CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT

Even the best verbal communication skills are not enough to create and sustain successful relationships

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT

I certify my authority of the Study Project Report submitted entitled

A VIETNAMESE - AMERICAN CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

OF CONVERSATIONAL DISTANCES

In fulfilmentfulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts

Le Thi Huyen

I owe my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, M.A Nguyen Thi ThanhHuong, without whose valuable comments and guidance, my thesiswould not have been accomplished

My special thanks go to my colleagues from Haiphong Water SupplyCompany, those who helped me fill in my surveyquestionairequestionnaire and give me constructive suggestions incompleting this thesis

And I am immensely grateful to my former teacher, Ms StacyThompson, who is living and working in the United States She hashelped me conduct my survey in the United States

I owe my family great attitude for theirMy family: my parents, mybrother, my sister-in-law and my boyfriend have been a constant source

of love, support and encouragement

Finally, I should acknowledge my indebtedness to all my friends for theirassistance during the process of preparing for this research

Le Thi Huyen

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

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

Special emphasis is given to :

- classification and usage of conversational distances as well as and their usage

- factors affecting conversational distances

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

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

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

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1: Percentage of verbal and nonverbal communication in common use

Diagram 1: Classification of nonverbal communication

Table 1: Further clarification of nonverbal communication

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

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

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

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

Table 6: Interactions among messages, tones of voice and distances between faces

Table 7: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their mother

Table 8: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their father

Table 9: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their brother

Table 10: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their sister

Table 11: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex close friend (two male friends)

Table 12: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex close friend (two female friends)

Table 13: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex close friend

Table 14: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex acquaintance

Table 15: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex acquaintance

Table 16: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex colleague Table 17: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex colleague

Table 18: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their boss

Table 19: Figures on using conversational distances by informants between 20 and 40 years old Table 20: Figures on using conversational distances by informants above 40 years old

Table 21: Figures on using conversational distances by male informants

Table 22: Figures on using conversational distances by female informants

Table 23: Figures on using conversational distances by informants living in rural areas

Table 24: Figures on using conversational distances by informants living in urban areas

Table 25: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with teamwork occupation Table 26: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with independent work occupation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

I Rationale 1

II Aims of the study 2

III Scope of the study 2

IV Methodology 3

V Design of the study 3

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 4

Chapter 1: Literature review 4

1 What is communication? 4

1.1 Definition of communication 4

1.2 Types of communication 5

2 What is nonverbal communication? 7

2.1 Definition of nonverbal communication 7

2.2 Significance of nonverbal communication 9

2.3 Main categories of nonverbal communication 11

Chapter 2: Conversational distance as nonverbal communication 14

1 Definition of conversational distances 14

2 Classification of conversational distances 15

2.1 Intimate distance 15

2.2 Personal distance 17

(Photo credits: dantri.com.vn) 17

2.3 Social distance 18

2.4 Public distance 19

3 Factors effecting conversational distances 19

3.1 High - low contact culture 20

3.2 Gender 20

3.3 Relationship 21

3.4 Age 21

3.5 Population density 22

3.6 Intended message 23

Chapter 3: Data analysis and discussion 24

1 Methodology 24

1.1 Participants 24

1.2 Instruments 24

1.3 Procedures of data collection 24

2 Data analysis and findings 26

2.1 Use of conversational distance as seen from communicative partner’s role relationship 26

2.2 Use of conversational distance as seen from informants’ parameters 32

PART C: CONCLUSION 36

I Summary of main findings: 36

II Implications for avoidance of culture shock and cross-cultural communication breakdown 36

III Suggestion for further study 37

PART A: INTRODUCTION

I Rationale

II Aims of the study .

III Scope of the study .

IV Methodology .

V Design of the study .

PART B: DEVELOPMENT .

Chapter 1: Literature review .

1 What is communication? .

1.1 Definition of communication

1.2 Types of communication

2 What is nonverbal communication?

2.1 Definition of nonverbal communication

2.2 Significance of nonverbal communication

2.3 Main categories of nonverbal communication

CHAPTER 2: CONVERSATIONAL DISTANCES AS NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

1 Definition of conversational distances

2 Classification of conversational distances

2.1 Intimate distance

2.2 Personal distance

(Photo credits: dantri.com.vn)

2.3 Social distance

2.4 Public distance

3 Factors effecting conversational distances

3.1 High - low contact culture

3.2 Gender

3.3 Relationship

3.4 Age

3.5 Population density

3.6 Intended message

Chapter 3: Data Analysis and Discussion .

1 Methodology .

1.1 Participants

1.2 Instruments

1.3 Procedures of data collection

2 Data analysis and findings

2.1 Use of conversational distance as seen from communicative partner’s

role relationship

2.2 Use of conversational distance as seen from informants’ parameters

PART C: CONCLUSION .

I Summary of main findings: .

II Implications for avoidance of culture shock and cross-cultural communication breakdown .

III Suggestion for further study

Bibliography

AppendixSurvey Questionnaire 44

Bản điều tra .47

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

I Rationale 1

II Aims of the study .2

III Scope of the study 3

IV Methodology .3

V Design of the study .3

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 6

CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND CONCEPTS 6

1 What is communication? 6

1.1 Definition of communication 6

1.2 Types of communication 7

2 What is nonverbal communication? 9

2.1 Definition of nonverbal communication 9

2.2 Significance of nonverbal communication 12

2.3 Main categories of nonverbal communication 13

CHAPTER 2: CONVERSATIONAL DISTANCES AS NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION 17

1 Definition of conversational distance 17

2 Classification of conversational distances 18

2.1 Intimate distance 18

2.2 Personal distance 19

2.3 Social distance 20

2.4 Public distance 21

3 Factors effecting conversational distances 22

3.1 High - low contact culture 22

3.2 Gender 23

3.3 Relationship 23

3.4 Age 24

3.5 Population density 24

3.6 Intended message 25

CHAPTER 3: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 27

3.1 Use of converstional distance as seen from communicative partnet’s role relationship 27

3.1.1 Data analysis 27

3.1.2 Major similarities and differences: 33

3.2 Use of conversational distance as seen from informants’ parameters 34

3.2.1 Data analysis 34

3.2.2 Major similarities and differences: 37

PART C: CONCLUSION 38

I Summary of main findings: 38

II Suggestion for further study .40 Appendices

References???

Appendices???

PART A: INTRODUCTION

I Rationale

Stated briefly, how something is expressed may carry more significance and weight thanwhat is said, the words themselves Accompanied by a smile or a frown, said with a loud,scolding voice or a gentle, easy one, the contents of our communications are framed by ourholistic perceptions of their context Those sending the messages may learn to understandthemselves better as well as learning to exert some greater consciousness about theirmanner of speech Those receiving the messages may learn to better understand their ownintuitive responses–sometimes in contrast to what it seems "reasonable" to think

The use of physical space by individuals in their interactions with others can be considered

as one of the most critical signals of nonverbal communication as this use of physicalspace seems to be different from culture to culture; thus, ways of interpretation of the samespace message are also various In the 1950's, American anthropologist Edward T Hall

pioneered proxemics to describe set measurable distances between people as they interact.

Like gravity, the influence of two bodies on each other is inversely proportional not only tothe square of their distance but possibly even the cube of the distance between them (Hall,1966)

Hall notes that different cultures maintain different standards of personal space In Latincultures, for instance, those relative distances are smaller, and people tend to be morecomfortable standing close to each other; in Nordic cultures the opposite is true Realizingand recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helpseliminate discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is too large ("stand-offish") or too small (intrusive) Comfortable personal distances also depend onthe culture, social situation, gender, and individual preference

In this thesis, we will discuss conversational distances and its effects on humancommunication Additionally, we will compare and contrast the way Vietnamese andAmerican informants apply conversational distances with certain subjects It is expected

that the findings will, to a certain extent, raise readers’ awareness of the importance ofnonverbal communication and provide useful recommendations to Vietnamese learners ofEnglish for avoidance of culture shock in conversational distances when conducting face-

to-face interactions with their Anglophone partners

II Aims of the study

The aims of the study are:

 To investigate types of conversational distances in human interactions

 To compare and contrast types of conversational distances in human interactionsand the influence of the informants’ parameters on conversational distances in thetwo cultures in order to clarify similarities and differences in the way theVietnamese and the American apply conversational distances

 To provide recommendations to the Vietnamese learners of English for avoidance

of culture shock in conversational distances

In order to achieve the aims of the study, the following research questions are to beaddressed:

1 What are the conversational distances of the Vietnamese informants in givensituations?

2 What are the conversational distances of the American informants in givensituations?

3 What are the main similarities and differences in conversational distances betweenVietnamese and American informants?

4 What are the recommendations to the Vietnamese learners of English for avoidance

of culture shock in conversational distances?

III Scope of the study

The study stresses upon the nonverbal communication Extralinguistically, the study especially discusses the conversational distances in the two cultures: Vietnamese and American.

IV Methodology

As the study dwells largely on the practical aspects of cross-cultural communication, themain method employed in the study is quantitative with due reference to qualitativemethod Besides, contrastive analysis is also used Therefore, all considerations, commentsand conclusions in this thesis are largely based on:

 Reference to relevant home and foreign publication in both primary and secondaryresearch;

 Survey questionairesquestionnaires;

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

 Personal observations and experience;

 Consultations with supervisors;

 Discussions with Vietnamese and foreign teacherscolleagues

V Design of the study

The study falls into three main parts:

PART A: INTRODUCTION:

 Rationale

 Aims of the study

 Scope of the study

 Methods of the study

 Design of the study

PART B: DEVELOPMENT:

 Chapter 1: Background concepts

 Chapter 2: Conversational distances as nonverbal communication

 Chapter 3: Data analysis and discussion

human interactions.

1 What is communication?

1.1 Definition of communication

There have been many definitions of “communication” with various emphasis on different

factors According to Nguyen Quang (F:27), they can be classified withinto:

 Emphasis on the hearer:

According to Ronald B Alder & George Rodman (1998), “: Ccommunication refers to the process man being responding to the face-to-face symbolic behaviour of other persons ”

 Emphasis on both the speaker and the hearer:

This point of view is shared by Ronald B Alder & George Rodman (1998) and Levine

and Adelman (1993) If Ronald B Alder & George Rodman (1998) supposed that “:

Cc ommunication refers to the process man being responding to the face-to-face symbolic behaviour of other persons ”,

Levine and Adelman (1993) described it as: T “the process of sharing meaning through verbal and nonverbal behaviour ”

 Emhasis on the meaning of the intended message:

If Zimmerman et al (1991: 4) mentioned this when illustrating communcation as: T “the process in which persons assign meanings to events and especially to the behaviour of other persons ”,

Verderber (1989: 4) had another approach: “Communication may be defined as the

transactional process of creating meaning A transactional process is one in which those persons communicating are mutually responsible for what occurs ”

 Emphasis on the message conveyed:

Saville-Troike (1986) identified that: C “communication is [ ] considered the process of sharing and exchanging information between people both verbally and nonverbally ”

 Emphasis on the information, concept, attitude and emotion of the messageconveyed:

It is clarified in the definition of Hybels, S and Weaver, R (1992: 5) that: “c

C ommunication is any process in which people share information, ideas and feelings that involve not only the spoken and written words but also body language, personal mannerisms and style, the surrounding and things that add meaning to a message ”

Among the definitions above-mentioned above, the one proposed by Hybels & Weaver(1992) is the most sufficient and convincing since they have, according to Nguyen Quang(F: 29),

- pointed out the action, interaction and transaction nature of communication; - specifiedthe characteristics of communication

,- specified the means to carry out communication

- specified different levels of communication

1.2 Types of communication

Hybels, S and Weaver, R II (1992: 14) explain that there are different kinds ofcommunication, among which the most frequently used ones areoften used kinds are:intrapersonal, interpersonal, interviews, small group and public communication

 Intrapersonal communication

Intrapersonal communication is communication that occurs within us It involves thoughts,feelings and the way we look at ourselves Because intrapersonal communication iscentered in the self, you are the only sender-receiver The message is makde up of yourthoughts and feelings The channel is your brain, which processes what you are thinkingand feeling There is feedback in the sense that as you talk to yourself, you discard certainideas and replace them with others

 Interpersonal communication

Interpersonal communication occurs when we communicate on a one-to-one basis - usually

in an informal, unstructured setting This kind of communication occurs mostly betweentwo people, though it may include more than two

Interpersonal communication uses all the elements of the communication process In aconversation between friends, for example, each brings his or her background andexperience to the conversation During the conversation each functions as sender-receiver.Their messages consist of both verbal and nonverbal symbols The channels they use themost are sight and sound Because interpersonal communication is between two (or a few)people, it offers the greatest opportunities for feedback The persons involved in theconversation have many chances to check that the message is being perceived correctly.Interpersonal communication usually takes place in informal and comfortable settings

 Interview

An interview is a series of questions and answers, usually involving two people whose

primary purpose is to obtain information on particular subject One common type is the job

interview, in which the employer asks the job candidate questions to determine whether he

or she is suitable for the job Another type is an information interview where the

interviewer tries to get information about a particular subject

In interviewing, the sender-receivers take turns talking - one person asks a question and theother responds Both persons, however, are continuously and simultaneously sendingnonverbal messages Because interviews usually take place face to face, a lot of nonverbalinformation is exchanged Feedback is very high in an interview Since the interview has aspecific purpose, the communication setting is usually quite formal

 Small group communication

Small group communication occurs when a small number of people meet to solve aproblem The group must be small enough so that each member in the group has a chance

to interact with all other members

Because small groups are made up of several sender-receivers, the communication process

is more complicated than in interpersonal communication With so many more peoplesending messages, there are more chances for confusion Messages are also morestructured in small group because the group is meeting together for a specific purpose.Small groups use the same channels as interpersonal communication, however, and there isalso a good deal of opportunity for feedback, and the settings are also more formal

 Public communication

In public communication the sender-receiver (speaker) sends a message (the speech) to anaudience The speaker usually delivers a highly-structured message, using the samechannels as interpersonal communication and small-group communication In publiccommunication, however, the channels are more exaggerated than in interpersonalcommunication The voice is louder and the gestures are more expeansive because theaudience is bigger Generally, the opportunity for verbal feedback in publiccommunication is limited In most public communication the setting is formal

2 What is nonverbal communication?

2.1 Definition of nonverbal communication

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

Today, many researchers are concerned with the information sent by communication that is

independent of and different from verbal information; namely, the nonverbal

communication Verbal communication is organized by language; nonverbal

communication is not.

Communication is the transfer of information from one person to another Most of usspend about 75 percent of our waking huorshours communicating our knowledge, thoughtsand ideas to others However, most of us fail to realize that a great deal of our

communication is a nonverbal form as opposed to the oral and written forms Nonverbal communication includes facial expression, eye contact, tone of voice, body posture and

motions, and positioning within groups It may also include the way we wear our clothes orthe silence we keep

One study done by Albert Mehrabian (1972) in the United States showed that in the

communication of attitude, 93 percent of the message was transmitted by the tone of thevoice and by facial expressions, whereas only 7 percent of the speaker’s attitude wastransmitted by words Apparently, we express our emotions and attitudes more nonverballythan verbally Thus the way a person uses voice, body movement (for example eye contact,facial expression, gesture, and posture), clothing and body appearance, space, touch andtime is an essential part of every message that he or she sends

Figure 1: Percentage of verbal and nonverbal communication in common use

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

be a source of confusion for foreigners For example, feelings of friendship existeverywhere but their expression varies It may be acceptable in some countries for men toembrace each other and for women to hold hands; in other countries these displays ofaffection may be shocking What is acceptable in one culture may be completely

unacceptable in another One culture may determine that snapping fingers to call waiter is

appropriate; another may consider this gesture rude We are often not aware of howgestures, facial expressions, eye contact, and the use of space affect communication Inorder to correctly interpret another culture’s style of communication, it is necessary tostudy the “silent language” of that culture

Simply defined, nonverbal communication is everything that is communicated beyond

what is expressed in words According to Levine and Adelman (1993), “: Nnonverbal communication is the ‘silent’ language, including the use of gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, and conversational distance ”

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

ChanelChannel

Vocal (Intralanguage)Spoken words

Tone of voice, sigh, scream, vocal quality, pitch,

loudness, and other paralinguistic factors

Nonvocal (Intralanguage)Written words Gesture, movement, appearance, facial

expression, touch, and other extralinguistic factors

Table 1: Further clarification of nonverbal communication

2.2 Significance of nonverbal communication

Is there ever any doubt in your mind as to the mood of a coworker upon their arrival atwork? Nonverbal communication is the single most powerful form of communication.More than voice or even words, nonverbal communication cues you in to what is onanother person’s mind The best communicators are sensitive to the power of the emotionsand thoughts communicated nonverbally

Nonverbal communication is important as "when we speak (or listen), our attention is focused on words rather than body language But our judgementjudgment includes both.

An audience is simultaneously processing both verbal and nonverbal cues Body movements are not usually positive or negative in and of themselves; rather, the situation and the message will determine the appraisal." (Givens, 2000: 4).

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

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

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

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

Birdwhistell ( year?1997 ) estimates that the average person actually speaks words for atotal of about 10 or 11 minutes a day and that thethat the average sentence takes onlyabout 2.5 seconds He also discovered that the verbal component of a face-to-faceconversation is less than 35% and that over 65% of communication is done nonverbally.

Harison (1965) has estimated that in face-to-face communication no more than 35% of the

social meaning is carried in the verbal message

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

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

The real value of nonverbal communication lies in the insight it can give to your own

behaviour Beisler et al (1997) believes that it is impossible to discuss oral

communication without taking nonverbal communication into account because only up toone-third of a message in a person-to-person situation is conveyed by words alone

Nonverbal cues are important in communication since nonverbal communication occursmore frequently than verbal one and people can easily remember what they see than whatthey hear Moreover, people are hardly aware of the fact that they are communicatingnonverbally, thus, they often reveal themselves more That’s why people can easily becheated by verbal communication but hardly by nonverbal one

2.3 Main categories of nonverbal communication

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

 Physical appearance: Physical appearance is generated when we send to anyone

with whom we come in contact If the message is unacceptable by the other person,s/he may not even consider the later messages Body size, body shape, clothing,

facial features and other subjects adorning ourselves can be seen as aspects ofphysical appearance that produce potential messages.

 Face and eye behaviour: Face and eye behaviour is known as “oculesics”.

According to many researchers, it is virtually impossible to seperateseparate themessages sent by the eyes and those sent by the face, thus it is best to considerthese together This category of nonverbal communication has a major impact interms of expressing emotions and regulating interactions between people Forexample, when professor is giving a lecture, you read a magazine instead oflooking at him/her and giving your full attention, this would indicate to theprofessor that you are disinterested in his/her lecture

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

on the movements of hands and arms, postures and gross bodily movement such asstanding, walking and sitting Messages generated by this type of nonverbal

communication have often been referred to as “body language” Although the body

certainly is sending messages, such messages do not form a linguistic system, withthe exception of the gesturale language of the deaf, and thus “do not represent a language in any normal sense of that term” (Richmond et al 1991).

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

“paralanguage” Characteristics of the voice anddand its use, including the accentwith which we speackspeak a language, have a major impact on how verbalmessages are received Some researchers argue that more of the meaning ininterpersonal communication is stimulated by vocalic messages than the verbalmessages themselves

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

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

 Space: Space is known as “proxemics” This is the area that this study is focusing.

There are reasons to believe that our basic approach to space is, at least in part,instinctual However, humans differ greatly in their use of space and as a resultsend very different nonverbal messages in communication

 Environment: Researchers have examined the impact of environment on human

behavior in general and its impact on communication specifically and in reality, ithas such a major impact on communication We can exert considerable control overour environment through our behavior If we look at such things as architecture,music, spatial arrangements, music, color, lighting and temperature and how thesecan be used to send nonverbal messages

 Scent and smell: Scent and smell has been referred to as “olfactics” If

pornography is in the eye of the beholder, then certainly scent is in the nose of thesmeller People react very differently to varyingious scents and smells We cansend important messages through our use of scents and smells in many cases.American society evidences its concern with thsithis nonverbal category byspending millions of dollars on deodorants, lotions and perfumes

 Time: Time in nonverbal communication is referred to as “chronemics” Our use of

time sends strong messages about how we feel about ideas and people Because

people are so “time bound”, they often fail to realize what their response to time communicates to others It has been said that time talks “Time shout” might be a

more accurate statement

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

it is quite clear and sufficient

- Time/Chronemics

Nguyen Quang (CCC)

Diagram 1: Classification of nonverbal communication

CHAPTERhapter 2: Conversational distance as nonverbal communication CONVERSATIONAL DISTANCES AS

NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION

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

and factors affecting them.

1 Definition of conversational distances

Conversational distance or personal space is defined in a variety of ways, especially when

in differenta varying cultures For Americans, personal space is very important and oftenresults in some of the most offensive actions when not respected Scientifically termed

"proxemics", personal space can make us feel warm and

fuzzy but also make us feel alienated and defensive, especially on social and interpersonalrelationships

When addressing issues of personal space, we often do not perceive our own physical

actions as being offensive or intimidating to others It is only when we are "invaded" into our own personal space that the concept of "proxemics" becomes important in our lives

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

To feel comfortable, Americans often find they feel less defensive when they have, at least,

four feet between themselves and the "next guy" In contrast, if you are within 18 inches of

another individual, this is often subconsciously perceived as being more intimate with theindividual For some Americans, like those who ride packed subways in New York City,intimacy abounds when these distance terms are applied

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

2 Classification of conversational distances

Leather defines distance as a "relational concept, typically measured in terms of how far one individual is from the other" (Leather 1978: 87) People have certain patterns for

delimiting the distance when they interact, and this distance varies according to the nature

of the social interaction In an attempt to identify and classify the distance people use, Hallidentifies four types of distances: intimate, personal, social, and public These distances

can vary according to "personality and environmental factors," since an abnormal situation

could bring people closer than they usually are (Hall 1959: 116)

2.1 Intimate distance

Far phase 6 - 18 inches (15 - 46 centimetres)

- Spouses, lovers, parents-children, close friends showing intimate emotion; or

- Communicators expressing high negative attitude

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

- Spouses, lovers, parents-children, close friends showing love emotion; or

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

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

6 - 18 inches (15 - 46 centimetres) - Spouses, lovers, parents-children,

close friends showing intimate emotion; or? ?

Far phase - Communicators expressing high

negative attitude

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

- Spouses, lovers, parents-children, close friends showing love emotion; or??

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

(Photo credits: tintuc.com.vn)

People from different cultures use this intimate space differently For instance, NorthAmericans may feel physical discomfort when someone does not keep the proper distancefrom them; and this feeling may be aggravated considerably if the person they feel is "too close" is of the opposite sex Hall also mentions that some English expressions such as

"get your face out of mine" and "he shook his fist in my face" show how important body

boundaries are for Americans By contrast, the Costa Rican expression, "I don't bite"shows the discomfort people from this culture feel when others are too far from them Hall

Intimate distance ranges from body contact to

approximately eighteen inches (just less than

half a meter) According to Hall, the close

phase (up to six inches) includes intimate

activities which require extensive contact of

the bodies while the far phase (from six to 18

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

contact We maintain an intimate distance in

love relationships and with close friends

Intimate distance exists whenever we feel free

affirms that the use of intimate distance is not proper in public places in the United States.(this can be seen similarly in Vietnam) However, this distance is common amongmembers of other cultures (e.g Latin Americans and Arabs).

2.2 Personal distance

2.2 Personal distance

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

- Communication among friends, colleagues; or??

- Communicators possiblymayexpressing negative attitude

Close phase 1.5 - 2.5 feet (0.46 - 0.77 metres)

- Communication among close relatives; or??

- Communicators expressingnegative attitude

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

Personal distance ranges from 1.5 to four feet

between people Hall identifies a close and a far

phase The close phase (1.5 to 2.5 feet) permits

one person to touch another, while the far phase of

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

length" does not permit this As Hall points out

"nobody touches or expects to touch another

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

This is the distance we keep most often when we

are in casual and personal conversation It is close

enough away not to encroach or intimate distance

(Photo credits: dantri.com.vn)

It is not difficult to realize that Vietnamese normally use far phase of personal distance ifthey are of the opposite sex Close phase of personal distance can be used more by thecommunicators who are both female than those who are both male

2.3 Social distance

Far phase 7 - 12 feet (2.16 - 3.7 metres) - Communication among strangers

Close phase 4 - 7 feet (1.23 - 2.16 metres) - Communication among acquaintances

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

Far phase 7 - 12 feet (2.16 - 3.7 metres) - Communication among strangers

Close phase 4 - 7 feet (1.23 - 2.16 metres) - Communication among acquaintances

(Photo credits: www.123rf.com)

Social distance (four to 12 feet) is the casual

interaction-distance between acquaintances and

strangers It is common in business meetings,

classrooms, and impersonal social affairs Its close

phase (four to seven feet) is the characteristic of

informal interaction, while more formal interaction

requires the far phase (seven to 12 feet) Some

physical barriers such as desks, tables, and counters,

usually make people keep this distance

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

To illustrate, Nydel (1987) mentions that for Arabs it is normal to stay close to and touchstrangers; the distance they keep in ordinary social conversations is the same as whatWesterners use in intimate conversations People from other cultures such as NorthAmericans and British normally offer an excuse if they touch a stranger From myobservation, an excuse also tends to be used by Vietnamese if they touch a stranger insocial communication

2.4 Public distance

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

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

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

(Photo credits: www.123rf.com)

Researchers (e.g., Hall 1959; Vargas 1986) identify high-contact cultures such as Arabs,Latin Americans, Greeks, Turks, French, and Italians, who usually keep small distances

among themselves; and low-contact cultures who "stand further apart,", like the Chinese,Japanese, Thai, Germans, Dutch, and North Americans (Vargas 1986:106)

Public distance ranges from 12 to 25 feet or

more Its close phase (12 to 15 feet) provides

the amount of space generally desired among

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

necessary for large audiences In this case,

speech must be projected or amplified to be

heard Communication at this distance is

more formal and permits few opportunities

for people to be involved with each other