CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT

I 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

I owe my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, M.A Nguyen Thi Thanh Huong, without
whose valuable comments and guidance, my thesis would not have been accomplished.

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 is living
and working in the United States. She has helped me conduct my survey in the United
States.

I owe my family great attitude for their love, support and encouragement.

Finally, 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 create 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 often 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
easier, freer and more conventional , however, it is applied for every case that if the
communicative partners are of the same sex then closer distance is more popular with
Vietnamese informants.
 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1: Percentage of verbal and nonverbal communication in common use

Diagram 1: Classification of nonverbal communication
Table 1: Further clarification of nonverbal communication
Table 2: Sub-distances of intimate distance and their communicators
Table 3: Sub-distances of personal distance and their communicators
Table 4: Sub-distances of social distance and their communicators
Table 5: Sub-distances of public distance and their communicators
Table 6: Interactions among messages, tones of voice and distances between faces
Table 7: Figures on using 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 same-sex close friend
(two male friends)
Table 12: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex close friend
(two female friends)
Table 13: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex close
friend
Table 14: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex
acquaintance
Table 15: 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
occupation
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART A: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1
I. Rationale....................................................................................................1
II. Aims of the study......................................................................................2
III. Scope of the study...................................................................................2
IV. Methodology...........................................................................................3
V. Design of the study...................................................................................3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................4
Chapter 1: Literature review..............................................................................4
1. What is communication?...........................................................................4
1.1 Definition of communication...............................................................4
1.2 Types of communication......................................................................5
2. What is nonverbal communication?..........................................................7
2.1 Definition of nonverbal communication..............................................7
2.2 Significance of nonverbal communication..........................................9
2.3 Main categories of nonverbal communication..................................11
Chapter 2: Conversational distance as nonverbal communication .................14
1. Definition of conversational distances....................................................14
2. Classification of conversational distances...............................................15
2.1 Intimate distance...............................................................................15
2.2 Personal distance..............................................................................17
(Photo credits: dantri.com.vn)................................................................17
2.3 Social distance...................................................................................18
2.4 Public distance..................................................................................19
3. Factors effecting conversational distances..............................................19
3.1 High - low contact culture.................................................................20
3.2 Gender...............................................................................................20
 3.3 Relationship.......................................................................................21
3.4 Age.....................................................................................................21
3.5 Population density.............................................................................22
3.6 Intended message..............................................................................23
Chapter 3: Data analysis and discussion.........................................................24
1. Methodology...........................................................................................24
1.1 Participants.......................................................................................24
1.2 Instruments........................................................................................24
1.3 Procedures of data collection............................................................24
2. Data analysis and findings.......................................................................26
2.1 Use of conversational distance as seen from communicative
partner’s role relationship......................................................................26
2.2 Use of conversational distance as seen from informants’ parameters
.................................................................................................................32
PART C: CONCLUSION...............................................................................36
I. Summary of main findings:......................................................................36
II. Implications for avoidance of culture shock and cross-cultural
communication breakdown.........................................................................36
III. Suggestion for further study..................................................................37
Appendices
 1

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 learn 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 proxemics 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 each other; in Nordic cultures the opposite is true. Realizing
and recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helps
eliminate discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is too large ("stand-
offish") or 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
 2

nonverbal communication and provide useful recommendations to Vietnamese learners of

English for avoidance of culture shock in conversational distances when conducting face-
to-face interactions with their Anglophone partners.

II. Aims of the study

The aims of the study are:

 To compare and contrast types of conversational distances in human interactions

and the influence of the informants’ parameters on conversational distances in the
two cultures in order 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 are 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?

III. 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.
 3

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:

 Reference to relevant home and foreign publication in both primary and secondary
research;
 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 A: INTRODUCTION:

 Rationale
 Aims of the study
 Scope of the study
 Methods of the study
 Design of the study

PART B: DEVELOPMENT:

 Chapter 1: Background concepts

 Chapter 2: Conversational distances as nonverbal communication
 Chapter 3: Data analysis and discussion

PART C: CONCLUSION
 4

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 can 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”.

 Emhasis 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) had another approach: “Communication may be
 5

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: intrapersonal,
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
 6

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 occurs mostly between
two 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-receiver.
Their messages consist of both verbal and nonverbal symbols. The channels they use the
most are sight and sound. Because interpersonal communication is between two (or a 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 is to obtain information on particular subject. One common type is the job
interview, in which the employer asks the job candidate questions to determine whether he
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

 7

Small group communication occurs when a small number of people meet to solve a
problem. The group must be small enough so that each 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
sending messages, there are more chances 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-receiver (speaker) sends a message (the speech) to an

audience. The speaker usually delivers a 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 nonverbal 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
 8

ideas to others. However, most of us fail to realize that a great deal of our communication
is a 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.

Figure 1: Percentage of verbal and nonverbal communication in common use

Nonverbal communication expresses meaning or feeling without words. Universal

emotions, such as happiness, 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 foreigners. For example, 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
 9

affection may be shocking. What is acceptable in one culture may be completely

unacceptable in another. One culture may determine that snapping fingers to call 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 correctly 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:

Code
VERBAL NONVERBAL
Channel

Tone of voice, sigh, scream,

Spoken words
Vocal (Intralanguage)
vocal quality, pitch,
loudness, and other
paralinguistic factors

Gesture, movement,
Written words
Nonvocal (Intralanguage)
appearance, facial
expression, touch, and other
extralinguistic factors

Table 1: Further 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 includes 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 seems 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 minutes 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 65% of 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 to 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
 11

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 are:

 Physical appearance: Physical appearance is generated when we send to anyone

with whom we come in contact. If the message is unacceptable by the other person,
s/he 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.
 Face and eye behaviour: Face and eye behaviour is known as “oculesics”.
According to many researchers, it is virtually impossible to separate the messages
sent by the eyes and those sent by the face, thus it is best to consider these together.
This category of nonverbal communication has a major impact in terms of
expressing emotions and regulating interactions between people. For example,
when professor is giving a lecture, you read a magazine instead of looking at
him/her 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 “kinesics”. It focuses
on 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 as “body 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).
 Vocal behavior: Vocal behavior has been variously known as “vocalics” or
“paralanguage”. Characteristics of the voice and its use, including the accent with
 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 vocalic 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 area that this study is focusing.
There are reasons to believe that our basic 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: Researchers 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 arrangements, music, color, lighting and temperature and how these
can be used to send nonverbal messages.
 Scent and smell: Scent and smell has been referred to as “olfactics”. If
pornography is in the 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 bound”, they often fail 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
it is quite clear and sufficient.

Nonverbal Communication
Nguyen Quang (CCC)

Paralanguage Extralanguage

Body language/ Object language/ Environmental

Kinesics Artifacts language

- Vocal characteristics - Eye contact - Clothing - Setting

+ Pitch - Facial expressions - Jewellery - Conversational
+ Volume - Physical characteristics - Accessories distance/Proxemics
+ Rate - Gestures - Make-up - Time/Chronemics
+ Vocal quality - Postures - Artificial scents - Lighting system
- Types of vocal flow - Body movement - Gift - Colour
- Vocal interference - Touch/Haptics/Tactile... - Flower... - Heat...
- Silence...
Diagram 1: Classification of nonverbal communication
 14

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 "proxemics",
personal space can make us feel warm and fuzzy but
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 or intimidating to others. It is 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 feet.
To feel comfortable, Americans often find they feel less defensive when they have, at least,
four feet between themselves and the "next guy". In contrast, if you are 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
one 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
can 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 Communicators

- 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
Close phase 0 - 6 inches (0 - 15 centimetres)
- Communicators expressing very
high defiance attitude which can
leads to physical conflict

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 to Hall, the close
phase (up to 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 friends.
Intimate distance exists whenever we feel free
(Photo credits: tintuc.com.vn)

People from different cultures use this intimate space differently. For instance, North
Americans may feel physical discomfort when someone does not keep the proper distance
from them; and this feeling may be aggravated considerably if the person they feel "too
close" is of the opposite sex. Hall also mentions that some English expressions such as "get
your face out of mine" and "he shook his fist in my face" show how important body
boundaries are for Americans. By contrast, the Costa Rican expression, "I don't bite"
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
(this can be seen 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
Far phase 2.5 - 4 feet (0.77 - 1.23 metres)
- Communicators possibly
expressing negative attitude
- Communication among close
relatives; or
Close phase 1.5 - 2.5 feet (0.46 - 0.77 metres)
- Communicators expressing
negative attitude
Table 3: Sub-distances of personal distance and their 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 feet) permits
one person to touch another, while the far phase of
personal distance (2.5 to four feet) "an arm's
length" does 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 credits: dantri.com.vn)

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

- Communication among
Close phase 4 - 7 feet (1.23 - 2.16 metres)
acquaintances

Table 4: Sub-distances 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. Its 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.123rf.com)

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 to be used by Vietnamese if they touch a stranger in
social communication.
 19

2.4 Public distance

Sub-distance Length Communicators

15 - 25 feet (4.6 - 7.7 metres) or

Far phase - One person speaks in public
further

Close phase 12 - 15 feet (3.7 - 4.6 metres) - Communication among strangers

Table 5: Sub-distances of public distance and their communicators

Public distance ranges from 12 to 25 feet 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 credits: www.123rf.com)

Researchers (e.g., Hall 1959; Vargas 1986) identify high-contact cultures such as Arabs,
Latin Americans, Greeks, 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
 20

comfortable standing close to each other; in Nordic cultures the opposite is true. Realizing
and recognizing these cultural differences improves cross-cultural understanding, and helps
eliminate discomfort people may feel if the interpersonal distance is too large (“stand-
offish”) or 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
density 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.

Researchers have divided cultures into three types: high-contact culture, moderate-contact
culture and low-contact culture.

- In high-contact culture, people favour higher sensory exposure, French, Italian, Latin
American, Arab and African are considered to be high-contact culture, in which
interactants usually keep small distances among themselves.

- American, Canadian, Northern European, New Zealander and Australian belong to

moderate-contact cultures as they employ less touching and maintain a further distance
during 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 “in
interaction between strangers, the interpersonal distance between women is smaller than
between men and women”.
 21

3.3 Relationship

Another factor in deciding the interpersonal distance is relationship. The more intimate the
interactants are, the smaller the physical distance tends to be in communication. This can
be 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

3.4 Age

(Photo credits: thugian.com.vn)

Generally, during childhood, people
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 credits: www.123rf.com)

 22

Old age will lead to close distance

in communication as human are
assumed to receive the subject’s
support for being weak.

(Photo credits: www.123rf.com)

3.5 Population density

According to Pease (1984), the amount of personal space required by an individual is

related to the population density of the area 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
hands can give a clue whether he is from a major city or from a remote country area.

(Photo credits: www.123rf.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, this is also the measure distance when they reach to shake hands. They tend to 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 voice, low volume Personal subject matter

Far (4.5 - 5 feet) Full voice Non-personal information

Across the room (8 - 20 feet) Loud voice Talking to a group

Stretching the limits (20 - 24

Loud hailing voice Departures and arrivals
feet) indoor and up to 100 feet

Table 6: Interactions among messages, tones of voice and distances between faces (Nguyen 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
Vietnamese informants through a survey conducted by 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 to qualitative
method. Besides, contrastive analysis is also used.

1.3 Procedures of data collection

In order to collect 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 cm)

B: Far phase of intimate distance: 6-18 inches (15-46 cm)
 25

C: Close phase of personal distance: 1.5-2.5 feet (0.46-0.77 m)

D: Far phase of personal distance: 2.5-4 feet (0.77-1.23 m)
E: Close phase of social distance: 4-7 feet (1.23-2.16 m)
F: Far 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 (4.6-7.7 m)

The informants’ communicating partners were people in family, social and business
relations:

 Mother
 Father
 Brother
 Sister
 Close same-sex friend
 Close opposite-sex friend
 Same-sex acquaintance
 Opposite-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

2. Data analysis and findings

2.1 Use of conversational distance as seen from communicative partner’s role

relationship

2.1.1 Data analysis

(a) Mother

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 40% 30% 20% 7% 3% 0% 0% 0%

Vietnamese 15% 45% 23% 12% 5% 0% 0% 0%

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), it is
the fact that American touch their mothers on face and forehead in form of kissing more
often than Vietnamese. Whereas, Vietnamese people tend to touch their mothers on upper
arms, hands, 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

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 10% 30% 35% 20% 5% 0% 0% 0%

Vietnamese 5% 25% 40% 25% 5% 0% 0% 0%

Table 8: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their father

 27

The table shows the little use of close 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.

(c) Brother

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 3% 15% 30% 35% 17% 0% 0% 0%

Vietnamese 2% 16% 30% 40% 12% 0% 0% 0%

Table 9: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their 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 far phase of
personal distance are the most commonly used in communication, 30% and 35% for the
Americans and 30% and 40% for Vietnamese respectively.

(d) Sister

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 5% 15% 30% 32% 18% 0% 0% 0%

Vietnamese 12% 20% 38% 22% 8% 0% 0% 0%

Table 10: Figures on using conversational distances 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.

(e) Close friend (same sex)

-Two male friends:

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 0% 5% 20% 40% 20% 15% 0% 0%

Vietnamese 0% 6% 22% 45% 15% 12% 0% 0%

Table 11: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex close friend (two
male friends)

- Two female friends:

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 0% 8% 28% 38% 15% 11% 0% 0%

Vietnamese 0% 10% 30% 40% 9% 11% 0% 0%

Table 12: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex close friend (two
female friends)

Friends of the same sex should be divided into two types: two male friends and two female
friends. As elaborately discussed with the informants, with two male friends, touching is
restricted to some certain parts 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 American 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, hands 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

(f) Close friend (opposite sex)

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 0% 8% 35% 30% 17% 10% 0% 0%

Vietnamese 0% 10% 40% 25% 15% 10% 0% 0%

Table 13: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their opposite-sex close 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 close friends of the same sex. Touchable areas are
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 (total 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).

(g) Acquaintance (same sex)

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 0% 0% 8% 22% 51% 19% 0% 0%

Vietnamese 0% 0% 7% 25% 50% 18% 0% 0%

Table 14: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex acquaintance

Resulting from the elaborated discussions, the only popular form of touching between two
same-sex American 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)

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 0% 0% 7% 18% 55% 20% 0% 0%

Vietnamese 0% 0% 5% 28% 49% 18% 0% 0%

Table 15: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their 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%).

(i) Colleague (same sex)

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 0% 0% 15% 57% 18% 10% 0% 0%

Vietnamese 0% 0% 14% 55% 19% 12% 0% 0%

Table 16: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with their same-sex colleague

Far phase of personal distance is found to be mostly used, with 57% and 55% for
Americans and Vietnamese 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” (0.77-1.23m) among same-sex American and
Vietnamese colleagues is understandable.
 31

(j) Colleague (opposite sex)

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 0% 0% 15% 57% 18% 10% 0% 0%

Vietnamese 0% 0% 13% 58% 20% 9% 0% 0%

Table 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 distance
is still found to be mostly used (Americans 57% and Vietnamese 58% ).

(k) Boss

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 0% 0% 7% 18% 60% 15% 0% 0%

Vietnamese 0% 0% 5% 12% 65% 18% 0% 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.

- Similarities 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.
 32

- For the Americans, there is not much difference whether between brothers or sisters in
keeping intimate distance when showing intimate emotion or close phase of personal
distance in common communication. Whereas, Vietnamese people tend to keep closer
distance with their sister than brother.

- It is applied for every case that if the communicative partners are of the same sex then
closer distance is more popular with Vietnamese informants. Conversely, if two American
informants of opposite sex are conversing, they find close phase easier, freer and more
conventional.

2.2 Use of conversational distance as seen from informants’ parameters

2.2.1 Data analysis

(a) Age

- Between 20 and 40:

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 20% 30% 15% 13% 10% 7% 3% 2%

Vietnamese 18% 28% 20% 15% 10% 6% 2% 1%

Table 19: Figures on using conversational distances by informants between 20 and 40 years old

- Above 40:

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 15% 20% 25% 18% 7% 5% 6% 4%

Vietnamese 13% 15% 22% 20% 11% 12% 5% 2%

Table 20: Figures on using conversational distances by informants above 40 years old

American and Vietnamese informants between 20 and 40 tend to use intimate distance
more than those above 40 (total 50% for American and 46% for Vietnamese in compared
with 35% and 28% correspondingly). Whereas, informants above 40 are likely to use
personal space more than those between 20 and 40 (total 43% for American and 42% for
 33

Vietnamese in compared with 28% and 35% respectively). Public space is rarely used for
both ages, though it seems to be used more by informants above 40 than those between 20
and 40 (the difference is about 5% for American and 7% for Vietnamese).

(b) Gender

- Male
Informants A B C D E F G H

American 5% 7% 15% 30% 20% 6% 10% 7%

Vietnamese 6% 11% 17% 28% 13% 10% 9% 6%

Table 21: Figures on using conversational distances by male informants

- Female

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 7% 10% 17% 33% 14% 7% 7% 5%

Vietnamese 8% 14% 18% 35% 10% 7% 5% 3%

Table 22: Figures on using conversational distances by female informants

Males seem to use intimate distance less than females, total 12% of American and 17% of
Vietnamese males while among females, it accounts for 17% and 22% respectively. In
contrast, they tend to use public distance more than the females (the difference in
Americans is 5% and that in Vietnamese is 6%). Far phase of personal distance is likely to
be mostly used by both males and females, with the rate of 30% and 33% for Americans
and 28% and 35% for Vietnamese.

(c) Living places

- Rural

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 7% 13% 30% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

Vietnamese 8% 14% 40% 25% 7% 4% 2% 0%

 34

Table 23: Figures on using conversational distances by informants living in rural areas

- Urban

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 7% 14% 38% 24% 5% 6% 4% 2%

Vietnamese 7% 13% 30% 20% 15% 8% 5% 2%

Table 24: Figures on using conversational distances by informants living in urban areas

Vietnamese people living in rural areas appear to keep closer distance in common
communication than those who live in urban areas (the difference is 15% informants in
using personal distance). In contrast, American informants who spend most of the time in
rural areas are likely to use further distance than that of urban population (personal space is
used by 62% of the urban population while only by 50% of the rural ones).

(d) Occupational groups:

- Teamwork

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 5% 10% 38% 24% 11% 6% 4% 2%

Vietnamese 6% 12% 35% 22% 10% 8% 5% 2%

Table 25: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with teamwork occupation

- Independent work

Informants A B C D E F G H

American 5% 8% 13% 18% 35% 9% 7% 5%

Vietnamese 6% 7% 12% 19% 38% 8% 6% 4%

Table 26: Figures on using conversational distances by informants with independent work occupation
 35

American and Vietnamese people who often work in team or if their occupation requires
high contact seem to keep closer distance than those who usually work independently. This
is represented by 62% of American and 57% of Vietnamese people who often work in
team use personal distance while only 33% American and 31% Vietnamese informants
who work independently use this kind of distance.

2.2.2 Major similarities and differences:

 Similarities:

- In terms of age: Both American and Vietnamese informants between 20 and 40 tend to
use intimate distance more than those above 40. Whereas informants above 40 are likely to
keep closer distance than those between 20 and 40 in common communication.

- In terms of gender: Males seem to use less intimate distance and more public distance
than females.

- In terms of living places: People who often work in team seem to keep closer distance
than those who usually work independently.

 Differences:

- In terms of occupational groups: Vietnamese rural population appear to keep closer

distance in common communication than urban ones and it is a reversed situation for
American informants.
 36

PART C: CONCLUSION

I. Summary of main findings:

Based on the author’s survey and observation, the Vietnamese and Americans tend to use
social distance mostly in common communication. It can be explained that both Vietnam
and the US belong to low-contact culture. However, in particular cases, the result may
prove to be different or even opposite. A closer look in particular case will clarify the
point:

 American people tend to use close phase of intimate distance when showing
intimate emotion with mothers more than Vietnamese. It is used by 40% of the
American in compared with only 15% by Vietnamese informants.
 For the Americans, there is not much difference whether between brothers or sisters
in keeping intimate distance when showing intimate emotion or close phase of
personal distance in common communication. Whereas, Vietnamese people tend to
keep closer distance with their sister than brother. The research shows that intimate
distance is used by 18% American informants between brothers and 20% between
sisters (little difference) and 30% of them use close phase of personal distance for
both brothers and sisters( no difference). It is also presented that there are 18%
Vietnamese users of intimate distance and 30% of close phase of personal distance
between brothers while 32% and 38% respectively between sisters.
 It is applied for every case that if the communicative partners are of the same sex
then closer distance is more popular with Vietnamese informants. Conversely, if
two American opposite sex informants are conversing, they find close phase easier,
freer and more conventional.

II. Implications for avoidance of culture shock and cross-cultural

communication breakdown

Nonverbal aspects of communication vary widely across cultures. American and

Vietnamese people have their own ways of interacting verbally and/or nonverbally, and
their cultural norms greatly affect their communication styles. When we interact with
 37

American people, we may fail to understand them for many reasons, including differences
in preferred communication styles, norms, perceptions, beliefs, taboos ect.

Culture shock can be resulted from many factors, such as misinterpretation, ethnocentrism,
overgeneralization, stereotype, prejudice, etc. Those factors may lead to
miscommunication and communication breakdown. Thus, culture shock is an inevitable
consequence of these chains.

In general, there is no immediate solution that works effectively in all situations to avoid
culture shock. What is considered appropriate in one culture may be seen as highly
inappropriate in another. The appropriate way to use conversational distance is to observe
and adapt ourselves to the circumstances.

III. Suggestion for further study

For the purpose of promoting mutual understanding in cross-cultural communication, the

contrastive study of conversational distance presented here is only a modest contribution.
The author is fully aware that there are some important questions remaining unanswered.
Other verbal as well as nonverbal factors used in combination with conversational distance
or having certain effect on conversational distance are left untouched such as:

 Intralanguage factors: topic of conversation,

 Paralanguage factors: vocal characteristics (pitch, volume, intonation...)
 Extralanguage factors: body language, environmental language...

Every effort had been made for the thesis to be sufficiently explicit. The author hopes that
by the time you, the readers, have reached this part, you will have gained a useful insight
into an aspect of cross-cultural communication. However, shortcomings are inevitable and
the author is pleased to hear any comments from the readers.
 38

Bibliography
IN ENGLISH
1. Axtell, R.E. (1998). Gestures - The Do’s and Taboos of Body Language around the

World. John Wiley & Son, Inc..

2. Beisler, F., Scheeres, H., & Pinner, D. (1997). Communication Skills. 2nd Edition.

Longman.

3. Berko, R.M., Wolvin, A.D., & Wolvin, D.R. (1989). Communicating: A Social and

Career Focus. Fourth edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston.

4. Brown, R.B and Johnson, D., (2004). The power of handshaking. Virginia: Capital

books.

5. Dao Thi Thu Trang (2007) - A Vietnamese - American Cross-cultural study of

touching behaviour - M.A. Combined Program Thesis. VNU-CFL.

6. Do Thi Mai Thanh (2000) - Some English - Vietnamese Cross-cultural differences

in requesting - M.A Thesis. VNU-CFL.

7. Dwyer, J. (2000). The Business Communication Handbook. Fifth Edition. Prentice

Hall.

8. Hall, E.T. (1963). Proxemics-The Study of Man’s Spacial Relations and

Boundaries. In Man’s Image in Medicine and Anthropology, p.p.422-45. New

York: International Universities Press.

9. Hybels, S. & Weaver II, R.L (1992) Communicating effectively. Von Hoffman

Press Inc..

10. Hall, E.T. (1974). The Silent Language. Doubleday & Co. New York.

11. Kramsch, Claire (1998) Language and culture. Oxford University Press.
 39

12. Levine, D.R. & Adelman, M.B (1982) Beyond Language - Intercultural

Communication for English as a Second Language. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey.

13. Mai Thach Lam (2007) - A study on Vietnamese - English Cross-cultural

communication in sitting postures - M.A Minor Thesis. VNU-CFL.

14. Mehrabian, A. (1972) Nonverbal Communication. Wadsworth, Belmont.

California. Chicago: Aidine-Atherton.

15. Nguyen Quang. (1998). Cross-cultural Communication. CFL - Vietnam National

University - Hanoi.

16. Pease, A. (1993) Body Language. Sheldon Press, London.

17. Phan Thi Van Quyen (2001) - Some English - Vietnamese Cross-cultural

differences in refusing a request - M.A Thesis. VNU-CFL.

18. Thwaites, T. & Davis, L & Mules, W. (1994) Tools for cultural studies - An

introduction. Macmillan Publishers Australia.

19. Wright, A. (1987) How to communicate successfully. Cambridge University press,

Cambridge.

20. Verderber, R.F. (1990) Communicate. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont,

California.

21. Zimmerman, G.I. & Owen, J.L & Seibert, D.R (1986) Speech Communication.

West Publishing Company.

22. Zanger, V.V. (1993) Face to face. Heinle & Heinle Publishers, Boston, USA.

IN VIETNAMESE
1. Nguyễn Quang, (2002) Giao tiếp và giao tiếp giao văn hóa, NXB Đại học Quốc gia
Hà Nội
 40

2. Nguyễn Quang, (2003) Giao tiếp nội văn hóa và giao tiếp giao văn hóa. NXB Đại
học Quốc gia Hà Nội
3. Nguyễn Quang (Sắp xuất bản) Giao tiếp phi ngôn từ qua các nền văn hóa.

INTERNET SOURCES

http://www.helpguide.org/mental/eq6_nonverbal_communication.htm

http://www.andrews.edu/~tidwell/lead689/NonVerbal.html

http://www.artoftravel.com/02communication.htm

http://www.rsc-ne-scotland.ac.uk/ie/Relationships_with_Customers/Establishing%20and
%20maintaining%20relationships%20with%20customers%20version%202-130.htm

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/nonverbal-communication-an-overview.html

http://humanresources.about.com/od/interpersonalcommunicatio1/a/nonverbal_com.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxemics
 41

Appendix A
Survey Questionnaire
This survey questionnaire is designed for my research into “A Vietnamese-American
cross-cultural study of conversational distance”. Your assistance in completing the
following items is highly appreciated. You can be confident that this questionnaire is for
research purpose only, and that you will not be identified in any discussion of the data.

Would you kindly return the completed questionnaire to me prior to 31st January, 2009.

Thank you very much!

Please tick (√) where appropriate:

 Your age: - Under 20

- From 20 to 40

- Above 40

 Your gender: - Male

- Female

 Your marital status: - Married

- Single

 Your occupation:
_______________________________________________________
 Area where you have spent most of your time: - Urban

- Rural
 42

Conversational
Distances Close friend Your acquaintance Your colleague
(Distance between you and Your Your Your Your Your
your partner during mother father brother sister Same Opposite Same Opposite Same Opposite boss
conversing) sex sex sex sex sex sex

A: 0-6 inches (0-15 cm)

B: 6-18 inches (15-46 cm)

C: 1.5-2.5 feet (0.46-0.77 m)

D: 2.5-4 feet (0.77-1.23 m)

E: 4-7 feet (1.23-2.16 m)

F: 7-12 feet (2.16-3.7 m)

G: 12-15 feet (3.7-4.6 m)

H: 15-25 feet (4.6-7.7 m)

 43

2. Identify how often you use this kind of conversational distance. Please tick (√) where
appropriate.

Very often Sometimes Rarely Never

Your mother

Your father

Your brother

Your sister

Same sex
Close friend
Opposite sex

Same sex
Your
acquaintance
Opposite sex

Same sex
Your colleague
Opposite sex

Your boss
 44

Appendix B
Bản điều tra
Chúng tôi soạn bản điều tra này nhằm tìm hiểu các khoảng cách tham thoại của người Việt.
Các dữ liệu thu thập được sẽ được sử dụng để phân tích cho luận văn cao học chứ không
nhằm mục đích nào khác. Xin quý vị vui lòng dành chút thời gian trả lời các câu hỏi trong
bản điều tra này nhằm giúp chúng tôi hoàn thành việc nghiên cứu khoa học. Xin cam kết
rằng chúng tôi sẽ không nêu danh tính của quý vị trong bất cứ trường hợp nào. Xin cảm ơn
quý vị.

Xin quý vị cho biết thông tin về bản thân mình (Bằng cách đánh dấu (√) vào ô thích hơp)

 Tuổi: - Dưới 20

- Từ 20 đến 40

- Trên 40

 Giới tính: - Nam

- Nữ

 Tình trạng hôn nhân: - Đã lập gia đình

- Chưa lập gia đình

 Nghề nghiệp: _______________________________________________________

 Nơi quý vị sống lâu nhất: - Thành thị

- Nông thôn
 45

Người quen của Đồng nghiệp của

Bạn thân của bạn Cấp
Khoảng cách tham thoại bạn bạn
Mẹ của Bố của Anh trai Chị gái trên
(Khoảng cách giữa bạn và Cùng Cùng Cùng
bạn bạn của bạn của bạn Khác Khác Khác của
các đối tác khi đối thoại) giới giới giới
giới tính giới tính giới tính bạn
tính tính tính
A: (0-15 cm

B: 15-46 cm

C: 0.46-0.77 m

D: 0.77-1.23 m

E: 1.23-2.16 m

F: 2.16-3.7 m

G: 3.7-4.6 m

H: 4.6-7.7 m
 46

2. Xác định mức độ thường xuyên khi bạn sử dụng loại khoảng cách này với những đối
tượng đàm thoại sau đây. Xin đánh dấu (√) vào ô thích hợp.

Rất thường
Thỉnh thoảng Hiếm khi Không bao giờ
xuyên
Mẹ của bạn

Bố của bạn
Anh trai của
bạn
Chị gái của bạn
Cùng giới
Bạn thân của tính
bạn
Khác giới tính
Cùng giới
Người quen của tính
bạn
Khác giới tính
Cùng giới
Đồng nghiệp tính
của bạn
Khác giới tính

Sếp của bạn