CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT | certify my authority of the Study Project Report submitted entitled A VIETNAMESE - AMERICAN CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY OF CONVERSATIONAL DISTANCES In fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Le Thi HuyenAcknowledgements J owe my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, MA Nguyen Tht Thank Huong, without whose valuable comments and guidance, my tests would not have been accomplistied My special thanks go to my colleagues from Haiphong Water Supply Company, those who helped me fill in my survey questionnaire and give me constructive suggestions in completing this thesis. And I am immensely grateful to my former teacher, Ms. Stacy Thompson, who ts living and working in the United States. She has helped me condict my survey in the United States. 7 owe my family great attitude for their love, support and encouragement. Sinally, I should acknowledge my indebtedness to all my friends for their assistance during the process of preparing for this research. Le Thi HuyenABSTRACT Even the best verbal communication skills are not enough to ercate and sustain successful relationships. Good relationships, both at home and at work, require the ability to communicate with emotional intelligence. Part of our culture involves an unspoken rule that people should ignore nonverbal elements~ as if the injunction were, "hear what I say, and don't notice the way I say it.” These elements are offen ignored in school or overridden by parents, so the task of incorporating conscious sensitivity to nonverbal communications is made more difficult Thus, this thesis is an attempt to provide a cross-cultural comparison of common conversational distances, their frequency used in American and Vietnamese cultures and factors affecting conversational distances. special emphasis is given to classification and usage of conversational distances as well as factors affecting conversational distances. The implications are suggested and recommendations provided for avoidance of culture shock and cross-cultural communication breakdown, For instance, American people tend to use close phase of intimate distance when showing intimate emotion with mothers more than 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 also concluded that if two Americans of opposite sex are conversing, they find close phase casicr, ffoor and more conventional , however, it is applied for every case that if the communicative partners are of the same sex then eloser distance is more popular with ‘Vietnamese informantsLIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Figure 1: Percentage of verbal and nonverbal communication in common use Diagram I> Classification of nonverbal communication Table 1: Further clarification of nonverbal communication Table 2: Sub-distances of intimate distance and their communicators Table 3: Subsdistances of personal distance and their communicators Table 4: Sub-distances of social distance and their communicators Table 5: Sub-distances of publie distance and their communicators Table 6: Interactions among messages, tones of voice and distances between faces Table 7: Figures on wsing 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 samessex close friend (vo male friends) Table 12: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their samessex close friend (vo female friends) Table 13: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their oppesitesex close Send Table 14: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex acquaintance Table 1S: 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 ecupationTABLE OF CONTENTS PART A: INTRODUCTION.. 1. Rationale Il IL, Aims of the study.. Il Scope of the stud IV. Methodology. V. Design of the stud PART B: DEVELOPMENT. Chapter 1: Literature review... 1. What is communicatior 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 distance as nonverbal communication .. 1. Definition of conversational distances... 2. Classification of conversational distances.. 2.1 Intimate distance 2.2 Personal distance 17 (Photo credits: dantri.com.yn) 7 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. BA AGE 3.5 Population density 3.6 Intended message... Chapter 3: Data analysis and discussion... 1. Methodology... 1.1 Participants 24 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..32 ‘ONCLUSION... PART C 1, Summary of main findings: 36 LL, Implications for avoidance of culture shock and cross-cultural ‘communication breakdown. IML. Suggestion for further study... AppendicesPART A: INTRODUCTION I. Rationale Stated briefly, how something is expressed may carry more significance and weight than what 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 our holistic perceptions of their context. Those sending the messages may lear to understand themselves better as well as learning to exert some greater consciousness about their manner of speech, Those receiving the messages may learn to better understand their own intuitive 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 physical space seems to be different from culture to culture; thus, ways of interpretation of the same space message are also various. In the 1950's, American anthropologist Edward T. Hall pioneered provemics 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 to the 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 Latin cultures, for instance, those relative distances are smaller, and people tend to be more comfortable standing close to cach other; in Nordic cultures the opposite is true. Realizing and recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helps climinate discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is too large ("stand- oflis ") of too small (intrusive). Comfortable personal distances also depend on the culture . social situation, gender, and individual preference. In this thesis, we will discuss conversational distances and its effects on human communication, Additionally, we will compare and contrast the way Vietnamese and American informants apply conversational distances with certain subjects. It is expected that the findings will, to a certain extent, raise readers’ awareness of the importance ofnonverbal communication and provide useful recommendations to Vietnamese learners of English for avoidance of culture shock in conversational distances when conducting face- to-fice interactions with their Anglophone partners, II. Aims of the study The aims of the study are: > To compare and contrast (ypes of conversational distances in human interactions and the influence of the informants’ parameters on conversational distances in the two cultures in onder to clarify similarities and differences in the way the Vietnamese 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 be addressed: 1, What are the conversational distances of the Vietnamese informants in given situations? 2. What ate the conversational distances of the American informants in given situations? 3, What are the main similarities and differences in conversational distances between Vietnamese and American informants? 4, What are the recommendations to the Vietnamese learners of English for avoidance of culture shock in conversational distances? IIL 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, the main method employed in the study is quantitative with due reference to qualitative method. Besides, contrastive analysis is also used. Therefore, all considerations, comments and conclusions in this thesis are largely based on: > vvvy v Reference to relevant home and foreign publication in both primary and secondary rescarch; Survey questionnaires; Statistics, descriptions and analysis of the collected and selected data; Personal observations and experience; Consultations with supervisors; Discussions with Vietnamese and foreign teachers V. Design of the study The study falls into three main parts: PART vvvvy A; INTRODUCTION Rationale Aims of the study Scope of the study ‘Methods of the study Design of the study PART B: DEVELOPMENT: > > > PART C; CONCLI ‘Chapter 1; Background concepts Chapter 2: Conversational distances as nonverbal communication Chapter 3: Data analysis and discussion ‘SIONPART B: DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1: Literature review In this chapter, definition and types of communication will be presented. Simultaneously, definition of nonverbal communication will be given out and significance of nonverbal communication shall also be taken into consideration in order to emphasize its role in ‘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 ean be classified into: > Emphasis on the hearer: According to Ronald B. Alder & George Rodman (1998), “communication 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 “communication refers to the process man being responding to the face-to-face symbolic behaviour of other persons”, Levine and Adelman (1993) described it as “the process of sharing meaning through verbal and nonverbal behaviour”. > Embhasis on the meaning of the intended message: If Zimmerman et al, (1991; 4) mentioned this when illustrating communcation as “the process in which persons assign meanings to events and especially to the behaviour of other persons”, Verderber (1989: 4) bad 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 “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 message conveyed! It is clarified in the definition of Hybels, S. and Weaver, R. (1992: 5) that “communication 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 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; specified the characteristics of communication, the means to carry out communication and different levels of communication, 1.2 Types of communication Hybels, S. and Weaver, R-II (1992: 14) explain that there are different kinds of communication, among which the most frequently used ones are: intrapersoral, 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 is centered in the self, you are the only sender-receiver. The message is made up of your thoughts and feelings. The channel is your brain, which processes what you are thinkingand feeling. There is feedback in the sense that as you talk to yourself, you discard certain ideas 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 oceurs mostly between, ‘ovo people, though it may include more than two. Interpersonal communication uses all the elements of the communication process. In a conversation between friends, for example, each brings his or her background and experience to the conversation. During the conversation each functions as sender-rocciver. Their messages consist of both verbal and nonverbal symbols, The channels they use the most arc sight and sound. Because interpersonal communication is between two (or 8 few) people, it offers the greatest opportunities for feedback. The persons involved in the conversation 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 isto obtain information on particular subject. One common type isthe job interview, in which the employer asks the job candidate questions to determine whether be 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 the other responds. Both persons, however, are continuously and simultaneously sending nonverbal messages. Because interviews usually take place face to face, a lot of nonverbal information is exchanged, Feedback is very high in an interview. Since the interview has a specific purpose, the communication setting is usually quite formal > Small group communication‘Small group communication occurs when a small number of people meet to solve a problem. The group must be small enough so that cach 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 people sonding messages, there arc_more chanecs for confusion, Messages are also more structured in small group because the group is meeting together for a specific purpose ‘Small groups use the same channels as interpersonal communication, there is also a good deal of opportunity for feedback, and the settings are also more formal. > Public communication In public communication the sender-tecciver (speaker) sends a message (the speech) to an audience, The speaker usually delivers @ highly-structured message, using the same channels as interpersonal communication and small-group communication. In public communication, however, the channels are more exaggerated than in interpersonal communication, The voice is louder and the gestures are more expansive because the audience is bigger. Generally, the opportunity for verbal feedback in public communication is limited. In most public communication the setting is formal, 2, What is nonyerbal communication? 2.1 Definition of nonverbal communication Even if someone decides to say nothing, they are still communicating. So in fact, how is the 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 us spend about 75 percent of our waking hours communicating our knowledge, thoughts andideas to others. However, most of us fail to realize that a great deal of our communication isa 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 or the 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 the voice and by facial expressions, whereas only 7 percent of the speaker's attitude was transmitted by words. Apparently, we express our emotions and attitudes more nonverbally than 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 and time is an essential part of every message that he or she sends. eel renner Figure 1: Percentage of verbal and nonserbal communication in common nse Nonverbal communication expresses meaning or feeling without words, Universal motions, such as happincss, fear and sadness are expressed in a similar nonverbal way throughout the world. There are, however, nonverbal differences across cultures that may be a source of confusion for forcigners. For examy feelings of friendship exist everywhere but their expression varies, It may be acceptable in some countries for men to embrace each other and for women to hold hands; in other countries these displays ofaffection may be shocking. What is acceptable in one culture may be completely unacceptable in another. One culture may determine that snapping fingers to all waiter is appropriate; another may consider this gesture rude, We are often not aware of how gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, and the use of space affect communication. In order to comcctly interpret another culture's style of communication, it is necessary to study 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), “nonverbal communication is the ‘silent’ language, including the use of gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, and conversational distance”. Nonverbal communication can be further clarified based on the following table; NONVERBAL Channel s Tone of voiee, sigh, scream, ; Spoken words Vocal is vocal quality, pitch, (Untralanguage) loudness, and other | paralinguistie factors Gesture, movement Nonvocal Written words appearance, facial intralanguage) Gntralanguage) expression, touch, and other extralinguistic factors Table I: Parther 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 at work? Nonverbal communication is the single most powerful form of communication More than voice or even words, nonverbal communication cues you in to what is on another person's mind. The best communicators are sensitive to the power of the emotions and thoughts communicated nonverbally.10 Nonverbal communication is important as "when we speak (or listen), our attention is focused on words rather than body language. But our judgment inclides 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), “the 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 scems 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 and other sounds) and 55% non-verbal. Birdwhistell (1997) estimates that the average person actually speaks words for a total of about 10 or 11 n inutes a day and that the average sentence takes only about 2.5 seconds. He also discovered that the verbal component of a face-to-face conversation is less than 35% and that over 6: f 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 10 discuss oral ‘communication without taking nonverbal communication into account because only up to ‘one-third of a message in a person-to-person situation is conveyed by words alone. Nonverbal cues are important in communication since nonverbal communication occurs ‘more frequently than verbal one and people can easily remember what they see than what they hear, Moreover, people are hardly aware of the fact that they are communicatingim nonverbally, thus, they often reveal themselves more. That's why people can easily be ‘cheated 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 in company of messages from other categories, verbal messages, contexts and people functioning as message receivers. According to Richmond et al. (1991), categories of nonverbal forms arc > Physical appearance: Physical appearance is generated when we send to anyone with whom we come in contact. I'the message is unacceptable by the other person, sthe may not even consider the later messages. Body size, body shape, clothing facial features and other subjects adorning ourselves can be seen as aspects of physical appearance that produce potential messages. v Face and eye behaviour: Face and cye behaviour is known as “ocwlesis”. According to many rescarchers, itis virtually impossible to separate the messages sent by the eyes and those sent by the face, thus itis best to consider these together. This category of nonverbal communication has a major impact in terms of expressing tions and regulating interactions between people. For example when professor is giving a lecture, you read a magazine instead of looking at himvher and giving your full attention, this would indicate to the professor that you are disinterested in his/her lecture > Gesture and movement: Gesture and movement is known as “kinesies”. It focuses oon the movements of hands and arms, postures and gross bodily movement such as standing, walking and sitting, Messages generated by this type of nonverbal communication have often been referred to a8 “hody language”, Although the body certainly is sending messages, such messages do not form a linguistic system, with the exception of the gesture language of the deaf, and thus “do not represent a language in any normal sense of that term” (Richmond et al. 1991). v Vocal behavior: Vocal behavior has been variously known as “vocalies” or ““paralanguage”. Characteristics of the voice and its use, including the accent withv v v 12 which we speak a language, have a major impact on how verbal messages are received, Some researchers argue that more of the meaning in interpersonal communication is stimulated by vocalie messages than the verbal messages 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 be very true in the general U.S. culture where touch is so uncommon. Touch does indeed send a potent message, one that rarely can be ignored, Space: Space is known as “proxemics”. This is the ara that this study is focusing There are reasons to believe that our basie approach to space is, at least in part, instinctual. However, humans differ greatly in their use of space and as a result send very different nonverbal messages in communication Environment: Rescarchers have examined the impact of environment on human behavior in general and its impact on communication specifically and in reality, it has such a major impact on communication, We can exert considerable control over our environment through our behavior. If we look at such things as architecture, music, spatial arangements, musi, color, lighting and temperature and how these can be used to send nonverbal mes: es. Scent and smell; Scent and smell has been referred to as “olfactics”. IF pornography is inthe eye of the beholder, then certainly scent is in the nose of the smeller. People react very differently to various scents and smells, We can send important messages through our use of scents and smells in many cases. American society evidences its concern with this nonverbal category by spending 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 hound’, they often fil 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,13 A classification of the author's interest is the one proposed by Nguyen Quang (F:29) since itis quite clear and sufficient. Nonverbal Communication Nawyen Quang (CC) Paralanguage Extralanguage Body language! Object language! Environmental Kinesies Antifacts language Vocal characteristics | | ~ Eye comact Clothing ~ Satine Pitch + Facial expressions “ewellery Conversational Volume Physical characteristics | | © Accessories ‘istancePronemics Rate Gestures Make-up Time’Chroneries Vocal quality = Posture: = Artal scents | | = Lighting system Typesof vocal fow | | ~ Body movement Gin Colour = Vocal intererence’ | | = Touch’ Haptic Tactile... || - Flower Heat = sitence Diagram I: Classification of nonverbal communication4 Chapter 2: Conversational distance 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 in different cultures. For Americans, personal space is very important and often results in some of the most offensive actions when not respected. Scientifically termed "provemies", personal space can make us feel warm and fuzzy but also make us feel alienated and also make us feel alienated and defensive, especially on social and interpersonal relationships. When addressing issues of personal space, we often do not perceive our own physical actions as being offensive of intimidating to others. Ibs 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 another individual? For strangers, personal space should equate a distance greater than four foc. To feel comfortable, Americans often find they fee less defensive when they have, atleast four feet between themselves and the "next gu. In contrast, if you ate within 18 inches of another individual, this is often subconsciously perceived as being more intimate with the individual. 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 appropriately away from the person next to us? No. Actually, scientific research, in proxemics, has found that we have a subconscious method for gauging an appropriate distance. Unfortunately, for some individuals, this subconscious activity is not functioning properly.15 2, Classification of conversational distances Leather defines distance as a "relational concept, typically measured in terms of how far cone 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, Hall identifies four types of distances: intimate, personal, social, and public. These distances ccan 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 Sub-distance Length = Spouses, lovers, parents-children, close friends... showing intimate Far phase | 6-18 inches (15 - 46 centimetres) | emotion; or = Communicators expressing high negative attitude Spouses, lovers, parents-children, close friends... showing love emotion; or = Communicators expressing very high defiance attitude which can’ leads to physical conflict Close phase | 0-6 inches (0 - 15 centimetres) Table 2: Sub-distances of intimate distance and their communicators16 Intimate distance ranges from body contact to approximately eighteen inches (just less than half a meter). According 1 Hall, the close phase (up fo 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 triends. Intimate distance exists whenever we feel free (Photo eredits: tnt comm) People from different cultures use this intimate space differently. For instance, North Americans may feel physical discomfort when someone docs not keep the proper distance from them; and this fecling may be aggravated considerably if the person they feel "soo close" is of the opposite sex. Hall also mentions that some English expressions such as "ger Jour face out of mine" and "he shook his fist in my face" show how important body don't bite" boundaries are for Americans. By contrast, the Costa Rican expression, shows the discomfort people from this culture feel when others are too far from them. Hall, affirms that the use of intimate distance is not proper in public places in the United States (Qhis can be scen similarly in Vietnam). However, this distance is common among members of other cultures (e.g. Latin Americans and Arabs).17 2.2 Personal distance Sub-distance Length Communicators = Communication among friends, colleagues; or = Communicators possibly expressing negative attitude Far phase | 2.5 -4 fect (0.77 1.23 metres) - Communication among close relatives; or - Communicators expressing, negative attitude Close phase | 1.5 -2.5 feet (0.46 - 0.77 metres) abe 3: Sub-cstances of personal distance and ther 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 fect) permits one person to touch another, while the far phase of personal distance (2.5 to four feet) "an arm's length" docs 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 (Photo credts:dantricom.n) It is not difficult to realize that Vietnamese normally use far phase of personal distance if they are of the opposite sex. Close phase of personal distance can be used more by the communicators who are both female than those who are both male18 2.3 Social distance Sub-distance Length 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 Table 4: Sub-dstances of social distance and their communicators 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, Is 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. (Photo credits: www.123rfcom) 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 touch strangers; the distance they keep in ordinary social conversations is the same as what Westerners use in intimate conversations. People from other cultures such as North Americans and British normally offer an excuse if they touch a stranger. From my observation, an excuse also tends fo be used by Vietnamese if they touch a stranger in social communication,19 24 Publi distance Sub distance Tenth Farphase | 5525684677 mete) or Ope pean sens in plc Chose phase [12-15 1.7 -46mexes) Communication ane rangers Table 5: Sub-distances of public distance and their commuicators Public distance ranges from 12 to 25 fect 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. (Photo ered: wwe 128efcom) Researchers (e.g, Hall 1959; Vargas 1986) identify high-contact cultures such as Arabs, Latin Americans, Grecks, 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). 3. Factors effecting conversational distances Hall notes that different cultures maintain different standards of personal space. In Latin ‘cultures, for instance, those relative distances are smaller, and people tend to be more comfortable standing close to each other; in Nordic cultures the opposite is true. Realizing20 and recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helps climinate discomfort people may feel iff the interpersonal distance is (oo large ("sfand- offish”) oF too small (intrusive). Comfortable personal distances also depend on the culture, social situation, gender, and individual preference. Besides, Allan Pease, in his book “Body langua”, adds several other factors affecting personal distance, that is: age, population ensity and intended messages. Combining the views of two researchers, we have six factors affecting personal distance: 3.1 High - low contact culture Cultural background is one of the most influential factors in nonverbal communication in general and proxemics in particular. Rescarchers have divided cultures into threc types: high-contact culture, moderate-contact culture and low-contact eulture, = In high-contact culture, people favour higher sensory exposure, French, Italian, Latin ‘American, Arab and Aftican are considered to be high-contect culture, in which interactants usually keep small distances among themselves. - American, Canadian, Northem European, New Zealander and Australian belong to ‘moderate-contact cultures as they employ less touching and maintain a further distance uring their conversations. - Asian (Chinese, Vietnam, Indonesian, Japanese and Korean), German and Dutch are identified as low-contact cultures, whose interactants “stand further apart” 3.2 Gender In terms of gender, distance between people of the same sex is smaller than between those of the opposite sex. Summarizing diverse studies, Vrugt and Ketstra (1984) concludes interaction between strangers, the iuterpersonal distance between women is smaller than between men and women”.2 3.3 Relationship Another factor deciding the interpersonal interactants are, the smaller the physical distance tends to be in communication. This can ince is relationship. The more intimate the bbe seen very clearly in the four distance zones: = Public distance is employed between speakers and audience, - Social distance is used for conversations between acquaintances and strangers ~ Personal distance is for friends, family members and relatives, - Intimate distance is reserved for lovers, couples, spouses, sometimes for close friends and family members 34 Age Generally, during chikthood, people (Photo credits: tan comm) tend to stand closer to each other. ‘When being teenagers and over, we begin to have awareness on social distance and the personal space becomes greater (Photo ered: ww. 123rf.com)22 Old age will lead to close distance in communication as human are assumed 10 receive the subject’s support for being weak. (Photo credits: ww. 123rf.com) Population density ‘According to Pease (1984), the amount of personal space required by an individual is related to the population density of the arca in which he/she was brought up, Those who were brought up in sparsely-populated areas require more space than those raised in densely-populated area. Watching how far a person extends his arm to shake bands can give a clue whether he is from a major city or from a remote country area, (Photo eredis: we, 23rf com) The two pictures above illustrate the difference in the use of personal space between men from the city and those from the countryside. City dwellers have their private 18-inch bubble, ths is also the measure distance when they reach (o shake hands. They tend fo step23 forward to greet each other, Meanwhile, people from the countryside tend to stand with their feet firmly planted on the ground and to lean forward as far as they can meet your handshake. 3.6 Intended message It is believed that nature of the transmitted messages also influence conversational distances, The following table shows the interactions among messages, tones of voice and. distances between faces which are considered to be popular in the North America: Distances between faces Tones of voice Types of message ‘Very close (3-6 inches) Soft whisper Top secret or sensual Close (8 - 12 inches) Audible whisper Very confidential ‘Neutral Soft voiee, low volume Personal subject matter Far (45-5 feet) Full voice ‘Non-personal information ‘Across the room (8 =20 feet) | Loud voice Talking to a group Stretching the limits (20 - 24 feet indoor and up to 100 feet _ | “U4 ailing voles Departures and arrivals able 6: Interactions among messages, tones of voice and distances betwen faces (Neen Quang ‘Apart from the six major factors mentioned above, there are other factors influencing our use of space, such as: social status, topic of interaction, physic appearance, personality ‘occupation, communicating area, state of emotion,24 Chapter 3: Data analysis and discussion The chapter focuses on analyzing the use of conversational distances by the American and Viemamese informants through a survey conducted hy the author. The similarities and differences were also clarified based on the analysis results, 1. Methodology 1.1 Participants, The survey was conducted with two groups of 100 informants. The first group were 50 ‘Vietnamese who are all living the North of Vietnam. The second group were 50 Americans who are living in Houston, the United States. The informants are from 20 to over 40 years old and living in both rural and urban areas. They include male and female, single and married people, Information of occupation and acquisition of language(s) other than their mother tongue was also provided. However, the informants were assured that they would not be identified in any discussion of data, 1.2 Instruments As the study dwells largely on the practical aspects of cross-cultural communication, the ‘main method employed in the study is quantitative with due reference 10 qualitative ‘method. Besides, contrastive analysis is also used. 1.3 Procedures of data collection In order to collet sufficient data for contrastive analysis, the author designed two types of survey questionnaires: one in English and the other in Vietnamese, In the survey ‘questionnaire, the conversational distance is divided into 16 phases and the research was ‘conducted to find out which phases are the most likely to be used by communicators. 16 following phases were given to informants for their selection: A: Close phase of intimate distance: 0-6 inches (0-15 em) B: Far phase of intimate distance: 6-78 inches (15-46 em)25 C: Close phase of personal distance: 1.5-2.5 feet (0.46-0 D: Far phase of personal distance: 2.5-4 feet (0.77-1.23 m) : Close phase of social distance: 4-7 feet (1.23-2.16 m) ar phase of social distance: 7-12 feet (2.16-3.7 m) G: Close phase of public distance: 12-15 feet (3.7-4.6 m) H: Far phase of public distance: 15-25 feet (4. ‘The informants’ communicating partners were poople in family, social and business relations: > Mother > Father > Brother > Sister > Close same-sex friend > Close opposite-sex friend > Same-sex acquaintance > Opposit-sex acquaintance > Same-sex colleague > Opposite-sex colleague > Boss Beside survey questionnaires, in order to clarify the reasons for choosing types of conversational distances, elaborated discussions with some Vietnamese and American informants were conducted.26 and fin 2. Data analys gs 2.1 Use of conversational distance as seen from communicative partner's role relationship 2.1.1 Data analysis (a) Mother. tntormas| A | wB | clo er flr lo|a American | 40% | 30% | 20% | 1% 3% | om | om | ov Vietramese | 15% | 45% | 23% | 12% 5% | om | om | ov Table 7: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their mother ‘American people tend to use close phase of intimate distance when showing intimate emotion with mothers more than Vietnamese (40% compared to 15%). According to the Vietnamese-American study of touching behaviour by Dao Thi Thu Trang (2007), itis the fact that American touch their mothers on face and forehead in form of kissing more ofien than Vietnamese, Whereas, Vietnamese people tend to touch their mothers on upper arms, bands, lower arms and shoulders, thus far phase of intimate distance is used more frequently than American (45% compared to 30%), The data also shows that both many American and Vietnamese people tend to use close phase of personal distance and few of them use far phase of personal space or close phase of social distance in daily communication with their mothers, with only 3% by Americans and 5% by Vietnamese for close phase of social distance and none of the respondents chose far phase of social distance, (b) Father toormas| 4 | eB | c | vo ec | elo | a ‘American | 10% | 30% | 35% | 20% 5% | om | om | om vietnamese | sx | 25% | 40% | 25% 3% | om | om | om Table 8: Figures om wag conversational distances by tnformants with ther father27 The table shows the little use of elose phase of intimate distance by both American and Vietnamese people (10% and 5% correspondingly). Far phase of intimate distance and close phase of personal distance are more likely to be used (total 65% by both American and Vietnamese). These can be explained through the Vietnamese-American study of touching behaviour by Dao Thi Thu Trang (2007) that men tend to avoid touching and the most likely parts to be touched are the father's upper arm, back and shoulders. Far phase of personal distance is also quite common for both Americans and Vietnamese in daily communication with 20% by Americans and 25% by Vietnamese for fathers in compared to 7% and 12% correspondingly for mothers, (© Brother intrmas| A | w | c |p ec |e laa American 30% rm | o% | o% | om Vietnamese 30% a% | om | o% | om Table 9: Figures on using conversational distances hy informants with ther brother In general, close phase of intimate distance is rarely used with only 3% for Americans and 2% for Vietnamese; Far phase of intimate distance is likely to be used more by the Americans (at 15%) and Vietnamese (at 16%). Whereas, close phase and lar phase of personal distance are the most commonly used in communication, 30% and 35% for the Americans and 30% and 40% for Vietnamese respectively. (@ Sister tntrmas| A |p | c | po ec |e le] a american | 5% | 15% | 30% | 32% 18% | or | om | ov Vietnamese | 12% | 20 wm | om | om | ov able 10: Figures on using conversational stances By informants with their sister ‘The most commonly used when showing intimate emotion is far phase of intimate distance (American 15% and Vietnamese 20%). Similarly as in case of brother, close phase and far28 phase of personal distance are more commonly used in communication, 30% and 32% for American and 38% and 22% for Vietnamese respectively. (6) Close friend (same sex) -Two male friends: tntormms| a | wp | clo ele | o|u ‘American | 0% | 3% | 20% | 40% 20% | 15% | om | ov Vietmamese | 0% | o% | 22% | as% ts% | 12% | om | ov Table 11: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex cloe fiend (ovo male fiends) = Two female friends: toormaas| A | Bl c |p el rl oda ‘American | 0% | 9% | 29% | 35% iste | 1% | om | ov Vietnamese | 0% | 10% [30% | som 9% | 1% | om | om Table 12: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with thelr same-sex clase frend (wo Female friends) Friends ofthe same sex should be divided into two types: two male fiends and two female fiends. As claborately discussed with the informants, with two male friends, touching is restricted to some certain pars of the body such as shoulders, upper arms, lower arms and hands for both Americans and Vietnamese. More than half of the men when interviewed said they do not touch even if the communicators are their close friends. Thus, no one chose close phase of intimate distance and far phase of intimate distance is rarely used. Most of Am 1p and Vietnamese men tend to use far phase of personal space in communication with their close friends (40% and 45% respectively), With two females, a touch on face, upper arms, lower arms, bands and waist is quite ‘common for both American and Vietnamese, Thus, close phase of personal distance is more likely to be used by two female friends than by two male friends, Americans 28% and Vietnamese 30%, However, far phase of personal distance still seems to be mostly used, Americans 38% and Vietnamese 40%,29 () Close intormats| A |e | c |p & | & |G | a ‘American | 0% | 9% | 35% | 30% 17% | 10% z 0% Vietnamese 4% | 2% 15% | toe | ow | 0% Table 13: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex clos friend From the author's observation, the Vietnamese used to keep certain distance on encountering a friend of opposite sex, however, it has changed much in recent years though not beyond the boundary of an Oriental culture. Nowadays, people can witness a touch on. the shoulders, hands, upper arms, lower arms between two friends of opposite sex. For ‘American, according to Dao Thi Thu Trang (2007), touching is more common between close friends of the opposite sex than clase friends of the same sex. Touchable arcas arc forehead, face, neck, shoulders, upper arms, lower arms, hands, waist, and hips. Thus, close phase of personal distance is more likely to be used in close friends of the opposite sex (Lotal 75% by two informant groups) than close friends of the same sex (total 44% by Americans and Vietnamese between two male friends and total 58% by those between two female friends). (@) Acquaintance (same sex) toormas| 4 | B | c |v el eri ola American | 0% | 0% | 9% | 20% sive | 9% | om | ov Vietnamese | 0% | o% | 7% | 25% 50% | tar | om | om Table 14: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with thelr same-sex acqualntance Resulting from the elaborated discussions, the only popular form of touching between two same-sex Ameri n acquaintances is handshake. Even for Vietnamese, touching is also not popular. Thus, close phase of social distance is mostly used by both Americans (at 51%) and Vietnamese (at 50%).30 (h) Acquaintance (opposite sex) intormas| A |p | c |p e |r] Gd] a American | 0% | om | m% | asm ssre | 20m | om | ov Viewamese | 0% | 0% | 5% | 2% 49% | 19% | om | 0% able 15: Figures on using conversational stances by informants with thir opposite-sex acquaintance Thanks to the follow up discussions with the informants, the researcher noted that the only. popular form of touching between two American acquaintances of opposite sex is also handshake. For Vietnamese, touching is rarely seen between acquaintances of opposite sex. It is also restricted in the form of hand shaking or upper arms patting. ‘Those are the reasons why only 7% American and 5% Vietnamese informants choose close phase of personal distance with their opposite-sex acquaintances for daily use. Close phase of social distance is still mostly used by both Americans (at 55%) and Vietnamese (at 49%) ( Colleague (same sex) tnormas| a | w | c |» e |e [oe | aw ‘American | % | 0% | 15% | srm ise | um | om | ow Vietnamese | 0% | o% | 14% | 35% 19% | 12% | om | 0% ‘Table 16: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex colleague Far phase of personal distance is found t© be mostly used, with 57% and 35% for Americans and Vieinamese respectively. From the author's observation, touching is not favoured among Vietnamese colleagues, if it does happen, it is only in the case of encouragement, As consulted with some American informants, in their office setting, ‘touching can be found in the form of handshaking and back/shoulders patting. Therefore, keeping a distance of “an arm’s length” (0.77-1.28m) among same-sex American and ‘Vietnamese colleagues is understandable,31 G) Colleague (opposite sex) intormas| A |p | c |p e |r] Gd] a American | 0% | om | 15% | s7m sve | 10% | om | ov Vietamese | 0% | o% | 13% | 38% 20% | 9% | om | 0% able 17: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex colleague ‘The same result holds as colleagues of the same sex. That is, far phase of personal is sill found to be mostly used (Americans $7% and Vietnamese 58% ) (&) Boss tntormas| a | w | c |» ec |e [oe | aw ‘American | 0% | o% | 7m | 18% corm | ise | om | om Vietnamese | 0% | 0% | 3% | 12% 5% | 19% | om | 0% Table 18: Figures on using conversational distances By informants with their Boss Close phase of social distance is found to be mostly used by Americans (60%). For ‘Vietnamese, perhaps, due to a certain distance between boss and employees, the amount of users is even larger (65%). 2.1.2 Major similarities and differences: > Similarities: = Generally, both Americans and Vietnamese people belong to low-contact culture, thus, they tend to use social distance mostly in common communication. + Simila jes also appear in case of showing intimate emotion. Americans and Vietnamese are likely to keep close phase of intimate distance with their mother more than father. > Differences: = American people tend to use close phase of intimate distance when showing intimate emotion with mothers more than Vietnamese.