Week 3 - cultural dimensions Flashcards
model of influence of culture (3)
o Culture: dimension, norms, values, ideology, belief system
o Individual: personality, feeling, thinking, attitude, intentions
o E-WOM communication: genre, conventions, language use
iceberg model
surface and deep culture
proxemics
people from different cultures perceive space differently
monochronic culture
order, schedules, promptness
polychronic culture
multiple things happen at once, stress completion of transactions
high-context culture
communication is implicit and relies heavily on context
value harmony, hierarchical values, indirect communication, non-verbal cues, person’s background
low-context culture
explicit verbal communication
value honesty, assertiveness, candidness, direct pattern of speech
contextualisation communication style
continuum
points of criticism: Hall (6)
o Research method Qualitative: observations, anecdotal evidence • Often based on one specific case Method not documented o Concepts Somewhat ambiguous Dimensions are not exhaustive per se Lack of comparative quantitative data Limited validation
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (6)
o Power distance (index)
o Individualism – collectivism (dichotomy)
o Masculinity – femininity (dichotomy)
o Uncertainty avoidance (index)
o Long term orientation – short term normative orientation (dichotomy)
o Indulgence – restraint (dichotomy)
Hofstede’s onion
o You have to work through the layers to get to the core
o Layers: symbols, heroes, rituals, practices
Symbols: words, clothing, hairstyle, gesture, pictures
Heroes: people (alive or dead, real or imaginary) that have high value
Rituals: greetings, social and religious ceremonies, the way you serve tea
Values: honest, good, clean
Practices: give outsiders insight into the symbols, heroes and rituals to learn about their values
individualism vs collectivism
whether people’s self-image is defined in terms of I or we
masculinity vs femininity
Masculinity: preference for achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and material rewards for success, society is more competitive
Femininity: preference for cooperation, modesty, caring for the weak and quality of life
long term vs short term normative orientation (LTO)
Long: pragmatic approach, encourage thrift and efforts in modern education as a way to prepare for the future
Short: maintain time-honoured traditions and norms, view societal change with suspicion
indulgence vs restraint
Indulgence: free gratification of basic and natural human drives (enjoying life and having fun)
Restraint: suppression of gratification of needs, regulated by strict social norms
power distance index
degree to which the less powerful members of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally
uncertainty avoidance index
degree to which members of a society feel uncomfortable with uncertainty and ambiguity
Strong UAI: rigid codes of belief and behaviour, intolerant of unorthodox behaviour and ideas
Weak UAI: more relaxed attitude, practice counts more than principles
how did Hofstede come up with the dimensions?
actual research (contrary to Hall): survey
points of criticism: Hofstede
cultural attribution error
o Culture =/= nation =/= language
o National culture =/= homogeneous
o One company approach
o Outdated data collection (1966): culture does not stand still
o Limited questionnaire
o In-built western bias (dimensions are chosen from a western point of view)
cultural attribution error
Fallacy of cultural attribution: I encounter a difference, therefore this is a cultural difference
consequences of criticism Hofstede (5)
o Take the dimensions as hypotheses, not necessarily as explanatory factors
o Be aware of points of criticism and mention them
o Always express findings in terms of relativity
Relative terms: in culture X there is more Y than in culture Z
o Making many observations instead of only one
Corpus survey
Large sample
o One swallow does not a summer make: one expression does not a culture make
Hall (1980)
cultural dimensions: monochronic vs polychronic and high vs low-context cultures
Hofstede (1981; 200)
six cultural dimensions
onion
Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey (1988)
communication styles in relation to the cultural dimensions
learning a culture (5)
o Values and norms are learned via language o What is important? Politeness, roles, guilt, correctness o Who is important? Parents, peers, outsiders o How is this importance emphasised? Inside group, outside, intimate, private, public, formal, informal o Where is this importance emphasised? School, home, work, media
style
verbal interaction style reflect and embody the affective, moral and aesthetic patterns of a cultures
contextualizes how messages should be interpreted
four communicative styles
direct vs indirect
succinct vs elaborate (vs exacting)
personal vs contextual
instrumental vs affective
direct vs indirect
Direct: speaker formulates goals, intentions and wishes explicitly
• Explicit, precise, to the point, categorical
• ‘I’ takes first place
Indirect: more implicit phrasing of goals and intentions
• Implicit, ambiguous, modest
• ‘I’ is not expressed
succinct vs elaborate vs exacting
Elaborate: flowery language
• Flowery, rich, expressive
• Many comparisons, many adjectives, many repetitions, ritual language use, exaggerations, intensifications, creativity
Succinct: understatements, pauses, silence
• Concise
• Sometimes less than needed, understatements, pauses, silences
Exacting: speaker’s contribution contains neither more nor less information than is required
• Precise
• No more, no less than necessary
personal vs contextual
Personal: emphasis on expression of sender’s identity via personal pronouns and adverbs of place and time
• Preferred in egalitarian society
Contextual: emphasis on prescribed role relations, not everything is explicit, much can be deduced from the context
• Reflects hierarchy/asymmetrical relations
instrumental vs affective
Instrumental: goal-oriented and sender-oriented language
Affective: receiver-oriented and process-oriented
• Sender and receiver are working together
Direct vs indirect language + low vs high-context + individualism vs collectivism
- Direct: individualism + low-context
* Indirect: collectivism + high-context
Succinct vs elaborate (vs exacting) + low vs high-context + uncertainty avoidance
• Succinct: high-context + high uncertainty avoidance -> high apprehension level of unpredictable situations
o Novel situations: understatements and silence to manage the situation
• Elaborate: high-context + middle/moderate uncertainty avoidance -> fight-flight camouflaging verbal style to approach uncertainty situations
• Exacting: low-context + low uncertainty avoidance -> exacting and up-front, authentic and honest
Personal vs contextual style + power distance
- Personal style: low power distance
* Contextual style: high power distance
Instrumental vs affective style + individualism vs collectivism + low vs high-context
- Instrumental: individualism + low-context
* Affective: collectivism + high-context
predictions by Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey (1988)
o Cultural dimensions: individualism vs collectivism
Communication style: instrumental vs affective
Communication style: direct vs indirect
o Cultural dimensions: power distance
Communication style: personal vs contextual
o Cultural dimensions: uncertainty avoidance
Communication style: succinct vs elaborate
o Cultural dimensions: high-context vs low-context
Communication style: instrumental vs affective
Communication style: direct vs indirect
Communication style: succinct vs elaborate
conclusion Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey (1988) (3)
o Language styles are mainly qualitative in nature
o All styles occur everywhere, but are preferred differently
o More theoretical and empirical work in intercultural teams are needed, including research into specific language situations (genres)
black box in Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey (1988)
model of influence of culture
criticism Gudykunst & Ting-Toomey (1988) (8)
o Cultural attribution error
o Overlap in dimensions (i.e. confounds)
o Unclear definitions of dimensions, linking language expression styles
o Tendentious, not based on empirical research
o The chapter is written from a North American point of view
o Most studies mentioned were based on qualitative research
o Hofstede’s dimensions are based on outdated, company-specific data
o Communication may be different nowadays e.g., social media has made communication more accessible
armchair approach
research method o Secondary literature o No empirical research o Only anecdotal evidence o No empirical basis besides reasoning
cultural dimensions may impact communicative style, but what remains?
variation with respect to genre or individual style
