Rationale
It is essential to respect all cultures and promote an understanding of how individual cultures relate to dominant ones Embracing another culture or language does not require sacrificing your own cultural identity.
In today's globalized world, intercultural communication has become increasingly significant as people from diverse nations interact more closely This field of study examines the complexities of these interactions, highlighting how misunderstandings can arise from linguistic differences, stereotypes, social roles, and belief systems Effective intercultural communication is essential for resolving conflicts and fostering understanding, as individuals often express themselves through both verbal and nonverbal means Haptics, or touching behavior, plays a crucial role in conveying emotions and reducing cognitive load, while also aiding in the listener's comprehension of messages However, cultural variations dictate the norms of touching, leading to different expectations regarding who touches whom in various contexts The interpretation of touch is influenced by the individuals involved, the situational context, and their cultural backgrounds, making it vital for individuals to understand their own cultural norms to navigate these interactions successfully.
Understanding cultural differences is essential for effective communication and minimizing miscommunication Toomey (1998) identifies Vietnamese culture as low-contact and Australian culture as moderate-contact, which can lead to misunderstandings during interactions This study focuses on the touching behaviors of both cultures to compare and contrast their haptic norms shaped by distinct cultural values The goal is to enhance awareness of these differences and provide recommendations to reduce the likelihood of haptic miscommunication when engaging across cultures.
Aim and objectives of the study
This study aims to compare and contrast the haptic cultures of Vietnam and Australia, focusing on specific objectives to enhance understanding of the differences and similarities in touch communication between the two cultures.
Investigating the similarities and differences of haptics in communication between Vietnamese and Australian people
Raising an awareness of cultural differences when interacting across cultures
Making contribution to avoiding intercultural problems of haptics in communication by giving some suggestions
Scope of the study
This study discusses the topic of nonverbal communication Extra- linguistically, the study especially emphasizes on haptics communication in the two cultures: Vietnamese and Australian
Research questions
This study aims to explore the norms of haptics in communication between Vietnamese and Australian cultures by addressing two key research questions that examine their cultural perceptions.
Therefore, it is expected to seek answers to the following questions:
1 How do Vietnamese and Australian people practice their haptics in communication?
2 What cultural values influence the norms of touching behavior of Vietnamese and Australian people?
The study utilized observations and interviews to gather data from Vietnamese and Australian participants YouTube videos were analyzed to examine the touching behaviors of both cultures Additionally, interviews with informants from Vietnam and Australia provided deeper insights into their perceptions of haptics in communication.
This study consists of three parts: Introduction, Development and Conclusion
Part A: Introduction- presents the reasons for carrying out this study, defines the specific purposes, research questions, the scope of the study and the outline of the study
Part B: Development- consists of 3 chapters:
Chapter 1: Literature Review - provides the theoretical background needed for the study and reviews some previous studies which is related to the topic of the study
Chapter 2: Methodology outlines the research methodology employed in this study, detailing the sample selection process, the procedures for data collection, and the methods used for data analysis.
Chapter 3: Result and Discussion - reports the results of the data analysis and discussion
In conclusion, this study highlights key findings that enhance our understanding of effective intercultural communication and proposes practical implications for improvement It also acknowledges the limitations of the research and offers recommendations for future studies to further explore this vital area of communication.
Following Part C is References listing all reference books or materials The final section of the thesis contains the appendices that show all documents serving this research
PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1.1 Cross-cultural Communication vs Intercultural Communication
Martin and Nakayama (2004) explored the concept of communication in the context of intercultural interactions by referencing Carey’s (1989) definition, which describes communication as a "symbolic process whereby reality is produced, maintained, repaired, and transformed." This perspective emphasizes the dynamic nature of communication in shaping and reshaping our understanding of reality.
Communication is inherently symbolic, involving both verbal and nonverbal cues that convey meaning While we often presume that our messages are understood as intended, misunderstandings can arise due to the diverse cultural backgrounds and experiences of those involved in the interaction.
Communication is a dynamic process where individuals actively engage in negotiating meaning The transmission of messages is unstable and depends heavily on the context in which communicators create, maintain, repair, or transform their realities.
1.1.1.2 Cross-cultural Communication vs Intercultural Communication
Understanding the definitions and differences between Cross-Cultural Communication (CCC) and Intercultural Communication (ICC) is crucial for this study Scollon & Scollon (2001) emphasize that CCC research begins with the premise of distinct cultural groups and examines their communicative practices in a comparative manner.
The ICC framework begins with the premise of cultural differences among various groups, focusing on their communicative practices during interactions Scollon, Scollon, and Jones (2012) refined this concept by emphasizing the importance of analyzing communication both in an abstract context and in direct social interactions between different groups.
Scollon & Jones, 2012: 17) These concepts are simply drawn by Gudykunst (2003) as “Cross cultural involves comparisons of communication across cultures.” and
“Intercultural involves communication between people from different cultures.” (Gudykunst, 2003: 1)
Nonverbal communication plays a crucial role in how we interact, as demonstrated by actions such as smiling, patting someone on the shoulder, or holding hands According to Hall (1959), nonverbal cues convey more information than spoken words Albert Mehrabian's "3Vs" rule highlights this, revealing that only seven percent of a speaker's feelings are communicated through words, while a staggering ninety-three percent is relayed through tone of voice and body language In intercultural communication, understanding nonverbal signals is essential, as they are dynamic and can significantly impact the effectiveness of communication As noted by Martin and Nakayama (2004), interpreting these cues across different cultures can be vital for successful interactions.
In the broadest sense, nonverbal communication is understood as all human communication events that transcend spoken and written words (Knapp & Hall,
Nonverbal communication, often referred to as the "silent language," encompasses gestures, facial expressions, and eye contact (Levine & Adelman, 1993) However, it is crucial to consider other influencing factors, such as culture and context, which have garnered increased attention from scholars Nguyen Quang (2008) highlights the importance of both tangible language and contextual elements in shaping nonverbal communication.
Nonverbal communication encompasses all elements of communication that are not conveyed through verbal codes, incorporating both vocal and non-vocal channels As Samovar et al (2007) noted, nonverbal behavior includes nonverbal stimuli generated by the communicator and their environment, which carry potential message value for both sender and receiver Cruz (2001) defined nonverbal communication as the nonlinguistic messages encoded and decoded through facial expressions, body gestures, spatial dynamics, touch, eye contact, timing, tone, and the communicative environment Recognizing the impact of nonverbal behavior is crucial in intercultural communication, as participants may come from varying cultural backgrounds, sharing different values Griffin (2009) emphasized that interpersonal communication is a mutual, ongoing process where both verbal and nonverbal messages work together to shape perceptions This perspective aligns with Martin and Nakayama's (2004) dialectical approach, which stresses the importance of considering the relationship between nonverbal behavior and the social and cultural contexts that accompany verbal messages.
Scholars have developed various classifications of nonverbal communication, with Knapp (1978) identifying several key categories Kinesic behavior encompasses visible body actions, including gestures, facial expressions, and posture Physical characteristics pertain to a person's overall appearance, while touching behavior involves physical contact between individuals Paralanguage highlights how vocal tone and delivery can alter the meaning of spoken words Proxemics examines the spatial distances maintained during interactions, and artifacts refer to items like perfume and cosmetics that create nonverbal cues Lastly, environmental factors consider the influence of surroundings, such as furniture and lighting, on interpersonal communication.
Samovar et al (2007) classified nonverbal behavior into two primary categories: the first encompasses physical aspects of the human body, such as appearance, body movements, and nonverbal speech elements The second category focuses on the interplay between human actions and contextual factors, including proximity, timing, and silence.
Nonverbal communication, as classified by Martin and Nakayama (2004), encompasses various codes including proxemics, which examines personal space usage; eye contact, which helps regulate interpersonal distance; facial expressions that convey emotions; chronemics, focusing on the significance of time and its associated rules; and silence, which plays a crucial role in communication dynamics.
Nguyen Quang (2008) separates nonverbal communication into very detailed parts I like his classification because it counts all elements influencing communication His classification is presented in the following table:
(Adapted from Nguyen Quang (2008), Giao tiếp phi ngôn từ qua các nền văn hóa: 82)
According to Samovar et al (2007), “nonverbal communication is multidimensional This multidimensional aspect is revealed in the fact that nonverbal communication often interacts with verbal messages The interfacing of
10 the verbal with the nonverbal carries over the many uses and functions of nonverbal behavior.” (Samovar et al., 2007: 198) They explained five functions of nonverbal behavior as follows:
Repeating: to repeat a point they are trying to make
Complementing: to add more information to messages
Substituting: to perform some actions instead of speaking
Regulating: to regulate and manage your communication by using some form of nonverbal behavior
Contradicting: to send signals opposite from the literal meanings contained in your verbal language
Nguyen Quang (2008) also shared a partly similar view to Samovar et al (2007) when emphasizing the interaction of verbal and nonverbal language He mentioned four functions of nonverbal behavior as:
to complement and clarify meaning and shade of verbal language
to regulate a chain of verbal communication
1.1.2.4 The importance of nonverbal communication