From what have been discussed so far, the classroom oral interaction with the consideration of the cultural dimensions of individualism and collectivism varies depending on how verbal and vocal cues are performed. The verbal selection is reflected through the use of syntax, vocabulary, and grammar in classroom which can be analyzed through the spoken words of teacher instruction, questions and feedback. Specifically, they are the structure of sayings, the type of vocabulary the EFL teachers use in class, and how grammar is applied to convey meaning.
Meanwhile, the vocal component represented by voice firmness, speed, and loudness is the one to complete the full meaning of the spoken message. These factors can be detected through the pitch, speed rate, and intensity which can be identified thanks to voice analysis programs. From which, either LCC (individualistic) or HCC (collectivistic) approach in oral communication can be looked through.
For verbal cues, it is indicated through the language use in the LCC and HCC that reflects the difference between direct and indirect styles of teacher instruction and responses. It is actually the difference of the level of straightforwardness of the content message. Direct communication promotes the verbal precision and self- expression and the indirect style, however, maintain harmony and save face (Neuliep, 2011). When the interaction style is direct, there is an equality of interlocutors as individuals and the language is thus free from the social hierarchy.
The teacher (speaker) is responsible for clearly express their meaning through words to make sure the meaning is conveyed and understood correctly. Conversely, when the verbal interaction style is more on status orientation, it tends to focus on the social relationships of the interlocutors. For this reason, there is a selection of vocabularies and paralinguistic features that are used to draw attention to the social
roles of the teacher and students (listeners) in order to save face for interlocutors and maintain their relationship. As a result, the language used is more in a spiral way of expression. The argument above can be concluded in the table 2.2.
It has been argued that there is a negotiation of EFL teachers on the continuum of individualism and collectivism reflected through their interaction style in EFL classes. In the Vietnamese context as mentioned, EFL teachers may be more on the collectivistic orientation, given the country‟s original culture. As such, their oral interaction style in class is perhaps closer to collectivism. A framework of verbal interaction styles of EFL teachers with the two different cultural approaches has been adapted. From this framework, four hypotheses are made to examine the phenomenon in the Vietnamese context.
Table 2.2 Framework of verbal interaction of EFL teacher individualists and collectivists
Verbal interaction among individualists
Verbal interaction among collectivists
Directness Indirectness
Person-orientation Status-orientation Verbal based style Context-based style Self-enhancement style Self-effacement style
2.7 Hypotheses of EFL teachers’ cultural dimension on their oral interaction styles in their class
The EFL teachers who are collectivism-oriented tend to talk in an indirect way, which may result spiral sayings and ambiguity for the meaning making and their
conversations are more social context-based which means the social relationship between them and students, including their social status, is taken into consideration for how the conversations should be made. Such an implicit way of talking may emphasize student listeners‟ interpretation and a complicated process of decoding.
Consequently, in the EFL teaching context within a culture, the verbal interaction style of collectivistic teachers is more on implicitness, circularity, social status- based interaction, group harmony, face saving, and students‟ interpretation.
Hypothesis 1 – Teachers who are collectivistic will talk in an indirect/spiral style.
Given the continuum of individualism and collectivism, the probability is those who are collectivistic may communicate in an indirect way. With the fear of losing a relationship and the social norm of being subtle in communication, straightforwardness should be avoided in conversations. As this collectivistic group of EFL teachers prefers interdependence and their sense of belonging to their ingroup to students, the individual teachers choose to talk indirectly. As loud voice is considered as rudeness, they tend not to raise voice as much as they can to maintain the harmonious atmosphere in class. When giving instruction or responses, the teachers therefore may perform a fine tone of voice. As harmony is promoted in the interaction, a soft and clear voice is preferred. Their instruction, therefore, is blurred in terms of meaning because they tend to imply the message through wording, rather than express it through verbal cues. With that approach in communication, the teachers tend to use vocabulary and sentences structure which may cause ambiguity in meaning.
Hypothesis 2 – Teachers who are collectivistic will interact on status-orientation.
As social relationship is important to collectivistic teachers, they tend to act based on the social role of the interlocutor(s). Their logics and facts are not as important as building relationship among the interlocutors. As those teachers are familiar with the social status involvement in conversation, their conversation may focus on
students‟ interpretation and thus the social relationship between them and their students is well maintained. In this way, the harmony spirit is nurtured quite well in the class. Hence, the classroom environment seems to be quiet. Additionally, the language use is hierarchical and the classroom interaction reveals a more orderly management. Although the relationship is well established and maintained, personal expression seems to be limited in teacher talk to remain the good management in class. Their personal attitudes are hence limited, which means the language intensity is less diverse. Thus, the stress and intonation falls and rises depending on the judgment of the teachers toward the lesson/lecturing requirement and the classroom atmosphere.
Hypothesis 3 – Teachers who are collectivistic will speak in a context-based style.
Those who are collectivistic will attach to context-based interaction. When teachers provide oral instruction in class, they may include not only the course content but also the institution and student needs into their instruction (Hiep, 2005). Hence, they put themselves in relation to students, making assumptions about students‟
knowledge and background. They have a tendency to use that assumption (which may be right or wrong) to communicate in class. Their oral interaction, as a result, is lack of factual details. This brings to the case where “collectivistic” teachers tend to speak very implicitly to instruct their students in class. They assume that their students should know anything which relates to the context and expect them to make some interpretation without speaking out loud. Their speed may be slow as the collectivistic orientation allows silence.
Hypothesis 4 - Teachers who are collectivistic will promote self-effacement style.
As being influenced by the characteristics of high-context communication, the teacher feedback may lack praises and recognition of student contribution and development progress. Modest talks and humbling conversations are applied in oral interaction of the collectivistic teachers. Teachers would try to avoid giving
compliment to specific students on their contribution, participation or learning achievements. For collectivistic teachers, it would be harder as it is not familiar for them to speak out (publicly) recognition of student progress as the focus would be on the group, not individual.