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

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES HOÀNG PHƯỢNG ENGLISH-VIETNAMESE CROSS-CULTURAL NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION: UNDERSTANDING PROXEMICS IN DIFFERENT CULTURES (Giao tiếp phi ngôn từ Anh-Việt: Sự lĩnh hội khoảng cách văn hoá khác nhau) M.A MAJOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Linguistics Code: 8020201.01 HANOI – 2018 VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES HOÀNG PHƯỢNG ENGLISH-VIETNAMESE CROSS-CULTURAL NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION: UNDERSTANDING PROXEMICS IN DIFFERENT CULTURES (Giao tiếp phi ngôn từ Anh-Việt: Sự lĩnh hội khoảng cách văn hoá khác nhau) M.A MAJOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Linguistics Code: 8020201.01 Supervisor: Prof NGUYỄN HÒA HANOI - 2018 DECLARATION I hereby certify the thesis entitled “English-Vietnamese cross-cultural nonverbal communication: understanding proxemics in different cultures” as my own work in the fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts at the University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi Hanoi, 2018 Hoàng Phượng ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To be able to complete this thesis, I have been whole-heartedly supported by many people to whom I would like to express my sincere thanks for their valuable contribution First of all, I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to my beloved supervisor, Prof Nguyễn Hòa He was the one who advised, supported, encouraged, supervised, and inspired me throughout the realization of this thesis I highly appreciate his valuable advice, detailed comments, enthusiastic and careful guidance as well as his great patience throughout this process Second of all, I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to my respectful lectures in Faculty of Post-Graduate Studies at University of Languages and International Studies for their devotion and their fascinating, and informative lectures which have provided me useful information to fulfill this thesis What is more, I would like to give my great thanks to my colleagues and my students for their willingness to participate in this project Without them, this study would have been impossible Last but not least, I owe particular thanks to my family and my friends who have enthusiastically assisted and encouraged me to finish this thesis ABSTRACT Conversational distance has been the focus of hundreds of previous research studies However, the conclusions of previous studies on interpersonal distance preferences were limited, especially the conclusions on Vietnamese’s preferable proxemic distance were also restricted due to some certain problems of research methodologies The objective of the present study was to find out the preferred social, personal and intimate distances of Vietnamese communicators as a case of proxemics behavior This study also indicated the factors which have influence on interpersonal distance of Vietnamese communicators, in which a number of research methods were exploited The values of preferred conversational distance, then, can be used as a reference in related future research TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES PART A INTRODUCTION Rationale for the study This study was conducted because of several reasons In the first place, proxemics can be considered as one of the most prominent aspects to investigate the manifestation of nonverbal communication and to emphasize its significance in human life However, there has not been enough studies giving rise to proxemics findings In fact, none of the previous research has been performed to find out Vietnamese common conversational distance In the second place, misbehavior in proxemics within cross-cultural communication, especially in multicultual or multinational working environment, might unexpectedly arise and entail misunderstanding then cultural shock, or even communication breakdown Thus, the reviewing of proxemics behaviors in other mutual cultures in that great success in communication can be necessary Finally, nonverbal communication with attention is given to proxemics behaviour has been one of my interest as a researcher Hence, I am intending to explore and discuss conversational distances and how it affects human communication Apparently, the ways Vietnamese informants apply conversational distances will be explored and analysed The findings and results of this study would somehow expectedly raise the awareness that how important the nonverbal communication would be Also, the findings would focus on the preferred conversational distance of Vietnamese communicators and then provide recommendations to American speakers in order avoid culture shocks and misunderstandings while interacting with Vietnamese informants Aims of the study This thesis is inspired by Hall’s work He creates a framework which indicated a need for my study The purpose of this study is to find the factors that affect the proxemics behaviors between Vietnamese dyads, mainly: age, gender, marital status, power distance, living area, and character of the informants In addtion, it examines and explores the proxemic distances preferred by Vietnamese speakers during communication process Research questions: The study addresses the following research questions: What are the factors that affect the conversational distance between Vietnamese dyads? What is the proxemic distance preferred by Vietnamese speakers during communication process? Scope of the study This study focuses on only conversational distance, as one of the three areas of proxemics (including space, distance and territory) However, the researcher was delivering an overview of all aspects as listed Specifically, this research particularly identified conversational distance in American-Vietnamese cross-cultural nonverbal communication The data of American informants would be supposed to be the baseline data, which will be gathered through previous studies related to this field That means, the data of English communicators would be secondary data in which the author tried to exploit the sources or materials from studies reported in researches, reports, professional journals and books The data of Vietnamese dyads, however, will be collected as primary one, those will be gathered for the first time and thus happen to be original in character Structure of the thesis The study is divided into three main parts as follow: Part A: Introduction covers the rationale for study, aims, research questions, the scope, and structure of the study Part B: Development is organized around three chapters as follows: Chapter I - Literature review provides the theoretical framework of the study related to different approaches of proxemics behavior in different cultures, mainly English and Vietnamese cultures In this chapter, the author intends to give explanations on the appropriate framework of proxemics that will be applied to the study Chapter II - Methodology presents the context, the methodology of the research which states the research design, data instruments including and questionnaires, informal interviews as well as videotaped recordings in order to find the conversational distance between communicative dyads Also, one-way ANOVA and Independence Sample t-test became the appropriate statically formulas which helps the author analyze the data involved A brief description of the participants of the study, data collection procedure and summary of the methodology could be found in this chapter Chapter III – Findings and Discussions describes and discusses the major findings involving the issues of what factors affect and which factor has the most influence on the conversational distances favored by Vietnamese talkers Still, the detailed explanation for the dissimilarities of preferable interpersonal distance of the two cultures will be addressed in this chapter Part C: Conclusion offers a summary of the findings, from which recommendations, limitations, and future directions for further related studies can also be drawn out PART B DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER I: LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews the theoretical issues related to the topic of the current study This part will present a variety of definition and type of nonverbal communication 10 Judee K Burgoon & Jerold L Hale (1987) Validation and measurement of the fundamental themes of relational communication, Communication Monographs, 54:1, 19-41, DOI: 10.1080/03637758709390214 Jandt, F E (2015) An Introduction to Intercultural Communication: Identities in a Global Community 8th Edition SAGE Publications Hall, E.T (1959) The Silent Language Garden City New York: Doubleday Hall, E.T (1963) Proxemics–The Study of Man’s Spacial Relations and Boundaries In Man’s Image in Medicine and Anthropology, pp 422-45 New 10 11 York: International Universities Press Hall, E.T (1966) The Hidden Dimension London: The Bodley Hea Ltd Hall, E.T (1968) Proxemics In Current Anthropology, 9, pp 83-108 Hall, E.T (1976) Beyond Cultural Garden City New York: Doubleplay Hall, E.T (1988) The Hidden Dimensions of Time and Space in Today’s World Cross-cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication Ed Fernando 12 Poyatos Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Hall, E.T (1988) Cross-cultural Perspectives in Nonverbal Communication 13 Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers Harrison, R.P (1973) Nonverbal Communication 14 15 Communication Chicago: Rand McNally Hybels, S & Weaver, R.L (1992) Communicating Effectively McGraw Hill Knapp, M L (1972) Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction New 16 York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc Leather, D (1978) Nonverbal Communication Systems Boston: Allyn and 17 Bacon, Inc Levine, D.R., & Adelman, M.B (1982) Beyond Language – Intercultural – Handbook of Communication for English as a Second Language Prentice-Hall Inc., 18 Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey Lyons, J (1972) Nonverbal Communication Cambridge: Cambridge 19 University Press Manusov, Valerie Lynn, and Miles L Patterson (2006) The SAGE Handbook 20 of Nonverbal Communication Sage Publications, Inc McCardle, E S (1974) Nonverbal Communication New York: Marcel Dekker, 21 Inc Nguyen Quang (1994) Intercultural communication Vietnam National University Press 71 22 Nguyen Quang (1998) Cross-cultural Communication CFL-Vietnam National 23 University – Hanoi Nguyen Quang (2009) Cross-cultural Communication for ELT CFL-Vietnam 24 National University – Hanoi Saunders M., Lewis P & Thornhill A (2007) Research Methods for Business 25 Fourth edition Pearson Education Limited Spencer-Oatey, H (2004) Cultural Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures A & C Black APPENDENCES APPENDIX BẢN CÂU HỎI KHẢO SÁT Bản câu hỏi khảo sát này thiết kế để làm sở liệu phục vụ cho đề tài nghiên cứu “Tìm hiểu khoảng cách tham thoại giao tiếp giao văn hoá Anh-Việt: Sự khác biệt văn hố phi ngơn từ” Chúng biết ơn anh/chị dành thời gian trả lời câu hỏi này Chúng xin cam kết danh tính và thơng tin cá nhân người tham gia trả lời câu hỏi giữ kín trường hợp I Thơng tin cá nhân: Xin anh/chị cho biết thơng tin thân (bằng cách đánh dấu (√) vào thích hợp điền vào chỗ trống): - Độ tuổi nay: Dưới 20 Từ 20 đến 40 Trên 40 72 Giới tính: Nam Nữ - Tình trạng nhân: Đã lập gia đình Chưa lập gia đình - Nghề nghiệp: Chức vụ: …………………………………………… Quản lý Nhân viên - Nơi sinh sống chủ yếu: Thành thị Nơng thơn - Tính cách bật: Sơi nổi, hướng ngoại Trầm tính, hướng nội II Câu hỏi khảo sát: A Anh/chị tưởng tượng là A, và B tiến lại gần anh/chị để trò chuyện Hãy ước lượng vị trí mà B phải dừng lại (miễn anh chị cảm thấy thoải mái trò chuyện) cách đánh dấu vào thước đo bên hai hình minh hoạ A, B trường hợp sau: Anh/ chị A người lạ B: Anh/ chị A người quen (đồng nghiệp, cấp trên, cấp dưới) B: 73 Anh/ chị A người thân (thành viên gia đình, bạn thân) B: B Anh/ Chị đồng ý hay không đồng ý với trường hợp đây? (Hãy khoanh tròn vào đáp án mà anh/ chị thấy phù hợp nhất): Questions Giới tính định đến khoảng cách giao tiếp 74 Scale 5 Khoảng cách giao tiếp không phụ thuộc vào không gian xung quanh Khi tâm trạng tích cực, đối tượng giao tiếp thường có xu hướng thu ngắn khoảng cách giao tiếp Khoảng cách giao tiếp với đối tượng có địa 5 nội 10 Khoảng cách giao tiếp tỉ lệ thuận với mức độ thân thiết đối tượng giao tiếp 11 Những người có ưu xứng đáng có nhiều không gian giao tiếp người yếu 12 Những người có ưu thường phép vi phạm quy tắc thông thường khoảng cách giao tiếp 13 Mối quan hệ đối tượng giao tiếp là yếu tố định khoảng cách giao tiếp 14 Các cặp giới tính nữ-nữ tương tác khoảng cách cặp giới tính nam-nam 15 Người Việt Nam thường hạn chế khoảng cách thân mật giao tiếp với người lớn tuổi 16 Duy trì khoảng cách thân mật đối 5 vị thấp thường có xu hướng ngắn khoảng cách giao tiếp với đối tượng có địa vị cao Đối tượng giao tiếp sinh và lớn lên thành thị thường có nhu cầu khơng gian giao tiếp rộng lớn đối tượng sinh và lớn lên nơng thơn Những đối tượng giao tiếp với tính cách hướng ngoại thường có xu hướng đứng gần giao tiếp so với đối tượng giao tiếp có tính cách hướng gần so với cặp đơi giới tính khác, đặc biệt là tượng giao tiếp giới cho là điều cấm kỵ văn hoá Việt Nam 17 Đối với người Việt Nam, quyền lực đóng vai trò định việc lựa chọn vùng khoảng cách giao tiếp 75 18 Khoảng cách xã hội dường không ảnh hưởng đến khoảng cách giao tiếp 19 Nam giới thường sử dụng khoảng cách thân mật 5 và khoảng cách công cộng nhiều so nữ giới 20 Khơng gian càng đơng khoảng cách giao tiếp càng bị thu hẹp Xin chân thành cảm ơn giúp đỡ nhiệt tình anh/chị! APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE (English version) This survey questionnaire is designed for the study in to “EnglishVietnamese cross-cultural nonverbal communication: Understanding proxemics in different cultures” Your assistance in completing the following questionnaire is highly appreciated Your responses are invaluable and will be used for the completion of my MA thesis at University of Languages and International Studies You can be confident that you will not be identified in any case Thank you very much for your time! I Personal information (for statistical purposes): Please put a tick (√) where appropriate or answer the question: - Age: Below 20 Between 20 and 40 Above 40 - Gender: Male Female - Marital Status: Married Single - 76 Occupation: …………………………………………… - Social Status: Manager Employee - Living Area: Urban Rural - Typical Personality: Extroverted Introverted II Survey questionnaires: A Imagine that you are person A Person B is approaching to have a conversation with you Rate how close a person B could approach, so that you would feel comfortable in a conversation with her or him You can mark the distance at which person B should stop on the scale below the figures in the following cases: You are person A and person B is a stranger: You are person A and person B is an acquaintance (colleague, superior, inferior): 77 You are person A and person B is a close person (family member, close friend): B To what extend you agree or disagree with each of the following statements? (Please circle one answer in each line across): = strongly agree 78 = agree = undecided = disagree = strongly disagree Questions The communicators’ gender decides the distance of Statements conversation The conversational distance does not depend on the surrounding space When people are in positive mood, they are likely to stand closer People tend to stand closer to inferiors than to superiors Those who were brought up in urban require more space than those in rural Extroverted people are likely to stand closer than introverted people 10 The more intimate, the smaller the physical distance tends to be 11 Dominant individuals command more space than submissive individuals 12 Dominant people violate conversational distance norms 13 Relationship is the most powerful determinant of conversational distance 14 Female-female dyads interact at closer distances dyads 15 Vietnamese respondents refuse to choose intimate zone when communicating with older people 16 Maintaining an intimate distance between partners are allowed to than other sex-pairings, particularly male-male of the same sex is claimed to be a taboo in Vietnamese community 79 17 Power plays a decisive role in the choice of proxemic zones in Vietnamese communication 18 Social status is not seemingly influential to conversational distance 19 Males seem to use less intimate distance and more public distance than females 20 The more crowded it is, the closer distance people are at If you are willing to participate in an interview after completing this questionnaire, please give me your name and your contact details: (Name: ……… ………… Mobile phone: ………………………………) Thank you very much for your cooperation! APPENDIX CÂU HỎI PHỎNG VẤN (Vietnamese Version) Theo anh/chị nào là khoảng cách giao tiếp (khoảng cách vật lý)? Theo anh/chị, yếu tố nào có ảnh hưởng đến khoảng cách giao tiếp (Văn hoá, độ tuổi, giới tính, mối quan hệ, tình trạng nhân, địa vị xã hội, tính cách, nơi sinh sống chủ yếu và nghề nghiệp)? Và yếu tố nào, theo anh/chị, có ảnh hưởng nhiều đến khoảng cách giao tiếp? 80 Anh/Chị chia sẻ kinh nghiệm khoảng cách giao tiếp anh chị tiếp với người đến từ văn hoá khác (nếu có)? Anh/chị cho biết phản ứng giải thích nào người nước ngoài phàn nàn với anh chị việc người Việt Nam thường đứng xa/gần đối phương giao tiếp? Anh/Chị có cho giao tiếp phi ngơn từ (ví dụ khoảng cách giao tiếp) gây xung đột văn hoá? Tại sao? Ở Việt Nam có quy tắc nào khoảng cách giao tiếp khơng, có, người thường áp dụng quy tắc giao tiếp nào? Bản thân anh/chị có quy tắc riêng nào muốn chia sẻ khơng? Anh/ Chị cảm thấy nào người lạ đứng gần (dưới 40 cm) giao tiếp với anh/chị? Anh chị phản ứng nào? Khoảng cách giao tiếp với người thân gia đình (bố, mẹ, vợ, chồng, người yêu) anh/chị có thay đổi khơng gian giao tiếp thay đổi khơng (ví dụ nhà và đến nơi công cộng? Anh chị học tập sinh sống nước ngoài chưa? Nếu có hội học tập và sinh sống nước ngoài thời gian đủ dài, anh chị có muốn tìm hiểu trước khoảng cách giao tiếp thơng thường nguyên tắc bất thành văn khoảng cách giao tiếp đất nước khơng? Tại sao? APPENDIX INTERVIEW GUIDE The general aims of my study is to explore the conversational distances which can occur when individuals from high context cultures interact and how these distances differ to that of the communicators from low context cultures What, according to you, is conversational distance (physically)? What factors have the influence on conversational distance (Cultures, age, gender, relationships, marital status, social status, personality, living area and 81 occupation)? Which factors you think have the most influence on conversational distance? Would you mind sharing you first-hand experience on your favorite conversational distance which occurs when you interact with the people coming from different countries? How will you react or explain when foreigners complain that the Vietnamese tends to stand too far or too close during the communication, which can make them upset Do you think that nonverbal communication (conversational distance – as mentioned) can be one of the causes leading to the cultural conflict? Is there any rule of conversational distance in Vietnam? If any, how can Vietnamese informants apply these rules during communication? Do you have any your own rules? How would you feel and react when being approached too closely (less than 40 cm) by a stranger? Will the conversational distance between you and your spouse (husband, wife, lover) change since the communication setting changes (home setting and public place setting)? Have you ever been abroad? If you had a chance, would you spend time exploring about conversational distance in that country? Why? APPENDIX TRANSCRIPT EXAMPLE Date of interview: 10/06/2018 Location: Online Skype Interview Interview length: 10 minutes Researcher: Hoang Phuong Participant: T (she is the researcher’s colleague at workplace) Researcher: I would like to interview you seven questions related to conversational distance which I am doing a research on Can we start right now? T: Yes Let’s start Researcher: Ok What, according to you, is conversational distance, physically? T: Well, it’s quite hard to define… In my opinion, conversational distance will be something like the barrier which makes the commucation become more difficult This 82 barrier can occur during the communication when there exists the too large age-gaps between the informants or the communicators’ viewpoints vary significantly Once, the distance might appear as interaction operates Researcher: Great! What factors have the influence on conversational distance (Cultures, age, gender, relationships, marital status, social status, personality, living area and occupation)? T: From my own experience, all the factors mentioned can have the influence on conversational distance Researcher: So which factors you think have the most influence on conversational distance? T: Well, I think it is the personality of the communication that weighed strongly with interpersonal distance Researcher: Ok Can you tell me how will the personality affect the conversational distance? T: Err… For example, there would be less space between extroverted communicators and vice versa Researcher: Oh, I see your point Would you mind sharing you first-hand experience on your favorite conversational distance which occurs when you interact with the people coming from different countries? T: Let’s me see Yes There are two types of foreigners whom I had chance to communicate with: the people who are older than me, they can be the experts in education or some other related field The other group can be the people at the same age, they can be overseas students or tourists Well, when interacting with the the first type, I tend to talk about some… Researcher: Sorry to interrupt but what I wish to focus on is not the verbal, I am only keen on nonverbal… T: Oh, alright, I see… So, I almost hardly see any difference, just the feeling What I mean is that I would feel somehow more comfortable when interacting with foreigners, in compare to the interaction with Vietnamese Researcher: Is that the distance will be somehow closer when you have conversations with foreigners? T: Yes, that’s what I mean At least I can feel that It seems that they are more open to talk to… 83 Researcher: OK, how will you react or explain when foreigners complain that the Vietnamese tend to stand too far or too close during the communication, which can make them upset? T: Well, I have chance to study on cross-cultures so the distance created by the two communicators might be a matter to me I mean, I am a kind of open-minded and flexible When being complained, I will try to explain so that they can have more understanding For example, I can tell them that the way Vietnamese culture work, and the people who are not Vietnamese can not anything but adapt it and get used to it It is not something like the Vietnamese not like the foreigners…” Researcher: Ok I see Do you think this issue can be considered cultural breadown or conflict? For example, the foreigners can be shoecked when they have the first time communicate with Vietnamese, just because Vietnamese always keep a considerable distance whiling having conversations, which never happen in their culture Then, there can be misunderstanding leading to misinterpretation… T: Yes, I agree There would be, as you have mentioned Then, they, the people who not know anything about Vietnamese culture, can misinterpret negatively Researcher: Have you known that there are any unwritten rules of conversational distance when Vietnamese communicate? T: Yes, there arre For example, the distance between females can be smaller than that between males, or the distance between male teacher and female teacher to students can vary Researcher: Do you have anything more you would like to add? T: No, that’s all experience that are relevance for you I think Researcher: Thank you very much for your time I really appreciate your help 84 APPENDIX AN EXAMPLE OF SPSS DATA ANALYSIS 85 ... COMMUNICATION: UNDERSTANDING PROXEMICS IN DIFFERENT CULTURES (Giao tiếp phi ngôn từ Anh-Việt: Sự lĩnh hội khoảng cách văn hoá khác nhau) M.A MAJOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Linguistics Code:... extroverts and probably annoy the introverts In short, extroverts have a strong outer reality whereas introverts have a strong inner reality Extroverts may well avoid self-analysis and feel uncomfortable... communicator when having conversation to others; II.B) the next 17 items (5-Likert scale: from strongly disagree to strongly agree) related to the factors affecting the interpersonal distance of Vietnamese,