In face to face interactions, the negotiation process of individualists and collectivists is either more on “me” or “us” respectively. It is not black-and-white process.
Rather, it is the degree of flexibility in the negotiation process during the interaction with other interlocutors. Therefore, individualism and collectivism lead to different ways of verbal communication. At individual level, together with the impact of other cultural factors and life experience, the cultural dimensions of individualism and collectivism help create individual uniqueness and differentiate the way individuals interact in specific social settings. In order to examine the difference of the verbal interaction between the two communication styles of individualists and collectivists, components of verbal communication and each interaction style should be firstly considered.
2.3.1 Components of oral communication
The verbal language includes words, phrases and sentences (Rosengren, 2000). It is mainly shaped by three factors - what is spoken, how it is spoken, and why it is spoken in a certain way. These elements can be understood through the expression of verbal and non-verbal cues. The verbal component of spoken messages is about the choices of words and the way these words put together to create meaning. That is the physical appearance of the messages. As it is about wording, verbal
component includes words and syntax while voice firmness, tone, pitch (high or low), and loudness (or softness) belong to the vocal component. Let‟s take an example. In the sentence “You need to take this matter seriously.”, if the word
“you” is emphasized, that means “you” is the very person that needs to take the action. But if the word “seriously” is stressed, the level of seriousness should be taken into consideration. As a result, if words, phrases, and sentences are considered as the “skeleton” of the verbal communication, the nonlinguistic means including voice quality, speed, pitch, intonation, and so on, in most cases, can be seen as the soul of the message as they create different meanings of spoken words.
Accordingly, in order to utter a completely and adequately meaningful utterance in a certain situational conversation, speakers need to do two jobs – making choices for words and message structures and selecting the appropriate tone, pitch, modulation, and volume to encode their messages. As the communication style of individualists is different from that of collectivists (Samovar, 2007), the selection process of verbal and vocal cues, which form the oral interaction styles, turns different.
2.3.2 The framework of individualistic and collectivistic oral interaction styles
The difference between individualistic and collectivistic interaction styles has been recorded (Nishimura, Nevgi and Tella, 2008). The interaction styles are believed to be influenced by the characteristics of low-context communication (LCC) and high- context communication (HCC), which relate to low- and high-context cultures (Nishimura et al., 2008). In the LCC, the meaning of a spoken message is clearly expressed through verbal cues while in the HCC, the meaning is context based and the nonverbal cues are stressed (Nishimura et al., 2008). In order to understand an HCC‟s message, background knowledge is needed and the verbal communication style in HCC typically requires the stronger connection between interlocutors rather
than that in LCC. Thus, basically, the verbal interaction styles operate in and influenced by a cultural framework of high- and low-context communication. In this framework, the styles can be identified through different manifestations of spoken messages. The messages, which are impacted by the individualistic and collectivistic cultures, could be direct or indirect, verbal- or context-based, and/or person- or status-oriented.
The framework of the LCC and HCC become significant in verbal interaction among individualists and collectivists as it regulates and shapes how a spoken message is uttered by each individual. In literature, Ting-Toomey‟s framework of HCC and LCC is worth to mention. In this framework, the LCC promotes the self- enhancement, direct, linear, person-oriented, and verbal-based style and speakers‟
self-perception is influenced by their desire of self-expression. They have a will to express their emotion, feeling, and opinion explicitly and directly. They have the tendency to promote the self-esteem of other interlocutors by appreciating one‟s achievements and abilities. Thus, the conversation is more person-oriented and achievement-oriented. This is in contrast to the HCC where the focus is on “verbal restraints, hesitations, modest talk, and self-deprecation toward one‟s effort or performance” (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 107). As such, in LCC, direct talk, person- oriented verbal interaction, verbal self-enhancement and talkativeness are emphasized whereas in HCC, indirect talk, status-oriented verbal interaction, verbal self-effacement and silence are dominant (Ting-Toomey, 1999). These characteristics of LCC and HCC are stated in the table 1 below.
Table 2.1 The framework of the low-context communication and high-context communication (Adapted from Ting-Toomey (1999))
LCC characteristics HCC characteristics Direct style Indirect style
Linear logic Spiral logic
Person-oriented style Status-oriented style Self-enhancement style Self-effacement style
Verbal-based understanding
Context-based understanding
2.3.2.1. Direct versus indirect style and its logic
Individualism promotes person-orientation and fact emphasis, which features the directness in verbal communication whereas collectivism supports group-orientation and relationship focus, which results the indirectness in oral interaction. By this way, there are two approaches for message encoding and decoding. They are either direct and straightforward or indirect and spiral. Jandt (2007) explains that the direct style in associated with individualism (and LCC) encodes the wants, the needs, and desires of the speaker through words and that indirect style, which links to collectivism (and HCC), implicitly encodes the wants, the needs, and goals of the speaker in utterances. In direct talk of the LCC, the intentions and needs of the individualistic speaker are straightforward and clearly communicated through words. This is the “straight to the point” logic where everything should be transparent and direct. Meanwhile, the indirect style of the HCC employs hidden meaning and implicit intention, which require the listener‟s internalization and interpretation. Due to the indirectness, the speakers have no other ways to express their meaning rather than a spiral way to express their meaning.
2.3.2.2. Person- versus status-oriented style and the verbal or context-based language use
Individualists and collectivists treat the matter of message delivery differently. With the characteristic of focusing on the self, individualists perceive the process of encoding a message as a responsibility to clearly communicate their message (Ting- Toomey, 1999). These people place expressive, explicit language on top when communicating to others. They see the importance to spread out the personal wants and goals and they expect to have a direct conversation. Hence, their talk in many situations is informative, detail-oriented, and fast. Given that explicitness, the language is more verbal-based and words are the basic elements for listeners to easily decode the message.
In contrast, the collectivists, who set courtesy as the primary element in oral interaction, value the harmony and subtlety in talking (Liu, 2016). They communicate with the awareness of the listeners as social beings who have a certain level of social background and knowledge as well as play a certain role in the society. With that perception in mind, they tend to appropriate themselves in the interaction with the listeners. In return, as a social member with a social status, the listeners will interpret between the lines (Ting-Toomey, 1999) to make themselves understood. Moreover, as one‟s sense of social connection in general or ingroup affiliation in particular is also important to enhance an interpersonal relationship (Roberts and Burleson, 2013), collectivists may heavily depend on the context to convey meaning between interlocutors. Consequently, the language they use is normally implicit and meaning is often implied as face saving should be conformed in social interactions. Using context based approach is believed to be a subtle way to express one‟s idea and show the social harmony through the sense of belonging.
The listeners have to work hard to make sense of the meaning through context and thus maintain the conversation properly.
2.3.2.3. Self-enhancement versus self-effacement style
Self-enhancement places the importance role of encouragement and enhancement of one‟s achievements and success. Ting-Toomey (1999) informs that self-efficacy will be enhanced through conversations with individualists as their appreciation language and focus on positive outcomes help to promote good self-image of individuals. As such, the language used is appreciation words and accomplishment- oriented language and the frequency of praises will probably appear regularly in one‟s sayings. Conversely, self-effacement highlights one‟s modesty and humbleness toward their ability, which Liu (2016) names as a way to strengthen interlocutors‟ face. The sayings of “good wine needs no bush” can be seen as a key message in the self-effacement style. That explains why appreciation language is lack in collectivists‟ communication. The regular talks include modest talks, hesitations and humble language.