenspeakers of different languages, and in different cultures

In Beyond Culture (1976), Hall developed the cultural iceberg analogy

to explain the differences between the tip of the cultural iceberg (what peoplesee when they witness a new culture) and the embedded aspect of the culturaliceberg (submerged things of the culture not clearly visible) In other words,

surface culture and deep culture are two separate things when people research

or study a culture Furthermore, Hall’s (1976) key term “context” refers to thecultural environment in which communication takes place and he contendsthat people from different backgrounds, even in the same or similar cultural

! Melania Cabezas - Garcia and Arianne Reimerink (2022), “Cultural Context and Multimodal Knowledge

Representation: Seeing the Forest for the Trees”, frontiers, accessed on 17/03/2023

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.824932/full

contexts, can have communication problems Hall’s theory of high — context

and low — context cultures illustrates how the characteristics of each culture

affect communication between speaker and listener Context is of criticalessence in communication Some theories even suggest that the meaning of

communication is entirely context — dependent'*(Barsalou, 1993, 1999; Evans

and Green, 2006) With that connection, research evolve in a variety of ways

One of all, Coseriu (1967, p 313) expresses context as “a set of non —

linguistic circumstances that are directly perceived or known to the speaker”

Approaching a different aspect, Context is defined as “any factor that affectsthe actual interpretation of signs and expressions” (Kecskes (2014, p 128))

Concepts do not exist in isolation, but as part of a conceptual network

that facilitates the understanding of concepts and defines the dynamics of

concepts and terms The terms and concepts may vary in different disciplines,

cultures and communication situations, among others For example, Dik(1989) describes three types of context: (1) general, which includes knowledgeabout the world; (11) situational, which includes the knowledge derived fromcommunicative interaction; and (11) contextual, which consists of the

linguistic expressions of the discoursel Fetzer (2017) emphasizes the

existence of cognitive context and distinguishes between: (1) linguistic context

or context (p.B clause, sentence, assertion and text); (ii) social and

sociocultural context (i.e the context of communicative exchange,

participants, time and place); and (iii) cognitive context'* (mental

representations and contextual assumptions) Reyes (2019) also defends theexistence of linguistic, situational and sociocultural contexts Therefore,among the contextual factors influencing communication, the linguistic

? Evans V (2006) Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-construction Cogn Linguist 17, 491—

534.

l3 Dik S C (1989) The Theory of Functional Grammar Dordrecht: Foris.

l4 Fetzer, A (2017) “Context” in The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics ed Y Huang (Oxford: Oxford

University Press), 259-278.

context, the communication situation, and prior world knowledge, and cultureare to be highlighted.

In summary, cultural context is related to the society where individualsare raised and how the culture affects behavior It incorporates values that are

learned and attitudes that are shared among groups of people The cultural

context refers to the values, beliefs, lifestyles, and behaviors of a group of

people that will influence the people to assess whether something is

considered right or wrong For example, an American may be put off by a

French speaker invading his space This difficulty arises from the verydifferent American and French cultures in terms of proxemics, for Americans

tend to be less comfortable when they are not given personal space

1.3 Cross — cultural communication

People living in the same culture can find it easy to communicate withone another because it offers them a set of interconnected shared ideas,assumptions, beliefs, values, and even unwritten rules Conversely, whenpeople from different cultural backgrounds communicate with each other,difficulties may arise due to different cultural values, attitudes, or beliefs So

it is obvious that communication and culture are closely related, in that

culture is reflected in communication Intra — cultural communication is aunified concept that refers to communication between members of the samecultural background who use the same language to communicate within thecountry Usually, these members do not have much difficulty communicatingwith each other as they share the same beliefs, attitudes, customs, behaviors,etc To a certain extent, the concepts of intercultural communication andintercultural communication are not identical

Kim and Ruben (1988, p 305) give a similar definition of intercultural

communication that does not explain the notion of cultural differences

According to these authors, intercultural communication is _ the

communication process that takes place in circumstances where the

communicator’s verbal and non — verbal patterns are significantly different

due to different cultural norms Kramsch (1998, p 81), on the other hand,

explicitly defines intercultural communication as the interaction of people ofdifferent minor cultural origins within a country or nation, in which the same

national language is spoken The author further states that intercultural

communication also describes the interplay of two languages and cultures

across national borders Contrary to this line of reasoning, Chick (1996, p

330) claims to some extent that intercultural studies of communication are

those of action sequences within and between cultures While interculturalcommunication studies incorporate different characteristics of two culturalsystems in a specific cultural encounter Therefore, the terms can be simply

defined as follows: Intra — cultural communication is communication between

people living in the same country and coming from similar cultural

backgrounds Intercultural communication is communication between peoplewho live in the same country but have different cultural backgrounds Whilecommunication between people who live in different countries and come fromdifferent cultural backgrounds is the definition of cross — cultural

communication!>.

Hofstede’s theory of cultural dimensions shows the impact of a

society’s culture on the values of its members and how those values relate tobehavior, using a structure derived from factor analysis In his research, Geert

Hofstede succeeded in identifying six characteristic models for measuring

culture in society between countries According to Hofstede’s theory, culturaldimensions on a continuum from high to low and really makes sense when the

objects are compared to another culture Firstly, power distance, in which

high — power distance means that a culture accepts and expects a high

'S Nguyen Quang Ngoan (2006), “Communication across cultures”, VNU Journal of Science, (22), p.34-47.

hierarchy Individualism with high individualism and low individualism.Furthermore, uncertainty avoidance — high uncertainty avoidance means that

culture tends to go to great lengths to be able to predict and control the future.Low uncertainty avoidance means the culture is more relaxed about the

future, sometimes reflected in a risk — taking attitude Additionally,masculinity — high masculinity refers to a society that values qualitiestraditionally considered masculine, such as competence, aggressiveness, and

achievement Long — term orientation means that culture tends to take a long

— term or a short — term, multigenerational or a generation perspective whenmaking decisions about the present and the future Besides, forbearanceincludes high forbearance and low forbearance signifies Will cultures give in

to the desires and impulses of a few individuals? These tools can provide anoverview to understand the differences and similarities between important

cross — cultural elements beneath the surface

In conclusion, cross — cultural communication can also refer to attempts

to exchange and mediate cultural differences through language, gestures, andbody language This is how people from different cultures communicate witheach other The goal is to give the right answer, not convey the right message.When two people of different cultures encounter each other, they not onlyhave different cultural backgrounds but their systems of turn — talking is alsodifferent Cross — cultural communication will be more effective and easier ifboth speakers have knowledge of the turn — taking system being used in the

conversation

1.4 High — and low — context culture

In the work Beyond Culture (1976), Edward T Hall proposes that highlevels of social diversity can be attributed to differences in communication

styles, particularly the level of context required to understand and follow

ordinary discussions Hall’s (1976) definitions of high and low — context

societies share similarities with another theory by Geert F Hofstede Hofstede(2001 [1980]) conceptualizes cultural differentiation as a continuum between

the degree of individualism or collectivism expressed in cultural practicescommon to society Both Hall (1976) and Hofstede (2001 [1980]) propose

that individualistic or context — poor societies provide individuals with

fractured and segmented views of reality such that individuals

compartmentalize themselves, their relationships, and interactions with others.While high — context or collectivist societies defend a vision of the worldwhere everything fits together as part of a complete

Hall (1976) submitted the concept of high and low context as a means

of understanding different cultural orientations Hall first used the terms “high

— context” and “low — context” to describe cultural differences betweensocieties This concept is useful because it summarizes the relationships

between people in each culture Especially, in terms of social bonds,responsibility, commitment, social harmony, and communication It helpspeople to better understand the differences between cultures more easily andexamine the impact of cultural differences on different fields in life The

cultural bases or dimensions by which one culture is compared to others to

decide which part of the high/low context cultural continuum it can be placed

in are not well — defined If only anecdotal examples are presented to thereader without first empirically examining and objectively measuring acountry’s position: at the top end of the continuum are countries like China,Japan and at the bottom end of the continuum are Switzerland, Norway, andSweden In the middle are France, Spain, Africa, and the Arab countries ofthe Middle East (Onkvisit & Shaw, 1993)

1.4.1 High — context culture

1.4.1.1 Definition of high — context culture

The first step is to clearly define the concepts of high — context cultureand low — context culture In his book Beyond Culture, Edward Hall (1976)

focuses on the definition of high — context and low — context culture.According to him, a high — context culture is a culture in which people aredeeply connected Because of the close relationships between people, there is

a social hierarchical structure, individual feelings are held under strong self —

control, and information is widely disseminated through simple messages

with profound meaning

High context refers to societies or groups in which people are closelyrelated Many aspects of cultural behavior are not made explicit, as mostmembers know what to do and what to think from years of interaction with

each other They show the signs verbally or non — verbally until their

interlocutor correctly deciphers the message This is because their main goal

is to preserve and strengthen relationships by saving face and creatingharmony Hall characterizes contextual communication styles as faster andmore efficient because they are based on intuitive understanding However,they change slowly and need time to establish a common understanding

between the sender and receiver A high context culture has a strong respect

for social hierarchy, bonds between people would be strong, people may bemore self — contained with feelings and messages may be simple but with

deep meaning !°.

'6 Kim, D., Pan, Y., & Park, H S (1998), High- versus low-context culture: A comparison of Chinese,

Korean, and American cultures, Psychology & Marketing, 15(6), p 509.

1.4.1.2 Characteristics of high — context culture

a Association

In a high context culture, people are highly connected Bonds between

people begin with family and extend to friends, colleagues, the community,

and society in general Bonds imply obligation, expectation, and mutual

benevolence Emphasis is placed on conformity and group orientation High —

context cultures differentiate more between insiders and outsiders than low —

context cultures (Hall, 1976, p 113)

b Responsibility

Related to orientation and social commitment is the topic ofresponsibility In high — context systems, persons in positions of authority arepersonally, actually (not just theoretically) accountable for the actions of

subordinates, down to the lowest man The decision — making process from

top to down is more regular and effective in organizations in high — context

cultures

c Confrontation

In many situations that can arise in life, people cannot avoid being

aggressive at times However, humans can handle and channel aggression in

many ways, depending upon their culture and how it structures and integratesaggression (Hall, 1976, p 137) In high — context cultures, people try to avoiddirect confrontation, to maintain social harmony and intimate bonds betweenpeople, often by suppressing themselves One of the reasons high — context

people sometimes seem to express themselves indirectly, particularly on

issues on which they may disagree, is to reduce the likelihood of direct and

overt disagreement (Hall, 1976, p 66) On the other hand, minor deviations

and personality conflicts are dealt with by pretending they do not exist.Therefore, people in high — context cultures tend to suppress their personalfeelings and interests to maintain harmony

d Communication

In high — context cultures, intimate human relationships and well —

structured social hierarchies and norms serve as the broad context in which

human communication takes place In high — context cultures, mostcommunication is more based on physical context or internalized in the

person, and the verbal part of the message, such as words, phrases, and

grammar, contains less information In other words, one has to put the

messages in the right context in order to understand the right meaning denoted

in the messages Generally, communication in high — context culture needs to

be economical, rapid, efficient, and satisfying and time must be reserved forprogramming to be high context

e Improvisation

On the contrary, high — context people can be innovative within their

old system but they struggle when dealing with anything new Their ability toimprovise to new changes is quite poor, so it will take them longer to adapt

and with different reactions It could be surprise, fear, hesitation, or anger.Expressions of emotions depending on the individual’s perception and

personality

1.4.2 Low — context culture

1.4.2.1 Definition of low — context culture

A low — context culture is an environment in which people are highly

individualized and an inferior connection between people!” As a result, social

hierarchy, like society in general, has less of an impact on individuals’ livesand communication between people is more explicit and impersonal Low —

context cultures do not rely on contextual elements to communicate

information They take a more direct and explicit approach Over a long

'7 Hall, E T (1976) Beyond culture, New York:Anchor Press — Doubleday.

period of time, the social structure or hierarchy of a culture has a significant

impact on whether a culture is a high — context or a low — context In addition,

the internal dynamics and uniqueness of each culture also have a strong

impact on its current state

1.4.2.2 Characteristics of low — context culture

a Association

In a low — context culture, the bonds that tie people together are

somewhat fragile, so people move away or withdraw if things are not going

well On the other hand, people in high — context cultures depend more on

connections and relationships

b Responsibility

In low — context systems, on the other hand, responsibility is distributedthroughout the system and is difficult to pin down (Hall, 1976, p 113).Mistakes frequently have low — level scapegoats In the event of errors,

cultures in the low — context seem to resist self — examination (Hall, 1976, p

154)

c Confrontation

On the contrary, in low — context culture, people are less likely to avoiddirect and open confrontation at the expense of speech and defenses, andcriticism is recorded more directly and formally (Hall, 1976, p 159) In low —context cultures, solution orientation is more commonly used to resolveconflicts, while in high — context cultures, confrontation avoidance is more

commonly used In people from low — context cultures, such outbreaks occur

without warning and are difficult to predict

d Communication

In low — context cultures, most of the information is in direct code, that

is, in words, sentences, and grammar Low — context messages tend to be

more context — agnostic, and deals are made with far less information about

participants’ characters, backgrounds, and values, and rely much more heavily

on explicit communication (Keegan, 1989, p 115) What is important, then, iswhat is said, not how it is said and not the environment within which it is

said!Š.

e Improvisation

An low — context culture, due to its dependence on context —

independent structures in its operation, such as complex legal systems orinsurance systems, may seem complex and overwhelming to some people.However, Westerners who are used to wrestling with the complexity of low —context systems can do so So when they are presented with something new,

they are very creative with it and do not require an excessive amount ofdetailed programming On the other hand, although they can be creative andinnovative when dealing with the new, low — context people have troublebeing anything but pedestrian when working within the bounds of old systems(Hall, 1976, p 127)

1.5 Theories of family relationships

1.5.1 Definition of family

Practically, there is currently no official definition, the term “family” inthe literature is defined in many documents and is rather ambiguous Thedefinition of family, developed by Ernest W Burgess, was the first definitionwidely adopted by scholars The term “family” was described as two or more

persons joined by ties of marriage, blood, or adoption; constituting a single

household; interacting and communicating with each other in their respective

social roles of husband and wife, mother and father, son and daughter,

brother, and sister; this group developing and maintaining a common

'8 Onkvisit, S., and Shaw, J J (1993) International marketing: Analysis and strategy (2nd ed.) New York:

Macmillan.

culture!? According to the first aspect of Burgess’ definition holds that two or

more — person related by blood or adoption, living together, and interacting

together are the defining features of the concept of family The phrase

“constituting a single household” is declaring or implicitly admitting among

members the relationship between other members living with them

Therefore, members will be attached to their ranks and positions in the family,

such as grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, brother, and sister, The

common culture is formed from daily communication interactions and

cultural tools of each person brings into marriage or family (includingcommunication behaviors learned from other cultures) This culture is the

synthesis and characteristic of each family, in addition, the construction and

maintenance of a common culture also affect the views and lifestyles of thefollowing generations Besides, Burgess’ definition of the term “family” doesnot include single parent families, bisexual, gay, lesbian, unable to havechildren or do not decide to have a baby

Complementing Burgess’ opinion, another anthropologist, BronislawMalinowski, analyzed tribal family structures around the world and definedfamily as boundaries, common residence, and mutual affection for one

another”? According to Malinowski, a family member may include anyone

from the immediate family of origin, to any member of the society into whichone is born In conclusion, the term “family” can be understood as two or

more persons related by marriage, blood relationship, deciding whether to

have children or not, adoption or not; living together or apart; havinginteraction within family roles; create and maintain a common culture;responsible with economic; have boundaries and have mutual affection

') Burgess, E W (1926), “The family as a unity of interacting personalities”, The Family, 7(1), pp 3-9,

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/104438942600700101

20 Malinowski, B (1927), Sex and reproduction in savage society, Commentator

1.5.2 Theories of family relationships

Besides, the physical relationship of families, a family relationship canalso refer to the emotional association between family members Family

relationships can have a positive or negative impact on the personal, social,

and intellectual development of family members A strong family bond is

vital to the health and well — being of its members, especially children.Children who maintain strong relationships with their families while growing

up are more likely to maintain strong relationships into old age Children whogrow up with poor family relationships are more likely to experienceunhealthy relationships as they grow up Accordingly, the types of families

are divided into many categories, including: Nuclear family, single parent,

extended family, childless family, stepfamily, grandparent family In eachculture, there will be families that are common, or only very small Thesedifferences lead to relationships in the family, of a family type, which will beinfluenced by different cultures

Describe differences in family communication, Koerner and Fitzpatrick

(2006) using two dimensions: conversational and conformity orientation Thefamily type can be determined based on the rank of the family in bothdimensions In terms of conversational orientation, which is defined as thedegree to which families create a climate in which all family members are

encouraged to engage in unrestricted interactions on a wide range of topics

(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006, p.54) Families at the higher end of thisdimension communicate frequently and without many restrictions In contrast,families at the lower end of this dimension interact less frequently and in a

more restricted manner”! Conformity orientation is defined as the degree to

?! Koerner, A F., & Fitzpatrick, M A (2002) Toward a theory of family communication Communication

Theory, 12(1).

which family communication emphasizes a climate of uniformity of attitudes,

values, and beliefs ??(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006, p 55).

1.6 Previous studies

In the same study of the correlation between low — context culture and

high — context culture, many researchers have made different claims Mostnotably, Edward T Hall, the American anthropologist, points out the

differences between these different cultures With works such as The Silent

Language (1959), Beyond culture (1976), The Hidden Dimension (1969),

Hall’s research has provided a solid and valuable theoretical framework andtheory to this day Researcher Donghoon Kim et al of the study “High —versus low — context culture: A comparison of Chinese, Korean, and

American cultures” (1998) also a valuable orientation for researchers in the

process to perform this research Besides foreign researchers, Vietnamese

authors also have their views on this issue Researcher Nguyen Quang Ngoan(2006) with the research paper Communication across cultures, or the study

Eastern and Western cultural perspectives and intercultural communication

(2011) by Nguyen Hoa High — low context communication: Vietnamese style(2019) also has similar research content to this study With these studies, theresearcher has a solid basis for building a theoretical framework and specificcomparison results on this topic Hence, the researcher can point outsimilarities or new developments in the individual doing the research

In his seminal work Beyond Culture, published in 1976, Edward T.Hall explains how different cultures function and interacts with each otherand within themselves He distinguishes them based on five types of

interactions observed 1n society, including association, interaction,

territoriality, temporality, and learning Hall proposes that the level of contextrequired to understand and relate to ordinary discussion consequences High —

2 Koerner, A F., & Fitzpatrick, M A (2006).Family communication patterns theory: A social cognitive

approach Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives.

context societies are defined by the attribution of mutual meaning to simple

actions, messages, and places, and by frequent interaction and rapid sharing ofinformation among members of the community In contrast, in low — context

societies, much descriptive information 1s provided in_ ordinary

communication to clarify one’s point of view without reference to priorinformation Hall explains that low — context societies are defined by highlevels of individuality, separateness, and cultural fragmentation, leading to a

greater need for explicit definition and clarification in communication

Relying mainly on linguistic analyses, Hall argues that European and NorthAmerican nations are more indicative of low — context societies and thatSouth and East Asian nations resemble high — context societies

1.7 Summary

Throughout this chapter, the researcher presents the concept of culture,cultural context, cross — cultural communication, and family relationships.Specifically, terms such as high cultural context and low cultural context aredefined, indicating the basic characteristics These factors will influencefamily relationships in each cultural context Finally, the researcher reviewed

several previous studies on the influence of cultural context on

communication in specific countries All the information presented explainsthe researcher’s fundamental perspective

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

2.1 Research design

Research processes and methods are studied through a combination ofquantitative and qualitative methods With the quantitative method, the

researcher investigates the actual similarities and differences, in family

relationships, between the Vietnamese and Americans Through a survey

questionnaire consisting of 26 affirmative questions, the answers are given

according to five levels, respectively The interview was designed with 6

questions, according to the qualitative method, to investigate the level ofrecognition of difficulties in the cultural context, and at the same time offersolutions to overcome them In addition, participants who answered questions

were simultaneously interviewed through online and offline surveys Primary

data is used to perform the analysis Regarding secondary data sources, theauthor uses conclusions from previous theories and studies to compare with

the researcher’s conclusions The study used IBM SPSS software to analyze

the data in the questionnaire

2.2 Participants

The survey was conducted for 2 weeks from February 27 to March 7,

2023 and focused on Vietnamese and Americans Participants in the survey

included 75 Vietnamese people and 26 American people With 75 Vietnamese

people, participants have all ages, genders and diverse professions such aspupils, students, office workers, teachers, soldiers, or freelancers There are

49 women, 24 men and 3 Vietnamese who do not want to reveal their gender.Vietnamese participants are not restricted in terms of living environment.That is, they may come from different regions in the domain of Vietnam.While, with participants 26, there are 13 women, 11 men and 2 Americanswho do not want to reveal their gender Americans participate in the interviewand also have different jobs, participating in the survey because they were

introduced by friends The scope of participation in the survey is wide due to

the research nature of the topic, high cultural context and low cultural context,

they all have family ties However, with each person in each should have adifferent background, there will be differences in family relationships

To explain the selection of subjects to participate in the survey, the

researcher based on the most important basis is the topic Because when

studying differences in family relationships, collecting opinions from manydifferent family members will bring the most objective results Second, if thesubject is students, it will be difficult for researchers to reach American

students because there is almost no contact The lack of specific criteria, but

only based on the nationality of the participants, is advantageous to the person

conducting this study

2.3 Data collection

Research information was collected and reinforced by questionnairesand interview questions, these two surveys were conducted simultaneously.The survey was allowed to collect data from American and Vietnameseparticipants The researcher performed this process over the course of 2

weeks Because Vietnamese people can participate without any restriction on

conditions, the researcher directly surveyed the results with the participation

of students of Hanoi Law University With the remaining number of

participants, including Vietnamese and Americans, with geographical andtime constraints, they completed the questionnaire using the link generated

via Google Forms The online questionnaire provides a brief description of

intent, and a simple explanation of how to answer the questions Moreover,

the same goes for interview questions Out of 101 people, 20 were randomly

selected for an interview, including 13 Vietnamese and 7 Americans Face —

to — face interviewing was not a problem for the 13 Vietnamese participants

Besides 7 Americans, after answering the questions in the questionnaire,